Once again, I’d like to thank Michael P. for his posting the excerpt from the recent Commonweal editorial. Interestingly, I had read and reflected upon the content of the editorial along with Dr. Scott Appleby’s essay on the American Modernists early yesterday morning. For what it is worth, readers of Mirror of Justice may find it useful to know that I read Commonweal, First Things, America, the two NCRs (National Catholic Reporter and National Catholic Register), The Tablet, and Crisis, amongst other periodicals. It might be said that my reading fare is catholic. But I digress.
I found several remarks in the editorial to which Michael referenced arresting. The first is the phrase “faithful Catholics” that was placed in quotation marks by the author(s) of this particular editorial to affirm, I suppose, the fidelity of those who disagree with Church teachings on subjects such as ordination, artificial contraception, and the nature of the papacy. This assertion can lead other members of the faithful to believe that the Church’s teachings on these issues, and perhaps other matters, are flexible or ambiguous. I do not think that the Church’s teachings on these topics are as accommodating or indefinite as the editorial would imply with its juxtaposition of the phrase “faithful Catholics.” While Church teachings may be more flexible or less clear on other matters, they are not on these.
This brings me to the distinction that the editorial makes between “open and respectful disagreement” and “suppression.” There is the circumstance in which the heterodox remove themselves from full communion with the Church, and it would be a mistake to conclude, as the editorial did, that their fidelity to unmistakable Church teachings is not in question. It is, but they can do something about this dilemma as I indicated in a previous posting when Steve and I engaged one another in an earlier discussion dealing with fidelity to the Church’s teachings.
A final point I would like to raise in this posting about the editorial concerns its assertion that “History, especially the history of the Second Vatican Council, tells us that disagreement is often the work of the Holy Spirit.” This is an interesting but, nevertheless, inaccurate proclamation about the Council’s work and the documents it produced. Before drafting this posting, I reviewed the texts that the Council adopted, particularly Lumen Gentium and Dignitatis Humanae, and cannot reach the same conclusion that the editorial does about history, particularly that of the Second Vatican Council, and the work of the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge the existence of a history of dissent that ignores or disagrees with Church teachings that come from the Council, but I cannot agree that this particular history is consistent with the Council’s teachings or the work of the Holy Spirit. In making this appeal, I recall Saint Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that the faithful must, in fact, agree, avoid dissent, and be united “in the same mind and the same judgment.” Indeed, there are some matters on which we can disagree and remain faith to the Magisterium, but surely there are other items on which we can not. RJA sj
In the past couple of days, there have been several posts here on the Mirror of Justice about markets and economics. This past week, Villanova hosted a conference on "Catholic Social Teaching on the Market, The State and the Law," while the University of St. Thomas simultaneously held a symposium on "Peace With Creation: Catholic Perspectives on Environmental Law." Issues of economics, markets, and the wisdom of reliance on government intervention to promote social justice were themes at both events.
In this regard, our readers may be interested in a post at the Volokh Conspiracy by Ilya Somin, with the above title, and which includes a cite to an earlier post by Rick Garnett here at MoJ. Ilya Somin's post includes the following:
* * * [I]t seems to me that many religious leaders who pronounce on public policy tend to reflexively favor increasing the role of government with little consideration of ways in which the interventions they favor might have perverse results, or ways in which social problems can be alleviated by reducing the role of the state instead of increasing it. Left-wing clergy seek to increase the role of government in fighting poverty, discrimination, and the like, while right-wing ones tend to focus their political energies on promoting "morals" regulation. This may well be painting with too broad a brush, and I'm sure there are religious leaders who are exceptions to this generalization. Nonetheless, it seems to me true as a general pattern (though I welcome correction by anyone who has compiled systematic data).
Learning basic law and economics won't necessarily turn religious leaders into libertarians. But it might give them a greater appreciation for markets, and engender at least a modest skepticism towards government. * * *
Saturday, September 22, 2007
By CHARLES DUHIGG
New York Times
Insulated from lawsuits by their corporate structures, private
investors in nursing homes have cut expenses and staff, sometimes below
minimum requirements.
Click here to read this worrisome story.
As veteran MOJ-readers know, MOJ-bloggers are a theologically diverse group. We often disagree among ourselves--sometimes quite strongly--about one or another issue. When I read the following paragraph this morning (in a Commonweal editorial), I thought of MOJ's diversity and what a strength it is.
Yet “faithful Catholics” do in fact disagree about church teaching
regarding contraception, the ordination of women, and the nature of the
papacy, among other things. History, especially the history of the
Second Vatican Council, tells us that disagreement is often the work of
the Holy Spirit. “Perhaps one of the lessons we have learnt since the
cruel way in which the Modernists were treated a century ago,” writes
Fergus Kerr in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians (Blackwell), “is
that we have to live with some quite deep divisions and intractable
rifts within the Catholic Church, over morals and liturgy especially.”
R. Scott Appleby’s article on the hundredth anniversary of the
condemnation of the American Modernists (page 12), is a useful reminder
of why open and respectful disagreement is always better than its
suppression.
To read the rest of the editorial, click here.
