Here is a story about the recent votes by the vestries of Truro Episcopal Church and The Falls Church -- two large congregations in the D.C. area -- to separate from the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia. Watch for interesting property and church-autonomy disputes . . . .
Monday, November 20, 2006
Two Episcopal churches secede
"Sola Scriptura Problem"
Hee, hee. (HT: Shrine of the Holy Whapping).
Religious freedom in Turkey
"Turkey's Unique Brand of Secularism Means Firm Government Control of Religions," the Catholic News Service reports. Here is a bit:
One of the most difficult issues Christians, Jews and other religious minorities are facing is their lack of recognition under Turkish law, particularly as it applies to their ability to acquire and own property for churches or synagogues, schools and hospitals, he said.
Running seminaries is evening more difficult, Oehring said.
"In 1971, the government decided there would be no more private religious schools offering higher education," so the Greek and Armenian Orthodox seminaries were closed, he said. The Jewish community already was sending its rabbinical students abroad, and the Latin-rite Catholic seminary remained open since it was housed in the compound of the French consulate in Istanbul.
"The Muslim schools had already been closed in 1924 and were reopened as government-run high schools or faculties of divinity in Turkish universities," so the state controlled what the students learned, he said.
While many people recognize the continued closure of the seminaries as a problem, he said, "the Kemalists and secularists say if you give Christians the possibility of opening schools, Islamic schools not under state control also would have a right to open."
Sunday, November 19, 2006
More religious-display litigation
Dimitri Cavalli, in the Wall Street Journal, on a recent round of religious-display litigation, and on the proposed Public Expression of Religion Act. Sigh. (Thanks to Amy Welborn.)
Finnis on "Religion and State"
Anyone interested in law-and-religion or church-state work will probably want to check out this new paper, "Religion and State: Some Main Issues and Sources," by my colleague, John Finnis. (Thanks to Larry Solum for the link.) Here is a bit:
Any discussion of religion and state derails from the outset if it presumes that, as Brian Leiter puts it, “religion is contrasted with reason” – a theory for which Leiter, if he felt inclined, might summon as a supporting witness the first definition of “religion” in Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (New York 1992). And the discussion equally derails if it presumes that no religion’s claims about God and man, world and society are reasonable, or that no religion’s claims are even discussable within the domain of public reason, that is, of the discourse that one should find in universities, schools, and legislative and other political assemblies, including discourse about what laws and public policies to adopt. The discussion derails, again, if it presumes that the philosophically neutral, default, baseline or otherwise presumptively appropriate framework or basis for the discussion of religion and state is that no religious claims add anything -- whether content, certitude, or probability -- to what is established in moral or political philosophy, or in natural or social science or social theory.
It derails, too, if it holds or presumes that religion’s status is nothing more than one way of exercising the “right” proclaimed as fundamental and “at the heart of liberty”, in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992): “to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Or again if, as Ronald Dworkin says, the basis of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom is simply that “no one can regard himself as a free and equal member of an organized venture that claims authority to decide for him what he thinks self-respect requires him to decide for himself.” These celebrations of the right to “decide for oneself” and “define one’s own concept” trade, as we shall see, on an important truth. But they abandon reason when they assert that the relevant intelligible and basic good in issue is not the good of aligning oneself with a transcendent intelligence and will whose activity makes possible one’s own intellect and will, nor even the good of discovering the truth about some meaningful and weighty questions, but rather the good of self-determination or self-respect. For these are no true goods unless the goods around which one determines oneself deserve the respect due to what is true, rather than self-interested make-believe.
By the way, it seems to me that the paper's opening sections work as -- even if they are not billed explicitly as -- a response to Brian Leiter's recent essay, "Why Tolerate Religion?"
Shrink the Church to Protect the Earth
Today's New York Times Magazine has an interview with Katharine Jefferts Schori, the new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. There is much worth commenting on in the interview, but I was particularly struck by this exchange:
How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?
About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.
Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?
No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.
I guess this can be read charitably as a creative way to spin the Episcopal Church's dwindling ranks: "Our denomination is shrinking because we're better educated than those baby-crazy Catholics and Mormons! In fact, God wants us to shrink -- it's called stewardship!"
Rob
Compassionate Conservatives and Miserly Liberals (and the Call of Christian Charity That Supersedes Politics)
Some in the Catholic academic community, both here on Mirror of Justice and elsewhere, tend to describe the liberal wing of Catholicism as that which upholds the Preferential Option for the Poor as enshrined in Catholic Social Thought, while the conservative wing of Catholicism cares only about moral and cultural issues but neglects the persistent problem of poverty.
One answer to that inaccurate caricature (although one focusing on the contrast between religious conservatives and secular liberals) may be found in Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks's new book titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (which will be available in bookstores later this week).
In an article about the book and Professor Brooks on Beliefnet, Frank Brieaddy writes:
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.
In the book, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
About Brooks's book, Brieaddy further writes in the Beliefnet article:
The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
[In this regard, I am reminded of the old saw that liberals truly are more generous -- but with other people's money.]
As a point of common-ground, Catholics of whatever political persuasion should agree that Catholic Social Thought is much more than a platform for governmental programs. Aside from politics, we should heed the words of Pope Benedict that charity, as an act not merely of justice but more importantly of love (caritas), is an essential element of the Christian life and that "Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies." Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est para. 31b
Greg Sisk
A Roman and Catholic Conference on Higher Education—what is to be taught; what is to be studied; what is to be learned; what is to be done?
On Friday and Saturday of this past week the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace hosted a conference in Rome entitled “The University and the Social Doctrine of the Church—working together towards an authentic and integral humanism.” The participants who attended come from a wide range of academic fields and work around the globe.
As I was on my way to Saturday’s session, I took along a copy of a news story about the hopes of some Americans to slowly but surely “get back on track” with certain human rights claims that the new Congress must tackle when it convenes in January. I was struck with the realization that most of the claims discussed in the report were for the advancement of the autonomous self rather than the promotion of the interests of every person who bears the image of God. The article failed to acknowledge that the human person is also a member of many communities (family, city, state, nation, and the world) where the relationship between rights and responsibilities—a core element of Catholic social doctrine—was conspicuous by its absence in this report I read.
Two of the claimed “rights” discussed in the report involved some perennial favorites: abortion and medical research (the code name for embryonic stem cell research) to mention but a few. While some human rights advocates stress the need for fortification of these “rights” and programs and strengthening the legal regimes that protect them, I realized all the more how these claims reinforce the demands of the autonomous individual at the expense of the human family and the common good as it is understood within the social teachings of the Church. Ultimately the claims asserted by those interviewed for the article I was reading undermine the dignity of the human person and, therefore, cannot be advanced as authentic human rights. Nonetheless, there are those who are intent on “getting back on track.”
And what is the response of the Catholic university and its intellectual community to all this? The answer is for us committed to Catholic higher education to formulate, but I hasten to add that it would or should be an alternative to the positions of the “human rights advocates” mentioned in the news report I read on the subway ride to conference. Theirs is a world guided by subjectivism rather than by the transcendent moral order taught to us by the one who came to save us. But there is a temptation—sometimes a strong one—to reflect the ego-centric culture that surrounds one’s self. I recall a year ago reading another news report about a demonstration that was taking place at an institution that uses the moniker “Jesuit.” The news reporter covering the event asked one of the students involved with the protest why he would be supporting a cause that conflicted with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The student avoided the question by replying that Jesuits are all about advocacy, and he, the student, was advocating for a cause in which he passionately believed.
All about advocacy! Advocacy for what? As a Jesuit with more than a remote interest in the work of the academy that claims to be Catholic and Jesuit, it strikes me that some odd contentions have been asserted in the past—distant and recent—where “rights” claims have been asserted at the expense of someone else’s human dignity. If indeed the Catholic university is a place to cultivate advocacy, the advocacy proclaimed should be in accord with the social doctrine of the Church and not that of a secular and, sometimes, relativistic culture that may claim to defend “human rights” but, in fact, does otherwise. It is this doctrine of the Church that, in a rigorously intellectual and scientific way, can be studied, taught, and learned so that one day, perhaps even in our lifetimes, it may be more of the rule and less of the exception. RJA sj
Friday, November 17, 2006
Christian Democracy--Italian Style
Thanks to Rick for the ref to the TOUCHSTONE article on Christian Democratic parties in Europe, a topic of great interest to me. The description the article provides of those parties' ideological premises sounds accurate. It is important to recognize, however, that there were important national variations. Of particular interest, I think, is the peculiar Italian variation. For over 40 years the Italian state and the Christian Democratic party (CDP) were almost synonymous. No government was possible without it, and wielded enormous power. To be sure, it had a strong infusion of Catholic ideology. It had a kind of Catholic Social Thought wing which emphasized the importance of moderating the effects of capitalism and the other premises Rick summarized; Azione Cattolica, the most important Catholic org in Italy, was a crucial source of both political strength and ideas. Other ancillary organizations had a strong Catholic character, such as the Coldiretti, a group that represented the interests of peasant farmers, and emphasized the family as the primary component of society (still around),
as well as Catholic business and agricultural cooperatives and workers' unions). The CDP also, for much of its history, reflected Catholic views regarding divorce and popular culture. Unfortunately, the CDP, particularly after the economic boom of the late 1950's and 1960's, became a deeply corrupt organization, totally distorted by its own enormous power. The virtual identification of party and state, particularly in the South, accentuated the inherent weakness of Italian civil society, turned clientalism (long an Italian specialty) into an endemic disease, and turned the party-dominated state corporations into black holes. Ironically, the greater strength of the Communist Party in Italy than in any other Western European country, had the effect of maximizing CDP power and ultimately corruption, because millions (especially serious Catholics) turned to it as the principle bulwark against communism. Anti communism was one of the party's dominant ideologies; but fear of the Communists' real power, especially in Sicily fueled an unholy alliance with the Mafia. The endless series of corruption scandals at the highest levels of Italian government and society over thye last 50 years resulted from a variety of social and civic pathologies in Italy, but they all involved a Christian Democratic party that had lost its Catholic soul, despite its rhetoric. The CDP's heir today is Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia! party ("Let's Go, Italy!"), which doesn't even pretend to be inspired by the Catholic social thought tradition. Ony Italy's profound left/right division would allow such a party continuing influence (even though it --barely-- lost the last election. Those interested in these matters should see two marvelous (and angry) books by the historian Paul Ginsborg, A HISTORY OF CONTEMPORARY ITALY, 1943-1980 and ITALY AND ITS DISCONTENTS (continuing the strory after 1980). Alexander Stille's recent book, THE SACK OF ROME shows how Berlusconi picked up where the CDP left off, and his earlier EXCELLENT CADAVERS tells the sad story of the Christian Democratic Party's deep involvement with thye Sicilian Mafia.
But Rick raises an interesting question -- other European CDPs, and the Italian one in its better moments, represented a distinctive Christian/Catholic view of politics that never had any traction in the US. Why? A subject for another post....
-- Mark
A New Essay by MOJer Patrick Brennan
"The Decreasing Ontological Density of the State in Catholic
Social Doctrine"
Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2006-23
Villanova Law Review, Scarpa Symposium, Vol. 52, 2007
Contact: PATRICK MCKINLEY BRENNAN
Villanova University School of Law
Email: [email protected]
Auth-Page: http://ssrn.com/author=518225
Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=945201
ABSTRACT: Over the last century-plus, Catholic social thought has
gradually reduced the ontological density of the state, to the
point that the state now appears to have only a tentative grasp
on the natural law basis of its legitimacy. During the first part
of the twentieth century, Catholic social doctrine tended to view
the legitimate state as a participant in the divine rule;
although draped in a sacred mantle, the state was subject to the
limits imposed by the divine and natural law. In response to the
totalitarian states' transgressing of those limits at
mid-century, Catholic thinkers reduced the scope and stature of
the state's place in man's life in society, while insisting that
the state remain tethered to the natural law. Today, however,
Catholics and others face a laicized state that utterly denies
its obligations under the natural law. While Pope John Paul II
eventually responded to this denial by emphasizing the natural
law limits on the state, Pope Benedict has instead summoned
leaders and citizens to acknowledge and develop a state that is
committed to "reason," even if this means inviting unbelievers to
act "as if God exists." As understood by Pope Benedict XVI, the
state, a servant of individuals and diverse societies, is to
receive its content and direction from, among other sources, the
Church; it is to receive reason purified by faith.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
