Here is an essay by my colleague Cathy Kaveny, from the current issue of America. It's called "The Perfect Storm" and it's about the "Vagina Monologues"-on-Catholic-campuses debate. She contrasts "two currents that have dominated the climate of the church in the United States for the poast 30 years or so. The older of these calls for greater openness to the culture; the more recent affirms the importance of preserving a distinctive Catholic identity over against the culture. God willing, however, the storm also may have uncovered something new: the emergence of a third current, which locates Catholic identity not primarily in what separates us from the culture, but in the distinctive way in which we critically but constructively engage it."
In Kaveny's view, the "current of identity" is "self-defeating", because "the strategy of its representative thinkers to preserve distinctive Catholic character may actually involve abandoning it -- abandoning the universal concern, scope and appear characteristic of Catholic thought and life in order to pursue a purity from all taint of sin that is characteristic of some Protestant sects." She contends that a new current, "the current of engagement", "should insist that constructive, critical engagement with the culture is ultimately more consistent with a Catholic vision of reality than uncritical embrace of it on the one hand, or moralistic rejection of it on the other."
She concludes with this:
The path suggested by the current of engagement is more demanding than those associated with either the current of openness or the current of identity. It takes faculty members who are educated in the Catholic moral and intellectual tradition and committed to passing it on to the next generation. It takes students who are willing to do the hard intellectual and existential work of bringing their faith into conversation with other aspects of their lives. Most important, it takes Catholic colleges and universities that are dedicated to facilitating constructive and critical engagement with the culture, rather than assimilation on the one hand, or isolation on the other.
A few thoughts: First, I think Kaveny is entirely correct to remind readers that the purpose of an authentically Catholic university is not to serve as a museum or preserving jar for a pure, untainted, separate Catholic culture or community. And, she is right to urge all engaged to put "charity" -- as in, Deus caritas est -- at the heart of the "what is a Catholic university and what is it for?" debate.
Next, I have to believe that Kaveny would agree that those prominent and articulate faculty members (and others) at Notre Dame urged Fr. Jenkins not to cast "academic freedom" as a license for productions that many non-prudish, perfectly engaged, totally-accepting-of-fallenness Catholics reasonably regard as low-brow, pornographic agit-prop, cannot fairly be regarded as standing in, or defending, a "current of identity" as she describes it. (Consider, for example, the open letters by John Cavadini, Fr. John Coughlin, and Fr. Bill Miscamble, or the earlier comments provided by John O'Callaghan, Brad Gregory, Paolo Carozza, Nicole Garnett, Gary Anderson, or David Solomon). In fact, it seems to me that, when one reflects carefully on the way the arguments played out at Notre Dame (as oppposed, perhaps, to some quarters of the blogosphere), the claim of those who had reservations about the Monologues was not that we ought to move with a "moralistic" "current of identity" toward a "purity from all taint of sin that is characteristic of some Protestant sects", but was instead that meaningful "engagement" -- precisely what Kaveny (correctly) calls for -- is not possible absent a commitment to distinctive Catholic identity and sound formation and education in the faith. That is, the focus on identity is not in the service of moralism, or sectarian separation, but is precisely on the conditions for meaningful engagement. What's more, when one reflects carefully on the way the arguments played out at Notre Dame, it seems that another "current" was flowing powerfully, namely, a current not so much of aggiornamento-style "openness" to the world, but a current of indifference, or even opposition, to the basic project of a Catholic university as Kaveny describes it.
Third, I can endorse whole-heartedly Kaveny's final paragraph. The best "path" for a Catholic university takes "faculty members who are educated in the Catholic moral and intellectual tradition and committed to passing it on to the next generation" and faculty and students who are "willing to do the hard intellectual and existential work of bringing their faith into conversation with other aspects of their lives." Of course, the $64,000 question is, how many such faculty and students does it take, and what are Catholic universities going to do to train, attract, and retain them?
UPDATE: re-reading Paolo Carozza's piece, I'm struck by the extent to which it calls for precisely the kind of engagement -- engagement that proceeds, as I have suggested it must -- from a coherent and rooted position with reality and the world. This is worth quoting in full:
[W]hat is the place of Notre Dame's Catholic identity in this insistence on the freedom of our reason to reach always onward? The intellectual and moral tradition in which we are situated provides a sustained, complex and deep grappling with the mystery of human life and the universe around us, but one that is mostly ignored, and sometimes systematically excluded, from the intellectual life of most elite universities today. Notre Dame can't be a great and Catholic university without a pervasive and serious attempt to propose this tradition as an explanatory hypothesis for understanding the things that we study and teach and for ordering the way we ought to live as a community. To be very clear: in the context of study, teaching and research the Christian tradition is a proposal, not a shield from inquiry or an obstacle to knowledge, but an invitation to verify something, to test it through sincere criticism (in the original, literal sense of "separating" or "evaluating") and thus to arrive at a more mature appropriation of its value. It is an understanding of Catholic character reflective of a dynamic life, not of formal and sterile doctrine. The scholarly temperament in its encounter with tradition is an opening up of reason, not a closure of discussion.
Thursday, May 4, 2006
Here is a Reuters story on the Holy See's recent statement on China's decision to continue appointing bishops for that country's state-run ersatz Catholic Church.
"The Holy Father learned the news with deep displeasure," spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in an unusually strongly worded statement.
He said the Vatican had information from China that bishops and priests there had come under "strong pressure and threats" to take part "contrary to their conscience" in the ordinations, which it branded as "illegitimate". . . .
His statement insisted on "the need to respect the freedom of the Church and the autonomy of its institutions from any external interference" and asked Beijing to stop "such unacceptable acts of violent and intolerable constraint".
China does not get, or pretends not to get, the Holy See's objections:
China defended the appointments by its state-run Catholic Church, saying they strictly followed democratic processes and fully respected the wishes of a majority of worshippers.
"So the Vatican's condemnation makes no sense," China's Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.
So, maybe the glass is half-full? China is following "democratic processes" about something?
FWIW, I presented a paper at Georgetown's Constitutional Theory colloquium last week, on a similar topic (i.e., "The Freedom of the Church").
An interesting poll: "U.S. support for Roe v. Wade is at its lowest level in decades, according to a new Harris poll. . . . The latest telephone survey of 1,016 adults indicates Roe v. Wade is supported by a slim 49% to 47% plurality, compared with 52% who favored the decision in 2005 (see poll) and 57% in 1998."
I'll begin by noting that I am not a philospher and so my comments should be taken with that in mind.
I agree with Richard Stith that the debate on condoms and AIDS is largely about the proper way to think about intention and the moral object. (This is true at least for those who accept the teaching of Humanae Vitae; for those who do not accept the Church's teaching in Humanae Vitae the issue of condoms and AIDS would not be that difficult.) Another example that raises this issue is the case of craniotomy. Some who defend the morality of craniotomy (John Finnis, for example) do so by saying that the surgeon does not intend to kill the fetus. The surgeon is simply rearranging the skull in order to save the life of the mother. Critics of this position (Kevin Flannery, Steven Long, and Basil Cole, for example) claim that this is too abstract and that it is necessary to take account, in the words of Long, of the "nature or physical species of the act...in determining the moral species." Under this view, the physical character of what is done (in the craniotomy case that would be producing the crushed skull of an innocent person) must be considered. That is why May and others who reject the use of condoms to attempt to prevent AIDS take account of the physical charcteristics of the act in question (using condoms) and do not simply focus on what might better be viewed as the motive of the actor (to prevent disease, to save the life of the mother in the craniotomy case, or to relieve the pain of the terminally ill for doctors who are trying to assist in a suicide). If the moral object of the act is wrong (and as Michael notes that is how May and others view the use of condoms by married couples), then the doctrine of double effect is of no help. One may not do evil that good may come of it, and this is not what the doctrine of double effect allows.
Richard
[Professor Brown writes:]
I was disappointed to see Pat Shrake, a recent graduate of the University
of St. Thomas School of Law, attempting to attack the integrity and
credibility of Kenneth Himes and David Hollenbach, S.J., as a way of
diverting attention from the important issue of whether Secretary of State
Rice has and is actively promoting a war that is at odds with Catholic
Social Teachings. Pat's comment on Boston College's records of awards lifts
language directly from the Cardinal Newman Society's report on Catholic
College's entitled Culture of Death on Catholic Campuses: A Five Year
Review, pp. 16-17. Bishop John Vlazny, the retiring chairman of the Bishops
and Presidents Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, noted,
the Bishops and Presidents Committee "has regularly monitored the
publications and positions of the Cardinal Newman Society, and has found
them often aggressive, inaccurate, or lacking in balance."
In his comments, Pat is trying to change the question from Secretary Rice's
character and actions to insinuating that Dr. Himes and Fr. Hollenbach are
not acting consistently with Catholic Social Teaching all the time. Pat has
no facts to back up his insinuation. Merely raising the question, however,
diverts attention from the more important issue - the extent to which U.S.
foreign policy as designed and implemented by Secretary Rice is at odds with
Catholic Social Teaching.
Both Dr. Himes and Fr. Hollenbach are experts in the area of Catholic Social
Teachings regarding war and peace and have written extensively on those
issues. It would be natural for them to be particularly concerned when
individuals that their university is planning on honoring violate Catholic
teachings in that area.
Dr. Himes has served as President of the Catholic Theological Society of
America (2000-2001) and is also a member of the Society of Christian Ethics.
He was on the editorial board of New Theology Review and was editor of that
journal from 1998-2002. He was a fellow of the Center for Theological
Inquiry in Princeton, NJ during 1992. For several years he acted as
theological consultant for the Office of Social Development and World Peace
at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Fr. Hollenbach served as President of the Society of Christian Ethics
(1995-1996) and on the Board of Directors of the Catholic Theological
Society of America (1982-1984). He is on the Editorial Board of the Journal
of Religious Ethics and the steering committee of the Consultation of
Religion and Human Rights of the American Academy of Religion. He assisted
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in drafting their 1986 pastoral
letter Economic Justice for All: Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S.
Economy. In 1979 he received a Walsh-Price Fellowship for travel in Israel,
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt to do research on religion and human
rights in the Middle East. In 1996 he received a Fulbright Fellowship for
research and teaching in Kenya. In June, 1998, Hollenbach received the John
Courtney Murray Award for outstanding contributions to theology from the
Catholic Theological Society of America.
Elizabeth F. Brown
Assistant Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas
School of Law
1000 LaSalle Ave, MSL 400
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015
_______________
mp
Returning to an old, recurring topic: A week or so ago, The New Republic provided an exchange between Professor Cass Sunstein and Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review on the question whether the reversal of Roe v. Wade would help or hurt the Republican Party. Sunstein wrote:
For at least 20 years, it has been clear that the most prominent leaders in the Republican Party do not really want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. True, many of them strongly object to abortion on moral grounds. But they have made no serious efforts to amend the Constitution to protect fetal life, and under Republican presidents, most Supreme Court nominees have not been clear opponents of the Court's decision. Instead of seeking to overturn Roe, Republican leaders have used it in exactly the same way that the Party used Emmanual Goldstein in Orwell's 1984--as an all-purpose object of hatred and fear, a symbol of the threat to all that is moral and good, an occasion for the Two Minutes Hate, offered on television every day.
In Orwell's tale, the Party badly needs Goldstein. Its survival depends on him. Republican officials probably do not need Roe v. Wade, but they greatly benefit from a situation in which the decision remains on the books, inspires both loyalty and anger, and serves as a reminder of what Democrats would like to entrench and what Republicans are trying to undo.
In Ponnuru's view, though, "[p]ro-lifers who are incrementalist in strategy and moderate in tone would, in short, be positioned to do quite well after Roe fell, and the Republican Party would have enough flexibility to prosper. The theory that pro-lifers would be dealt a stunning setback by the realization of their fondest goal is interestingly counterintuitive, and it has become a shibboleth for sophisticated pundits. But it's probably wrong."
I'm not sure who is right about this. It does seem worth noting, though, that Roe plays something like a Goldstein role (or, maybe, a reverse-Goldstein role) for the Democrats, too -- it strikes me that the Democratic Party is able to mobilize and motivate many of its strongest (and most generous) supporters with the "Two Minute Roe-is-one-vote-from-going." Which side "needs" Roe more?
I have a couple of thoughts on this. One, I applaud the general concern that awarding honorary degrees is extremely important and that these decisions say a lot about the character of an institution. It is a very different issue when a person is being invited to speak as part of an academic debate or to publish in the school's journals as part of a symposium. Awarding some one an honorary degree is very different. Bestowing an honor on someone with public positions that are in conflict with the Church's teaching is something that ought not to be done.
Second, I found it interesting that those opposing honoring Rice did not mention that she very publicly proclaimed that she was "mildly pro-choice." I don't think that she has had a lot to do with the Administration's policy on abortion but I would have thought that her statements on abortion (which clearly did conflict with Church teaching) should have been a part of any opposition to Boston College honoring her.
Third, while I have not been a supporter of the war (the Vatican's concerns about whether this was truly a last resort and about whether there was a real prospect of success really resonated with me), I don't think it is so clear that Rice's positions "conflict" with Catholic teaching. Her positions seem to be more in the nature of debatable prudential judgments. I don't think that would be an inappropriate reason for opposing that she receive an honorary degree but I think it would be better to be clear about the precise nature of the objection.
Richard
