Professor Robert George asked me to post the following, as a contribution to the conversationwehavebeen having about whether Catholics who are critical of the Democrats' position on abortion have been appropriately and publicly clear about the immorality of abuse of detainees:
I have followed with interest the discussion launched by Michael Perry. Although my importance and influence have been exaggerated, I was certainly flattered to be singled out, first by Michael then by Eduardo Penalver. I gather that some liberals think that Catholic conservatives are shying away from speaking truth to power when it comes to the Church's teachings on torture and the death penalty. Some conservatives think that liberals are reluctant to jeopardize their standing with academic colleagues by defending what the Church teaches us is true about abortion and marriage and sexual morality. Let's work together. I propose that we issue a joint statement that makes clear that liberal and conservative Catholics, despite our political differences, are willing to stand up publicly to defend the "seamless garment" of the Church's moral teachings, however unpopular doing so might make us with people in our respective "political circles" (if I may borrow Professor Penalver's phrase). Let's together give a ringing affirmation of the Church's teachings on torture, capital punishment, abortion, and marriage and sexual morality. Let's call both the Republican and Democratic parties to account. If those of us on the conservative side end up taking some heat for standing up on torture and capital punishment, I'm happy to take it. I trust that those on the liberal side feel the same when it comes to taking heat for standing up on abortion and marriage and sexual morality. I'll sign. Who will join me?
The Fifty-five members of the House of Representatives in the February 28, 2006 Statement of Principles begin on a high note asserting their pride in “living the Catholic tradition” in order to promote the common good and to “work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being.” They also endorse the basic principles that “are at the heart of Catholic social teaching” and assert their commitment to make them “real.”
But then, one might ask how do they understand the teachings of the Church on all important issues of the day that come before them as legislators and as Catholics who are disciples in this world? While there is some reference to other issues, the one substantive issue that they address is abortion. How well do they understand what the Church teaches on this issue is crucial to assessing this Statement of Principles? How well they understand the “people of God” to whom they refer and the exercise of conscience on which they rely and John Paul II’s Christifideles Laici which they use for support require careful study.
Thirteen women and forty-two men signed the Statement of Principles. How does one of the principal advocates for abortion rights, NARAL Pro-Choice, rate these members of Congress? All of the women received a 100% (the best) rating from NARAL Pro-Choice. Fifty-seven percent of the men also received the “best” rating. However, five of the men received the “worst” rating or 0%. The range for the remainder of the men varied between the two ends of the scale.
Now, let us move on to more substantive matters and the questions I posed. No reference is made to John Paul II’s exhortation to public policy makers concerning the question of abortion. In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae he addresses the role of the legislator. In doing so he reminds them in N. 73, “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent… [W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” In N. 38 of Christifideles Laici (to which the Members of Congress refer) the Pope states: “The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor…If, indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given a particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, healthworkers and the many who hold economic and political power.”
These Members of Congress also fail to address the significance of Lumen Gentium when talking about their membership in the “people of God.” It is vital for us all to understand the proper role of each person and the incumbent duties one holds in the Church. We all need to understand clearly who holds the authority to teach and instruct. In Lumen Gentium, NN. 20, 21, 24, 25, the Council explained the duties of bishops as teachers of doctrine, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, endowed with the authority of Christ and rulers who ward off errors that threaten their flocks. As the Second Vatican Council further stated: “The distinction which the Lord has made between the sacred ministers and the rest of the People of God involves union, for the pastors and the other faithful are joined together by a close relationship: the pastors of the Church—following the example of the Lord—should minister to each other and to the rest of the faithful; the latter should eagerly collaborate with the pastors and teachers.” These Members of Congress and the rest of us must be reminded that there are those who have the authority to teach (and not only on one issue). Reiterating instruction on the pressing moral and social issues of the day is the proper role of a teacher, and exercising this responsibility is not mounting scorn on those who are the pupils of this teaching. It is the exercise of a solemn obligation and fundamental moral duty of the bishops to inform the consciences of those entrusted to their pastoral and teaching duties (Lumen Gentium, NN. 21, 27). The claim which these Members of Congress assert is based on this relationship with the Church’s teachers; it is not separate from it.
A word about the exercise of conscience is due here. As John Paul II once said, “the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.” Evangelium Vitae, N. 70. The properly formed conscience is geared to the moral objective order that protects the inherent dignity of all. Notwithstanding the claims made by these Members of Congress, one must ask and address the question about the role of the Catholic legislator regarding the matter of abortion and how the Catholic legislator has been asked to tackle it—in the exercise of good conscience well formed and reflecting the objective moral order. It would seem that the voting records of many of these legislators who signed the Statement of Principles do not reflect the proper exercise of conscience as the Church teaches about it. If this is the case, the principal teachers, i.e., bishops and pastors, have a lot to do to ensure that the members of their flock who sit in the Congress are well informed about their duties and the exercise of conscience so that their words and deeds will be in accord with Catholic teachings—teachings on which these legislators claim they rely. In the meantime, the rest of us also have our own duties as disciples, and one of them is to pray for our sisters and brothers who are elected to Congress and the teachers whom God has appointed to guide them.RJA sj
For starters, my Duke Blue Devils lost to some alleged higher-education institution from a place called "Tallahassee," and now I learn that Mirror of Justice got shut out of the "2006 Catholic Blog Awards." Curses.
Vatican City - Pope Benedict has dropped one of his nine official titles, giving up "Patriarch of the West" in a discreet step apparently intended to help promote closer ties with the Orthodox churches of the East.
Benedict will retain titles such as Vicar of Jesus Christ and Servant of the Servants of God, but the patriarch title will not appear in the Vatican's annual directory due out later this month, Roman Catholic Church officials said on Wednesday.
The Pope has stressed his desire to improve ties with the Orthodox churches, which split from Rome in 1054, and a Vatican aide said scrapping the patriarch title was meant to help that.
"In the past, the patriarchate of the West was contrasted with that of the East," Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, former head of the Vatican office for eastern rite churches, told the Italian news agency ANSA.
"I think the Pope wanted to remove this sort of contrast and his act is intended as a spur to ecumenical progress."
Some Vatican observers were not so sure this would help.
The daily Corriere della Sera said the Orthodox churches "could see this papal innovation as an indirect affirmation of himself as a 'universal patriarch'".
Vatican relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, the largest of these churches, have been strained because the Moscow hierarchy suspects the Catholic Church of trying to win new members there following the fall of communism in 1991.
Orthodox leaders could see the move as a Vatican bid to ignore geography and rise above the ancient structure of Christianity as centred in the five main patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
Rome is the centre of the Roman Catholic Church while Istanbul, the former Constantinople, is home of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, symbolic head of the Orthodox churches. The others play much lesser roles in Christian affairs.
Benedict will visit Bartholomew in Istanbul in November.
The Pope's remaining eight titles are Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City and Servant of the Servants of God.
To the excellent recent exchanges over the relative importance and "categorical" nature of various Catholic social teachings, I'd like to respond for now only by ... plugging our conference of the Murphy Institute at St. Thomas on April 7-8 concerning "Public Policy, Prudential Judgment, and the Catholic Social Tradition." An excerpt from the conference description (full text here; speakers include MOJ's own Rob Vischer, with plenary addresses by John McGreevy (History, Notre Dame) and Christopher Wolfe (Political Science, Marquette)):
In recent years a number of public policy questions, such as the permissibility of the death penalty, the morality of the war in Iraq, and the justice of welfare reforms, have provoked controversy among Catholics. Advocates of very different policies have claimed that their positions follow from the Catholic social tradition and, at times, some have even insisted that their positions alone are faithful to this tradition. These controversies highlight enduring questions about the proper relationship between moral principles and prudential judgment.
In much the same way, controversies have also accompanied some of the formal positions adopted by the American bishops and even the Vatican on questions of public policy. Here again there has been an indistinct line between direct inference from moral principles and sound prudential judgment, where the former invites commitment and the latter tolerates disagreement.
Because of the importance of prudential judgment in public policy matters, the time is ripe for a careful and comprehensive discussion of the topic.
I didn't intend to leave the impression that partisanship is a one-sided risk. But I don't think that was Michael's point either. It's too easy for Catholic Democrats to leave it to Catholic Republicans to take on Kerry or Clinton or whoever on abortion. By the same token, however, it is too easy for Catholic Republicans to leave it to others to question the bona fides of this administration on an obviously recurrent problem with torture. The most powerful Catholic witness will come when each side is willing to tackle its own preferred party's shortcomings. This is exactly why it is not sufficient for George to sit back and wait for others to condemn torture while he takes on the lonely task of criticizing abortion (a task that is not so lonely, I'm guessing, in his political circles). I'm sure we all fall short of this ideal. I know I do. But, truth be told, I don't think Catholic Republicans are accustomed to grappling with the contradictions to the same degree as Catholic Democrats, who can't seem to go a day without being reminded about them. Seriously. I took Michael's post to be a challenge to ALL of us to do better.
Fifty-five Democratic members of the US House of Representatives who identify themselves as Catholic have just issued a Statement of Principles. The statement is relatively brief and is HERE . A quick perusal indicates that similar points in more elaborate form were made in the letter sent to Cardinal McCarrick almost two years ago. I plan to study this new statement in greater detail, but you will see that the one issue upon which they concentrate is abortion, which they "do not celebrate." They state that they seek the Church's guidance, but they also assert "the primacy of conscience." They do not indicate if they will take the route which Pope John Paul II drew in Evangelium Vitae and reiterated by the CDF in its own text. From what I see, that direction of these texts does not seem to be the position that they endorse. They conclude by stating that as the "people of God" they "have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours." Please forgive my brief commentary at this point, but I thought MOJ contributors and readers would like to see the statement as quickly as possible. RJA sj
Eduardo correctly understood my post, in which I observed that "torture" -- which, Eduardo and I agree, is absolutely wrong -- is not "self-defining, and that a government lawyer or administration is not immoral or corrupt for trying to find a definition of that term that is both workable and legally and morally defensible." I did not intend to offer a defense, or an interpretation, of the now-withdrawn "torture memos," but only to state a fact -- one that, I think, the administration's critics have not always accepted -- that any administration would have had to define "torture" in order to make meaningful a ban on torture.
Eduardo and I (and -- obviously -- John Finnis and Robert George) agree that using "physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to the respect for the person and for human dignity," (CCC 2297), and also that "every procured abortion" is a "moral evil" (CCC 2270). We agree that detainees have been immorally treated in some cases. We do not agree, though -- that is, I do not think -- that "this administration affirmatively supports torture as state policy." It is clear, though, that the Kerry Administration would have supported, as "state policy," an abortion license under which abortion at any time, for any reason, and in any manner would not only be legally protected by publicly funded.
I share Eduardo's concern about the widespread "impression" that the "Church is increasingly partisan in a way that has not been true in the past," but I believe the impression is unjustified. That is, it seems to me that the Church's emphasis, in more recent years, on the importance of reminding Catholic voters and officials about the need to protect unborn children is of a piece with -- and is no more partisan than -- the clear and powerful critiques, in the 1980s, of what the American bishops thought were the wrong policies of the United States in economic and national-defense matters. (See, e.g., "Economic Justice for All" (1986); "Pastoral Letter on War and Peace" (1983)).
I agree that it would be a bad thing if "partisan loyalties [were] playing a decisive role in shaping Catholic political discourse," but tend to think that it is at least as likely -- and just as unfortunate -- that the "partisan loyalties" of left-leaning Catholics are shaping their understanding and public application of Church teaching as it is that the "partisan loyalties" of right-leaning Catholics are shaping theirs. It is a challenge for me, and for all of us, to try hard to reverse the direction of this "shaping." MOJ is valuable to me for many reasons, one of which is that it reminds me of, and helps me with, this challenge. I am sure that my fellow bloggers, and MOJ readers, feel the same way.
I've mentioned before the upcoming (March 23-24) conference sponsored by St. John's University School of Law on the Jurisprudential Legacy of Pope John Paul II. A number of MOJ'ers will be participating as paper presenters or commentators. The full conference brochure and schedule is linked here.
One of the new blogs at National Review Online is the (at first blush, anyway) very un-National Review "Crunchy Cons" blog, inspired by Rod Dreher's new book of the same name. The posts in recent days have included some fascinating and provocative critiques -- denunciations, really -- of consumerism, and of its elevation to civil-religion status in the United States. In a similar vein is this piece from Sunday's New York Times, "Is Freedom Just Another Word for Many Things to Buy?":
In today's America, everyone from President Bush to advertising executives to liberal activists appears to agree that freedom is about having choices and that having more choices means having more freedom. Choice, even in mundane matters, embodies the larger ideal of the individual as arbiter not just of what tastes or feels good but also of what is good. . . .
But this "wisdom" is suspect for two reasons. First, most Americans do not think that freedom is about exercising more and more choice. And second, even for those who do equate freedom with choice, having more choice does not seem to make them feel freer. Instead, Americans are increasingly bewildered — not liberated — by the sheer volume of choices they must make in a day. . . .
. . . While the upper and middle classes define freedom as choice, working-class Americans emphasize freedom from instability. These perspectives echo the distinction between freedom to and freedom from made by Franklin Roosevelt and by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin half a century ago. For all our red-versus-blue rancor, most Americans agree that ours is a free country. But what freedom is, and where it should be nurtured and where constrained, are hotly contested issues.
