This post, over at Professor Althouse's (excellent) blog, is well worth a read, particularly for "Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" watchers. She reproduces (and comments on) this exchange, between Steve Colbert and Terry Gross (of "Fresh Air"):
GROSS: Now you grew up in a family with--What?--11 children?
Mr. COLBERT: Yeah, I'm one of 11 kids. I'm the youngest.
GROSS: And was it a religious family? You say you go to church and...
Mr. COLBERT: Oh, absolutely.
GROSS: Yeah.
Mr. COLBERT: We're, you know, very devout and, you know, I still go to church and, you know, my children are being raised in the Catholic Church. And I was actually my daughters' catechist last year for First Communion, which was a great opportunity to speak very simply and plainly about your faith without anybody saying, `Yeah, but do you believe that stuff?' which happens a lot in what I do.
GROSS: Can I ask you a kind of serious question about faith?
Mr. COLBERT: I've been turning all of your funny questions into serious things for an hour or so. I don't see why you can't do the same to me.
GROSS: In the sketch we heard earlier from "This Week In God," you talked about the Christian pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for birth control.
Mr. COLBERT: Right.
GROSS: Now the Catholic Church opposes birth control, which...
Mr. COLBERT: They do.
GROSS: ...I presume you do not and...
Mr. COLBERT: Presume away.
GROSS: ...so how do you deal with contradictions between, like, the church and the way you live your life, which is something that a lot of people in the Catholic Church have to deal with?
Mr. COLBERT: Well, sure. You know, that's the hallmark of an American Catholic, is the individuation of America and the homogenation of the church; homogenation in terms of dogma. I love my church and I don't think that it actually makes zombies or unquestioning people. I think it's actually a church that values intellectualism, but certainly, it can become very dogmatically rigid.
Somebody once asked me, `How do you be a father'--'cause I'm a father of three children--`and be anti-authoritarian?' And I said, `Well, that's not nearly as hard as being anti-authoritarian and being a Roman Catholic,' you know? That's really patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time. I don't know. You know, I don't believe that I can't disagree with my church and I'll leave it at that.
It seems to me that "anti-authoritarian" needs to be unpacked a bit. I mean, it is hard to see how a Catholic, a father, or anyone else, can really be "anti-authority" in any kind of across-the-board way. But, I guess I don't immediately see the conflict between being Catholic and being "anti-authoritarian" in the sense that Colbert is (or seems to me to be) "anti-authoritarian" -- i.e., being irreverent, being willing to puncture myths, platitudes, and pieties, being suspicious of power and "political correctness", etc.
UPDATE: Cathy Kaveny kindly called my attention to this piece, by Celia Wren, in the latest Commonweal, about Colbert, his show, and the Faith. While I suspect that Ms. Wren and I might disagree about the extent to which Colbert actually shows "the sheer inanity of some right-wing beliefs" -- as opposed to the inanity of beliefs that some people imagine conservatives hold -- I think the essay is a good complement to the Althouse post.
This is from the January 26 issue of The Tablet [London]. Just as the Church was once wrong about the the nature of the solar system, it is now wrong about the nature of homosexuality. I wonder what some future historian will make of the parallels? By the way, the esteemed Ernan McMullin, editor of the book under review, is an Irish priest and longtime member of Notre Dame's Department of Philosophy.
Lead Book Review
Sins of the Commission
The Church and Galileo Ed. Ernan McMullin
University of Notre Dame Press, £23..50 Tablet bookshop price £21.60.
In 1633, the Holy Office found
Galileo to be “vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of
having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of the world and
immoveable”, and this despite a formal warning in 1616 that he must do
no such thing. On his knees before the cardinals, Galileo swore an oath
in which he abjured this and other errors and heresies; he promised to
do nothing in future to give rise to such a suspicion. The penalty for
breaking this oath would be death by burning.
The wound the Church thereby
inflicted on herself has done incalculable harm. No matter the glorious
history of Jesuit astronomers down the centuries; no matter that the
papal residence in Castel Gandolfo has two telescopic domes on the
roof; no matter that the Vatican Observatory now boasts a major
telescope in Arizona: the treatment of Galileo is cited day by day as
proof that the Church fears science.
The Galileo Affair, as it has
come to be known, took place at a pivotal moment in the histories of
both astronomy and of the Church. The task of mathematical astronomers
since antiquity had been to save the appearances, to devise geometrical
models for the planetary motions that would allow the calculation of
accurate tables. That a model – Ptolemy’s or Copernicus’ – worked well
for this purpose was no reason for supposing that it corresponded to
the underlying reality. But Kepler in 1609 set astronomy on a new path,
from the how to the why, from saving the appearances to discerning the
physical truth about the heavens. This led in 1687 to Newton’s Principia, after which it would be foolish to maintain that the massive Sun orbited the tiny Earth.
Galileo wished his Church to be
in the forefront of the new movement, but his judges understood nothing
of this. What they did understand was that when Christ was quoted as
saying, “This is my Body”, Protestant reformers had chosen not to take
his words at face value. This was no time for invoking the Augustinian
doctrine of “accommodation”, that the sacred author was using words
accommodated to the understanding of his readers; and yet this was
exactly what Galileo was doing when he argued that, despite Joshua’s
report that God made the Sun stand still for a very special purpose, in
fact it never did anything else but stand still.
The episode is hugely complex,
and never a year passes without yet more books on the subject. It was
therefore greatly to the credit of John Paul II in 1979 that he asked
for a commission to explore the affair in depth, in order to lay the
matter to rest by arriving at “a loyal recognition of wrongs from
whatever side they come”.
The project was ill-fated from
the start. It seems that the members of the resulting Galileo
Commission were chosen for the positions they held, not for their
knowledge of Galileo (the only member with some expertise in the
history of astronomy being Fr George Coyne SJ, director of the Vatican
Observatory). One member was soon appointed to a major see and so
attended only the first meeting. Others suffered ill-health, among them
the president, and it is probably because of his indisposition that
after 1983 the commission never once met. A number of historical
studies were published under the auspices of an editorial board that
included this reviewer, but otherwise the work languished.
Eventually the authorities
thought it time to bring the project to some sort of conclusion.
Confronted by a subject of such immense complexity, even a
well-informed and hard-working commission might have struggled to reach
an agreed verdict. It was Cardinal Paul Poupard who drew the short
straw. On 31 October 1992, he read out at a Vatican ceremony what
purported to be the commission’s findings. They were in fact no such
thing: Fr Coyne, for one, had not been consulted and knew nothing of
what Poupard was to say.
The “findings” laid the blame not
on any of the Church authorities involved but on (unnamed) theologians.
According to Poupard, when the motion of the Earth was scientifically
proved, which he bizarrely dates to 1741, the Church quickly responded
by authorising an edition of Galileo’s opera omnia, and by removing from the Index works advocating the heliocentric theory. In fact, the 1744 edition of the opera
had to omit Galileo’s brilliant work on the interpretation of
Scripture, now recognised as a classic statement of the Church’s
position; and his Dialogo, the book for which he was condemned,
could be included only if it was prefaced with both the Holy Office
decree and Galileo’s oath of recantation, and further doctored to make
the work appear hypothetical. And when the 1757 edition of the Index
appeared, Copernicus’s De revolutionibus, Kepler’s Epitome
and Galileo’s Dialogo were there, just as before. So much for the
Vatican’s eighteenth-century response to the advance of science, and so
much for the disinterested scholarship of the twentieth-century
“findings”.
Historians worldwide were
dismayed by Cardinal Poupard’s address, and by the speech written for
the Pope to read in response. Eventually, a conference of Galileo
scholars was held at Notre Dame University in 2002. The resulting
volume, edited by Fr Ernan McMullin, a leading scholar in the field,
must serve in place of the findings of the Galileo Commission. It is a
splendid work. Many of the chapters are definitive of our present
understanding of these very complex issues, and Fr McMullin’s summary
of the affair is itself worth the cover price. All but one of the
contributions deal with times past, but Fr Coyne tells the depressing
story of the official Commission as far as he has been able to
determine it. He concludes: “The picture given in the discourses of
October 31, 1992, does not stand up to historical scrutiny … In fact it
was the Congregation of the Index, the Congregation of the Holy Office,
and Paul V who enacted a hasty decree in 1616, and the Congregation of
the Holy Office and Urban VIII who proclaimed a hasty condemnation of
Galileo in 1633.”
When
the Galileo Commission was constituted in 1981, Poupard was named head
of one section and Coyne head of another. They have come to very
different conclusions. I, and most historians, believe the evidence
supports Coyne. If so, the Vatican has lessons to learn from the
Galileo Affair concerning the proper exercise of authority in the
Church today.
In today's New York Times, former Commonweal editor Peter Steinfels has some interesting comments on Deus Caritas Est and its reception in the media. To read Steinfels' "Beliefs" column, click here. _______________ mp
In response to my post below, Statements of Faith: Are They Appropriate? (here), I received this interesting response:
I have experienced these statements of faith as a seminarian preparing for the priesthood. It strikes me they are useful from the perspective of establishing intent. They are, however, in my humble estimation, not appropriate or productive as a means for enforcing orthodoxy in instruction. The only thing that can perform that function adequately is oversight with authority.
As someone who entered the seminary after a career in systems engineering, it occurred to me that an approach similar to establishing a trademark on the use of the term Catholic (with a capital C) would be a more effective mechanism to ensure against the misuse of the term than any other mechanism that might be employed in the western world.
Naturally, this would be highly controversial. It would not be problematic for the Roman Catholic Church to establish priority of ownership, but it might very well be problematic to establish a case for exclusivity. Given a successful case for both by the Roman Catholic Church, groups such as "Catholics for Free Choice" and publications such as the "National Catholic Reporter" would be required to drop the name "Catholic." Universities that failed in the obvious requirements for fidelity to Catholic teaching and formation would be required to give up their pretense to Catholic affiliation.
Barring success in this approach, perhaps it would be easier to establish exclusivity for "Roman Catholic." It would be interesting to see how the various and sundry organizations responded.
Of course, there is no likelihood that this approach will be attempted by the Church, not because it could not work, but because the Church does not approach enforcement in this way. Thus, organizations that fall from grace do not always fall from general public credibility. It is very much that way with all product warranties of safety and authenticity today. Knockoffs, though illegal, are ubiquitous. Tainted products or products that make false claims of some benefit manage to evade regulatory authorities and mechanisms all of the time. Its a sign of the times that people are generally left to their own devices for protecting themselves from shysters of every stripe.
Some of you may have received a "save the date" card for St. John's University School of Law's upcoming symposium on the Jurisprudential Legacy of Pope John Paul II, which be held at the law school on March 23-24. The four panels will explore both the theoretical underpinnings of the thought of Pope John Paul II and his views of justice as well as the application of his thought to different areas of the law. Papers will be delivered by a number of theologians and law professors, including MOJ bloggers Robert Araujo, Mike Scapalander and Greg Sisk. Commentary on the papers will be delivered by MOJ'ers Michael Perry, Rob Vischer, Amy Uelman and myself. John Allen, NCR's Vatican correspondant, will be our keynote speaker. I look forward to welcoming you to St. John's for what I know will be an exciting and informative program.
While I'm at it, I might as well mention that we have selected a date for the Journal of Catholic Social Thought's 2006 annual symposium on CST and the law. It is Friday, October 27, at Villanova, and the topic is: What Does the Preferential Option for the Poor Mean for Law? I'll be sending out a more formal, detailed Call for papers shortly, but feel free to get in touch with me if you have ideas or questions.
I received this note today from Joshua Hochschild -- and am posting it with his permission -- regarding my post on higher education and religious identity from the other day.
Dear Professor Garnett,
Since your post yesterday on the Mirror of Justice quoted relevant sections of Mr. Oakes’ recent essay on higher education and religious identity, I feel compelled to correct Mr. Oakes’ mistaken description of my own views. He says that I do not “stand behind Wheaton for courageously affirming its commitment to its own founding principles.” In fact I do. As the Wall Street Journal article correctly reports, I expected to lose my job upon converting to Catholicism, and I acknowledged the College’s right to exclude Catholics. I have never challenged this right, and I have made this position even more clear in interviews with the Chicago Sun-Times, and Inside Higher Ed.
Mr. Oakes apparently concluded otherwise by reading, out of context, this quotation: “I see no reason why I should be dismissed from the College upon joining the Roman Catholic Church.” I think it is clear from the Journal article that this line is the conclusion of an argument made in response to the position, advanced by Wheaton’s president, that Catholic teaching is inconsistent with what is articulated by Wheaton’s Statement of Faith, and that therefore I should resign. If I had been shown that Catholic teaching were inconsistent with the faith statement, or that I had in any other way violated my contract with Wheaton, I would have resigned. But in fact, as I explained in the detailed letter mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article, based on careful consideration of Catholic teaching I could in good conscience affirm Wheaton’s faith statement. (There are by now several worthwhile conversations on the web, most notably at Amy Welborn’s blog, about the consistency of Wheaton’s faith statement and Catholic teaching.)
Wheaton’s President was not persuaded, and so I was terminated. Although I think he misunderstands Catholic teaching and I disagree with his manner of reading Wheaton’s faith statement, the decision was within his right, and that is why I did not fight it.
Mr. Oakes is right to point to my college editorial about the importance of educational institutions vigilantly guarding their founding religious principles. Far from changing my mind, that is a position that I have maintained consistently to this day.
I hope you will consider making this clarification available on the Mirror of Justice site.
Thank you, Joshua P. Hochschild Assistant Professor of Philosophy Mount St. Mary’s University
I am happy to pass along the following announcement by my colleague and fellow MOJer Patrick Brennan regarding Villanova Law's inaugural Scarpa Conference in Catholic Legal Studies. Patrick will be joined by his coblogistas Rick Garnett and Amy Uelmen at the conference here at Villanova Law on September 15, 2006. We will be sending out a more formal announcement with details down the road:
"The Chair established by John F. Scarpa is to offer an annual conference on a topic in Catholic Legal Studies. The first Scarpa Conference is set for September 15, 2006. The topic is "From John Paul II to Benedict XVI: Continuing the New Evangelization of Law, Politics, and Culture." This turns out to be particularly apt and timely in light of particular teachings in Pope Benedict's first encyclical, which was published just two days ago.
I am most grateful to be able to announce that His Eminence Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., has accepted my invitation to deliver the keynote address at the first Scarpa Conference. The Cardinal is arguably the most respected Catholic intellectual in the United States. He is, in any event, the only American theologian ever to be created a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Most Cardinals are bishops of major dioceses. Cardinal Dulles is not a bishop. He is a Cardinal in virtue of the twenty-two books and more than seven hundred articles he has published since graduating from Harvard College in 1940. His visit here will be a great honor to Villanova.
Also delivering papers will be Richard Garnett (Lilly Endowment Associate Professor, Notre Dame Law School) and Amy Uelmen (Director, Institute on Religion, Law, and Lawyer's Work, Fordham University School of Law), and Brennan.
Please save the date for what promises to be a rich exploration of the place of faith in the public square. If you have questions or suggestions regarding the conference, they will be gratefully received."
I would follow up on Tom Berg's announcement of the publication of St Thomas' symposium issue on prolife progressivism. It is definitely worth getting hold of. My article is probably the slightest of the contributions. The others are thoughtful, usefully interdisciplinary, and most important, represent some highly divergent viewpoints. The symposium's greatest contribution was to remind us that there is indeed such a thing as "prolife progressivism."
Sometimes coincidence is scary. Just before reading Eduardo's post on his CST course at Yale, I spent an hour with an applicant to Villanova Law who recently had finished an M.Div. at Yale Divinity School. While there, she took a course in the law school entitled "Theology and Law," which she said was about 50-50 law and divinity students. She reported that most of the law students took a strongly negative view on the relevance of religion to law and discourse about law. It's good to see that Eduardo is finding something a bit different. But I did want to weigh in on the CST/law & economics issue that Eduardo and Rick have noted. I think that Eduardo has put his finger on the central difficulty in talking about CST in the American legal academy: the contrast between CST's premises and those of law & economics. Given the profound influence of L&E in the academy, proponents of CST need to grapple over the tension between the two world views -- and they are really quite different world views that do conflict in important ways. I don't think that the conflict is over the concept of "efficiency" per se, and as Rick says, there is nothing Catholic mandating inefficiency (though Catholic colleges and universities may be empirical evidence to the contrary.) But that is not quite the point. The real conflict is between the CST concept of the common good and the neoclassical, law & econ conception of social welfare, understood as the aggregation of preferences or utilities. While the tool kit of law econ remains very useful, its essentially utilitarian prescriptive assumptions reject much of the Western tradition's basic assumptions on the nature of the good -- whether expressed by Aristotle or Aquinas. Instead of blathering on about this, I will point you to the sidebar, where I have posted a draft of my "Utility, the Good and Civic Happiness: A Catholic Critique of Law and Economics," which was published in the first issue of St. John's new Journal of Catholic Legal Studies. The final version (as distinct from this draft) can also be found under my name on SSRN.
