Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Patrick, there may be several hearts to this problem, but I’ll join you in climbing out on the limb: I think one of the greatest problems is essentially pastoral—finding how to communicate the Church’s message of truth and of love in a way that is beautiful, attractive, and helps people make sense of their lives. And in gauging how to do that, it is the understatement of the century to say that listening is crucial—for listening itself already communicates the message.
Amy
I don't disagree with you, Amy, unless you are asserting -- as John Paul II was not -- that the teaching authority of the Church is located elsewhere than in the college of bishops with the Holy Father at its head. Teaching, ruling, and santifying are the threefold munera of those in communion with the Holy See in the apostolic succession. Those who would teach need to listen, else they won't know what their hearers' questions are. Yes, it's arguable that the Magisterium in recent years hasn't always been good at listening. But, I would suggest, the heart of the problem, which I wouldn't want to write off as mere skeleton, is the growing denial that the Church through the Pope can speak definitively. "Dissent" from what is defined by the Church to be believed by the faithful includes an element of tragedy; if it doesn't, then we cannot affirm that the Holy Spirit prevents, at this level, the Church's slipping into error. If I had to climb out on a limb and say which is the greater problem for Catholics today, the Magisterium's failure to listen or the faithful's relativizing even of the Church's power authentically to communicate the deposit of faith, I think you'd know where to find me. But, unlike the Church on matters de fide, I could be wrong.
Patrick, that may all be fine as far as the skeleton of doctrine goes – but I think the pastoral dynamic has been fleshed out a bit more. Novo Millennio Inuente n.45 seems to be a little closer to Steve’s hope for “a community of discourse, . . . an ongoing collaborative effort”:
To this end, we need to make our own the ancient pastoral wisdom which, without prejudice to their authority, encouraged Pastors to listen more widely to the entire People of God. Significant is Saint Benedict’s reminder to the Abbot of a monastery, inviting him to consult even the youngest members of the community: "By the Lord’s inspiration, it is often a younger person who knows what is best".30 And Saint Paulinus of Nola urges: "Let us listen to what all the faithful say, because in every one of them the Spirit of God breathes".31
While the wisdom of the law, by providing precise rules for participation, attests to the hierarchical structure of the Church and averts any temptation to arbitrariness or unjustified claims, the spirituality of communion, by prompting a trust and openness wholly in accord with the dignity and responsibility of every member of the People of God, supplies institutional reality with a soul.
Amy
Further to Steve's post of Dec. 8, I am taking it for granted that we affirm that there is such a thing as truth and that we believe that it will set us free. The question, then, is what the Church says about those who through no fault of their own are not in conformity with the truth. Gaudium et spes provides this answer: "Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems. . . . Hence, the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups rurn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct. Yet it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing its dignity." This is good news for the involuntarily erring conscience, I suppose; it does, after all, occur in a document called Gaudium et spes. But the good news does not change the fact that the subjectively innocent conscience at issue remains in error, and, as I mentioned before, that error can lead to ontic harm. But the simple fact of being in error is already somehow to be unfree; the dignity possessed by the involuntarily erroneous conscience beckons onward to the truth. Until his conscience is correct, the person is in some sense perplexus; without the truth, freedom is compromised. What the Church wants for all people is that they be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:4). But why should be look to the Church for the truth in matters of faith and morals? Because the hierarchical teaching office is that of the bishops in communion with the pope; the Second Vatican Council denies, along with the whole tradition, that the laity have the power authoritatively to teach on matters of faith or morals. See Lumen gentium; and Dei verbum 10. According to Vatican I, papal definitions of doctrine are not invalid without the "consent of the Church." See DS 3074 (Which is not to say that sometimes the magisterium is not sometimes moved to use its teaching power in new ways on account of the stimulus of the laity. See J. Robert Dionne, The Papacy and the Church: A Study of Praxis and Reception in Ecumenical Perspective (1987)). But again, why look to the Church? Here Karl Rahner is helpful in preempting a certain regress: "Catholic theology sees and affirms that the institutional element in the Church does not ultimately function on its own. The assurance comes only from the Spirit, who is never simply identified with any institution, and this is the reason why one can rely with confidence on the permanent maintenance of the institution. This is no point, therefore, in arguing against the primacy and against the doctrine given in the Constitution [on the Church, Lumen gentium], on the synondal structure of the Church that it leaves it open to the Pope to do everything autocratically in the end and to exclude the college of of bishops in practice. The simple answer is that he 'can' do so, but he will not. The Catholic does not demand a juridical norm by which the Pope could be impeached, he relies on the power of the grace of God and of the Holy Spirit in the Church . . . ." (1967). Finally, not everything proposed by the Church must be believed by the faithful, of course; the definitions concerning what must be believed by faithful Catholics are important, but for the most part they are overlooked in arguments driven by the desirability of "dissent." Frequently, in my experience, people feel moved to "dissent" from teachings that are not in fact proposed by the Church as part of the deposit of revelation. See canon 750. (As something of a contrarian myself, I see the pleasure in it -- don't get me wrong)! In any event, the obligation of conscience is always to seek the truth and to adhere to it as known. Given the Church's teaching, mentioned above, that the magisterium does not depend upon the laity for the valid exercise of its teaching function, I cannot agree with Steve's aspiration for the Church as a "community of discourse, . . . an ongoing collaborative effort" in search of the truth. Outside the Church, collaboration and discourse seem to be the method by which truth enters. Within the Church, according to the Church, the magisterium does not share its teaching function with the laity (though, as I said above, sometimes the magisterium is moved by the learning of the faithful). According to Lumen gentium (37), the laity "should accept whatever their sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, decree in their role as teachers and rulers of the Church." I do not suggest that this is always easy to do.
I have family in San Bernadino, but I learn of this via Amy Welborn's blog Open Book, which owes it to The Press-Enterprise in San Bernardino, CA:
The Diocese of San Bernardino today will hold what experts say could
be one of the few Roman Catholic heresy trials in U.S. history.
The priest on trial refuses to attend the hearing, which he calls
"medieval and totally un-Christian."
"It's like the Inquisition has returned," said the Rev. Ned Reidy, of
Bermuda Dunes, who also is charged with schism.
The church defines heresy as the denial of a church truth and schism
as the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or church
leaders.
If the diocesan tribunal concludes that Reidy committed heresy and
schism, he will be formally excommunicated from the church -- although
the Vatican believes no one can ever fully lose his priesthood. Heresy
is the same charge that Galileo faced for defying church teaching.
Reidy, 69, does not deny the principal allegations against him: that
he left the Roman Catholic Church for another religion and espouses
teachings that violate church doctrine.
Reidy served 19 years as pastor of Christ of the Desert Roman Catholic
parish in Palm Desert before resigning from the Order of the Holy
Cross in 1999 to join the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, which does
not recognize the Vatican's authority and has beliefs that Reidy said
are more in synch with his own. In 2000, Reidy founded an Ecumenical
Catholic parish in Bermuda Dunes, just east of Palm Desert. It is one
of 18 Ecumenical Catholic parishes nationwide.
The denomination, based in the city of Orange, holds more liberal
views than the Vatican on issues such as divorce, birth control and
homosexuality, and it ordains married, female, divorced and gay
priests.
Reidy was automatically excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church
when he joined the Ecumenical Catholic Communion. The diocese is
holding the heresy and schism trial because some Roman Catholics might
still believe Reidy is a practicing Roman Catholic priest, said the
Rev. Howard Lincoln, spokesman for the diocese. Reidy's current church
is only a few miles from his old Roman Catholic parish, Lincoln said.
"He is still using the term 'Catholic' in quotes, in advertising and
on the Internet," he said. "Because of the confusion in not
differentiating between his church and the Roman Catholic Church, the
diocese felt we must proceed with this official action in order to
make that distinction."
Reidy said he severed his ties to the Roman Catholic Church when he
resigned from his order. The homepage of Reidy's current parish,
Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ, states: "We are a
Non-Roman-Catholic Community."
The diocese issued a letter in April 2000 shortly after Reidy founded
the Pathfinder parish warning Roman Catholics not to attend his
services or retreats. Reidy said several parishioners from his former
Roman Catholic parish, Christ of the Desert, have followed him to
Pathfinder.
The letter states that Roman Catholics who participate in a Mass or
other rites associated with groups such as Ecumenical Catholics would
suffer "serious spiritual harm."
Earlier Trial in Corona
Lincoln said the diocese has held one previous heresy trial. That one
involved the Rev. Anthony Garduno, formerly of St. Edward parish in
Corona.
The diocese held the trial because Garduno in 1996 formed a church in
Corona with beliefs similar to the Ecumenical Catholic Communion.
Garduno left St. Edward after 1993 allegations that he had asked a man
to strip during premarriage counseling.
Although Garduno said there was a church trial against him in 2003, he
insisted it was not for heresy, but for not being in union with the
pope. He said the documents he received in 2003 on the trial did not
mention the word "schism" either.
Garduno said he did not attend the hearing because the diocese no
longer has jurisdiction over him.
Lawrence Cunningham, a professor of theology at the University of
Notre Dame in Indiana and an expert on church history, said he is
unaware of Catholic heresy trials in the United States outside the San
Bernardino diocese. Several other Roman Catholic scholars said they,
too, are unaware of other U.S. trials.
Monsignor Thomas Green, a professor of canon law at The Catholic
University of America in Washington, D.C., said such trials in modern
times are rare worldwide.
"By and large, once you get past the Council of Trent and the 1600s
and 1700s, you don't hear much about it," he said.
Heresy trials can occur at the Vatican or in a diocesan court. Green
said the last time the Vatican itself formally excommunicated a priest
for heresy was in 1997, when the Rev. Tissa Balasuriya of Sri Lanka
was denounced for his views on original sin. Balasuriya later
reconciled with the Vatican.
The one-day closed trial of Reidy is being held today in the Halls of
the Tribunal at the diocese's San Bernardino headquarters. Three
diocesan priests will serve as judges at the trial, which will also
include other diocesan officials. A ruling is expected within several
days, Lincoln said.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which outlines Vatican doctrine,
defines heresy as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth."
Green said that means the rejection of fundamental matters of faith,
such as the Holy Trinity or the virgin birth of Jesus. The catechism
defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff."
In a June 15 document delineating the accusations, Stephen Osborn,
promoter of justice for the diocese, wrote that Reidy committed
"offenses against the Christian faithful by espousing and teaching
matters contrary to divine law and to the universal law of the
Catholic Church."
Among other things, Osborn cites the Ecumenical Catholic church's
refusal to accept the infallibility of the pope, its blessing of
same-sex unions and its ordination of women.
Bishop Peter Hickman, the Ecumenical Catholic denomination's leader,
said the language in Osborn's missive is offensive.
"The cold, mean-spirited tone of the letter makes you think this was
from a few centuries ago," he said.
Lincoln said the letter is worded carefully to be in accordance with canon
law.
Green, the Catholic University canon law expert, said heresy trials
occurred "not infrequently" through the 1600s, although there are no
reliable statistics on the exact number.
Perhaps the most famous heresy trial was the one in 1633 against
Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolves around the sun. He was
sentenced to lifelong house arrest.
Others found guilty of heresy during inquisitions from the 12th to
19th centuries suffered penalties as severe as torture or death.
Frank Flinn, an adjunct professor of religious studies at Washington
University in St. Louis and a former Roman Catholic friar, predicted
that the San Bernardino trial will backfire and publicize a
little-known denomination that might appeal to disenchanted Roman
Catholics looking for a liberal alternative that preserves Catholic
rituals.
Left to Avoid Reassignment
Reidy said he joined the Ecumenical Catholic Communion because the
Holy Cross order planned to reassign him and he did not want to leave
the desert. The order typically limits a priest's stay in one parish
to 12 years.
In 2003, the Holy Cross order formally dismissed Reidy, said the Rev.
Ken Molinaro, assistant provincial for the order.
Reidy, who was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest in 1962, said he
had long questioned church teachings on the ordination of women and
other issues. However, he said, he would have stayed at Christ of the
Desert indefinitely because he had a long history there, liked his
parishioners and was able to take "a progressive approach" to liturgy
and ministry.
Most of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion's 35 priests are former
Roman Catholic priests, Hickman said.
Lincoln said the diocese is not taking action against other Ecumenical
priests because it is unaware of any others who had been pastors in
the diocese.
The Rev. John Coughlin, a law professor at Notre Dame and an expert in
canon law, said although the trial can be conducted at the diocesan
level, Reidy would have the right to appeal any ruling to the Vatican.
Reidy said he has no plans to do so because an appeal would give the
decision legitimacy.
Coughlin said there are less drastic ways for the diocese to make it
clear that Reidy is no longer a Roman Catholic priest.
"It doesn't make sense if he's left the priesthood and left the
Catholic Church for him to be tried," Coughlin said. "It seems to me
it could be achieved by a simple statement by the bishop that the
priest is no longer a Roman Catholic priest."
New York Times
December 13, 2005
Pope Says War No Excuse for Human Rights Abuses
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said in an annual peace message on Tuesday that countries have a duty to respect international humanitarian law even if they are at war.
In the first peace message of his pontificate, he also appealed for worldwide nuclear disarmament and said countries considering acquiring such weapons should ``change their course.''
In the message for the Church's World Day of Peace, celebrated on January 1, he also strongly condemned terrorism but said the world community should look deeper into its political, social, cultural, religious and ideological motivations.
In one part of the message, which is sent to heads of state and international organizations, the Pope said war could not be an excuse for disregarding international humanitarian law.
``The truth of peace must also let its beneficial light shine even amid the tragedy of war,'' he said, re-enforcing his stand by quoting from another Vatican document that said ``not everything automatically becomes permissible between hostile parties once war has regrettably commenced.''
In the 12-page message, called ``In Truth, Peace,'' he said the Holy See was convinced international humanitarian law had to be respected ``even in the midst of war.''
The Pope did not name any countries or wars but his words followed controversy over reports of abuse of prisoners by the United States in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay.
The reports have incensed U.S. adversaries and alienated some allies. Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came under pressure in Europe over reports of secret CIA prisons on the continent.
Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department, told reporters at the presentation of the message that the Pope's words applied to all wars. Asked if Iraq was included, he said: ``That's correct.''
TRUTH IN LAW
In his message, the Pope called international humanitarian law one of the finest expressions of truth.
``Precisely for this reason, respect for that law must be considered binding on all peoples,'' he said.
International humanitarian law ``must be brought up to date by precise norms applicable to the changing scenarios of today's armed conflicts and the use of ever newer and more sophisticated weapons,'' he added.
Washington says the Geneva Convention does not apply to foreign captives in its war on terrorism, but human rights activists say it is still bound by the 1984 U.N. Convention against Torture to which it is a signatory.
Asked if the Pope was singling out the United States for condemnation, Martino said: ``The Holy Father states this and is not condemning anybody but is inviting them to observe the Geneva Convention.''
President George W. Bush has said the United States does not practice torture, or send suspects to countries that do.
Asked if the Church could condone torture as a means to stop terrorist attacks, Martino said: ``Torture is a humiliation of the human person, whoever he is. The Church does not admit it ... there are other means to make people talk.''
Last week a group of American Roman Catholic peace activists held a march to the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo, Cuba, protesting conditions for terrorism suspects.
In another part of the message, the Pope said the
possession of nuclear weapons by any country for security was
''not only baneful but also completely fallacious'' because there
would be no winners in a nuclear war.
_______________
mp
Nick Cafardi, erstwhile dean of the Duquesne U. School of Law and an emiment canonist, was at Villanova Law last week to continue our series on the Philadelphia Grand Jury's report on the Archdiocese. Cafardi's excellent paper answered many questions that had come up in our earlier session, which Mark and I mentioned here, led by Jim Post (Boston U. and founder of Voice of the Faithful), Chuck Zech (Villanova, economics), and Mark himself. Specifically, Cafardi avers that if Holy Mother Church had followed her own law, no grand jury anywhere would have had any work to do. Cafardi explained that can. 1717 requires investigations of a sort systematically avoided in Philadelphia when allegations of a delict reached the chancery; the canon creates a right in the putative victim to have the matter investigated by the bishop (or his delegate). Cafardi further explained that, subject to can. 1341, can. 1718 would require a bishop, who, having investigated, has reason to believe a delict involving abuse by a priest of a youth has occurred, to proceed to a canonical trial that could result in the imposition of a just canonical penalty. Can. 1341 prefers the use of "fraternal correction" where that can sufficiently "restore justice," but the tradition stretching back through all the centuries, Cafardi demonstrated, is against the idea that fraternal correction is sufficient in cases of this sort. It was suggested by a member of the audience that the bishops who utterly disregarded canon law are themselves unprosecuted canonical criminals; the Apostolic See would have to initiate their prosecution. Cafardi emphasized that while the canon law acknowledges the right of the faithful to have their canoncial rights (e.g., to have a canonical crime investigated and prosecuted) vindicated (see can. 221), canon law is sorely lacking in procedures that would allow the faithful to see those rights vindicated. Apparently, a penultimate draft of the 1983 Code included "administrative recourse" procedures that would have give given the faithful some opportunity to seek the vindication of their canonical rights.
Is it surprising that, in a (Catholic) culture that increasingly denies the divinely-ordained hierarchical structure of that perfect and juridically-structured society that is the Church, the bishops would fail to act in a way that would require them to acknowledge their munus as law-bound rulers of the Church?
Thanks, Rick, for the report of Pope Benedict’s comments about the “pollution” of Christmas, and the connections to John Nagle’s work on “pollution” defined broadly as “unwanted influence.”
In picking through some of the recent “Christmas Wars” press and in other more informal conversations, I have noticed a tendency to collapse two issues: first, the commercialization of Christmas, and second, the cultural questions which arise in a pluralistic society with the celebration of a major religious holiday.
When the two issues are collapsed, the dynamic in the conversation sometimes goes like this: I am going to insist on saying “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays,” and support public and statements and displays that focus on Christmas rather than a generic “holiday season” in order to redeem the true meaning of this season.
It seems to me that it might be helpful to clarify that the “unwanted influence” that “pollutes” Christmas is not the diversity of faith traditions in our culture, but excessive consumerism and commercialism that distracts Christians from focusing—and perhaps even communicating to others—the poverty and simplicity at the heart of the message of Christmas.
I was struck by the locus of Pope Benedict’s constructive solution to the “pollution” of Christmas —to clean up our own act: assembling the Nativity scene in the home—focused on passing on the faith to one’s children. Not on insisting that Macy’s says “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays.” And certainly not in promoting a cultural turf war which fails to acknowledge and respect the diversity of faith traditions, or is insensitive to the extent to which the very public displays of a Christian message at this time of year could make non-Christians feel uncomfortable or excluded.
Over the next few weeks, I will work hard to redeem the heart of Christmas by keeping a check on the extent to which consumerism has crept into my own attitudes and expectations. At the same time, I will also refrain from wishing a “Merry Christmas” to my Jewish, Muslim, and agnostic friends. Both, I think, are consistent with what Christmas is all about.
Amy
Monday, December 12, 2005
"More Black Families Homeschooling," reports the Washington Post:
Denise Armstrong decided to home school her daughter and two sons because she thought she could do a better job of instilling her values in her children than a public school could. And while she once found herself the lone black parent at home-education gatherings that usually were dominated by white Christian evangelicals, she's noticed more black parents joining the ranks.
"I've been delighted to be running into people in the African-American home-schooling community," Armstrong said.
Home-school advocates say the apparent increase in black families opting to educate their children at home reflects a wider desire among families of all races to guide their children's moral upbringing, along with growing concerns about issues such as sub-par school conditions and preserving cultural heritage.
I'm inclined to think that home-schooling -- done right -- is the best way to raise and form a really well-educated young person. I also know that I am not up to it. Still, I think the freedom and right to home-school is essential -- it's something of a "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to gauging authentic freedom, it seems to me. So, stories along the lines of "Home-schooling: It's not just for 'fundamentalists' anymore" are welcome. What is not welcome, though, are arguments like this:
Apple, the Wisconsin professor, said improving public education for the greatest number of students depends on mass mobilization by concerned parents, but he raises a cautionary note.
"They're trying as hard as they possibly can to protect their children, and for that they must be applauded," Apple said. "But in the long run, protecting their own children may even lead to worse conditions for the vast majority of students who stay in public schools, and that's a horrible dilemma."
I've never understood the appeal of the argument that poor children should be denied opportunities to escape (via vouchers, home-schooling, etc.) failing and failure-generating public schools because the departure of some kids would make things even worse for those kids who stayed behind. More precisely, I have never been able to get past the gall of those who insist that other peoples' children have an obligation to stay in schools to which those making the argument would never condemn their own children. (This is not, to be clear, to deny the importance of "solidarity.")
At a time when the "Christmas wars" are raging -- the current argument du jour seems to be the (implausible) one that, in fact, we are not seeing a scrubbing out of "Christmas" from the "season" -- Pope Benedict XVI weighed in the other day with an interesting take. As the Washington Post reports, "Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that Christmas festivities have been polluted by consumerism and suggested that assembling the Nativity scene in the home is an effective way of teaching the faith to children."
The use of the word "pollution" is an interesting one here, I think. Do any of my MOJ colleagues or MOJ readers write or know much about environmental law? Does the word evoke any special meanings for you?
The Pope continued:
"In today's consumer society, this time (of the year) is unfortunately subjected to a sort of commercial 'pollution' that is in danger of altering its true spirit, which is characterized by meditation, sobriety and by a joy that is not exterior but intimate," the pope said in his traditional Sunday blessing.
My colleague and friend John Nagle has written and thought a lot about the idea of "pollution." Check this out.
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
