Sunday, May 6, 2012
Commencement Speaker Controversy
No, not that Commencement speaker controversy. That Commencement speaker controversy I understand. It's relatively simple: The left-liberals who run the show at Georgetown have found a way to signal to the world that the nation's oldest Catholic, and most famous Jesuit, university stands with the Obama administration in its war (to use, if I recall correctly, Kathleen Sebelius's own word) against the Catholic bishops and others who oppose the HHS mandate as a violation of religious freedom and the rights of conscience (you know, the enemies of women's "reproductive health"). By honoring Secretary Sebelius, they can help to undermine the bishops' credibility and blunt the force of their witness as leaders of the Catholic church. I get it. It's a bold and clever move. Although I find its substance appalling, I can't help but admire its shrewdness.
But, no, I mean a different Commencement speaker controversy.
My friend and former colleague on the President's Council on Bioethics, Dr. Benjamin Carson of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, is, to put it simply, one of the most distinguished people in the world. His feats in the field of neurosurgery are literally the stuff of legend. His life story is nothing short of inspiring. See here: http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422?page=1 His works of philanthropy are remarkable in both their generosity and their impact on the lives of people in need. See, for example, here: http://carsonscholars.org/ If there were a Nobel Prize in Human Excellence, Ben (who already has the Presidential Medal of Freedom among countless other honors) would be among the first laureates.
But a controversy has broken out at Emory University, where Ben is scheduled to give the Commencement Address and recieve an honorary degree. What is it about Ben Carson that would cause five hundred people---faculty members, students, alumni---to sign a letter of "concern" about him as the Commencement speaker? Well, it turns out that he is an academic heretic. He doesn't believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution. Perhaps he doesn't believe in evolution at all. And he argues that belief in Darwinian evolution, or any form of pure materialism, undermines the basis of ethics.
In their letter of "concern," warning unwary people about the heretical Commencement speaker, Dr. Carson's critics place particular emphasis on this last point. They are upset that he must consider people who believe in Darwinism to be unethical. That's insulting. That's exclusionary. Etc., etc.
But of course Gentle Ben (and he is indeed one of the gentlest, kindest people one could ever meet) doesn't believe that his Darwinist friends and colleagues are necessarily unethical. What he believes is that Darwinism is necessarily materialistic. (This is a view about Darwinism that he shares with some devout Darwinists themselves.) And he believes that materialism, if true, is incompatible with free will and with ethical norms (which must be, after all, norms for the guidance of free choices, if they are to have any standing, force, and validity at all). Now, he knows perfectly well that people who believe in materialism are in many cases decent, honorable, ethical people. But he thinks that they lead lives that are much better than their formal philosophical beliefs would require them to lead. He believes that their commitment to materialism makes it impossible for them to give a sound account of the ethical norms which they themselves, to their credit, live by. Of course, he might be wrong about that (though I don't think he is), just as he might be wrong about the validity of Darwinism as a scientific theory, or the compatility of Darwinism with the rejection of materialism. But it's certainly not a mean or crazy thing to believe or say. It's scarcely a cause for "concern" about having him as a Commencement speaker.
I do wish that more contemporary liberals would be a bit more, well, liberal when it comes to tolerating dissent from the orthodoxies of their faith. Or else I wish they would abandon the pretence of being liberals in the old-fashioned sense and declare their faith to be the equivalent of a religion from which various forms of dissent are simply not to be tolerated. Although I would prefer the former course of action, either course would have the virtue of bringing liberal practice and liberal theory better into line with each other.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
"[What] the Church's educational institutions should be the first to acknowledge"
Today's news that Kathleen Sebelius is about to deliver a commencement address at Georgetown University should be measured against this morning's words of the Holy Father in his fourth of an intended five addresses to the U.S. bishops in their visit ad limina apostolorum:
"On the level of higher education, many of you have pointed to a growing recognition on the part of Catholic colleges and universities of the need to reaffirm their distinctive identity in fidelity to their founding ideals and the Church’s mission in service of the Gospel. Yet much remains to be done, especially in such basic areas as compliance with the mandate laid down in Canon 812 for those who teach theological disciplines. The importance of this canonical norm as a tangible expression of ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate becomes all the more evident when we consider the confusion created by instances of apparent dissidence between some representatives of Catholic institutions and the Church’s pastoral leadership: such discord harms the Church’s witness and, as experience has shown, can easily be exploited to compromise her authority and her freedom.
It is no exaggeration to say that providing young people with a sound education in the faith represents the most urgent internal challenge facing the Catholic community in your country. The deposit of faith is a priceless treasure which each generation must pass on to the next by winning hearts to Jesus Christ and shaping minds in the knowledge, understanding and love of his Church. It is gratifying to realize that, in our day too, the Christian vision, presented in its breadth and integrity, proves immensely appealing to the imagination, idealism and aspirations of the young, who have a right to encounter the faith in all its beauty, its intellectual richness and its radical demands.
Here I would simply propose several points which I trust will prove helpful for your discernment in meeting this challenge.
First, as we know, the essential task of authentic education at every level is not simply that of passing on knowledge, essential as this is, but also of shaping hearts. There is a constant need to balance intellectual rigor in communicating effectively, attractively and integrally, the richness of the Church’s faith with forming the young in the love of God, the praxis of the Christian moral and sacramental life and, not least, the cultivation of personal and liturgical prayer.
It follows that the question of Catholic identity, not least at the university level, entails much more than the teaching of religion or the mere presence of a chaplaincy on campus. All too often, it seems, Catholic schools and colleges have failed to challenge students to reappropriate their faith as part of the exciting intellectual discoveries which mark the experience of higher education. The fact that so many new students find themselves dissociated from the family, school and community support systems that previously facilitated the transmission of the faith should continually spur Catholic institutions of learning to create new and effective networks of support. In every aspect of their education, students need to be encouraged to articulate a vision of the harmony of faith and reason capable of guiding a life-long pursuit of knowledge and virtue. As ever, an essential role in this process is played by teachers who inspire others by their evident love of Christ, their witness of sound devotion and their commitment to that sapientia Christiana which integrates faith and life, intellectual passion and reverence for the splendor of truth both human and divine.
In effect, faith by its very nature demands a constant and all-embracing conversion to the fullness of truth revealed in Christ. He is the creative Logos, in whom all things were made and in whom all reality "holds together" (Col 1:17); he is the new Adam who reveals the ultimate truth about man and the world in which we live. In a period of great cultural change and societal displacement not unlike our own, Augustine pointed to this intrinsic connection between faith and the human intellectual enterprise by appealing to Plato, who held, he says, that "to love wisdom is to love God" (cf. De Civitate Dei, VIII, 8). The Christian commitment to learning, which gave birth to the medieval universities, was based upon this conviction that the one God, as the source of all truth and goodness, is likewise the source of the intellect’s passionate desire to know and the will’s yearning for fulfilment in love.
Only in this light can we appreciate the distinctive contribution of Catholic education, which engages in a "diakonia of truth" inspired by an intellectual charity which knows that leading others to the truth is ultimately an act of love (cf. Address to Catholic Educators, Washington, 17 April 2008). Faith’s recognition of the essential unity of all knowledge provides a bulwark against the alienation and fragmentation which occurs when the use of reason is detached from the pursuit of truth and virtue; in this sense, Catholic institutions have a specific role to play in helping to overcome the crisis of universities today. Firmly grounded in this vision of the intrinsic interplay of faith, reason and the pursuit of human excellence, every Christian intellectual and all the Church’s educational institutions must be convinced, and desirous of convincing others, that no aspect of reality remains alien to, or untouched by, the mystery of the redemption and the Risen Lord’s dominion over all creation.
During my Pastoral Visit to the United States, I spoke of the need for the Church in America to cultivate "a mindset, an intellectual culture which is genuinely Catholic" (cf. Homily at Nationals Stadium, Washington, 17 April 2008). Taking up this task certainly involves a renewal of apologetics and an emphasis on Catholic distinctiveness; ultimately however it must be aimed at proclaiming the liberating truth of Christ and stimulating greater dialogue and cooperation in building a society ever more solidly grounded in an authentic humanism inspired by the Gospel and faithful to the highest values of America’s civic and cultural heritage. At the present moment of your nation’s history, this is the challenge and opportunity awaiting the entire Catholic community, and it is one which the Church’s educational institutions should be the first to acknowledge and embrace."
Thank God for this instruction. When will the hierarchy in the U.S. wake up and call universities such as Georgetown to do what the Holy Father instructs them to do? The U.S. Bishops must call Georgetown and other Catholic colleges and universities to account for -- and repent of -- their rejection of their mission in the Church, to the Church, and to all those who seek the truth with a sincere heart. The principal problem with the choice of Sebelius as a commencement speaker at Georgetown is not her errors as such. Catholic universities can and should be places of critical intellectual engagement among all those who have a voice to contribute to the search for and recognition of the truth. Timing, circumstances, context, and purpose matter. Commencement speakers are not lecturers or participants in conference dialogue. Sebelius is, it appears, the leading federal government official, after the President himself, currently engaged in a public war against the rights and interests of the American Catholic Church, the likes of which we haven't seen before. Yet Georgetown has just elevated her to its commencement podium. The surpassing problem with this invitation is its symbolic slap in the face of the Bishops and all those faithful who, in these darkening times for the liberty of the Church in the U.S., have rallied to defend the truth of that liberty against the Administration's apparent willingness to reduce and decompose the Church, bit by regulated bit, to a fully compliant government subdivision. (Complete "congruence" is what the political theorists call the ideal in their disarming euphemism). This symbolic injury will assure greater injuries.
Friday, May 4, 2012
"The Ending of an Academic Year"
I read Fr. James Schall's "Another Sort of Learning" in college, and it has enriched my life incredibly, by pointing me to, and helping me think about, so many authors and books that, say, East Anchorage High School didn't say much about. He is a treasure. Here are some reflections by him on "The Ending of an Academic Year."
"Jon Will's Gift"
A very moving piece by George Will, about his son, Jon, who has Down syndrome and who is celebrating his 40th birthday. A (sobering) bit:
. . . In 1972, people with Down syndrome were still commonly called Mongoloids.
Now they are called American citizens, about 400,000 of them, and their life expectancy is 60. Much has improved. There has, however, been moral regression as well.
Jon was born just 19 years after James Watson and Francis Crick published their discoveries concerning the structure of DNA, discoveries that would enhance understanding of the structure of Jon, whose every cell is imprinted with Down syndrome. Jon was born just as prenatal genetic testing, which can detect Down syndrome, was becoming common. And Jon was born eight months before Roe v. Wade inaugurated this era of the casual destruction of pre-born babies. . . .
RALS conference, part 2: Why did God make the Fly?
Winters on Brad Gregory's "Unintended Reformation"
Michael Sean Winters reviews enthusiastically the new book by my friend and colleague, Brad Gregory (I read the book in draft, and think it's outstanding):
. . . Gregory, who teaches history at Notre Dame, seeks to show how the changes wrought by the Reformation unintentionally led to the ideological, social, political, intellectual and economic consequences that still shape the world in which we live today, and, especially, how the internal contradictions of our current world appear incapable of resolving themselves unless we reacquaint ourselves with the historical context, and the historical choices, from which those contradictions emerged. . ..
Law 'n' Economics, Charity [i]n Truth
Tim Cantu, a student in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" seminar, shared these thoughts, prompted by Judge Posner's recent lecture at Notre Dame Law School:
Judge Richard Posner recently spoke at Notre Dame Law School to a Law & Economics Seminar and addressed the failure of the modern schools of macroeconomics to adequately predict or react to the 2008 financial crisis. The talk did not touch directly or indirectly on Catholic Social Thought—as a classics major, I’m not entirely sure what it was about—but an offhand remark by the Judge caught my attention. “The tone of political discourse,” he said, “is worse than I have ever seen it in this country.” The Judge has certainly lived through some trying times in this country, and it was notable to me that he believes our national attitude has never been as bad as it is now.
I agree with the Judge, though as a fresh-faced 23-year-old college graduate who has never written a book on Law and Economics or decided a Federal Appellate Court Case, no one cares particularly about my opinion. But the Judge and I are not alone in this opinion; indeed, there seems to be a growing national consensus that the tone of political discourse is that nasty and vitriolic. This is hardly to say it has never been worse, or that there have not been isolated incidents worse than (almost) anything said or written today (to my knowledge, no one has recently written of an opponent, as John Adams did of Alexander Hamilton, that “He’s the bastard brat of a Scotch peddler. A man devoid of every principle.”). But generally, each side of the political divide believes the other to be wholly devoid of principle and hellbent on the destruction of America (or women’s rights, or the Civil Rights movement, or unborn children… ad infinitum.)
This is a troubling trend for Catholics. We are called, of course, to participate as faithful citizens—faithful to both our faith and our country as we seek to infuse the secular realm with Christian principles. But the title of Pope Benedict’s recent encyclical should prove highly instructive (in addition to the lessons within, of course): Caritas in Veritate. One may believe in perfect honesty that democrats (or republicans) are wrong about every single policy they propose (though one would also be mistaken in either case). Such a belief would require an effort to persuade them of their error, and work to combat evil or ill-advised policies. This correction should always presume, however, that you and your opposition are seeking the common good in good faith and with the best interest of society at heart. Charity in Truth is, I think, one of the most needed lessons in the modern political realm.
Nondiscrimination, sexual orientation, and Catholic universities
A student in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" class composed and shared this post:
I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss, in light of our recent discussion of Catholic universities, Notre Dame’s recent affirmance of its decision not to add sexual orientation to the university’s nondiscrimination clause. This is an extremely hot-button issue on campus. Surprisingly (at least to me), from the reaction in the Observer and my own observations, a majority of students seem to be in favor of making the change. I have always supported Notre Dame’s decision on institutional freedom grounds (even before I knew that this was the argument I made), but now pose the question of whether we can maintain our status as a meaningfully Catholic university if we make the change, and the corollary, whether we can maintain our status as a well-regarded research university if we continue to resist the change?
There are interesting arguments on both sides. Many people believe that Notre Dame’s low undergraduate peer-assessment scores on the US News & World Report ranking indicate a bias in the academic community against our supposedly “backward” policies. Still others believe that talented high school students who would otherwise consider attending are scared off by our lack of recognition of the LGBQT community. Both of these are supposedly holding us back from being an “elite” university.
On the administration’s side, of course, is the assertion that Notre Dame’s identity as a truly Catholic university would be compromised by such a move. I think that this far more accurate than many believe. While we can still plausibly claim to be Catholic, how much more can we sacrifice in the name of secular recognition? Of course, we are still instructed to treat all human beings in accord with their dignity; the only practical effect of the nondiscrimination clause is that Notre Dame does not have to recognize student organizations with LGBQT ties. The downside of not including it is far worse; it would lead us further along the road of becoming just another secularized, Catholic-in-name only, university. There is something much more to being a Catholic university than simply having a majority of Catholic students or some Catholic faculty. If we someday forget this, we are heading down the wrong road and being influenced by secular pressure to conform to the popular image of the university.
In sum, the students and faculty that come to Notre Dame generally come here because of, not in spite of, our Catholicism. Our goal is not simply to have a group of students with high standardized test scores, but to accomplish our mission. Should we have to lose a few spots in USNWR or median SAT scores to do that, it is a trade worth making.
Forgiveness, compassion, and Catholic Social Thought
A student in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" class passes on these thoughts:
On April 27th, Pope Benedict XVI said the following in a message to the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences: “Forgiveness is not the denial of wrong-doing, but a participation in the healing and transforming love of God which reconciles and restores.” In studying and discussing Catholic Social Thought, we most frequently hear terms like subsidiarity, solidarity, autonomy, and faith. Obviously these are critical concepts in asserting the truth and power of the Catholic social doctrine, but I think Benedict makes a powerful point by revitalizing the role of forgiveness in the Church’s compassionate social mission.
When proselytizing a revealed transcendent truth like that at the heart of CST, one is subject to a certain haughtiness. It is the arrogance of the zealous believer, one who possesses the right faith but forgets the sympathy, forgiveness, and compassion that should come with it. This self-righteousness is a far greater obstacle to the success of CST than any actual doctrinal differences or disagreements. It is this superciliousness that in part angers so many regarding the host of child abuse scandals. Catholic Social Thought will find no purchase in the secular world if non-Catholics constantly feel talked down to rather than engaged, and the Church will continue to work against the world rather than with it.
Forgiveness is the first step in preventing the erection of this wall of arrogance. As we write about the sacred value of the family, the necessary autonomy of the Church, and virtues of faithful citizenship, we need to remember the exhortations of St. Augustine, St. Anselm and Pope Benedict XVI that we are forgiven only as we forgive. The Lord’s Prayer is a daily reminder of this divine mandate for humility and universal compassion. Imagine how much better we can infuse the temporal order, how much more authentic and credible the Church’s message of sympathy and grace will be, and how much better enabled we shall be to create good works through the law and throughout society when we can learn to first humbly ask for forgiveness and freely forgive. The need for forgiveness, the very flaw inherent in all of humanity, is at the very heart of the moral anthropology of Catholic Social Thought. We should bear that in mind, as we bear our burdens and those of others throughout the world. “Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, these things I will do unto you and not forsake you.”
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
