Friday, April 27, 2012
A Catholic brain trust?
Some (more) thoughts about Church and State
This is just a follow-up to Fr. Araujo's very helpful post the other day on John Courtney Murray and church-state relations. As Matthew Cantirino noted, over at First Things, the upshot of Fr. Araujo's post is that "separation is not indifference." Fr. Araujo noted, among other things:
. . . The fact that the Church and State are different and distinct does not necessarily imply that they cannot have a relationship. Moreover, separation is not synonymous with indifference. Why? Both the Church and the State have a critical interest in the common good and its furtherance. . . .
This is a point that I also tried to develop, in this short tribute-essay for my colleague, Prof. Robert Rodes (an amazing scholar who was, in fact, cited in John Courtney Murray's We Hold These Truths). The paper is called "Pluralism, Dialogue, and Freedom," and it focuses in part on Rodes's use of the term "nexus", rather than "wall of separation", when talking about church-state relations:
A “nexus,” according to my dictionary, is a “means of connection; a link or tie.” It suggests a relation, even a symbiosis, between two distinct things—neither a collapse of one into the other nor a rigid segregation of the one from the other. The term captures well, then, Rodes’s thinking about church, state, and society. As his friend Professor Thomas Shaffer put it, “the foundation of [Rodes’s] church-state theory is that the two are so intertwined—so much the remnant of Christendom—that they could not part even if they wanted to.” This is, Shaffer notes, a “strikingly unique position” in the church-state field.
Five years ago on MOJ: "Religion and the Common Good"
On April 27, 2007, I posted this:
Here's Archbishop Chaput, on "religion and the common good." A bit:
Only one question really matters. Does God exist or not? If he does, that has implications for every aspect of our personal and public behavior: all of our actions, all of our choices, all of our decisions. If God exists, denying him in our public life—whether we do it explicitly like Nietzsche or implicitly by our silence—cannot serve the common good, because it amounts to worshiping the unreal in the place of the real. . . .
We most truly serve the common good by having the courage to be disciples of Jesus Christ. God gave us a free will, but we need to use it. Discipleship has a cost. Jesus never said that we didn’t need a spine. The world doesn’t need affirmation. It needs conversion. It doesn’t need the approval of Christians. It needs their witness. And that work needs to begin with us. Bernanos said that the “scandal of Creation [isn’t] suffering but freedom.” He said that “moralists like to regard sanctity as a luxury; actually it is a necessity.” He also said that “one may believe that this isn’t the era of the saints; that the era of the saints has passed. [But] it is always the era of the saints.”
The only thing that matters is to be a saint. At least we can try. And if we do, God will take care of the rest.
Robert Bellarmine, On Temporal and Spiritual Authority
As I was reminded when I taught it this past semester in a 1L elective, Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan--part scientific treatise on human nature, part philosophy of law, part theological commentary, part just plain weirdness--is the greatest work in English-speaking political philosophy. Interestingly, the only contemporaneous figure whom Hobbes engages at length in Leviathan (in chapter xlii, "Of Power Ecclesiastical") is Saint Robert Bellarmine, the great Jesuit cardinal of the Catholic Reformation most famous for his role in the Galileo affair but also an important figure in seventeenth century political theory and the defense of papal authority. The Liberty Fund has just published an edition of Bellarmine's On Temporal and Spiritual Authority, treatises that have been difficult to find in reliable translations or critical editions until now. Bellarmine is a vital resource for any account of religious institutions possessing real authority (not merely by concession of the state, see Rob's post below), and so those of us working in Catholic legal theory should be especially grateful to the Liberty Fund for this publication.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Rep. Paul Ryan's Whittington Lecture
Today, Rep. Ryan delivered the Whittington Lecture at Georgetown University. The text is available here. Among other things, the lecture has an admirably civil and warm tone (I didn't hear the talk itself), which I confess I might have had difficulty in maintaining, in the wake of the snooty and dismissive letter he received by way of welcome from a number of Georgetown faculty. Besides the regrettably-common-but-still-simplistic identification of the current state of social-welfare programs with policies clearly mandated by a conscientious application of Catholic Social Teaching, the Georgetown letter snarkily charged that the Ryan budget proposal "appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.” Ryan has made clear that his alleged devotion to Rand is an "urban legend", and elaborated:
“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says. [RG: Nor me!]
Because -- like most of those who have criticized the Ryan budget -- I actually don't know everything about it, or everything about its implications, or everything about the soundness of its empirical premises and predictions, I don't presume to endorse it uncritically or dismiss it out of hand. It does seem to me, though, that Ryan is entirely right (a) to challenge the so-tired idea that Catholic Social Teaching maps neatly onto the social-welfare, spending, and taxation proposals and priorities of the Democratic Party (just as "subsidiarity" is not merely "devolution" or "small government," "solidarity" and "community" are not Catholic baptisms of statism and bureaucracy) and (b) to insist that those charged with authority in the political community are morally obligated to address the challenge of our "debt-fueled economic crisis." As he says, of course, "how we do this is a question for prudential judgment, about which people of good will can differ." There is, however, nothing Catholic about election-oriented complacency (see, e.g., the Senate's indifference to its obligation to pass a budget at some point) in the face of mounting debt, the weight of which can only crush the hopes and opportunities of young people, children, and future generations. Ryan critics who stop at criticism, without at least proposing, for consideration and debate, feasible changes in course that they plausibly and in good faith believe would respond to the challenges he identifies, are not, in my view, serious.
"Growing in Love": Congrats to Susan!
I'm delighted to report that our own Susan Stabile's new book, "Growing in Love and Wisdom: Tibetan Buddhist Sources for Christian Meditation," is available for pre-ordering now. Check it out!
Raised as a Catholic, Stabile devoted 20 years of her life to practicing Buddhism and was ordained as a Tibetan Buddhist nun before returning to Catholicism in 2001. She begins the book by examining the values and principles shared by the two faith traditions, focusing on the importance of prayer--particularly contemplative prayer--to both Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism. Both traditions seek to effect a fundamental transformation in the lives of believers, and both stress the need for experiences that have deep emotional resonance, that go beyond the level of concepts to touch the heart. Stabile illuminates the similarities between Tibetan Buddhist meditations and Christian forms of prayer such as Ignatian Contemplation and Lectio Divina; she explores as well such guided Buddhist practices as Metta and Tonglen, which cultivate compassion and find echoes in Jesus' teachings about loving one's enemies and transcending self-cherishing. The heart of the book offers 15 Tibetan Buddhist practices adapted to a contemplative Christian perspective. Stabile provides clear instructions on how to do these meditations as well as helpful commentary on each, explaining its purpose and the relation between the original and her adaptation. Throughout, she highlights the many remarkably close parallels in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha.
Arguing that engagement between religions offers mutual enrichment and greater understanding of both traditions, Growing in Love and Wisdom shows how Buddhist meditation can be fruitfully adapted for Christian prayer.
Great news: Hasson to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame
I am delighted to pass on the news that my friend Seamus Hasson -- the founder of and inspiration for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty -- will receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame (his alma mater) at commencement this year. Hasson is, for me, a hero -- his book, "The Right to Be Wrong", is an excellent brief for religious liberty as a fundamental right for all persons, because they are persons -- and the Becket Fund is a crucial player in the struggle to vindicate and protect religious freedom.
Unfortunately, the Cardinal Newman Society -- for which Notre Dame's missteps seem to serve as never-to-be-missed occasions for direct-mail and online fundraising -- has focused instead on the person named to be the speaker at a separate (i.e., not Commencement) event for the Graduate School. (I think my bona fides as someone who cares deeply about the Catholic character of our Catholic universities are pretty well established, but I confess to being frustrated by watchdogs who notice only Notre Dame's occasional errors and challenges -- and disproportionately focus on Notre Dame's, as opposed to others' -- while ignoring its strengths, progress, and promise.)
We agree not to outlaw the Church. (How's that for a compromise?)
Caroline Mala Corbin has posted a new paper, Expanding the Bob Jones Compromise. Here's the abstract:
Sometimes the right to liberty and the right to equality point in the same direction. Sometimes the two rights conflict. Which constitutional value should prevail when the right to religious liberty clashes with the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race and sex? More particularly, should faith-based organizations, in the name of religious liberty, be immune from anti-discrimination law?
Bob Jones University v. United States suggests a compromise: permit faith-based organizations to discriminate on the basis of race or sex if that discrimination is religiously required, but at the same time refuse to condone or support that discrimination by denying those religious organizations any financial aid. In fact, it is already federal policy to withhold government subsidies from religious organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, and the Bob Jones Court rejected a free exercise challenge to that policy. The same policy should apply with regard to discrimination on the basis of sex. Allowing religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sex but declining to provide grants, vouchers, or tax exempt status to those that do discriminate honors both our commitment to religious liberty and our commitment to equality.
In the paper itself, we learn that "the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints . . . Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Orthodox Judaism exclude women from the ministry and other leadership positions." (pp. 14-15) Such organizations "should not receive taxpayer money." (p. 15) Indeed, "providing taxpayer money not only helps invidious discrimination flourish, but it puts the state's stamp of approval on an organization's discriminatory practices." (p. 22)
I'm not exactly sure what "receive taxpayer money" means. Certainly taxpayers are free to give their money to whatever group they choose. Tax-exempt status may mean that the government is foregoing revenue that they would receive absent such status, but that's not the same thing as receiving "taxpayer money," as though the government is directly subsidizing a church. As Justice Powell noted in his concurrence in Bob Jones, the tax exemption is not a tool with which to "reinforce any perceived 'common community conscience,'" but rather is an "indispensable means of limiting the influence of government orthodoxy on important areas of community life." (461 U.S. at 609)
As for Prof. Corbin's factual assertion that tax-exempt status conveys "the state's stamp of approval," that becomes more likely as the state becomes more selective in granting the status. I have not seen survey data, but my guess is that few Americans believe that the federal government approves (or disapproves) of the Catholic Church's all-male priesthood. That's how it should be.
In any event, how does all this amount to the "compromise" advertised in the paper's title? Apparently because Corbin refrains from "suggesting that these organizations be outlawed," noting that "arguably there are benefits to organizational diversity." (p. 15) (emphasis added) Very generous.
Colson: New Life after Watergate?
Over at Christianity Today, Russell Moore reflects on the snarkiness of some of the Chuck Colson obituaries.
When you read those who smirk and dismiss the Chuck Colson conversion, the Chuck Colson life, don't get angry and don't be outraged. Read a subtext that belongs to all of us: the fear that the criminal conspiracy we've all been a part of will be exposed, and just can't be forgiven. Read the undercurrent of those who find it hard to believe that one can be not just pardoned, but "born again." That's indeed hard to believe. An empty grave in Jerusalem is all we have on which to base that claim, a claim that speaks louder than our own accusing hearts.
I have to believe that when Chuck Colson opened his eyes in the moments after death that he didn't hear anything about break-ins or dirty tricks or guilty consciences. I have to believe Mr. Colson heard a Galilean voice saying, "I was in prison and you visited me" (Matt. 25:36). I have to believe that he stood before his Creator with a new record, a new life transcript, one that belonged not to himself but to a Judean day-laborer who is now the ruler of the cosmos. And in that Lamb's Book of Life there are no eighteen minute gaps.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Some thoughts about Church and State
Over the past several weeks, questions of interest to the Mirror of Justice community dealing with the relation between Church and State have been occupying many discussions. As a consequence, I have been rereading a number of items regarding this topic. One of them is John Courtney Murray, S.J.’s 1966 article in Theological Studies where the author makes an important connection between two of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, i.e., the Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) regarding Church-State matters. While noting that only religious freedom, per se, was addressed by the Council, Murray demonstrated in his important essay the obvious link with matters of Church and State relations that are very much with us at the present moment—and will be for the future.
While noting that Church and State matters in modern times were addressed by Leo XIII, the issues in the relationship dramatically changed as the twentieth century progressed. During Leo’s reign, the identity of State and Society were very close; however, as time progressed, the distinctions grew. If the Church and Society had a relationship, it too got distanced from the State. This separation of State and Society had an impact on the relation between the Church and the State.
At the root of the common ground formerly shared by Church, State, and Society was the idea of the human person. What is he or she? But with the passage of time, the State saw the person in a vast array of ways. For the Church and some elements of Society, there was a greater understanding of the notion about the dignity of the human person and the idea that there is one human family. Many States did not see or accept these understandings. Politicians and civil leaders may have offered lip service to both, but Christians tended to have a better understanding of why changes were occurring and why the Church had a clear, positive, and crucial role in all these matters dealing with dignity and rights. Why?
The State, through its civil functionaries, had varying views of the human person—quid est homo—but the Church had a universal understanding. While some civil authorities may have spoken about human rights and the dignity of the human person, the Church offered a deeper and unified understanding that went beyond serving the political interests of the moment. Murray saw the distinction first emerging in 1892 when Leo wrote his encyclical dealing with the emerging laicité in France. By the time the Second Council was in session, the insights first captured by Leo XIII were more clearly cognizable in the first half of the 1960s by Christians including the Council Fathers. To offer a counterpoint to the growing totalitarian or monolithic sense of “human rights” by States in the twentieth century, the Church saw the need to concentrate on freedom in two ways: that of the individual, and that of the community of individuals. In an ecclesial context, this meant (1) the freedom of the individual person who simultaneously has obligations and duties to all others and (2) the freedom of the community which is the Church. In furtherance of his thesis, Murray recognized that these two freedoms—these two non-derogable rights—are inextricably related.
Murray also understood that when the Council ended and Paul VI gave his exhortation to the civil authorities of the world, the Council acknowledged this twinning. As Pope Paul said in his remarks to the temporal powers, the Church “asks of you nothing but freedom—freedom to believe and to preach her faith, freedom to love God and to serve Him, freedom to live and to bring to men her message of life.”
I think that this passage of the pope is crucial to the present day examinations, discussions, and debates about religious freedom and the proper relationship between the Church and State. The fact that the Church and State are different and distinct does not necessarily imply that they cannot have a relationship. Moreover, separation is not synonymous with indifference. Why? Both the Church and the State have a critical interest in the common good and its furtherance. The American State talks about the general welfare; the Church relies on other words, but the interests, if not the same, largely overlap. It is in the interest of republican democracy, which we claim to have in the United States, to understand and embrace the differences between the Church and State but simultaneously to respect and support their common or mutual objectives.
I am not sure this is particularly well understood today as a read the ongoing discourse about Church and State matters. Murray noted that the Church sees her mission in the world of temporal affairs concentrating on the realization of human dignity, the advancement of authentic human rights, the promotion of unity within the human family, and “the sanctification of the secular activities of this world.” The transcendence of the human person, which is of major importance to the Church, is not in this particular equation for the State. So if it is not, why should the secular State (and its citizens who are of the secular persuasion) then mind having a relationship with the Church as the Council developed the concept of relationship and freedom?
RJA sj
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
