Readers of the Mirror of Justice will recall that I have previously written [HERE, HERE, and HERE] on the four-institution project sponsored by Fordham University, Fairfield University, Yale Divinity School, and Union Theological Seminary. Although the conveners of this project asserted that they wanted “to change the conversation about sexual diversity and the Catholic Church” by presenting “the variety of viewpoints on issues of sexual diversity among Catholics,” the Archbishop of New York and the Bishop of Bridgeport expressed their concerns to the heads of two of the convening institutions regarding the appearance of the program that dissent from rather than support and defense of Catholic teachings was the nature of the presentations. However, these bishops were assured that “the conferences, while sensitive to the experiences of the participants, will not be a vehicle for dissent.”
As I indicated in a previous posting, I heard most of the presentations delivered at Fordham, Fairfield, and Yale, and it was my initial conclusion that these conferences were, in fact and whether intended or not, a criticism or questioning of the Church’s teachings on critical matters dealing with faith and morals. One of these presentations concentrated on same-sex marriage and was billed as a keynote address, and its content justifies and intensifies my earlier conclusion.
Although the speaker claims to be Roman Catholic, she noted her “wrestling” with the Church’s teachings on homosexual activity (not orientation). Her substantive disagreements with the Church’s teachings in the context of sexual activity and marriage are patent and were presented in three parts.
The first part argues that homosexual activity is moral, and this conclusion directly conflicts with the Church’s fundamental teachings; moreover, the author acknowledges this contradiction. However, she defends her case by arguing that homosexual couples can be and are open to the gift of life from God—just in a different way than heterosexual couples. But if one disregards this crucial difference, then, according to the keynoter, homosexual persons are on the same plane as pregnant and postmenopausal women and infertile men. The biological distinction of male and female enters neither her imagination nor her reasoning. A major point of her argument here is that couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, can be open to the gift of life through adoption—and as we have seen, this constitutes another conflict with Church teachings regarding whether same-sex couples should adopt children.
But the keynoter continues: the sexual relations that can exist between all couples, regardless of their orientation, provide the physical satisfaction that can sustain any “kin-like tie[] and childrearing partnerships.” She takes to task “the bishops” who are not open to “the truth of human sexuality” through “the sexual experience of faithful Catholics of all sexual stripes.” But experience is not the same as truth about the nature and essence of the human person.
Still for her, homosexual activity “can be open to and serve life in precisely the same way that the biologically infertile, heterosexual activity” is because “the biological openness to the possibility of procreation is not essential to good sex” and “love-making need not be inseparably connected to potentially baby-making activity in order for it to be morally good.”
In an effort to buttress her argument, the keynote speaker insists that homosexual activity is complementary—not as it is with opposite-sex couples’ sexual activity without artificial contraception but as it is with opposite-sex couples who do practice artificial contraception. This is a problem in regard to Catholic teaching. But it is not a problem for the keynoter because for her the notion of complementarity must be understood not in the context opposite sex but in the context of apposite sex—that is, sex that is apt for love-making and “forging bonds through the mutual sharing of sexual delight.” This, too, is a problem.
The speaker then combines the “moral” and “complementary” arguments to substantiate her first part claim by concluding that homosexual acts are normative because they are natural—natural if natural means anyone can do anything with anyone else and call it normal, natural, complementary, and moral. It is clear that the objective reasoning that undergirds the Church’s teachings is absent in the keynoter’s position. What is present in her position is nominalism, subjectivism, historicism, and relativism.
The second part of her presentation is that “official Catholic teaching” about same-sex marriage (SSM) is wrong. In large part her perspective relies on that assertion that since SSM is being accepted and adopted by some temporal authorities, the Church’s position must be in error. She further suggests that since the Church has been complicit in allowing same-sex civil unions, it is in no position to oppose SSM. Yet, civil unions are also new and have also been opposed by the civil authorities for a long time as they have by the Church. There is implied but unproven in her argument that the Church looked the other way regarding civil unions, but in fact the Church did not ignore them; it opposed them as well. The keynoter also contends that differential treatment by the Church for “queer folks” did not begin until 1992. Yet she is mistaken because she fails to mention what the Vatican said in 1983 in the Charter on the Rights of the Family regarding marriage and sexual union. Moreover, she fails to acknowledge that the first civil unions (not marriages) for same-sex couples were not available until the year 2000—long after the Church and some civil authorities expressed their concerns about them. Furthermore, up until very recent times within the last dozen years, both the Church’s teachings and the civil norms regarding marriage were comparable, a point she overlooks. Nor does she acknowledge the passage of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which became the law of the land in 1996.
While the marriage question is a most important issue for the Church in the present age, so are all issues that attack authentic human dignity and the common good; consequently her claim that the “Pope has identified the marriage equality movement as more dangerous to life than hunger, war and tyranny” is a claim that cannot be substantiated.
One further argument she makes which I will tackle today is that “marriage equality will not unduly violate religious liberty.” With the Defense of Marriage Act presently under court challenge and with Judge Vaughan Walker’s unsettling remarks about religion in the context of the Proposition 8 litigation, methinks that the keynoter needs to revisit her insecure claim that the SSM campaign and all its associates, whatever they may be, are not a threat to religious freedom and libertas ecclesiae. If wedding photographers and justices of the peace can be brought to heel on these matters, it is just a matter of time before the members of the Church and the Church herself are also brought into legal and political forums to account for their opposition to SSM. The keynoter would do well to become familiar with the recent discussion presented by Jane Robbins and Emmett McGroarty [HERE] on what is happening to religious liberty today including the SSM context.
The third and final part of the keynote address is that marriage equality is good because it promotes the common good by encouraging love and mutual assistance. This would be accomplished by marriage equality reducing “the social stigma and internalized shame associated with being gay.” But she fails to take stock of the Church’s teachings which make the important distinction between just and unjust discrimination; moreover, she overlooks the positions taken by the Church nationally and universally regarding the sinner who is loved and the sinner who persists in sinning. The key to her third part is that for marriage equality to become “normalized,” the Church’s teachings will have to change. Otherwise “homophobia” and “heterosexism” will remain. So, once opposition to SSM withers, love and the “common good” will prevail. However, this will necessitate that today’s dissent from Church teachings and the heterodoxy that accompanies dissension will have to replace the Church’s views and moral teachings. In essence, what is heterodox must become orthodox, and what is orthodox must become heterodox.
While the organizers of this conference assured two bishops that the Church’s teachings would “be clearly stated and articulately defended” in “More than a Monologue”, something happened in the execution of the plan. Thus, the Church’s teachings were not presented in a convincing way; moreover, the revealed truth upon which they rest was put aside. The promised dialogue did not materialize. What did materialize was a direct challenge to the Church’s teachings.
As Desi Arnaz would sometimes say in his role as Ricky Ricardo, “There’s gonna be some explainin' to do!”
Having just read Rob’s post, I cannot disagree with much of his assessment of Laurie Goodstein’s piece today in The New York Times.
I don’t have much to add either other than to underscore the point that the Goodstein article is not really news reporting but rather is an effort designed to put pressure on faithful Catholics—meaning those who believe in and live the Church’s teachings. “The bishops” (a phrase which Ms. Goodstein over-uses—she utilizes it twelve times; I wonder if I could use in this posting “The Times” twelve times to offer a similar displeasure, but I digress) probably would not have to exercise as much of their teaching authority on the neuralgic issues if “The Times” and other media and cultural outlets didn’t focus on the morally problematic by promoting it as the morally desirable and righteous. The shepherds of the Church are doing their job and they must continue to do so.
As far as the assertion that the successors of the Apostles are speaking “in hushed tones” on the other important issues of the day, this is simply not true. One need only read diocesan newspapers containing pastoral messages or regularly view the USCCB’s webpage for starters to know that the assertion of Faith in Public Life is flawed. Ah, but if “The Times” doesn’t report these matters, then the bishops must be speaking “in hushed tones.”
I fear “The Times” would like to see the shepherds of the Church abandon their important and essential teaching office. But I don’t think they will do this. The pressure on them to do this exists without doubt as it exists on many of the faithful who work in the temporal world to bring the Good News to everyone.
Yet the members of the Church must not lose faith; neither must they be afraid even of “TheTimes.” Right now the pressure on the Church is subtle, but it is also becoming less so.
Hence all the faithful need to recall the dangers posed by the “enlightened culture of the day” highlighted by Christopher Dawson many years ago when he noted that if Christians cannot assert their right to exist, “they will eventually be pushed not only out of modern culture but out of physical existence.” He knew that the totalitarian state of the first half of the twentieth century was capable of doing this. But he also forecast that the western democracies possessed the capacity to do the same.
“The bishops” are doing what they are called to do to see that this does not happen. Clearly this annoys those who would like to see the Church that Christ gave us disappear. But the shepherds are meeting their charge and guarding their flock with grace, prudence, and courage. Nolite timere!
Rick is surely right when he reports that the Kingship of Christ is a theological doctrine that Catholic preachers by and large don't know how to handle. Even many of those who grant that Christ reigns now as King take the position, implicitly or occasionally explicitly, that, like Elizabeth II, Christ reigns but does not rule. Some defend the proposition that there are zones that are not ruled by Christ, on the ground that sometimes secularity is "healthy." As I was saying the other day at the marvelous conference on "Radical Emancipation: Confronting the Challenge of Secularism" sponsored by Notre Dame's Center for Ethics and Culture," however, the absence of the Gospel is never a good. To be absolutely clear, non-Christians must never be forced to embrace the Christian religion, but this does not entail that socio-political life should not be blessed by the leaven of the Gospel. The penetration of civil society by the principles of the Gospel is a good to be pursued -- and it is, indeed, a good that Christ the King commands. Here is what Card. Ratzinger said in 1984 on the question of the basis on which the state should be formed and shaped: "The state must recognize that a funadmental system of values based on Christianity is the precondition for its existence." (Church, Ecumenism & Politics, 207, emphasis added). It's a worthy question why the Holy Father recently said something rather less to the Bundestag.
Many leading American Catholic neo-cons are embarrassed by the doctrine of the social Kingship of Christ. If you have any doubt about that, listen to the silly things George Weigel, Jodi Bottum, and Raymond Arroyo say (and observe the awkward body language and snark on their faces) in this discussion on EWTN . Weigel concludes by asserting that "The state does not have the capacity to make the judgment that Christ is King." But this is patently absurd, at least taken as a statement about states as such. As I've argued before, surely a group of Catholics founding a state would be competent to install leaders who would be competent to recognize what their installers recognize, viz., the Kingship of Christ. To be sure, many states, including our own, are contingently incompetent to recognize the Kingship of Christ and its social consequences, but the fulfillment of such an unfortunate contingency does not lay a finger on the traditional Catholic teaching that Christ is King over political society. Nor does the Second Vatican Council alter that teaching. See Par. 2105 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. How could it? Jodi Bottum claims in the video that "Christ is king of we [sic] as individuals." It is by nature (and supernature) that we associate, however, and I cannot understand the claim that, when we do in fact associate in political society to achieve the natural common good, Christ pro tanto loses his jurisdiction. Bottum is right that this is an "unAmerican idea," but that's hardly a fatal condition.
Here's a deeply cynical article in the New York Times on the bishops' new religious liberty committee (mentioned here by Rick). A few points bear noting:
First, focusing on religious liberty is not simply a "recasting" of the Church's existing opposition to abortion and SSM. These are related but distinct issues. I'm pretty sure that the bishops are not dropping opposition to abortion or SSM from their agenda, and supporting the religious liberty cause does not require consensus on the merits of abortion or SSM.
Second, I don't think it's fair to say that abortion and SSM have now "eclipsed" poverty and economic injustice as important issues to the bishops. I don't think there's any comparison between the amount of resources the bishops devote to combating poverty versus combating abortion or SSM. The fact that more of the bishops' teaching platform has been devoted to abortion and SSM in recent years may not reflect changes in relative importance as much as changes in social circumstances.
Third, the suggestion that the bishops' teachings on politics and morality have "been met with indifference even by many of their own flock" does not necessarily follow from the cited statistic that only 16% of Catholics had heard of the document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." I'm guessing that the statistics for documents issued by the bishops to address economic injustice would not be much rosier. The implication that Catholics care less about the bishops' teaching on an issue like religious liberty than on an issue like poverty needs more evidentiary support.
Finally, I tend to be leery of cherry-picked quotes to close off an article. They often seem to be carefully chosen laundering devices to allow the expression of the author's own opinion without (explicitly) violating journalistic standards. So the article ends with this: “The bishops speak in hushed tones when it comes to poverty and economic justice issues, and use a big megaphone when it comes to abortion and religious liberty issues.” This is an unfairly sweeping statement, especially as the final word in a "news" article. To take one of many examples: Archbishop Nienstedt, no shrinking violet on SSM and abortion, was front and center over the summer in opposing the GOP's efforts to balance the Minnesota state budget through draconian cuts to social services. It didn't sound too hushed to me.
In a column in today's Washington Post, Michael Gerson reviews President Obama's visit to Notre Dame in 2009, where "[h]e extended a 'presumption of good faith' to his pro-life opponents. Then he promised Catholics that their pro-life convictions would be respected by his administration."
That was then. This is now:
Now the conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). And Obama's Catholic strategy is in shambles.
* * *
"We are in a war," [Obama's HHS Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius told a recent pro-choice meeting. Opponents of the administration, she said, are trying to "roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America." This is no longer the "presumption of good faith." It has all the hallmarks of a vendetta.
In 2008, President Obama's campaign was greatly assisted by high profile support from some Catholic leaders and academics, which allowed him to more plausibly portray himself as a new kind of politician and a moderate on social issues. We were assured that President Obama was a different kind of politician and that he would respect and honor Catholic conscience and not aggressively promote pro-abortion policies. Most Catholics were dubious even then.
As the 2012 campaign approaches, can any pro-life Catholic still claim that the cause of human life is not under assiduous attack by this administration? And, on the fundamental question of religious liberty, can anyone seriously deny today that, as Archbishop Timothy Dolan observes, the Obama Administration is levying an "assault [on Catholic rights of conscience] which now appears to grow at an ever-accelerating pace in ways that most of us could never have imagined"?
The Murphy Institute at UST is presenting a year-long series we call "Hot Topics: Cool Talk", exploring "both the Catholic positions and some challenging perspectives on major policy issues likely to be the focus of debate in the upcoming 2012 election. Each program will consist of two expert speakers respectfully engaging in one of these hot topics." Our first program was Maggie Gallagher and Dale Carpenter talking about Same Sex Marriage. (Minnesota Public Radio aired the program as part of their mid-day programming. You can watch the video here.)
Our next program is tomorrow, Nov. 16, featuring Carter Snead & Lynn Wardle talking about Embryo Rights and Stem Cell Research (4:00 -5:00, more details and registration here.)
Upcoming speakers in the series include MOJ'ers Greg Sisk on Balancing the Budget, Tom Berg on Personal Rights & Religious Freedom, and Mark DeGirolami on Punishment Theory. Other topics we'll take up include Immigration Policy, Health Care Reform, and Responsible Citizenship. We'll be posting the talks on our website, so you can catch the programs even if you're not blessed to be living in God's Country, Minnesota.
MOJ-friend, and my colleague, Prof. John O'Callaghan (Philosophy), is giving a lecture at the Lumen Christi Institute today, at 4:00 p.m., on "The Identity of Known and Knower in Aquinas." If you're in or near Chicago, check it out!
Today is the Feast of Albert the Great (c. 1206-1280), the German Dominican, Doctor of the Church, and teacher of Thomas Aquinas. Albert is most famous for his contributions to the natural sciences and his role in bringing Aristotle into medieval philosophy and theology. But Albert also made important contributions to the medieval development of natural law, as ably argued most recently by Jean Porter in her books Natural and Divine Law (1999) and Nature as Reason (2005), so all of us who work in Catholic legal education have reason to celebrate the feast of this remarkable figure from our tradition.
In my experience, preachers in Catholic parishes don't know quite what to do with the Feast of Christ the King, which is coming up (Nov. 20). Usually, the day's "message" or "theme" has been (again, in my experience) something to the effect that we should ask if we are "putting Jesus first in our lives" (and, certainly, we should).
And yet . . . especially in light of the emerging (and much needed) focus in the Church on religious liberty and the realities of both aggressive secularism and persecution, it's worth (re-)reading Quas Primas, the encyclical of Pope Pius XI that instituted the feast day in 1925, and remembering that this institution's purpose sounded more in political theology than in personal piety and devotion. This feast -- which we celebrate, again, this Sunday -- is a reminder that government is not all, that there are things which are not Caesar's, and that everything, in the end, is "under God."
Here (thanks to Rocco) is the text of Arbp. Timothy Dolan's speech this weekend at the meeting of the USCCB. Wow.
I was at the meeting for the first session of the new Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, which I'm honored to be serving as a consultant. (Michael Gerson's column, here, touches on just a few of the reasons why the Administration's policies have made the work of this Committee particularly important.)
