Saturday, January 16, 2010
Church Property and Religious Liberty
Christianity Today has this very helpful piece about the current round of church-property-dispute cases, and their importance to religious freedom. As the article describes, these cases often involve efforts by more conservative or orthodox communities to break away -- and take the property with them -- from national "mainline" Protestant churches. It's tricky: I tend to be sympathetic to the "breakaway" communities' understanding of the implications for morality of (broadly speaking) the Christian tradition, but find myself disagreeing with my friends (some of whom are mentioned or quoted in the piece) who believe that a local community's decision should control church-property destiny. To be sure, these cases are often complicated and fact specific. But, we should be careful of uncritically imagining that a very "protestant" way of thinking about churches, and church-authority, is in fact merely a "neutral" way of resolving such disputes.
"Let's Talk About Faith"
This recent op-ed, by Ross Douthat -- about the Hume / Buddhism / Tiger Woods / redemption / Christianity fracas -- is worth reading. A bit:
. . . Many Christians have decided that the best way to compete in an era of political correctness is to play the victim card.
But these believers are colluding in their own marginalization. If you treat your faith like a hothouse flower, too vulnerable to survive in the crass world of public disputation, then you ensure that nobody will take it seriously. The idea that religion is too mysterious, too complicated or too personal to be debated on cable television just ensures that it never gets debated at all.
This doesn’t mean that we need to welcome real bigotry into our public discourse. But what Hume said wasn’t bigoted: Indeed, his claim about the difference between Buddhism and Christianity was perfectly defensible. Christians believe in a personal God who forgives sins. Buddhists, as a rule, do not. And it’s at least plausible that Tiger Woods might welcome the possibility that there’s Someone out there capable of forgiving him, even if Elin Nordegren and his corporate sponsors never do.
Or maybe not. For many people — Woods perhaps included — the fact that Buddhism promotes an ethical life without recourse to Christian concepts like the Fall of Man, divine judgment and damnation is precisely what makes it so appealing. The knee-jerk outrage that greeted Hume’s remarks buried intelligent responses from Buddhists, who made arguments along these lines — explaining their faith, contrasting it with Christianity, and describing how a lost soul like Woods might use Buddhist concepts to climb from darkness into light.
When liberal democracy was forged, in the wake of Western Europe’s religious wars, this sort of peaceful theological debate is exactly what it promised to deliver. And the differences between religions are worth debating. Theology has consequences: It shapes lives, families, nations, cultures, wars; it can change people, save them from themselves, and sometimes warp or even destroy them.
If we tiptoe politely around this reality, then we betray every teacher, guru and philosopher — including Jesus of Nazareth and the Buddha both — who ever sought to resolve the most human of all problems: How then should we live?
It’s reasonable to doubt that a cable news analyst has the right answer to this question. But the debate that Brit Hume kicked off a week ago is still worth having. Indeed, it’s the most important one there is.
Some great news from New Jersey
No, it's not the announcement of another season of "The Sopranos." The New York Times reports (with some regret, I imagine), that "To Lead Schools, Christie Picks Voucher Advocate," Bret Schundler. According to the report, Schunder is "[t]he man once described by teachers’ union leaders as 'the antithesis of everything we hold sacred about public education.'" So, he's got that going for him. The piece also notes:
Still, some of the ideas that made him a polarizing figure to unions and Democratic leaders have become more mainstream (RG: were these ideas ever not "mainstream"?), with even President Obama signaling interest in merit pay and promoting the expansion of charter schools. On Wednesday, the teachers’ union issued a statement that refrained from criticizing the choice.
It looks like the (Democratic) mayor of Newark, Cory Booker (one of "America's best leaders"), might have an ally.
San Francisco's Archbishop responds to Rep. Pelosi on "free will"
As MOJ readers are probably aware, in a recent interview, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about her disagreements with the United States Catholic bishops concerning Church teaching. Speaker Pelosi replied, in part: “I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will."
As Archbishop Neiderauer points out, here, "[e]mbodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom":
Catholic teaching on free will recognizes that God has given men and women the capacity to choose good or evil in their lives. The bishops at the Second Vatican Council declared that the human person, endowed with freedom, is “an outstanding manifestation of the divine image.” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 17) As the parable of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, makes so beautifully clear, God did not want humanity to be mere automatons, but to have the dignity of freedom, even recognizing that with that freedom comes the cost of many evil choices.
However, human freedom does not legitimate bad moral choices, nor does it justify a stance that all moral choices are good if they are free: “The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1740) Christian belief in human freedom recognizes that we are called but not compelled by God to choose constantly the values of the Gospel—faith, hope, love, mercy, justice, forgiveness, integrity and compassion.
It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right. . . .
Notre Dame Task Force recommendations
The "Notre Dame Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life" -- which I have referenced and discussed here on MOJ before -- has submitted some preliminary recommendations to the University's president, Fr. John Jenkins, which are designed to “broaden and deepen the pro-life culture in and among various constituencies in order to strengthen the Notre Dame community’s witness to Catholic teaching on life":
The preliminary recommendations include the following:
- That the University formulate and adopt a policy statement indicating its support for Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
- That the University formulate and adopt a policy statement on charitable gifts or investments in order to avoid formal or immediate material complicity in evils such as abortion and torture.
- That the University adopt strategies to make its current supportive policies toward pregnant students better known to the student body, the faculty and other members of the Notre Dame community.
- That the president continue to witness for life through attending or sending a delegate to participate in the March for Life or a similar event focusing on the right to life beginning at conception, as well as analogous forms of witness across the spectrum of life issues.
- That undergraduate research opportunities be made available through “witness to life research opportunities” (or a similar idea), with topics in theology, law, philosophy, sociology, biology and other disciplines across the spectrum of life issues.
- That the University find ways to encourage the work of students explicitly engaged in pro-life activities across the spectrum of life issues. Further, that the University create and support educative efforts on campus – such as conferences, consultations and courses – intended to inform the campus community on issues pertaining to life, and to form an academic culture of witness to life as appropriate to any given academic venue.
- That the University encourage alumni in pro-life witness, for example, in helping them to mobilize their own parish communities in support of women in crisis pregnancies or in assisting adoptions.
- The task force, for the remainder of its charge, will serve to initiate collaborations with specific Notre Dame constituencies as appropriate in order to further the implementation of the recommendations above and consider further recommendations.
Thoughts? Reactions?
Another avenue for Haitian Relief
Those who may wish to provide material relief to our sisters and brothers in Haiti can contribute to the Jesuit Refugee Service, USA. The JRS's website that facilitates donations is here.
In addition to financial aid, I am sure that the victims of the devastation and relief workers would also be grateful for our continuing prayers.
RJA sj
Friday, January 15, 2010
Another Effective Channel for Aid to Haiti
Hello Friends,
Many thanks to John Breen for his thoughts on Haiti and for the stirring quote from John Paul II -- I'd forgotten how beautifully 'spot on' this passage is. Thanks also to Patrick and Rob for their recent posts on Haiti.
These gents' posts remind me that I wanted to pass along another bit of information sent Robby and me Wednesday by a very acute, thoughtful friend -- the philosopher Patrick O'Donnell, whom some of you might know from the Ratio Juris blog in addition to quite a few other fora.
Patrick writes:
Here's a link to an organization in my hometown (well, they were downtown, but are now nearby in Goleta, where the rent is cheaper) with an exemplary track record (e.g., notice its 'efficiency' rating) in humanitarian aid relief (their offices are not far from where we live): Direct Relief International .
I might add here for my own part that the Salvation Army and Catholic Relief Services tend regularly to score very highly on the efficiency metric, with very low overhead and seemingly next to no waste. I'll pass along more on their efforts in Hait presently.
All best,
Bob
A Case of Solidarity
In Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (par. 38), John Paul II famously wrote:
When interdependence becomes recognized in this way, the correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a "virtue," is solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.
More recently, building upon the work of his predecessor, Benedict XVI wrote in Caritas in Veritate (par. 38) that “[s]olidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone” such that “it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State.”
Robby’s posts (here and here) encouraging members and readers of MOJ to contribute to the relief efforts reflect the moral fact that we – each of us – has a non-delegable responsibility to help our brothers and sisters in Haiti recover from the tragedy that has overtaken their country. At the same time, the scope of the disaster is so great that, as the principle of subsidiarity suggests, governments and international organizations have a critical – an indispensable – role to play in providing relief services and supplies, in coordinating their provision, and in creating the conditions under which they can be provided.
Yesterday, President Obama announced a number of steps that the United States is undertaking in response to the earthquake that crippled Haiti on Tuesday and the horrific suffering that has taken place in its aftermath. These measures include not only money, but the deployment of an aircraft carrier and other vessels, detachments of U.S. soldiers and Marines to secure the area so that rescue efforts can take place in a safe and orderly fashion. (See here, here and here). All of this is welcome news.
There is no truly compelling reason to aid the people of Haiti based solely on national self-interest. True, they are a nation in our own "backyard," a little more than 700 miles from South Florida. But we could safely ignore the plight of the inhabitants of Haiti without fear of major repercussions. Given our newfound concern with respect to illegal immigrants and the control of our borders, the United States could take effective steps to prevent the influx of refugees from Haiti, and the American public has proven itself to be either blithely unaware of or content in its indifference to the criticisms of other nations. So we could, if we wished, sit by and watch the corpses rot in the streets, and instead concentrate on our own problems.
The fact that we (as a nation and as individuals) are responding to the crisis in such a generous fashion shows that a commitment to solidarity is still at work in the American people. It shows that, notwithstanding the culture of death, the natural law is imprinted on people’s hearts, and the seeds of the Gospel are resilient.
a case for subsidiarity?
In response to Rob's question, I am reminded of the following provocative claim by my old teacher, Louis Dupre: "We now have reached a point in history where the principle of subsidiarity with respect to the common good must be applied to the states themselves in their relation to the global community." Dupre cites in this connection Pacem in terris nos. 138 & 140.
Does citizenship matter in a disaster?
Kenneth Anderson and Peter Spiro raise a good question that should be of interest to Catholic legal theory. In a humanitarian crisis, what role should citizenship play? Specifically, why exactly should the U.S. government place a higher priority on evacuating an uninjured American than on evacuating a critically injured Haitian?
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
