Thanks to Michael P. for drawing out attention once again to this pressing issue about the visitation of the LCWR. I find Fr. Richard McBrien’s thoughts interesting, but I have read them before. I have also read and re-read Sandra Schneiders’ essay, as have a good number of my women religious colleagues, and we do not find her position to be “the best, most compact, and most significant study of the biblical and historical foundations of ministerial life available today” or, for that matter, of all times. I find Richard McBrien’s zeal all the more interesting when he attributes to Sandra Schneider’s claim that “too many critics of religious life in the United States ‘have no lived experience or academic competence’ to regard it.”
Unlike Richard McBrien, who is not a member of a religious community but a diocesan priest, I am a member of a religious community, as is Sandra Schneiders; moreover, I have a good number of friends who are members of women’s religious communities who join in me in having a different take from the Schneiderian-McBrienian perspective. I would call our experience “lived experience.” So, I think we are competent to offer an alternative perspective that is based on truth and “lived experience.” It is a pity that the media sources pushing the Schneiderian-McBrienian perspective are not interested in covering alternative views which rely on truth and “lived experience” of other religious who have asked the Holy See for this visitation.
With regard to academic competence, I will also challenge the Schneiderian-McBrienian perspective. I just wonder, though, if this element of the critique means that those who disagree with Sandra Schneiders or Richard McBrien must have their academic competence questioned not on substantive grounds but simply because they do not agree with Sandra Schneiders and Richard McBrien? They possess keen acumen and have respect in the religious and academic world; but so do others who do not share their interesting views. It is a tragedy and pity that these other perspectives that contrast theirs do not “merit” equal treatment in the press.
So Michael, not only have I read and re-read their articles but have also considered and re-considered their articles. I wish that both of them could have the opportunity to read the positions of others who write from “lived experience” and academic competence. I appreciate what they have to say, but I disagree respectfully with their contentions. I wonder if they have read alternative perspectives from responsible persons?
In a post a few days ago, in which I posted a reader's (Tom White's) comments, I referenced Sandra Schneiders (here). Well, in his column today, Fr. Richard McBrien, of Notre Dame's Theology Department, writes about Sr. Schneiders. Here's an excerpt:
Sandra Schneiders is a member of Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate
Heart of Mary of Monroe, Mich., and is professor of New Testament
Studies and Christian Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology in
Berkeley, California.
Her four-page article[1]
in the Oct 2 issue of the National Catholic Reporter is the best, most
compact, and most significant study of the biblical and historical
foundations of ministerial religious life available today.
Anyone who claims to have an opinion about the current "visitation"
of U.S. communities of religious women and the "doctrinal assessment"
of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious has a serious
obligation to read this article.
As Schneiders notes at the outset of her substantial essay, too many
critics of religious life in the United States "have no lived
experience of or academic competence" in regard to it.
Note that statement: "Anyone who claims to have an opinion about the current "visitation"
of U.S. communities of religious women and the "doctrinal assessment"
of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious has a serious
obligation to read this article." Hmml, I guess that means Tom White, Robert Araujo, and yours truly, among many, many others.
I just read Paul Krugman's column in today's NYT, and its has a striking affinity with Rob Hockett's post, which I referenced, and to which I linked, earlier today. On reflection, I think that Bob and Krugman are definitely on to something.
Now, Rick, let me hasten to add that I do not read either Rob or Krugman to suggest that, as you put it, "social-conservatives in the American political arena can be
helpfully, non-insultingly analogized to the 'theocratic militant[s]'
who throw acid on girls in Afghanistan."
There are many social conservatives--some of them my good friends--whose concerns are easily understandable, whose disagreements with those in the center or left-of-center of American politics are entirely reasonable, and whose style of political participation is surely commendable. But as I read Rob and Krugman, they are not writing about such social conservatives--and I'm curious why Rick thought Rob was. Rather, they are writing about a much more extreme group whose style of political participation is, well, frightening.
As much as I admire Bob Hockett, I was not wild about his "Republican Party as Pakistan" post to which Michael Perry recently called our attention. Given how thoughtful and helpful Bob's posts have been here at MOJ, I am choosing to believe that the "Pakistan" post is actually the work of an uncharitable partisan who has stolen Bob's password, and not of the irenic and amiable Bob Hockett. After all, the post traffics in the tired (and, frankly, hurtful) claim that social-conservatives in the American political arena can be helpfully, non-insultingly analogized to the "theocratic militant[s]" who throw acid on girls in Afghanistan, and I can't see how such trafficking actually does much for dialogue among people who proceed from shared faith commitments to, perhaps, different policy-applications of those commitments.
In response to Bob's last post, a few quick thoughts: First, it is not at all the case that opposing the proposal that passed the House is -- the Stupak amendment notwithstanding -- (anything like) "aim[ing] at stifling the Magisterium itself." That the (purported) end of the House's proposal is one that is consonant with a reasonable (even compelling) application of the Church's social teachings certainly does not mean that the House's (current) view on the best means for achieving that end must be endorsed by faithful Catholics.
Second, I would think that the reactions to the House vote that are more troubling to Bob are those of the many, many furious Democrats who are insisting that the House proposal should be rejected if Stupak is not stripped. Surfing through the left-leaning blogosphere, it would be easy to come away with the impression that public funding for abortion is more important to a not-insignificant number of the Party's base than is health-care for the currently uninsured -- indeed, that the base is somewhat Taliban-ish in their wild-eyed devotion to the public subsidization of the abortion license.
Since the Bishops have called for universal health coverage for decades, and since the Stupak Amendment, as I understand it, brings the House bill into conformity with the Bishops' reservation that no bill should provide for subsidization of abortions, each Republican obstruction here hits me as if aimed at stifling the Magisterium itself.
Many thanks, Michael. I'll bear that in mind in future.
Incidentally, Mike Dorf has interesting observations on the Stupak Amendment over on today's DoL.
Somewhat relatedly, listening to Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now this morning -- a Congressman and a program, respectively, that I often but not always admire -- it occurred to me that the Dems sometimes face their own version of the Republicans' Taliban problem.
The principal difference, I suppose, is that it's not so much "blowback" in the Dems' case as it is in the Repubs'. For the Dems' "base" does not seem ever to have been so apolitical as to have had to be aroused by manipulative appeal to their ugliest passions.
That was a very interesting post you made at "Dorf on Law", on The Republican Party as Pakistan. Given the breadth of postings here at MOJ on matters political, you could easily have posted your thoughts here as well.
