Monday, November 9, 2009
Moments ago the Holy See issued the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms providing for personal ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. [HERE] I am sure some of us may wish to discuss the legal and ecclesial implications of these texts after we have had an opportunity to study them.
RJA sj
On the day we arrived in Santiago, Mark, Bill, and I wrote a song titled "Buen Camino: The Happy Pilgrim Song." We recorded it on All Saints Day thanks to Johan, a German studying in Santiago. It is now posted on YouTube if you are interested.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
This paper, to be published soon in a symposium issue of Notre Dame's Review of Politics, may be of interest to MOJ readers.
Liberal Democracy and the Right to Religious Freedom
Abstract:
The Roman Catholic Church was
famously late to embrace the right to religious freedom. Some have plausibly
argued that when the Second Vatican Council, in 1965, overwhelmingly adopted the
Declaration on Religious Freedom - known by the first two words of its official,
Latin version: Dignitatis Humanae - the Church betrayed one of its most
traditional and established theological teachings. Did the Church, at Vatican
II, capitulate to, or at least compromise with, "liberalism?"
The right
to religious freedom, according to international law, rests in part on respect
for the "inherent dignity" of every human being. Thus there is a prima facie
link between the liberal-democratic justification and the Church's 1965
justification. But as I argue in this essay, the appeal to human dignity is not
an exclusive preserve of modern liberal democracy. Indeed, we can imagine a
government that refuses to affirm the right to religious freedom because it
wishes to save souls, and this precisely out of respect for human dignity of
every human being. Such a view was proclaimed by the the pre-Vatican II Church.
Thus the appeal to human dignity is not evidence of a fundamental shift by the
Church. What then does account for the Church's undeniable U-turn - its
undeniable change of direction?
Respect for human dignity by itself
cannot provide the fundamental justification for the right to religious freedom.
Another ingredient is needed: distrust, born of long historical experience, of
government competence to adjudicate contested questions of religious truth. The
Church in Dignitatis Humanae finally came to accept this lesson of history - a
lesson available to believers of various faiths, including Catholics, as well as
to nonbelievers.
[The paper can be downloaded here.]
Q: 'Officer -- did you see my client fleeing the scene?'
A: 'No sir. But I
subsequently observed a person matching the description of
the offender, running several blocks away.'
Q:
'Officer -- who provided this description?'
A: 'The officer
who responded to the scene.'
Q:
'A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you
trust your fellow officers?'
A: 'Yes, sir.
With my life.'
Q:
'With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you
change your clothes in preparation for your daily
duties?'
A: 'Yes sir, we
do!'
Q:
'And do you have a locker in the room?'
A: 'Yes sir, I
do.'
Q:
'And do you have a lock on your locker?'
A: 'Yes
sir.'
Q:
'Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you
find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with the same
officers?'
A: 'You see, sir
-- we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been
known to walk through that room.'
The courtroom EXPLODED with laughter, and a prompt recess was called.
Sorry, All,
I inadvertently left out two key words in composing the final sentence of my post a moment ago: "in France." It is in France that I recall seeing those bright red sashes at all the civil ceremonies preceding the church ones. And yes, as it happens, I've been to a surprising number of these civil, followed by ecclesial, French weddings! (Probably around ten.)
Incidentally, one of those French weddings was an "interfaith" wedding between one of my oldest and closest friends, who is American and secularly Jewish, and his fiancee, who is French and more or less secularly Catholic. The ecclesial service, at which I read, was a rather awkward affair in the half-heartedness with which Rabbi, Priest, bride, groom, and most of their families recited the liturgical texts -- so much so that I rather wished they'd not involved Temple or Church in the event at all. (Not that I had or should have had a say in any of this.) The civil ceremony, for its part, in this case seemed much more dignified than the "religious" one, if for no other reason than that there was no pretense involved. (And the sash was very impressive!)
Intriguingly, my other best friend, who also is American and Jewish but in this case actively practices his faith, also took part in an interfaith wedding this past summer, with his practicing Episcopalian fiancee. It was officiated jointly by my friend's Israeli Rabbi and his fiancee's mother, who is an Episcopal priest. The earnestness with which all parties in this case approached their appointed tasks, and the eagerly, even anxiously helpful efforts each officient made at explaining the meanings and histories and traditions of all liturgical elements contributed by each to this beautiful ceremony, were profoundly moving. God felt to be Present at this beautiful wedding with a fullness I've but rarely observed. The civil ceremony, by contrast, was altogether bureaucratic.
And there, perhaps, you have in a nutshell the difference between church/state wedding ceremonies in pluralistic America and long-monistic France.
Thanks again for listening,
Bob
Hello All,
An interested reader of my earlier post sent some helpful thoughts that I thought I would share, then quickly -- and again tentatively -- respond to.
Here is what he wrote:
"I think, however, that some of the concerns you raise derive from a watered-down view of civil marriage, or at least what it should be.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Are my friends Rick Garnett (Notre Dame) and Chris Eberle (United States Naval Academy) themselves still friends?
Just kidding. Of course they are!
Indeed, I doubt that Chris Eberle knows that Navy has a football team. Chris?
Today, at halftime of Notre Dame's pathetic disappointing loss to Navy, this ad -- which describes a research project that uses adult stem cells and proclaims Notre Dame's commitment to life from conception to natural death -- ran. And, this new webpage, on Notre Dame's Initiative on Adult Stem Cells and Ethics, was launched. Among other things, the new webpage has this:
The Catholic Church has been a robust participant in the ethical debate over stem cell research. It has vigorously opposed the use and destruction of embryos on the grounds that it constitutes the unjust taking of innocent human life for the benefit of others.
The Church’s argument follows from two premises.
First, as modern embryology confirms, the human embryo is a living, complete, whole, integrated, self-directing, member of the human species who will, if given the proper environment, move itself along a trajectory of development to the next mature stage.
Second, all human beings possess an equal moral worth and dignity, regardless of age, condition of vulnerability or dependence, circumstance, or the value of their life as judged by others.
Accordingly, “the use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions).
Thus, Catholic researchers and research institutions are morally prohibited from participating in such research, either directly (i.e., deriving the embryonic stem cell lines), or indirectly (i.e., “there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place.” Id.).
At the same time, the rich tradition of the Church embraces “science [as] an invaluable service to the integral good of the life and dignity of every human being,” and “hopes …that the results of [biomedical] research may also be made available in areas of the world that are poor and afflicted by disease, so that most in need will receive humanitarian assistance,” (Id.)
In service of this goal, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently urged scientists and research institutions to “dedicate themselves to the progress of biomedicine and [to] bear witness to their faith in the field.” (Id.).
Concretely, in the same instruction, the Church explicitly noted that “research initiatives involving the use of adult stem cells, since they do not present ethical problems, should be encouraged and supported.”
Notre Dame is uniquely situated to take up this charge by exploring cutting-edge adult stem cell research (along with other forms of stem cell research that do not require the use and destruction of human beings at any stage of development) in the name of the common good.
In this way, Notre Dame aims to bear witness to the proposition that respect for the dignity of the human person and devotion to excellence in science are integral and indispensable components of the richest understanding of the ends of biomedical research.
This is, of course, not enough; Notre Dame (and, of course, other Catholic universities) needs to do more to move the ball, and spread the word, on the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. But, it seems to me, this is a good thing. Lots and lots of people (true, many of them were probably throwing things at their TV, angered by the Irish's performance) were reminded, on NBC, of the inviolable dignity of every person.
Thanks to Tom White for reading MOJ--and especially for his response below to my post. It's clear where I stand on the issue of the "visitation": with Sr. Sandra Schneiders and Sister X, among others (including my Aunt Betty, who is a Dominican sister). I have nothing to say that they haven't already said, much more personally and eloquently than I could.
Anyhow, here is Tom's response:
I
'm puzzled by the reaction of Professor Perry and others like him to the
apostolic visitation of institutes of women religious. I am curious to know his
views on the following questions:
1. What obligation, if any, does the Catholic "patriarchy" have when faced
with groups such as the Leadership Conference of Women Religious whose members
purport to have moved "beyond Jesus" and the Church? http://www.lcwr.org/lcwrannualassembly/2007assembly/Keynote.pdf
Apart from the obvious scandal (in the sense of endangering
other souls) involved when a religious publicly embraces what can only be called
apostasy, it strikes me as an act of great charity on the part of people like
Cardinal Rode (and others in the "patriarchy") to make an effort to bring them
back into communion with the Church.
2. Assuming some obligation exists, what objections do you have with the
manner in which the Cardinal has sought to solve the problem? I'm not aware of
any criticism of the way in which Mother Clare, the nun that Cardinal Rode
appointed to conduct the visitation, has handled it thus far. But maybe you or
others have.
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
