I want to respond in two parts to Father Araujo’s thoughtful post on what it means to be a Catholic and it’s importance to legal theory. He begins by noting that there are some issues upon which faithful Catholics can differ and gives the issue of capital punishment. He wonders if one who supports capital punishment is a progressive in my terms and one who opposes it is a conservative in my terms. I actually used this example in my first post on the issue. It is important to note that my use of the terms progressive and conservative is not political. Catholics who adhere to the Magisterium across the board hold some positions that are conservative in the political sphere and some that are liberal. In a political sense, they are neither political or liberal. Catholics who follow the Magisterium across the board might regularly support Democrats or Republicans or neither. If they support the Magisterium across the board, they are conservative Catholics in my sense – Catholics of this character theologically tend to congregate around First Things rather than Commonweal. But in my opinion some of the conservative or First Things Catholics do not follow the Magisterium across the board. Some of them oppose capital punishment or tolerate instruments of war that inevitably kill civilians. In the eyes of these Catholics, they are not dissenting from the Magisterium, they are interpreting the Magisterium. In my taxonomy, these are still Catholic conservatives. By contrast, I think progressive Catholics who dissent from, for example, the teachings of the institutional Church on many issues involving sexuality, the role of women and other such issues typically believe that they are exercising freedom of conscience in departing from the Magisterium though on some issues, they may think a teaching is insufficiently established to count as part of the Magisterium. As to the former, I think the teachings of the institutional Church on birth control and same sex relations are clearly part of the Magisterium; as to the latter, I think the recent teachings of Church leaders as to how much weight is to be afforded to non-infallible teachings of the Church is often rejected on the ground that it can not be counted as part of the Magisterium. On the whole, as I use the term, progressives regard it as their duty to depart from the Magisterium when their conscience requires it.
I asked if God is a liberal. Father Araujo agrees that we have to “discern to the best of [our] ability God’s vision of justice.” It seems to me we might decide that God is a liberal, a conservative, something in between, or something else. I do not understand if we settle on a vision of justice that is attributable to God, how that is different from saying that God is a liberal or a conservative etc. (with the obvious understanding that this does not exhaust our understanding of God). I agree, as Father Araujo has said, that we are mostly in agreement. I do not understand the nature of our disagreement on this point if we have one. We may disagree and, if so I am surprised, about how much we can know about the mystery of God. The institutional Church can teach us much about God and our own prayer can bring us closer to God, but mysteries remain. Who among us really understands the eternal God; and who really understands the Trinity or what it means to be fully human and fully Divine at the same time? I think Father Araujo would agree that mysteries remain though his literal words, as I read them, suggest otherwise. Father Araujo then proceeds with a familiar, but articulate defense, of why one should follow the teachings of the Magisterium suggesting that the Magisterium is objective and those who disagree are mired in subjectivism. We have been down this road before. The progressives concede the teaching role of the institutional Church and that God speaks through the institutional Church, but particularly with respect to moral teaching they deny that the institutional Church has always spoken with God’s authority. They argue that the institutional Church has made many mistakes and has changed its moral position on many important matters. If this is correct, the institutional Church is a pilgrim Church that has been mired in the same subjectivism Father Araujo criticizes. As I understand it, most conservatives argue that the institutional Church has never made mistakes in its moral teachings, but some admit mistakes while arguing that it is nonetheless perilous to depart from the Magisterium. We, of course, have debated these matters at length, and I am not going down that road again. I would note that whether right or wrong, it would be the rare progressive who conducts his discernment alone or operates simply on the basis of feelings. Progressive theologians like Curran and McCormick have participated in a community of bounded discourse that is marked throughout by reasoned elaboration.
I really appreciated both Russ and Amy's attempt to dissect some of the different tensions running through our debates. I find this more nuanced look at our complex debates much more helpful than attempts to fit us into the categories appropriate for American politics.
I'm particularly intrigued by Amy's "Generational" and "Genre" categories. On "Genres", personally, I like the fact that we have these different genres. I like Michael Perry's charts and articles as much as I like Bob Arujo's complex essays. Both have their place, both are styles that might sometimes be appropriate for the information being conveyed, and both might be what the individual poster has the time and inclination to devote that that particular topic.
I think the "Generational" category is fascinating, as well. The comment from the reader who clearly identifies as a "younger" Catholic was illuminating. I'm way too old to consider myself a "younger" Catholic, and I don't feel old enough yet to consider myself an "elder" (most days), but this reader's comment captured precisely one of the tensions I sometimes feel in my efforts to work on articulating the "new feminism" John Paul II' called for in Evangelium Vitae para. 99. A friend recently expressed to me some frustration that so many of the women identifying themselves with this effort seem to be ignoring the works of earlier Catholic feminists. She said something like, "This has all already been done before. Why are you all trying to redo it?" What I believe many of my friends engaged in the "new feminism" project (many of whom are not really all that young) think is that many of these earlier efforts were focused more on (in the words of Amy's reader) "reconsidering settled teachings" (such as all-male priesthood), and we are simply more interested in "evangelizing the culture." It's not that the reconsideration of these settled teachings isn't perhaps appropriate and important, it's just not of primary interest to us.
A reader responds to the "generational" tensions in our ongoing discussion:
“I often get the sense that our Catholic elders don’t understand that young Catholics are tired of ‘reconsidering’ or ‘re-evaluating’ settled teachings—we want to focus on evangelizing the culture . . . Our experience of being Catholic is much more a choice than a cultural experience.Since most young Catholics chose Catholicism at some point in their lives, I think we’re generally more inclined to accept the teachings of the magisterium.
“I realize that our elders believe that they are helping to further the kingdom by making the Church more inclusive, pastorally sensitive, etc. and I think there is some real value in their efforts.But the Church has never been perfect and it never will be.The over-emphasis on condoning dissent and demanding reform makes me worried . . . I realize that my elders are emerging from a different cultural experience of Catholicism than I am, but I don’t think it’s inappropriate to want them to change their emphasis to focus more on new life in Jesus and less on imperfections in the institutional church. . . .”
This is more all-over-the-place than Russ’s illuminiating outline, but I have been struck by what could be dubbed as four “Gs” which may capture something of the creative tensions running through our recent conversations about our mission and our reflections about the substance and depth of our ongoing work as a whole.
Gender: this was the topic of one of my first postsfive years ago and I think Lisa’s most recent reflection captures well the ongoing dynamics.From a Catholic (and perhaps specifically “relational” perspective), to what extent are there real limitations in the blog medium itself, and to what extent does our commitment to be living witnesses to the relational dynamics of our faith call us to supplement the blog medium with ear to ear and face to face conversations?
Generational: the exchangebetween “a reader” (law student Stephen Braunlich) and Steve Shiffrin was fascinating for a number of reasons, not least because I think they indicate that depths and tensions of a cross generational conversation.Steve S., would it be fair to say that Humanae Vitae was something of a watershed moment for your generation; and that there is a generational tendency to tie together concerns about authority with discussions about the pastoral care regarding issues concerning sexuality and sexual morality?Stephen Braunlich, would it be fair to say that for many in your generation the starting point for reflection is the lived experience of shifting sands under your generation’s feet –so what often comes into relief is the search for clarity in the marks of Catholic identity, rather than an effort to claim space for dissent?Our blog crosses a number of lines, including generational lines.I wonder if those varying perceptions and frames of mind might be at the root of some of our definitional struggles.
Genre: when we count up the number of posts, and think about the voices we each bring and the roles that we play in our group, we may want to think about our various and varying approaches to posting, and work on how posts might fall within different genres.Some of the very frequent posters are often doing the service of simply picking up the interesting things that they find around the blogosphere an the internet.Certainly we make the judgment about what it interesting and post-worthy through the lens of our own perspective and criteria; but not all posts are intended to carry the charge of a particular viewpoint or perspective. On the other end of the spectrum, some of us gravitate toward the genre of mini-essays.Others come up with focused and tersely worded zingers. Others tend to simply pose probing questions. As we think about how we are using this medium, we may want to add this complicating factor of the varieties of blog “genre” into the mix.
Finally, Gaudium et Spes: Russ’s taxonomy according to the models of the church is helpful and illuminating.Perhaps another thread running through how we envision our conversation is the basic tension which also runs through the Second Vatican Council.How do we imagine the life of the church in relation to the world? Do we see it as a space to be formed and strengthened, to then go “outside” in order to engage other ideas, often ideas in tension?Or do we see the church itself as a space for engagement with difference on a variety of levels (eg, local vs. universal; cross-cultural, etc.).In other words, how do we see and converse with the “world” within the church, and within our very selves?
Readers in the Twin Cities area might be interested in an upcoming lunchtime program at St. Thomas's law school on the writers George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh and their approaches to public life. The time is 12:30 p.m. next Tuesday January 27, and the speaker is David Lebedoff, author of a delightful book called The Same Man, a dual biography of and meditation on Waugh and Orwell. Lebedoff claims that despite their vast differences -- conservative Catholic versus agnostic socialist -- Waugh and Orwell shared features in their moral outlooks that are actually more important in the modern world. (A claim more striking, even, than that there are commonalities among MOJ's bloggers!) In any event, the narratives in the book are, as I said, delighful, and Lebedoff, a lawyer, is an excellent storyteller. First Things calls the book "fascinating"; the New York Times Book Reviewcalls it "enjoyable and provocative." Come if you're a fan of Waugh or Orwell or (like me) both.
There will be lunch too. The event is sponsored by the Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy at St. Thomas. More details here.
A number of recent posts including those by Bob, Steve, Michael, and Mike seem to indicate competing ecclesiologies, all of which may have claims to legitimacy. Deferring to Cardinal Dulles and his standard work, Models of the Church, we could identify six ways to conceive of the Church rooted in scripture and tradition:
Institution
Mystical Communion
Sacrament
Herald
Servant
Community of Disciples
To the extent that "[w]hat is truly needed is objective and moral truth that is not mine or yours but God’s which can be known and conveyed with prayer, with discernment, and with union with the Church in thinking with rather than against her," as recommended by Fr. Araujo, the only model that clearly provides a mechanism for authoritatively pronouncing objective and moral truth is arguably that of Church as institution. That is one of the great strengths of the insitutional model, and, to the extent that the institutional Church declares teaching to be infallible, it ostensibly creates a bright line defining those within the community. The teaching of the leaders within the Church that does not rise to that level, while due deference, is not necessarily "objective and moral truth." So, without resorting to Protestant-style indiviualism, it is possible to humbly dissent from potentially fallible teaching after having attempted to conform our consciences to the teaching of the institutional Church.
I expect that those on the blog who express less comfort with particular official teachings would also emphasize the institutional model of the Church less than those who have been able to conform their consciences to potentially fallible teaching by Church leaders. The mystical union, servant, and community of disciples models might instead emphasize the role of scholars, as having a special obligation to think with the Chuch, even when it leads to respectful disagreement. So, those of us with preferences for unity and consistency might tend to emphasize the Church as institution, while those of us who are concerned that potentially fallible teachings might be erroneous emphasize another model. Both approaches might be construed as valid responses of conscience within the boundaries of a normative ecclesiology. Those emphasizing the intstitutional model have valid concerns regarding authority, cohesion, and the intelligibility of doctrine. Those emphasizing other models may have valid concerns that the Church not defend problematic teachings (as in historical teachings regarding slavery).
I recognize value in these different emphases in ecclesiology and believe that as people of good will and conscience we can engage in respectful dialogue even when there is disagreement regarding potentially fallible teaching by Church officials. Perhaps a more explicit understanding of our various ecclesiologies would help us in our constructive engagement.
Anthony Stevens Arroyo made a statement that surprised me in
the online version of the Washington Post yesterday http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2009/01/why_fear_foca.html.
He said that most of the Bishops supported the Democratic ticket and the focus
on FOCA was designed to demonstrate unity, was a “’bone’ thrown to the minority
who still adhere to abortion as the single determinative issue for all Catholic
voters, and might breathe life into the pro life movement which he said had suffered
setbacks. I found the statement that most of the Bishops supported the
Democratic ticket to be surprising.I am
curious whether those of you who are more aware than I of the politics of the Bishops
agree or disagree.
This conference -- "Freedom of, Freedom for, or Freedom From Religion: The Meanings of Religious Freedom in America" -- should be great. If you are anywhere near South Bend on Feb. 4 and 5, consider coming. Panelists and speakers include Mark Lilla, Nick Wolterstorff, Bill Galston, Michael Zuckert, David Campbell, Dan Philpot, John McGreevy, and Mark Noll (and me). Here's more:
At America’s founding three different and sometimes competing visions of religion in American political life were planted in American soil: freedom of religion, for religion, and from religion. These three distinct conceptions converged at the time of the American founding in the form of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the many parallel provisions in the state constitutions. Yet Americans do not always agree on the role religion should play in American public life. Should it be excluded from the public sphere or restrictions placed upon its use in public life or is the democratic process weakened and civic life diminished without the full participation of those with strong religious views? What should the relationship between religion and public life be in America? What is religious freedom today: freedom of, for, or from religion?
