Uhm ... I see. Thanks.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Perry to Slattery
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Give me a break!
In response to Kenneth Slattery, C.M. (here), who is no doubt a good man, those of who who believe that contraceptive intercourse is *not* immoral are at least--at least!--as warranted in calling those who believe that contraceptive intercourse is immoral "invincibly ignorant" as Kenneth Slattery is in calling us invincibly ignorant. My God, why can't we just accept that there is room for reasonable disagreement here?
Monday, October 8, 2007
Gary Wills (and Martin Marty) on Abortion
Sightings
10/08/07
Garry Wills on the Abortion Question
--Martin E. Marty
"But is abortion murder?" Garry Wills asks the question in his new book,
Head and Heart: American
Christianities. In this enlightening
book—you will hear much about it—Wills explores how the Enlightenment heritage
interacts with the Evangelical heritage, which Wills treats evangelically at
least until the last chapter, "The Karl Rove Era." This Wills sees as a corruption of both
traditions. I had read Wills's
manuscript, and couldn't wait to see it in print. I'd say more about its qualities, but must
hurry on to how he answers the question posed above. He finds the abortion question important
because it is the "wedge issue," the one that evokes absolutist claims that have
political effects.
Wills contends, "It is not demonstrable that killing fetuses is killing persons. Not even the Evangelicals act as if it were. In that case, the woman seeking the abortion…is killing her own child." If the fetus is regarded as a person, why would the murderous mother be exempt from the death penalty, in which most Evangelicals believe? And many Evangelicals allow abortion in the case of rape or incest. That won't work: "We do not kill people because they had a criminal parent." Some allow for abortion to save a life. Wills asks, "Why should the mother be preferred over the 'child' if both are, equally, persons?" Why opt for the "certitude" of murder over only the "danger of death?"
Wills, himself a Catholic, raises the temperature even higher: "Nor did the Catholic Church treat abortion as murder in the past. If it had, late-term abortions and miscarriages would have called for treatment of the well-formed fetus as a person—calling for baptism and Christian burial." But this was never the case. "And no wonder," says Wills. The subject of abortion is not scriptural, "it is not treated in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, or anywhere in the Jewish Scripture, the New Testament or the creeds and the early ecumenical councils." Augustine? He could never find in Scripture "anything at all certain about the origins of the soul." And the most notable Thomas Aquinas, "lacking scriptural guidance" and using Aristotelian distinctions, "denied that personhood arose at fertilization by the semen. God directly infuses the soul at the completion of human formation."
Wills refutes arguments that
abortion is a religious issue, and that anti-abortionists are acting out of
religious conviction. No, it is not a
theological matter at all: "There is no
theological basis for either defending or condemning abortion." Even the popes say it is a "matter of natural
law, to be decided by natural reason," and the pope is not an arbiter of natural
law. Informed conscience, said
super-convert John Henry Newman, has to come first in matters of this sort.
Wills concludes: When anti-abortionists claim to be "pro-life,"
they are inconsistent. Only people like
Albert Schweitzer can be called consistently pro-life. "My hair is human life," yet the barber does
not preserve it. What matters is not
"human life" but "the human person." Sonograms of the fetus reacting do not show a
human person: "All living cells have electric and automatic reactions." Don't get Wills wrong: "It is not enough to say that whatever the
woman wants should go. She has a responsibility to consider..." But, he asks, do religious or political
authorities have the right to take over that responsibility? Take it from there.
[Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.]
Thursday, October 4, 2007
St. Thomas and Archbishop Tutu
On the surface at least--and perhaps all the way down--it seems as if the powers-that-be at the University of St. Thomas have made a monumentally stupid decision. Read on ...
Chronicle of Higher Education
Thursday, October 4, 2007
A Minnesota University's Decision Not to Invite Archbishop Tutu as a Speaker Brings Disappointment
By ANNA WEGGEL
The University of St. Thomas, in Minnesota, has declined an opportunity to invite Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at a conference next spring, spurring disappointment and outrage among faculty members and affiliated university groups. The university says it was concerned about past comments from the South African civil-rights leader that some people considered anti-Semitic. [Archbishop Tutu has been critical of some policies of the Israeli government toward the Palestinians. --mp]
Each year the university co-sponsors a spring conference with PeaceJam, an international organization for young people that promotes justice and peace. The group invites Nobel Peace Prize laureates to speak to young people, and Archbishop Tutu, winner of the 1984 prize, had been approached about appearing next spring.
But when university administrators learned of that proposal, they declined to invite him, withdrawing a major source of support for the appearance. And a St. Thomas professor who sent a letter to Archbishop Tutu explaining the university's stance and expressing her disapproval of the decision was stripped of her title as chair of the institution's Justice and Peace Studies Program this summer. University administrators confirmed the demotion of Cris Toffolo, an associate professor of political science, but gave no details other than to say it had to do with the situation concerning Archbishop Tutu.
In explaining the decision not to invite Archbishop Tutu to speak, Doug E. Hennes, St. Thomas's vice president for university and government relations, said the South African clergyman had never been officially booked. He said that interest in inviting the archbishop to speak had been brought to the administration, which then conducted its customary screening and background checks for speakers at conferences of that size. University officials talked to Jewish contacts inside and outside the university, he said, and determined they did not want to promote someone whose presence could offend people of Jewish faith.
"We didn't want to use our financial resources and space and facilities and personnel to bring someone here who has said things that were hurtful to the Jewish community," said Jim Winterer, director of the university's news service. "We didn't want to contribute to that hurt."
The university's failure to support Archbishop Tutu's speech is disappointing for some. Ms. Toffolo, the professor who lost her position leading as the peace-studies program, saw the issue as reflecting a larger problem in society.
"We've seen people being denied tenure elsewhere, hires tested, and conferences canceled when people raise criticism of Israeli state policy. We have to have this debate," Ms. Toffolo said. "Until we stop silencing speech about this subject, the academy is going to be in trouble. This is one issue where academic freedom is compromised."
PeaceJam, which is planning to go forward with Archbishop Tutu's speech with alternative financial support, hopes officials at St. Thomas might change their minds. The university "should invite the archbishop to their campus and engage in a dialogue and debate," said Ivan Suvanjieff, president of PeaceJam. "The man is not anti-Semitic. I encourage the university to invite him and do the debate."
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Discussing Peace, Online
Sept. 24, 2007
Journal of Religion, Conflict, and Peace launches
online scholarly
discussion of role of religion in peace
The Journal of Religion, Conflict, and Peace debuts this week at www.religionconflictpeace.org. The online scholarly journal, published by a collaborative of Indiana’s three historic peace colleges, is a forum for discussion of the role of religion in both conflict and peacebuilding.
The premier issue of the Journal features articles by nine major thinkers in theology, ethics, religious studies and conflict transformation. Readers may access the articles about religion as a source of conflict and as a resource for peace without subscription and distribute them (with attribution and unaltered) freely. A “letters to the editor” feature further encourages dialogue among readers and scholars.
Initial topics range from the role of religion in the global war on terrorism by Douglas Johnston, president of the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy, to an argument for recanonizing scripture to exclude violent texts by secular humanist Hector Avalos of Iowa State University. Daniel Maguire of Marquette University brings his expertise on moral theological ethics and ordained Soto priest Brian Victoria at Antioch College identifies a “holy war” tradition in all major faiths and calls for its rejection universally.
The online journal is a project of the Plowshares peace studies collaborative of Earlham, Goshen and Manchester Colleges funded by Lilly Endowment Inc. Joseph Liechty, associate professor of peace studies at Goshen College, is editor. Contact him at 574-535-7802 or [email protected]
Cooperation with Evil at Boston College
Catholic Faith and Cooperation in a Pluralistic Society: Navigating Conflicts Between Conscience and the the Law |
| Panel Discussion. The panelists are Edward A. Hartnett, Prof. of Law, Seton Hall Univ. School of Law; M. Cathleen Kaveny, Prof. of Law and Theology, Univ. of Notre Dame Law School; James F. Keenan, S.J., Prof. of Theology, Boston College; and Very Rev. Russell E. Smith, Senior Director of Ethics, Catholic Health Association. The panelists will discuss the ways in which the principle of cooperation, drawn from the tradition of Catholic moral theology, can help us to think through the issues that arise out of the Catholic imperative to serve the public good in a complex world where law and policy are sometimes in conflict with Catholic moral principles. |
Date and Time: |
Thursday, October 11, 2007 | 4:00 p.m. | |
Location: |
Law School, Newton campus, East Wing 120 | |
Event URL: |
||
Of Interest to Particular Audience: |
Faculty, Graduate Students, Public, Undergraduate Students | |
Categorized as: |
Conferences, Lectures & Readings, Reason-Culture-Faith, Religious, Seminars | |
Sponsored by: |
Law School and Church in the 21st Century Center | |
Contact: |
Gregory A. Kalscheur, S.J., Law School | |
Contact's Phone: |
617-552-6850 | |
Contact's Email: |
[email protected] | |
Admission fee: |
free | |
Parking & Directions : |
www.bc.edu/about/maps |
Friday, September 28, 2007
How Much Disagreement Can We Stand?
The Tablet
September 29, 2007
Twenty-first-century sin
Julie Clague
Moral
theology, once the preserve of priests, has changed profoundly. Gone
are the confessors’ manuals and instead there is debate among its
students and scholars about the way we live our lives. But how much
division can be tolerated?
To read the article, click here.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Catholic Universities, Catholic Identity, John McGreevy, Etc.
Those of you who are following this discussion should, forthwith, check out what Peter Steinfels has to say over at dotCommonweal: here.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Martin Marty on Mother Teresa
I thought of Shipps' dictum this month when a beautifully sad or sadly beautiful book by the late Mother Teresa, Come Be My Light, saw the light of day and met the glare of publicity. Aha! was the instant and general response of well-selling a-theists: This shows that a character on the way to sainthood was inauthentic, and her failure to experience God "proves" God's non-existence.
Not to worry, was the main literate Catholics' response. Catholic apologists and experts on mysticism addressed Teresa's agony over her non-experience of God and her disappointment in the Jesus in whom she believed but whom she did not experience. They scrambled to show how her story would more likely lead people to the search for faith than it would disappoint them and drive them away. But if Mother Teresa had trouble feeling the presence of God, wrote critics, the old hypocrite should not have hung in there as a model, a self-sacrificing but not always easy to applaud rigorist. We were told that she would be a challenge to every right-thinking and right-experiencing Catholic.
Wrong. Her published diary is likely to sell as well as those attacking her. From what I have read, it is a cry of the heart to a heaven evidently empty and silent to her: "Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me?" In response, historically informed commentators reached back to the Psalms or medieval precedent for analogies. Those familiar with mysticism were ready with "Is this the first time you've heard of this?" or "Let's make this a teaching opportunity." Eileen Marky in September 14th's National Catholic Reporter laid it out well, as did colleagues in most weekly Catholic and many Protestant papers. Most asked what any of this had to do with the existence of God.
[Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.]
Saturday, September 22, 2007
So, What Does Catholic Social Theory Have to Say About This?
More Profit and Less Nursing at Many Homes
Insulated from lawsuits by their corporate structures, private investors in nursing homes have cut expenses and staff, sometimes below minimum requirements.
Click here to read this worrisome story.