In the environs of my Atlanta neighborhood, there are several gay and lesbian couples raising children. After reading, early this morning, Patrick Brennan's post of yesterday (here), I went across the street to inform two of the couples, as they were packing their children off to school, that contrary to the illusion that grips them, they and their children really aren't families after all. They seemed skeptical. I suggested that they study "natural law" more assiduously.
_______________
mp
Thursday, May 11, 2006
It wasn't pleasant, but I did it ...
NEWS FLASH: Religion Returns to France!
... and to Sweden and Germany too! Check it out for yourself: Click here.
Thanks to MOJ-friend and Trinity College (Dublin) law prof Gerry Whyte for this link.
_______________
mp
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Fr. Guevin versus Fr. Rhonheimer on Humanae Vitae
Now you can read the debate for yourselves. Click here. To get a further sense of the competing positions on Humanae Vitae, click here (the Rhonheimerian view) and here (what I take to be the traditional view, defended by Fr. Guevin, Janet Smith, et al.).
__________________________________________________________________
Fr. Rhonheimer, an Opus Dei priest (!) and professor of ethics and political philosophy at Rome’s
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, is a very interesting man. He writes, in a First Things article on the Holocuast back in 2003:
I am a
Catholic priest—but I come from a family that is three-quarters Jewish. I love
my Church. I believe in the truth that the Church proclaims. I proclaim that
truth myself. Yet I also have an emotional bond to Judaism, and to my Jewish
relatives. I am pained by unfair Jewish attacks on the Catholic Church. But I am
also pained by a one-sided Catholic apologetic that minimizes the injustice done
by Christians to Jews in history, or seeks to relegate it to oblivion. I am
especially aware of the Jewish sensitivity to topics that Catholics often pass
over either too quickly or in silence. Even if some of the Church’s
present-day critics are clearly more interested in promoting their own careers
or ideological agendas than in seeking the truth, some of the blame for their
“success” clearly rests on Catholic shoulders.
Rhonheimer concludes his First Things article with these comments:
Well-intentioned Catholic apologists continue to produce reports of Church condemnations of Nazism and racism. But these do not really answer the Church’s critics. The real problem is not the Church’s relationship to National Socialism and racism, but the Church’s relationship to the Jews. Here we need what the Church today urges: a “purification of memory and conscience.” The Catholic Church’s undeniable hostility to National Socialism and racism cannot be used to justify its silence about the persecution of the Jews. It is one thing to explain this silence historically and make it understandable. It is quite another to use such explanations for apologetic purposes.
Christians and Jews belong together. They are both part of the one, though still divided, Israel. This is why Pope John Paul II has called Jews, in exemplary fashion, our “elder brothers.” Brotherhood includes, however, the ability to speak openly about past failures and shortcomings. This is true, of course, for both sides. But in view of all that Christians have done to Jews in history, it is Christians who should take the lead in the purification of memory and conscience.
_______________
mp
Opus Dei Fr. Martin Rhonheimer
[The following excerpt is from the May 5th edition of John Allen's The Word from Rome. (For the whole letter, click here.)
From the earlier posts on contraception, you may remember that Opus Dei Fr. Martin Rhonheimer is the moral theologian according to whom Humanae Vitae teaches this position: It is not intrinsically immoral for a married couple to use a condom during sexual intercourse. Their intent in using the condom makes all the difference. If their intent is to prevent conception, their action--i.e., their engaging in condomized sexual intercourse--is immoral; but if their intent is to prevent the spread of HIV, their action is not immoral.
Now, the excerpt:]
One footnote from the Vienna gathering. Opus Dei Fr. Martin Rhonheimer, widely recognized as a provocative and unpredictable thinker, argued for a kind of "Christian secularity," by which he meant the capacity of Christians to recognize democratic institutions as legitimate and accept their outcomes even when they contradict Christian religious convictions.
Paradoxically, Rhonheimer said this act of humility actually facilitates a Christian "superiority complex," in the sense that once the secular world accepts the universality of human dignity and the bundle of absolute human rights it implies, it will sooner or later discover that the Christian gospel provides the strongest cognitive basis for explaining and defending those rights.
As part of this discussion, Rhonheimer got tongues
wagging by suggesting that American Catholics have made a mistake by
exalting the abortion issue above virtually everything else, neglecting
other important human and social rights issues. As one participant
later said, it sounded reminiscent of the "seamless garment" argument
once made by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago.
_______________
mp
Friday, May 5, 2006
Religion in Politics, for the Umpteenth Time
[Some interesting stuff on religion in politics in the following piece,
which I've excerpted. To read the whole piece, click here.]
New York Times
May 4, 2006
Economic Scene
Red States, Blue States: New Labels for Long-Running Differences
According to some, the country is splitting into two opposing camps, with political divisions becoming more polarized and more spatially segregated than they have been in the past.
A recent working paper, "Myths and Realities of American Political Geography," by two Harvard University economists, Edward L. Glaeser and Bryce A. Ward, challenges this conventional wisdom. The paper can be downloaded from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=874977.
The economists examined a number of contemporary and historical data sources on cultural, religious, economic and political attitudes and compared these responses across states.
They found that differences in political attitudes across states are nothing new: the Civil War and Roaring Twenties had much larger geographic variation in political views than we do today. Though dispersion in political attitudes has generally declined over the last 60 years, the last four years have brought a small uptick.
Though views have become somewhat less associated with geography in the 20th century, they still show strong differences. The fraction of the voters in a given area who vote Republican correlates well with the fraction who voted Republican in the last election.
Furthermore, America is not becoming more polarized. Of course, Republicans have a more positive view of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, and vice versa, but attitudes have hardly changed since 1978. It is fair to point out, though, that attitudes seem to have become somewhat more partisan in the last few years.
The most remarkable phenomenon is the rise of religion in politics. Thirty years ago, income was a better prediction of party affiliation than church attendance, but this is no longer true. Religion also played a big role in politics a century ago, so we may well be returning to the historical norm.
* * *
These cultural divisions have been around for a long time. In the 1936-37 Gallup poll, residents of New England and the Middle Atlantic states were far more likely than citizens elsewhere to support federally financed health measures aimed at venereal disease, to support a free press and to be willing to vote for Catholic or Jewish candidates.
* * *
Another peculiar connection is the strong correlation between religiosity and militarism. Respondents to Pew's survey who agree that "prayer is an important part of my daily life" also agree that the "best way to ensure peace is through military strength."
So why are these cultural and political divisions so persistent? The authors offer both some simple correlations and some more elaborate theories. It turns out that the degree of industrialization 85 years ago is an "astonishingly good predictor of Democratic support" among today's voters, as is the fraction of the population that is foreign-born.
But the biggest effect seems to be the correlation between religion and Republicanism. Among white voters who attend religious services at least once a week, 71 percent voted Republican in the last election, according to the Pew survey.
* * *Mr. Glaeser and Mr. Ward offer some speculation about why religion is such an attractive theme for politicians. According to their theory, direct appeals to voters on issues like abortion are tricky, because strong positions inspire groups on both sides of the issue, who then cancel each other out in votes. The trick is to send "coded messages" to different groups of voters. Strong opponents of abortion, for example, may react positively to certain religious allusions that appear innocuous to mainstream voters.
The Economist magazine characterizes American politics as a contest between the incompetence of Republicans and the incoherence of the Democrats. But there is a reason for the Democrats' incoherence: they are feverishly trying to assemble their own collection of strange bedfellows, and no one quite knows what it is.
* * *
Living Apart Together, Con't
I know that Church doctrine tells me that, if possible, I should share a household with my wife, Sarah. And even if Church doctrine didn't tell me that, I would continue to share a household with Sarah, not least because it is so delightful to do so.
What I want to know is this: Does Church doctrine tell me that I should share a household with my teenage children (16, 14), no matter how challenging they are? No matter what their musical tastes, etc.? I mean, does Church doctrine tell me that I must be a saint?!
_______________
mp
Thursday, May 4, 2006
Elizabeth Brown responds to Patrick Shrake on the Boston College controversy
[Professor Brown writes:]
I was disappointed to see Pat Shrake, a recent graduate of the University
of St. Thomas School of Law, attempting to attack the integrity and
credibility of Kenneth Himes and David Hollenbach, S.J., as a way of
diverting attention from the important issue of whether Secretary of State
Rice has and is actively promoting a war that is at odds with Catholic
Social Teachings. Pat's comment on Boston College's records of awards lifts
language directly from the Cardinal Newman Society's report on Catholic
College's entitled Culture of Death on Catholic Campuses: A Five Year
Review, pp. 16-17. Bishop John Vlazny, the retiring chairman of the Bishops
and Presidents Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, noted,
the Bishops and Presidents Committee "has regularly monitored the
publications and positions of the Cardinal Newman Society, and has found
them often aggressive, inaccurate, or lacking in balance."
In his comments, Pat is trying to change the question from Secretary Rice's
character and actions to insinuating that Dr. Himes and Fr. Hollenbach are
not acting consistently with Catholic Social Teaching all the time. Pat has
no facts to back up his insinuation. Merely raising the question, however,
diverts attention from the more important issue - the extent to which U.S.
foreign policy as designed and implemented by Secretary Rice is at odds with
Catholic Social Teaching.
Both Dr. Himes and Fr. Hollenbach are experts in the area of Catholic Social
Teachings regarding war and peace and have written extensively on those
issues. It would be natural for them to be particularly concerned when
individuals that their university is planning on honoring violate Catholic
teachings in that area.
Dr. Himes has served as President of the Catholic Theological Society of
America (2000-2001) and is also a member of the Society of Christian Ethics.
He was on the editorial board of New Theology Review and was editor of that
journal from 1998-2002. He was a fellow of the Center for Theological
Inquiry in Princeton, NJ during 1992. For several years he acted as
theological consultant for the Office of Social Development and World Peace
at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Fr. Hollenbach served as President of the Society of Christian Ethics
(1995-1996) and on the Board of Directors of the Catholic Theological
Society of America (1982-1984). He is on the Editorial Board of the Journal
of Religious Ethics and the steering committee of the Consultation of
Religion and Human Rights of the American Academy of Religion. He assisted
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in drafting their 1986 pastoral
letter Economic Justice for All: Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S.
Economy. In 1979 he received a Walsh-Price Fellowship for travel in Israel,
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt to do research on religion and human
rights in the Middle East. In 1996 he received a Fulbright Fellowship for
research and teaching in Kenya. In June, 1998, Hollenbach received the John
Courtney Murray Award for outstanding contributions to theology from the
Catholic Theological Society of America.
Elizabeth F. Brown
Assistant Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas
School of Law
1000 LaSalle Ave, MSL 400
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015
_______________
mp
More on the Boston College controversy ...
[MOJ-friend Patrick Shrake writes:]
I think it would be interesting to know if these protesting BC professors
did anything in the past when the following were scheduled to receive
honorary awards or made commencement speeches (though I understand that it
is the award, and not the invitation to speak, that the professors object
to):
Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, Honorary Degree, Chairwoman of the John D. &
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (May 2002). The MacArthur Foundation's
Population and Reproductive Health grant program is a leading contributor to
organizations advocating abortion, contraception and population control.
Paul Cellucci, Ambassador to Canada and former Massachusetts Governor (May
2002). While governor, Cellucci was a strong advocate of abortion rights.
Walter Dellinger, commencement speaker, May 24, 2004. Dellinger was closely
associated with NARAL Pro-Choice America and chaired NARAL's 1992 commission
to defend Roe v. Wade.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, author of Stenberg v.
Carhart, commencement address, May 23, 2003.
Rev. Robert Drinan, received BC's first Distinguished Service Medal (October
2004). As congressman, opposed numerous efforts
to ban federal funding of abortions. In 1996, published articlesin the
National Catholic Reporter and the New York Times supporting
President Bill Clinton's veto of a partial-birth abortion ban.
I'll note that I'm NOT saying that the professors are wrong to oppose the
award for Rice. Just curious if they have consistently opposed awards to
those who were "in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to
the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with
the humanistic values that inspire the university's work."
Grace & Peace,
Patrick Shrake
_______________
mp
_________________________
UPDATE, 5/5/06
In posting Pat Shrake's message, I edited out his sentence referring to the Cardinal Newman Society. In his original message, Pat wrote (right before his final paragraph, which begins: "I'll note that . . ."): "I'm sure there is a long history of similar awardees and speakers, I picked these ones up after perusing the Cardinal Newman Society website for a few moments (http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/)."
An Honorary Degree for Condoleezza Rice?
CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Thursday, May 4, 2006
2 Professors at Boston College Protest Honorary Degree for Condoleezza Rice
Two theology professors at Boston College have written a letter protesting the institution's decision to award an honorary degree to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the grounds that her role in the Iraq war and foreign policy makes her morally unfit for the honor at the Roman Catholic College.
Kenneth R. Himes, an associate professor and chairman of the theology department, and David Hollenbach, a full professor, sent their letter, titled "Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree," to the entire faculty by e-mail on Tuesday.
The professors wrote that they "strongly disagree" with the university's decision, announced on Monday, to invite Ms. Rice to the commencement ceremony, scheduled for May 22, and asked their colleagues to sign on. About 150 faculty members had done so by midday Wednesday, Mr. Hollenbach said. He was unable to provide the names of those who had signed the letter, but said he planned to make them public.
"On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work," the letter said. It also noted that Pope John Paul II and the United States Catholic bishops opposed the Iraq war.
Mr. Hollenbach said that he and his colleagues who signed the letter do not object to Ms. Rice's speaking at the college because they support academic freedom. "It is not our intent to disrupt the commencement," he said. But since she was the architect of the strategy for the Iraq war, he said, they do oppose awarding her the degree. He said they would submit the letter, which did not call on the college to rescind the invitation, to the institution's Board of Trustees and its president.
John B. Dunn, a spokesman for the college, said that while there may be some disagreement over the selection of Ms. Rice, college officials believe she is an appropriate choice. "As a university that embraces freedom of expression, we expect that she will be respectfully received," he said.
A spokesman for the U.S. State Department could not confirm whether Ms. Rice had agreed to speak at the college and declined to comment on the letter.
Mr. Dunn, however, said that Ms. Rice had accepted the invitation. He also said that students by and large seem to support the decision, citing an editorial, "Politics Put Aside, Rice Is Right Choice," that the student newspaper published on Monday.
Some faculty members disagreed with Mr. Himes's and Mr. Hollenbach's letter.
"What some of my colleagues, in theology and elsewhere, have done is to take contingent political judgments and raise them to the level of dogma," said the Rev. Paul W. McNellis, an adjunct professor of philosophy. He added that people of good will can be on either side of the Iraq war and that the church does not have an official policy on it.
Marc Landy, a political-science professor, also opposed the letter. He said he e-mailed faculty members that it was an honor to have Ms. Rice speak. "She is the secretary of state, after all," he said. "This is not a moment to let foreign-policy disagreements stand in the way of this occasion."
At least five other Roman Catholic colleges and universities have been criticized this year for inviting commencement speakers who have publicly opposed various church teachings (ChronicleNews Blog, April 20).
Following is the text of the professors' letter.
Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree
We, the undersigned members of the faculty at Boston College, strongly
disagree with the decision of the university's leadership to grant
Condoleezza Rice an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and to invite her to
address the 2006 commencement. On the levels of both moral principle
and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to
international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's
commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is
inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's
work.
As a matter of moral principle, Rice maintains that U.S. foreign policy
should be based on U.S. national interest and not on what she calls the
interests of an "illusory international community." This stands in
disturbing contrast with the Catholic and humanistic conviction that
all people are linked together in a single human family and that all
nations in our interdependent world have a duty to protect "the common
good of the entire human family."
On the level of practical judgment, Rice has helped develop and
implement the strategic policies that have guided the United States in
the tragic war in Iraq. Pope John Paul II and the United States
Catholic bishops opposed initiating this war on ethical grounds. We
also believe the policies that have shaped the war's ongoing conduct
cannot be justified in light of the moral values of the Catholic
tradition or the norms of international law.
For these reasons, we object to Boston College honoring Condoleezza
Rice at its 2006 commencement. Doing so contradicts the university's
Catholic, Jesuit, and humanistic identity.
_______________
mp
Tuesday, May 2, 2006
The Magisterium and Gay Adoption
COMMONWEAL May 5, 2006
To Welcome a Child
GAY COUPLES & ADOPTION
Jo McGowan
I have always been a strong advocate of adoption. It is a family tradition: my parents adopted my sister; my husband and I adopted our youngest, my sister and her husband adopted their little girl; and my brother-in-law and his wife adopted both their children. There was a time when I thought of starting an adoption agency because it seemed the perfect answer to two deep human yearnings: a child needs parents, parents want a child. What could be simpler? In fact few things can be more complicated.
I have stopped advocating, stopped trying to persuade young couples to adopt before having a homemade baby, stopped trying to convince the world that “Each One Take One” is the solution to the problems of abortion and unwanted children.
I still believe fervently in adoption. I still thank God every day for my sister, my daughter, my nieces, and my nephew. I just know now that it isn’t necessarily the right thing for everyone to do. I believe couples considering adoption should be far better prepared for the journey they are embarking on, and far clearer about the guaranteed burdens the new baby coming into their family will bear.
A child who has been abandoned by its mother, no matter how dire the circumstances, no matter how sensible her decision, suffers a loss nothing can make up for. Life contains sorrows that cannot be assuaged, and it is important to be honest in acknowledging this. Too often, in our desire to believe in the healing powers of love, we deny the power of grief.
Couples volunteering to be the parents of such a child need to understand this and to realize the enormity of what they are taking on. When my husband and I adopted our baby daughter, Moy Moy, we were as innocent as babies ourselves. She was twelve weeks premature, but I think our pre-maturity was far more profound. Lucky for us, and for her, some things were given: we were deeply in love, we had already raised two homemade children, and I was a stay-at-home mom.
That stay-at-home bit is crucial. Somebody-man or woman-has to be willing to do it. A baby who has been abandoned needs to be held more often, cuddled more convincingly, and loved in ways that go beyond “quality time.” That baby needs unconditional acceptance, and she needs it constantly.
The recent decision by Catholic Charities of Boston-under unwarranted pressure from both the bishops of Massachusetts and from the Vatican-to refuse to allow gay couples to adopt children, is an example of wrongheadedness and intransigence that would make the angels weep. It is a disgrace to all that the church stands for, and it is an indictment of all that we believe about the sanctity of life and the gift that every child represents. As a Catholic, I am grieved by this rejection of love freely offered, selflessly and heroically. As the mother of an adopted child, I am amazed at the stupidity of a policy that denies the unique capacity of gay couples to provide what would-be adoptive children so desperately need.
Without being sentimental or biased, it is possible to say that certain people, because of their life experiences, are better qualified for certain tasks than others. People with disabilities, for example, and those who work with them, are more likely to be able to accept others as they are, simply because they have more experience doing it. People with disabilities may drool or have difficulty in expressing themselves. They may use sign language rather than words, or read Braille rather than conventional print. Those who are disabled themselves, or who have experience with people with disabilities, tend to be calmer about the variety of life’s gifts, knowing it is the same Spirit who provides them.
Similarly, gay couples, having staked everything on love in a world that is often hostile toward them, let alone tolerant, are better suited than most to the challenges of caring for children who need unconditional acceptance. If, having risked being ostracized and rejected by the community they-like anyone else-desire to be a part of, they are still willing to offer their lives and their hearts as a haven for children in the most desperate need of protection and unconditional acceptance, who on earth are we to say they are unworthy?
As a Catholic, I say no to the decision by Boston Catholic Charities to refuse to provide adoption services to gay couples. Love is rare enough in this world of violence and meanness. Can we truly consider rejecting it because it comes from people of the same sex?
ABOUT THE WRITER
Jo McGowan
Jo McGowan, a Commonweal columnist, writes from Deradoon, India.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
