[I'll wait until Patrick has responded--he has told me he will be responding--and then I'll reply to Rick and Patrick on the bishops and the death penalty. Meanwhile, I thought MOJ-readers would be interested in this item:]
National Catholic Reporter
November 18, 2005
Marriage between homosexuals is good for marriage
By ROSEMARY RADFORD RUETHER
In the current culture wars, we are constantly told by conservatives
that gay marriage would be a disaster for the ideal and institution of
(heterosexual) marriage. James Dobson, founder of the conservative evangelical
group Focus on the Family, has opined, “Barring a miracle, the family as
it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall
of Western civilization itself.” Pope John Paul II judged same-sex unions
as “degrading” marriage. The Vatican declaration “Considerations
Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual
Persons” (2004) stated, “Legal recognition of homosexual unions
obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of
mankind.”
But are these warnings that gay marriage poses a threat to marriage
true? Do they make either logical or empirical sense? At a time when fewer
Americans are marrying at all and many are divorcing, at a time when a third of
American households consist in single people, why is it a threat to marriage
that homosexual people are embracing marriage? Shouldn’t we find the large
numbers of people who are unmarried, often raising children as single parents,
the prime threat to marriage? What is remarkable about the current movement for
marriage among gay people is that they are asking for basically the same
institution and ideals of marriage as heterosexuals currently enjoy. They want
a publicly recognized sealing of a commitment to a lifelong monogamous union
with another person with whom they want to share their lives, an institution
that also carries with it certain legal rights, such as shared pensions and
health plans. Why is this a threat to marriage?
If marriage is not allowed for gay people, what is the alternative that
conservative Christians are demanding ? For some, gay people shouldn’t
exist at all; they can and should be converted to heterosexuality. But few
medical and psychological experts now share this view. Sexual orientation has
proved to be deeply embedded and not easily changed. Another alternative is
lifelong celibacy. But celibacy has generally been recognized in the Christian
tradition to be a special gift, not given to most people. Why should all gay
people be assumed to have this gift? If conservative Christians demand that
gays remain unmarried, but they are not capable of celibacy, what are we
saying? That they should be promiscuous, that they should have uncommitted
relations?
Two evangelical writers, Letha Scanzoni, author of the 1978 book Is
the Homosexual My Neighbor?, and David Myers, professor of psychology at
Hope College in Holland, Mich., have published a book this year arguing for gay
marriage from a Christian evangelical perspective, What God has Joined
Together: A Christian Case for Gay Marriage. In this book they argue that
marriage, in the sense of a permanent, lifelong, egalitarian, monogamous
relationship between two persons for mutual care and child raising, is a
fundamental human good. Couples in such relations are healthier and happier.
Children are best raised in a stable two-parent household. If this is good for
heterosexuals, then it is also good for homosexuals. Gay marriage does not
destroy marriage, but rather extends this same good way of life to
homosexuals.
The argument that opening marriage to gay people is a slippery slope
that will quickly lead to promiscuity, group marriage, polygamy and incest
makes no sense. Gay people and heterosexuals have both been promiscuous and
pursued various extramarital relations. The gay marriage movement is precisely
a rejection of casual and plural relations. It is an option for a committed,
monogamous relationship with one other beloved person for the rest of
one’s life. One of the remarkable things about the recent opening of
marriage to homosexuals, briefly in San Francisco and then in Boston, is the
number of gay people who came forward with great joy to seal officially what in
many cases had already been a committed relationship of 10, 20 or 30 years. Are
gay people “capable” of committed monogamous relationships? Obviously
so, at least as much as heterosexuals. What they are asking is for this
committed, monogamous relationship to be legally recognized as marriage.
Ms. Scanzoni and Dr. Meyers argue that accepting gay marriage, far from
threatening marriage, will confirm and strengthen the ideal of marriage itself
for all of us, heterosexuals and homosexuals. Gay marriage can be a positive
example for the many people in our society who hesitate and fear to embrace a
permanent monogamous and lifelong relationship, with its struggles as well as
its joys. Gay marriage should be embraced by Christians as pro-marriage, not
anti-marriage. In Ms. Scanzoni and Dr. Meyers’ words, “It can prompt
heterosexual men and women to appreciate marriage in a new way.”
Rosemary Radford Ruether is the Carpenter Professor of Feminist Theology
at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif.
Monday, November 21, 2005
No plausible construal of any transnational or international human right entitles a woman to an abortion in circumstances where the pregnancy does not threaten either her life or her physical health. Notice that in the case Rick called to our attention, a woman already had a right to a *therapeutic* abortion under *Peruvian* law. The decision concerned the obligations of a state (only) in such circumstances. As the press release noted: "Abortion is legal in Peru for therapeutic
reasons; however, because Peru failed to adopt clear regulations, women
whose health is endangered by such pregnancies are left at the mercy of
public officials. The petitioner in the case was denied access to the
procedure by the hospital’s director, and was compelled to carry the
fetus to term. She was forced to breast-feed for the four days the
infant survived."
mp
Rick Garnett & Patrick Brennan, whom I love, are deeply confused about retribution and the bishops' recent statement on the death penalty.
The retributive theory theory of punishment tells us whom we may punish (the guilty, not the innocent), but it does *not* tell us what punishment is justified. The retributive theory of punishment does not tell us, for example, that one who is convicted of torturing and then killing his victim may be tortured and then executed (by the state). Nor does it tell us that one who is guilty of murdering his victim may be executed. If one wants to justify executing a criminal, one must look beyond the retributive theory of punishment.
According to the bishops' statement on the death penalty, there is no justification for executing a criminal, no matter how heinous his crime. Now, one may disagree with the bishops, but neither Rick nor Patrick has explained where the bishops' argument in this regard misfires. Indeed, neither has set forth for MOJ-readers the bishops' argument.
Patrick writes: "The proper question, from this angle, is whether the penalty of death is
disproportionte to a particular convict's culpability." But this is not the proper question for one who concludes, as the bishops do, that there is no justification for executing a criminal, no matter how heinous his crime.
Patrick then writes: " ... even John Paul
II never said that the death penalty is always and everywhere
disproportionate." I read John Paul very differently. But more importantly, E. Christian Brugger (like his mentor, John Finnis) reads him differently. See Brugger's Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition (Notre Dame 2003).
Patrick then writes: "The Bishops' . . . focus on the
non-retributive grounds of punishment obscure the Church's teaching
that fault is (a necessary condition) and proper basis of punishment." But that "fault is a necessary condition and proper basis of punishment" doesn't help us decide whether capital punishment is ever justifiable. Yes, only the guilty may be punished. That is not the contested issue. The contested issue--the question-in-chief--is whether the guilty may ever be executed.
If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you'll find only a self-defense justification for some instances of capital punishment. But, as Brugger explains, capital punishment is *never* an instance of self-defense, because capital punishment is *always* the intentional killing of a human being; self-defense, by contrast, is *never* the intentional killing of a human being, even though some instances of self-defense foreseeably kill a human being. The Doctrine of Double Effect, etc.
mp
Friday, November 18, 2005
[I suspect some MOJ-readers will be interested in this.]
New York Times
November 18, 2005
Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that
''intelligent design'' isn't science and doesn't belong in science
classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter
the evolution debate in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican
Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of
evolution in school programs was ''wrong'' and was akin to mixing
apples with oranges.
''Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be,''
the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a
conference in Florence. ''If you want to teach it in schools,
intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history
is taught, not science.''
His comments were in line with his previous statements on
''intelligent design'' -- whose supporters hold that the universe is so
complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools
in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum.
Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism -- a literal
reading of the Bible's story of creation -- camouflaged in scientific
language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.
In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne
reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the
history of the universe.
''If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best
of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from
the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who
made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.''
Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent. ''God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that
reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to
greater and greater complexity,'' he wrote. ''He is not continually
intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.''
The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest
astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the
papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution
debate by saying the universe was made by an ''intelligent project''
and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was
without direction or order.
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn. In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II
that evolution was ''more than just a hypothesis.'' Schoenborn said the
late pope's statement was ''rather vague and unimportant.''
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Earlier this month--on November 6--the Birmingham [Alabama] News editorial page began a six-day exploration of the death penalty in Alabama. To quote: What we have done is look at capital punishment in the context of
some of our strongly held views on other life-and-death issues. In the course
of that inquiry, we found it increasingly hard to reconcile our traditional
support for the death penalty with our reverence of life, as expressed in our consistent
opposition to abortion on demand, embryonic stem-cell research and euthanasia. Eventually, the editors concluded:
Put simply, supporting the death penalty is inconsistent with our
convictions about the value of life, convictions that are evident in our
editorial positions opposing abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and
euthanasia. We believe all life is sacred. And in embracing a culture of life,
we cannot make distinctions between those we deem 'innocents' and those
flawed humans who populate Death Row.
Faith tells us we all are imperfect, but we're not beyond
redemption. We believe it's up to God to say when a life has no more purpose on
this Earth.
This six-part series, which relies in part on the teaching of John Paul II (Catholics have come a long way in Alabama!), is must reading for anyone interested in the morality of capital punishment.
To read the whole series, click here.
_______________
mp
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Sightings 11/10/05 [from the Martin Marty Center at the
University of Chicago Divinity School]
The Most
Acceptable Prejudice
-- Jon Pahl
One sad trend in the current
controversy over pedophilia in the church is that it has occasioned yet another
rank of people of privilege in America to represent themselves as victims.
These mostly white, mostly male, mostly well-off Roman Catholic leaders have
taken to claiming anti-Catholic "prejudice" -- and are doing so as a way of
defending against inexcusable crimes. Let's cut through this smokescreen,
without escalating the moral panic about pedophilia: It is prejudice
against children, and not Catholics, that is operative in this
controversy.
Within the past five years, two Catholic scholars -- Philip
Jenkins and Mark S. Massa -- have written large books contending that
anti-Catholicism is "the last acceptable prejudice" in the United States.
I grant them their point. Historically, Catholics have been targets of
suspicion and violence in America, and some stereotypes still endure.
Unfortunately, the pedophilia uproar has brought these stereotypes to the
surface in new forms, despite the desire on the part of most Catholics to
confront the pedophilia problem.
And surely it is important to keep in
mind that Catholic schools -- for all the stereotypes sometimes associated with
them -- have been crucial agencies of intergenerational education and spiritual
formation in America. Through them, young people have discovered their
voices and vocations in service to the common good. Catholic congregations
-- like other communities of faith -- remain places in American culture where
generations can meet informally for conversation, mentoring, and mutual
learning. And Catholic social services -- like other faith-based charities
and advocacy groups -- have potential to provide much in the way of front-line
service to the poor and powerless.
But on September 21, 2005, the same
day that a Philadelphia Grand Jury released a 671-page report documenting
decades of abuse of children by priests, and a systemic cover-up, across the
Philadelphia Archdiocese, the Archdiocese released (under the authorship of its
legal counsel) a 76-page reply to the report, fraught with defensive
evasions. While it points out, rightly, that Catholics generally want to
solve the problems of child abuse, inside the church and without, it also claims
that the Grand Jury proceedings betrayed an "anti-Catholic" bias.
The
potential of Catholic agencies to promote the common good is undercut when
certain Catholics claim to be targets of prejudice, powerless victims. And
denying the possession of power by asserting a pseudo-victim status amounts to
obscuring, even disclaiming, the relations of domination at work in abuses
against children.
As is well known, acts of pedophilia are not only "sex
crimes." They are, even more, exercises of power on the body of a young
person. These acts are often compared, rightly, to rape. But there
are other analogies.
One example is found in corporal punishment.
In America, a parent may legally assault his or her child. An act that
would be a crime when perpetrated against an adult is, when committed against a
child (and often on or near their sexual organs), called "discipline." In
some circles, these acts of assault are positively praised, and their
relationship to sexual abuse and power over the young denied.
Such
intimate violence is only one form that prejudice against the young can
take. Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush have both claimed to be on the
side of "innocent children." Yet Iraqi children have been the victims of
both suicide bombings and U.S. strategic military assaults.
And here at
home, children will surely suffer from skewed federal priorities. Common
sense suggests that "No Child Left Behind" is nothing more than empty rhetoric,
when we still have to pay for the war on terror, for hurricane relief,
and continue to plan tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens in America.
Such logic defies rationality and reveals prejudice.
In the context of Christianity, what makes such
expressions of prejudice against the young especially scandalous is that they
contradict the model of power-with-others manifest in the life of Jesus.
Opposing the age bias of his own day, Jesus welcomed children into his
presence. He called for "child-like faith" among his disciples. He
practiced only the power of love.
Pedophilia is but one example of adults
exercising power over children. And when adults evade accusations
of pedophilia by claiming victim status, they deny the responsibility to
exercise power with (or on behalf of) children in ways that might
actually address the systemic issues impeding young peoples'
fulfillment.
How truly sad, then, that a few Catholic priests perpetrated
abusive acts, a few officials covered up those acts, and a few Roman Catholic
leaders have tried to excuse them by appealing to victim status. What they
were all doing instead was deepening the hold of the most acceptable prejudice
in American culture: systematic and systemic abuse of the youngest and
weakest members of our society.
References:
The Grand Jury
Report can be found at:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/pa_philadelphia/Philly_GJ_report.htm.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia's responses can be read at: http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/grandjury.htm.
Jon Pahl is Professor of the History of Christianity in
North America at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, and author
of Youth Ministry in Modern America: 1930-the
Present.
"In
these very troubled times in our church and in our world, each and
every human being lives by hope. Each and every human being ... is
waiting for hope," M. Cathleen Kaveny, professor of law and of theology
at the University of Notre Dame, said in a speech in Baltimore Oct. 21.
She spoke at the inauguration of Loyola College in Maryland's new
president, Jesuit Father Brian Linnane. In discussing what hope is and
what it entails, Kaveny told why she believes a Catholic college's most
urgent task today is to nurture this virtue. "Hope is not to be equated
with a sunny, cockeyed optimism. Hope does not pertain to easy or
certain things," she said. Thus, hope requires hard work. And hope "is
not solitary. The fulfillment of my hope frequently requires activity
or assistance from others." Solidarity and imagination are needed to
cultivate hope, she commented. Kaveny noted that two vices, according
to Thomas Aquinas, are opposed to hope: presumption and despair; she
related each to current concerns in higher education. For example, she
said, in the context of discussions of intelligent design and evolution
"presumption results in attempting to harmonize the truths of faith and
the truths of reason too quickly so that all tension is dissolved here
and now." She said, "The virtue of hope gives us the strength to be
patient and to pursue knowledge confidently with integrity and
humility. We don't need to know everything right now." Kaveny's text
follows.