Click here, and then scroll down to the final two paragraphs.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Stephen Bainbridge, Wine Connoisseur
SHOULD STATES ABOLISH MARRIAGE--CIVIL MARRIAGE, THAT IS?
Readers of this blog may be interested in a debate about civil marriage that was took place this past week over at Legal Affairs. The two debaters: Mary Lynn Shanley, professor of political science at Vassar College, and Linda McClain, professor of law at Hofstra University. Here is Legal Affairs' introduction to the debate:
Marriage comes with legal benefits, like the
right to visit a partner in the hospital. Opening civil unions to
same-sex partners would offer such legal benefits to homosexual
couples, while reserving the word "marriage" for unions between
heterosexuals. But some people suggest that, instead, the state should
do away with marriage as a legal category altogether and adopt a
universal system of civil unions open to all couples, while leaving
marriage to churches, mosques, and synagogues.
Should states abolish marriage?
To print out and/or read the debate, click here.
_______________
Michael P.
Friday, May 20, 2005
WHERE DO I SIGN UP TO BECOME ORTHODOX?
[From the May 20th Commonweal. To read the whole piece, click here.]
John Garvey
[I]n the attitudes of [John Paul II and Benedict XVI] toward internal Catholic matters there is something many Orthodox find a bit disturbing. While the outreach to other religions is most welcome, the style of internal church governance is less so. The emergence of the idea of collegiality during the Second Vatican Council struck a sympathetic chord in many Orthodox observers. Orthodox governance is conciliar, as was governance in the ancient church, and a return to this sensibility after a millennium of Roman centralization was promising, as was a return to patristic sources and a turning away from an almost exclusively Thomistic official Catholic theology. And John Paul II, with his knowledge of contemporary philosophy, seemed committed to learning from (for example) twentieth-century phenomenology, even as he respected the ancient and medieval sources. But under John Paul the Catholic Church moved away from the conciliarity that had shown signs of development under Paul VI; authority was recentralized, and there was a move away from the authority of bishops, and of bishops’ councils. Collegiality was a principle, but not really a practice.
Then there was the way in which theological controversies were handled. Catholics were told that the idea of women’s ordination could not even be discussed: it was not, Rome said, in the church’s power to make a change in that direction. I can’t help contrasting this with the atmosphere in Orthodoxy. While women are not about to be ordained by any Orthodox bishop, and I have little doubt that the majority of our bishops would oppose the ordination of women, such prominent Orthodox as the late Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh (Anthony Bloom) and Bishop Kallistos of Diokeleia (Kallistos Ware) have said in recent years that Orthodox must face this question seriously, and Metropolitan Anthony made it clear that he was in favor of women’s ordination.
I understand what John Paul and the then Cardinal Ratzinger thought they were up against. The latter got much negative press when he spoke about the dangers of relativism in his homily at the beginning of the conclave. He has a point, one also made in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2000 statement Dominus Iesus, a document he had much to do with. The tone of that statement was unduly negative. Still, it was right to say that theologians move away from Christian orthodoxy when they suggest that salvation can be found independently from Christ-which is not to say that only Christians or only Catholics can be saved, as some newspaper accounts wrongly suggested Dominus Iesus had said. It is rather to say that if anyone is saved, it is because of what Jesus did on the cross and in rising from the dead. If he did not save everyone, he did not save anyone. The tone, though, of Dominus Iesus was unnecessarily condescending toward other Christian traditions and to non-Christian religions. And then there is the way some theologians were handled: silencing and excommunication (in the case of the Sri Lankan theologian Tissa Balasuriya, who was reinstated a year later) could have been avoided. It should be enough simply to say that such and such is not Catholic theology, and it does not seem unreasonable to say that it may not be represented as such. To Orthodox and other observers, the Vatican’s “shut up and submit” attitude looks too much like the authoritarianism anti-Catholics have always charged the Roman church with.
The question raised by John Paul II in Ut unum sint-is
there a way the Petrine ministry could be exercised that would be
acceptable or of some service to Orthodox and other Christians?-is an
important one. A couple of answers: as long as it includes the idea
that all power flows from Rome, and that all power to appoint or remove
bishops is centered there, and none is based in local churches, no. As
long as the idea of papal infallibility is in place, with its
implication that the pope is a bishop uniquely unlike any other bishop,
no. An authority which simply hands things down is not authoritative
but in fact truly irresponsible. Persuasion is essential in a world
where people increasingly leave Christianity, not usually for some
other religion (though the movement of many Latin Americans from
Catholicism to Pentecostalism is a serious challenge), but more often
for nothing at all. There are depths beyond dogma; there is a profound,
divine silence from which dogma is born, and it is also the place from
which a deep listening may be done. A pope who could listen, who could
truly understand (even as he disagrees with) the many currents of
thought in the whole of the Christian tradition, would be helpful,
would be exercising the ministry of the servant of the servants of God.
He has to do more than listen, of course, but that deep listening-to
which Benedict XVI alluded in his first homily as pope-is an essential
beginning.
_______________
Michael P.
ONE OUT OF TWO AIN'T BAD
Now that President Bush has condemned what the scientists in South Korea are doing, how about a condemnation of what happened in Afghanistan?
I was struck by this juxtaposition of headlines in the online New York Times.
White House Condemns Korean Research on Cloning Embryos
Michael P.
NEWS FLASH: CATHOLICS ELECTED TONY BLAIR
[From the May 21st issue of The Tablet:]
Catholics secured Blair’s third term
Robert Worcester and Roger Mortimore
Tony Blair’s majority might have disappeared at the election if
Catholic voters had not remained loyal to Labour. The results of a MORI
survey for The Tablet reveals the role of religion at the ballot box.
Britain might be one of the most secular nations in Europe, but the religious vote still plays a powerful part in the life of the country. According to MORI surveys conducted for The Tablet the votes of Catholics gave Tony Blair the edge in Labour’s narrow victory.
[To read the whole piece, clicke here.]
_______________
Michael P.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY AND PRESIDENT BUSH
From the Chronicle of Higher Education, May 18, 2005:
President Bush to Face Widespread Faculty Dissent When He Speaks at Evangelical College on Saturday
More than 100 professors at Calvin College, in Michigan, have signed a letter criticizing the policies of President Bush, who is scheduled to speak at the evangelical Christian institution's spring commencement on Saturday.
The letter, which will be published as an advertisement in The Grand Rapids Press on Saturday, says that the professors "see conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration." It calls the war in Iraq "unjust and unjustified" and argues that President Bush's policies "favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor."
A spokesman for the college said on Tuesday that the letter was proof of a lively intellectual climate at Calvin. "I would have been disappointed if there hadn't been dissent on this issue," said Phil de Haan, the spokesman. He noted that the college has 300 faculty members, so about one-third of the professors actually signed the letter.
"I think the majority of people on campus are excited about the president's visit," he said.
Among those who conceived and circulated the letter was David Crump, a professor of religion at Calvin. "We wanted to object to some specific policies but also to object to the way that the language of orthodox evangelical Christianity has been hijacked by the religious right and its close association with this administration," he said.
Mr. Crump said he knew of no plans for demonstrations during President Bush's visit.
An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush
On May 21, 2005, you will give the commencement address at Calvin College. We, the undersigned, respect your office, and we join the college in welcoming you to our campus. Like you, we recognize the importance of religious commitment in American political life. We seek open and honest dialogue about the Christian faith and how it is best expressed in the political sphere. While recognizing God as sovereign over individuals and institutions alike, we understand that no single political position should be identified with God's will, and we are conscious that this applies to our own views as well as those of others. At the same time we see conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration.
As Christians we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort. We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq.
As Christians we are called to lift up the hungry and impoverished. We believe your administration has taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor.
As Christians we are called to actions characterized by love, gentleness, and concern for the most vulnerable among us. We believe your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees.
As Christians we are called to be caretakers of God's good creation. We believe your environmental policies have harmed creation and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment.
Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy, and we pray for wisdom for you and all world leaders.
Concerned faculty, staff, and emeriti of Calvin College
_______________
Michael P.
Monday, May 16, 2005
THE THOMAS REESE AFFAIR
Michael Scaperlanda invited us to read Russell Shaw's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal (here.) I read it. In my judgment, the editors of Commonweal and The Tablet, whose views I posted below (here and here), make a much more compelling case. In any event, readers of this blog may be interested in this piece, from the May 14th issue of The Tablet: The Thomas Reese Affair by Robert Mickens (here).
Michael P.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
COMMONWEAL ON THE "SCANDAL AT 'AMERICA'"
COMMONWEAL
May 20, 2005
The Editors
American Catholics, including most regular churchgoers, get their news about the church from the secular media, not from church spokespersons or official pronouncements. Most Catholics read about papal encyclicals in the papers; they don’t read encyclicals. It therefore behooves the hierarchy, if it wants to communicate with the faithful (or re-evangelize them), to act in a way that does not lend credence to the still-widespread impression that the Catholic Church is a backward-looking, essentially authoritarian, institution run by men who are afraid of open debate and intellectual inquiry. It is safe to say that the Vatican’s shocking dismissal of Rev. Thomas Reese as editor of the Jesuit magazine America has left precisely such an impression with millions of Americans, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
It is hard to judge what is more appalling, the flimsy case made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)--apparently at the instigation of some American bishops--against Reese’s orthodoxy and stewardship of America, or the senselessness of silencing perhaps the most visible, and certainly one of the most knowledgeable, fair-minded, and intelligent public voices the church has in this country. As a political scientist who has written extensively on how the church’s hierarchy works, Reese has for years been a much-relied-on source for the mass media in its coverage of Catholic issues. During the recent conclave, his visibility increased exponentially, with millions of television viewers being introduced to him on PBS, CNN, and other networks. Not surprisingly, he showed himself to be lucid, succinct, and nonideological. In a church with a more confident and magnanimous hierarchy, Reese’s prominence would be seen as a great asset, not a threat. Instead, Reese’s dismissal, following so closely his increased exposure during the conclave, has become front-page news. As a consequence, the first thing many Americans are now likely to associate with Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy will be yet another act of Vatican repression. Does this mean that the zeal with which then-Cardinal Ratzinger harried theologians while head of the CDF will continue during his papacy?
For those who had hoped that the pastoral challenges of his new office might broaden Benedict’s sympathies, this is a time of indignation, disappointment, and increased apprehension. For those who know Reese and his work, the injustice of the CDF’s action is transparent. No intellectually honest person could possibly claim that Reese’s America has been in the business of undermining church teaching. If the moderate views expressed in America, views widely shared by the vast majority of lay Catholics, are judged suspect by the CDF, how is the average Catholic to assess his or her own relationship to the church?
It is even more troubling to learn that the CDF insisted on Reese’s removal despite his compliance with the congregation’s own demands that America publish articles of a more apologetic nature defending controverted magisterial teachings. In 2003, apparently, the CDF informed Reese that he had indeed corrected whatever imbalance it had detected in the magazine’s content. According to news stories, more recent articles in America questioning the church’s position on same-sex marriage and the status of prochoice U.S. Catholic politicians precipitated the latest CDF action. Both of the articles cited, however, were in response to other pieces in America defending magisterial teaching. Evidently, the CDF insists that any church-sponsored publication aimed at the educated faithful confine its activities to catechesis.
The reaction to the CDF’s removal of Reese has been widespread and impassioned among the Jesuits and in the Catholic academic world. Certainly the church’s reputation has been badly damaged, especially among those in the secular media who knew and had every reason to respect Reese. As a consequence, it will be even harder for the church’s views to get a fair hearing. Those who love and cherish the Catholic priesthood are equally appalled, seeing how callously someone like Reese, who has devoted his life and contributed his enormous talents to the church, is treated. It is possible to ascribe the incredibly maladroit timing and handling of this decision to Vatican incompetence, arrogance, or obliviousness. More worrisome, however, is the suspicion that Reese’s dismissal was carried out in precisely this way to send an unmistakable message. If that is the case, then the self-defeating demand for unwavering docility coming from those now in charge in Rome--and increasingly from members of the American episcopate--is only exceeded by their insensitivity and recklessness.
The audience for intellectually serious Catholic publications like America, where theological, ethical, political, and aesthetic questions are explored and debated, is shockingly small: some estimate not more than 200,000 potential readers among the nation’s 65 million Catholics. Why are Catholics so incurious about the intellectual challenges and satisfactions of their faith? Certainly one reason is that the church has historically taken a dim view of the questioning intellect, and especially of the public expression of such questions. Another reason is because the demand of bishops for editorial control deprives much of the Catholic press of credibility. Forty years after the Second Vatican Council, which did so much to enfranchise lay Catholics and to encourage their engagement with the great intellectual resources of the church, it is inexcusable that the CDF would censor a magazine as respectful and responsive to the church’s tradition as America. At a time when elites are as polarized as they are now in the American church, Reese’s dismissal will embolden those eager to purge “dissenters,” while making it nearly impossible for a reasoned critique of the agenda of church reformers to be heard by those who need most to hear it.
Those calling for the strict regulation of Catholic discourse argue that public dissent from church doctrine creates scandal, confusing or misleading the “simple faithful.” What really gives scandal to people in the pews, however, is the arbitrary and self-serving exercise of ecclesiastical authority. What the CDF has done to Thomas Reese and America is the scandal. Is it possible that not one bishop has the courage to say so? That too is a scandal.
Sunday, May 8, 2005
Condoms and AIDS
[To read the entire piece below, click here.]
Let's hope that Pope Benedict XVI quickly realizes that the worst sex scandal in the Catholic Church doesn't involve predatory priests. Rather, it involves the Vatican's hostility to condoms, which is creating more AIDS orphans every day.
Nobody does nobler work throughout the developing world than the Catholic Church. You find priests and nuns in the most remote spots of Latin America and Africa, curing the sick and feeding the hungry, and Catholic Relief Services is a model of compassion.
But at the same time, the Vatican's ban on condoms has cost many
hundreds of thousands of lives from AIDS. So when historians look back
at the Catholic Church in this era, they'll give it credit for having
fought Communism and helped millions of the poor around the world. But
they'll also count its anti-condom campaign as among its most tragic
mistakes in the first two millennia of its history.
. . .
Fortunately, the Vatican's policies are routinely breached by those charged with carrying them out. In rural Guatemala, I've met Maryknoll sisters who counsel prostitutes to use condoms. In El Salvador, I talked to doctors in a Catholic clinic who explain to patients how condoms can protect against AIDS. In Zimbabwe, I visited a Catholic charity that gave out condoms - until the bishop found out.
"What would Jesus do?" said Didier Francisco Pelaez, a seminarian in São Paulo. "He would save lives. If condoms will save lives, then he would encourage their use."
Even some senior Vatican officials are catching up with reality. One
step came when Cardinal Javier Lozano Barrágan, the Vatican's top
health official, said last year that condoms might be permissible if a
husband had H.I.V. and his wife did not.
_______________
Michael P.
Friday, May 6, 2005
SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE ...
Vatican Is Said to Push Jesuit Off Magazine
The order to dismiss the editor, the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, was issued by the Vatican's office of doctrinal enforcement - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - in mid-March when that office was still headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter, said. Soon after, Pope John Paul II died and Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope, taking the name Benedict XVI.
America magazine, a weekly based in New York City, is a moderate-to-liberal journal published by the Jesuits, a religious order known for producing the scholars who run many of the church's universities and schools. The Jesuits prize their independence, but like everyone in the church, even their top official, the Jesuit superior general in Rome, ultimately answers to the pope.
In recent years America has featured articles representing more than one side on sensitive issues like same-sex marriage, relations with Islam and whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be given communion. Church officials said it was the publication of some of these articles that prompted Vatican scrutiny.
Father Reese, in a statement yesterday, confirmed his departure but gave no indication that he was resigning under duress: "I am proud of what my colleagues and I did with the magazine, and I am grateful to them, our readers and our benefactors for the support they gave me. I look forward to taking a sabbatical while my provincial and I determine the next phase of my Jesuit ministry."
Catholic scholars and writers said in interviews yesterday that they feared that the dismissal of such a highly visible Catholic commentator was intended by the Vatican as a signal that debating church teaching is outside the bounds.
Some Jesuits said that within the last two years they had received spoken or written warnings from then-Cardinal Ratzinger's office about articles or books they had published.
Stephen Pope, a moral theologian at Boston College who wrote the article critical of the church's position on same-sex marriage, said of the dismissal: "If this is true, it's going to make Catholic theologians who want to ask critical questions not want to publish in Catholic journals. It can have a chilling effect."
Father Reese, who is 60 and has been editor of America for seven years, is a widely regarded political scientist. He has written several books that examine the Roman Catholic Church as a political institution as well as a religious one, a rather secular approach that was not appreciated in Cardinal Ratzinger's office, an official there said in an interview last month.
Jesuit officials said Father Reese was informed of his ouster just after he had returned from Rome, where he had been interviewed by nearly every major American news outlet covering the pope's funeral and the elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger to pope.
He is being replaced by his deputy, the Rev. Drew Christiansen, a Jesuit who writes often on social ethics and international issues, and whom Father Reese recruited to the magazine in 2002.
Catholic experts said yesterday that they were stunned to learn of Father Reese's dismissal. "I'd think of him as sort of a mainstream liberal," said Philip F. Lawler, the editor of Catholic World News, a news outlet on the more conservative end of the spectrum. "I think he's been reasonably politic. I watched him during the transition, and I cannot think of a single thing I heard that would have put him in jeopardy."
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith first complained to Jesuit officials about the magazine four years ago, the church officials said, after America published a special issue with articles criticizing "Dominus Jesus," a document on interfaith relations and the supremacy of Catholicism that had been issued by the Congregation.
Dominus Jesus was broadly denounced by many Catholic and non-Catholic theologians who said it would undermine decades of bridge-building with other faiths, and even with other Christian denominations.
"They were just reporting what a lot of people were saying, they weren't stirring up trouble," said the Rev. Mark Massa, a Jesuit who leads the Center for American Catholic Studies at Fordham University. "I can't think of anything they've reported that was scandalous."
Cardinal Ratzinger's office also complained to the Jesuits about articles America had published on gay priests and on the work of the Congregation itself. The Congregation threatened either to order the dismissal of Father Reese or to impose a committee of censors to review the magazine's content, but backed down after discussions with the Jesuits, church officials said in interviews yesterday.
The magazine then began to more regularly solicit articles examining a single issue from a variety of viewpoints. In 2001, it published a piece Father Reese had solicited from then-Cardinal Ratzinger as a response to an article by Cardinal Walter Kasper, a German who works in the Vatican, that had criticized the Vatican and in particular the Congregation as failing to give local churches and bishops sufficient autonomy.
"For a long while," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, "I hesitated to accept this invitation because I do not want to foster the impression that there is a longstanding theological dispute between Cardinal Kasper and myself, when in fact none exists."
Then in 2004, the Congregation took issue with two more articles: one by Professor Pope of Boston College on same-sex marriage, which criticized the Congregation for issuing a document that he argued dehumanized gay men and lesbians; and one by Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, who bristled at bishops who would deny communion to Catholic politicians like himself who support abortion rights.
In both of these cases, Father Reese published opposing viewpoints. Mr. Obey's piece was actually a response to an earlier article in America by Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, now of St. Louis, who had called for Catholic politicians who support abortion rights to change their positions or be denied communion.
The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of another Catholic journal based in New York, First Things, which is more conservative than America, said yesterday, "It would be fair to say that during the pontificate of John Paul II that America apparently saw itself or at least certainly read as a magazine of what some would describe as the loyal opposition. And, needless to say, there's dispute over the definition of 'loyal' and the definition of 'opposition.' "
But Father Neuhaus added that he considered Father Reese a friend who was always "fair-minded" even when they disagreed.
At the Jesuits' American headquarters in Washington, a spokesman, the Rev. Albert Diulio, said Father Reese and his provincial had jointly agreed on the job change. But he said he did not know if Father Reese had resigned under duress.
The Rev. Thomas Smolich, who as the Jesuit provincial of California is Father Reese's supervisor, said he was discussing with Father Reese about what he would do next. "Tom is a very talented guy," he said. "There are many things he could do in Jesuit and Catholic ministries, in a university, in journalism of some kind."
After the election of Pope Benedict XVI, America ran an editorial that said: "A church that cannot openly discuss issues is a church retreating into an intellectual ghetto."
Michael P.