A month and a half ago, in response to posts by Steve S., I posted my thoughts on progressive/dissenting/heterodox Catholics blogging at MOJ. Our recent discussion on the Group of 26 and their support for Governor Sebelius has caused me to reflect further on the diverse nature of the Catholic experience and how it plays out publicly, including on the blog. And, since no one has argued with me – at least publicly - about my post on progressive/dissenting/heterodox Catholics, I thought I’d take this opportunity to argue with myself, or at least discuss a tension in my thinking.
There is a part of me – a big part of me - that wants tidiness, especially on those matters with significant cultural and legal consequences. I wish all Catholics were swimming in the same direction on these issues. Pelosi, Sebelius, Biden, Kennedy, Daschle, and the host of other pro-choice Catholic politicians are causing scandal within and outside the Church with respect to an issue that has, as Fr. Frank Sullivan, S.J. told the Conference of Catholic Legal Scholars last summer, been infallibly taught by the magisterium. Part of me wishes that the bishops would say what seems obvious to me – that these individuals, by obstinate opinion and action, have separated themselves from communion with the faithful. In other words, they have excommunicated themselves. But…
When I step back and put our present moment in historical context, and when I think about how such public “judgments” by the bishops would be taken in our current cultural climate, the waters get muddied, and the proper response less clear cut.
On the night before he was crucified, Jesus prayed: “Holy Father, keep them in your name … so that they may be one just as we are” (John 17:11), “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me” (John 17:20-21), and “that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them” (John 17:26).
I hope that this unity –this oneness – manifests itself as a oneness of heart, mind, and spirit in all things. But, Lord knows that in this fallen world that is a tough order. Self-centeredness, feeble mindedness, lack of courage, sickness, misunderstanding, ineffective means of communication, competing interests, and all sorts of other problems, surface to disrupt unity. This is certainly true in every marriage that I know, and throughout history we see it in the Church.
From the beginning, bishops, other leaders, and the rank and file have disagreed and fought among themselves (read Acts or almost any Pauline letter). And, for almost 1700 years bishops have fought with Catholic political leaders over political and theological matters both great and small. Why should our age be any different?
Given this history, it is remarkable – dare I say a miracle – that the Catholic Church has not only survived these 2000 years but is today the single largest religious body in the world. As in a marriage where the commitment (as old fashioned as it may sound) is for a lifetime, a lifetime lived within the Catholic Church means struggling for unity mostly by showing up every day asking the Holy Spirit for a loving heart, discerning mind, the grace to surrender our lives and dreams to God, the humility to ask forgiveness, and the mercy to forgive others.
When the bonds of unity are shattered whether in a marriage or in the Church, great sadness arises. And, it seems to me that the Pope and the bishops go to extraordinary lengths to try to preserve union by not publicly recognizing the breach until the very last moment when compelled by exigent circumstances. For example, I think Archbishop Lefebvre was at odds with the Pope and other bishops for well over 20 years before he was excommunicated and then the excommunication came only because Lefebvre insisted on ordaining bishops to succeed him without permission from Rome. I’m just thankful that it is not my job to determine when that moment has arrived.
Our 2000 year history is one of a remarkable unity achieved and maintained with and despite the messiness of this earthly life. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this. A moment’s reflection on the apostle Peter, our first Pope, prepares us for the messiness of living the oneness Jesus prayed for while still living within the brokenness of our own lives on earth – Four verses after Peter is entrusted with the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Jesus says to him “Get out of my sight, you satan;” After Jesus is arrested Peter denies knowing him; and Peter has to be rebuked by Paul in Acts.
Except for two major continuing disruptions to unity (one occurring a 1000 years ago and the other 500 years ago), Christ’s prayer has pretty much been answered despite the many weaknesses of Church leaders, theologians, and lay persons. In my view, this can only be the work of the Holy Spirit. Although I prefer tidiness in our unity, history teaches me that I need to learn to accept a large degree of messiness in our oneness on this blog and in the Church and trust the workings of the Holy Spirit in all things.
May we all be graced with the ability to speak truth as we understand it through lives lived in love.
UPDATE: Catholic mom quotes this post adding her own insightful comments here after linking to and quoting a recent speech by Archbishop Chaput.
In yesterday's NRO, Ryan Anderson writes that "[t]he Prop 8 debate is not a clash between civil liberties and religion." In his essay, he addresses the arguments made by a certain Pepperdine law professor who is known to all who read MOJ. Anderson begins:
Should the state treat marriages the same way it treats baptisms and bar mitzvahs — as purely religious practices properly left to religious institutions? That’s what some are now arguing. If the state didn’t create marriage, they reason, then religion must have; and the state shouldn’t endorse sectarian religious beliefs. But their argument is profoundly flawed.
For the full essay, click here.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
In response to my Why Embryonic Stem Cell research? post, Ryan Anderson responded:
I don’t think you’re off base on the cloning at all. If anything, it’s worse than you fear.
He then quoted from his essay published two days ago entitled "Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War:
[I]nduced pluripotent stem cells are patient specific. As anyone familiar with organ transplants knows, immune rejection is a major hurdle to any form of regenerative medicine. Induced pluripotent stem cells clear this hurdle because they can be created using the patient's own skin cells; thus they will have his exact DNA sequence and will not be prone to immune rejection. For embryonic stem cells to do the equivalent, they would have to be created from an embryo produced by human cloning. Clearly, then, Bush's critics were being disingenuous when they claimed to want only the IVF "spares"--embryos that "were going to die anyway." While those might have been the first cells needed for basic research, any therapeutic uses would require patient-specific cells, attainable only by cloning. That would open up ethical debates over human cloning and killing--and debates about the ethics and safety of encouraging (or paying) women to subject themselves to hormonal stimulation to produce eggs for use in the cloning process. Using induced pluripotent stem cells avoids all of these problems.
It is, therefore, critically important to note what Obama did not say this morning. He promised that he would make sure that "our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." He went on to add that "it is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society." This is certainly correct. But in pledging only to prevent reproductive cloning, Obama intentionally left the door open for research cloning. The cloning procedure involved, of course, is exactly the same in reproductive and research cloning; the only difference is that in research cloning the developing human is killed before being allowed to be born. Given what we know about the necessity of cloning for the medicinal use of embryonic stem cells, Obama's implicit support for research cloning and killing is unconscionable.
Here is an article entitled "Cloning Doubletalk" written a couple of years ago. HT: Denise Hunnell
I have wondered why funding for embryonic stem cell research is such a high priority for some, given its lack of positive results, the positive results of alternatives, and the serious ethical questions involved. Yesterday, Lisa linked to Denise Hunnell's blog post discussing Pres. Obama's order regarding funding for embryonic stem cell research. This is Denise's theory:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research is promoted by those who support abortion. If one affords any dignity to the human embryo in the laboratory, then the morality of abortion can be called into question. Therefore, it is in the interest of preserving the perception of abortion as a moral right that human embryos are afforded no special status in the laboratory.
And, I would agree with her, but I am not sure she takes it far enough. Despite headlines that said that Pres. Obama closes the door on cloning, I suspect that part of the end game is cloning. (To be clear, I am not saying that the President was being dishonest - I don't know what he really thinks about cloning). Several years ago, I was in the car listening to the Diane Rehm show. Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB was one of the guests and the other guest was someone high up in the Juvenile Diabetes Association - (is this now the JDRF?). Doerflinger made the statement that even if the government funded embryonic stem cell research, there were not enough stem cell lines available to do the research and that cloning (which he opposed) would become necessary. I thought that even if the JDRF spokesperson agreed with Doerflinger and would acknowledge agreement in the JDRF board room, he would deny it publicly . Much to my surprise, he agreed publicly with Doerflinger. The conversation remains vivid in my mind because I was shocked to hear a spokesperson for this organization, which relies I would guess on public support and good will, could without fear of retribution openly advocate cloning - or what they would call "theraputic closing." JDRF's website says that they oppose a permanent ban on human therapeutic cloning."
Is Denise Hunnell off base here? Am I? Why?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
On the America blog, Michael Sean Winters writes:
[T]he justifications for the decision coming from the administration are so obnoxious or pathetic or both that this decision can properly be labeled Strike One against Obama.
* * *
Those of us who have supported the President, who were non-plussed by the reversal of the Mexico City policy on the grounds that gag rules are difficult to defend in a liberal polity, and have been ambivalent about the nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, must here draw a line. The President’s decision on stem cells, and the hubristic way it is being defended by his staff, is deeply disturbing. I do not expect to agree with anyone one hundred percent of the time, so I do not feel inclined to abandon my overall support for the administration. But, it is Strike One.
For the full post, click here.
