My exchange with William Chip over immigration policy has continued in the June/July issue of First Things (subscription required). I would welcome comments, questions, and criticisms from those who read our exchanges in the May issue and/or in the current issue.
Friday, May 23, 2008
More on the Ethics of Immigration
Charity and Politics
I read Lorenzo Albecete's column, Inside America, first every month when I receive Traces. In April (for some reason not available online) his essay was entitled "Charity and Politics." He says, in part, "charity is a reality of another world. It is a 'supernatural,' divine reality. But for those who believe in the Incarnation, the 'other-worldliness' of charity doesn't prevent it from building a new kind of life, a new culture, a 'civilization of love' in this world. To understand how this can happen, it is important to understand how it has already happened, and to be faithul to the unimaginable, absolutely exceptional, and unique meeting point between this world and the divine world. The meeting point between charity and politics cannot be deduced from theology, nor philosophy, nor even less political ideologies. It cannot be constructed by human thought, by reason. It can only be recognized by faith. The meeting point between charity and politics is Someone, a Man who is 'God from God.' The meeting point in this world with 'another world' is Jesus Christ.
"The starting point for the Christian contribution to the struggle for liberation and social justice can only be faith in Jesus Christ. However, faith cannot be separated from reason. Politics is an exercise of human reason. The fact that faith in Jesus Christ - not simply 'in God,' but this Man, Christ - makes love (charity) present in this world happens because faith has an impact on reason. It doesn't depend upon us; it is not that faith inspires us or imposes moral obligations on us. Faith changes the way we see reality, the way we think about it and respond accordingly. Pope Benedict said it very clearly in Aparecida, Brazil: 'If we do not know Christ, all of reality is transformed into an indecipherable enigma.'
"Without Christ, there is no way because there is no hope strong enough to overcome the law of corruption and death. Only love (charity) can overcome death and has already overcome death in Christ. Without Christ, therefore, charity is not present in this world."
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Lieberman on "Democrats and Our Enemies"
Sen. Lieberman essay is in today's WSJ. Here is the opening paragraph:
"How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?"
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
McCain's "extremist" advisors
In a New Yorker article entitled “McCain’s Court,” Jeffry Toobin writes “Senator [McCain] has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech [on the judiciary] shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.” If I am not mistaken Toobin is labeling our own Rick Garnett, along with MOJ friends Robby George and Gerry Bradley and other distinguished members of McCain’s “Justice Advisory Committee,” as extremists. Rick, how do you plead?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
John Hagee Apologizes to Catholics
The WSJ reports that "John Hagee, the controversilettal Evangelical pastor who endorsed John McCain, will issue a letter of apology to Catholics today for inflammatory remarks he has made..." For the full article and a link to the letter, click here.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Communion of Saints, Apostolic Succession, Authority, and Conscience
The conversation has been rich (recent posts are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). This is in response to Steve's May 9 post, The Communion of the Saints and the Big Tent. Steve presents two images of the Church: the apostolic and the communion of saints and recognizes that these two images are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Yet, he hints (correct me if I am wrong Steve) at preferring the "communion of saints" imagery, quoting Joan Chittister as imagining the Church as not an institution "but rather 'the gathering of the seekers who celebrate the continuing presence of Christ among them.'"
Isn't this a reductionist view? Isn't the Church both/and? Isn't it both the communion of the saints and an institution governed by a non-democratic heirarchy who are successors to the apostles? The Catechism clearly contemplates both images. The call to holiness clearly precedes the insitutional aspects of the Church. Paragraph 773 says that the "'Marian' dimension of the Church precedes the 'Petrine.'"
But, the institutional Church is a reality. And, given human weakness, an institutional governing structure is necessary to provide an order and direction toward holiness. Look at the Protestant world, which views the Church primarily as the communion of believers with no heirarchical structure. Today there are more than 20,000 denominations and counting. These denominations often disagree with one another (in mutually exclusive ways) over such core issues as the means to salvation. How is the "saint" to know what proposed teaching is "true?" Further back in our common history there were vigorous and centuries long fights over such central issues as the nature of Christ and the nature of the Godhead. It was the institution that settled these questions.
Steve, would you agree that Christ set up an institutional structure and that the bishops (with primacy in the Bishop of Rome) have governing authority over the Church? If you agree, don't you (we) owe them respect because of their God-given office? This brings us back to Cardinal Dulles article. Cardinal Dulles says that "Dissent, if it arises, should always be modest and restrained. Dissent that is arrogant, strident, and bitter can have no right of existence in the Church. Those who dissent must be careful to explain that they are proposing only their personal views, not the doctrine of the Church. They must refrain from bringing pressure on the magisterium by recourse of popular media." Is Cardinal Dulles wrong? If so, how? Shouldn't the saints attempting to celebrate Christ's presence be modest and restrained?
Monday, May 5, 2008
Teresa Collett responds to Doug Kmiec on Obama and Abortion
MOJ friend, Professor Teresa Collett writes:
Doug Kmiec has been a good friend to me for many years, often giving wise
counsel. Therefore I am reluctant to publicly contradict him, yet
conscience compels me to do so in light of his encouragement of Catholic
voters to support Senator Obama. In doing so, Doug suggests that Catholics
ignore Senator Obama's clear statements and record regarding abortion.
Senator Obama opposes the federal partial-birth abortion ban that was upheld
by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart, and has announced his desire to
pass the Freedom of Choice Act, a proposed law that would largely enact Roe
v. Wade as a matter of federal statutory law. Even Senator Clinton, a
staunch defender of abortion, has merely stated that she "will sign" the
Freedom of Choice Act, and Senator McCain, if elected president, would veto
such legislation.
It seems that Doug has forgotten the lessons of presidential politics
learned in the process of passing the partial-birth abortion ban. President
Clinton repeatedly vetoed federal partial-birth abortion bans,
notwithstanding clear majorities in both legislative chambers supporting the
bill. In contrast, President George W. Bush proudly signed the ban when
presented to him.
Unlike Doug, Senator Obama sees the potential to appoint pro-Roe Supreme
Court justices as a major issue in the election, and seeks to appeal to
voters on that basis. "With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could
be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose
for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to
nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this
election." Obama, Barack, Obama Statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe v.
Wade (Jan. 22, 2008).
Doug suggests that Catholics should disregard the abortion issue, since he
views it insufficient reason to vote for a President, who will merely
appoint justices likely to return abortion to the political process, the
position of Senator McCain. At least four states - Arkansas, Louisiana,
North Dakota and South Dakota - have laws making abortion largely illegal as
soon as federal policy permits. Two more states - Illinois, and Missouri -
have passed laws declaring the state's intention to criminalize abortion.
Seven additional states have prohibitions that would be immediately
effective. While protecting the unborn in every state is certainly
preferable to protecting them only in thirteen states, it is irrational to
argue that we should not seek to protect unborn children in thirteen states
since we can not protect them the other thirty-seven states.
Also, it is important to remember the other presidential powers impacting
the practice of abortion. Executive orders have insured adherence to (or
disregard of) the "Mexico City Policy," requiring nongovernmental
organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that
such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion.
Executive orders have insured that abortions are not performed on US
military bases, and have insured that federal family planning funds are not
used for abortion counseling.
The president appoints his or her cabinet members who, as members of the
executive branch, exercise substantial influence on federal policy regarding
abortion. The Attorney General of the United States is charged with
defending the laws of the United States from constitutional challenge. A
lukewarm defense of laws seeking to restrict or regulate abortion can be
deadly both to the laws and those the laws are designed to protect. The
Secretary of Health and Human Services directs the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, which accumulates information regarding the
incidence and effects of abortion. The Secretary of State advises the
president and represents the United States in matters related to foreign
affairs, including the impact of proposed treaties and actions within the
United Nations regarding the international law of abortion. These are just a
sampling of the decisions that the president and members of the executive
branch make, which impact the prevalence of abortion in our country and the
world.
I confess that I am disappointed by Doug's professed confidence that Senator
Obama is conflicted on the issue of abortion in light of the senator's clear
statement and legislative record. None of us have the ability to judge the
secret yearnings of any person's heart, yet our moral obligation to exercise
practical wisdom in discerning a candidate's future actions, and vote
accordingly, requires Catholics to accept Senator Obama's statements and
actions at face value. As the United States Bishops remind faithful
Catholics, "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in
favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's
intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty
of formal cooperation in grave evil." I fail to see adequate countervailing
moral considerations that would suggest that a vote for Senator Obama is
anything other than a vote for continued judicial protection of abortion.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Academic Freedom, Church Authority, and Falling Madly in Love with Christ
Thank you Steve Shiffrin and Fr. Araujo for your recent comments (here) and (here) in this ongoing conversation on Academic Freedom and Church Authority. Following Thérèse of Lisieux, one of thirty-three doctors of the church, I understand my Christian vocation as three-fold: to engage life with a certain realism, seeing my own weakness and the weakness of others, for example, straight-on without sugar coating; to fall madly in love with the One who came to heal those weaknesses and forgive our sins; and to be Christ – to be love – for others. I become more aware everyday of the vast difference between this call and my response, but like Thérèse, I take comfort in God’s justice: “His justice … is clothed with love, for how sweet a joy it is to think that God is just; that, in other words, He makes allowances for our weaknesses and understands perfectly the frailty of our humanity.”
How can I – we – be sure of God’s infinite mercy, this divine justice, 2000 years after Christ walked the earth? The Catholic answer, is, I think, the one given by Susan in her reflection on the tent; we have a continuing and unbroken line of witnesses (through apostolic succession) testifying to the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts. These witnesses are our authority. They are authoritative witnesses. And, over the millennia that authority has been exercised – even against great odds and political pressure – to decide great questions of faith and morals. Non-Christians do not believe (they give no authority to) this 2000 year line of witnesses. Protestants implicitly give authority to much of what these witnesses taught in the first 1000 years, although they ultimately reject their authority.
In response to (maybe in agreement with) Steve, I believe that the Church is in constant need of reform, and I trust that the Holy Spirit will – in God’s timing – provide holy souls to call the Church, including those in authority, to reformation. I also see what Cardinal Newman referred to as the development of doctrine. As the mystery of Christ continues to unfold like a beautiful rose, there are some who want to see it open in one way and others who hope it opens in another, leading to squabbles and more.
Shouldn’t those who seek reformation within the Church (like Francis of Assisi or Catherine of Siena) or who seek certain doctrinal developments, do so with strength, gentleness, love, and humility, rightly recognizing those who have authority over us? Isn’t “dissent” that is “arrogant, strident, and bitter” or engaged in by “pressure” contrary to the Gospel and contrary to the respect owed to those who have been placed in authority over us? In short, Cardinal Dulles is not saying don’t “dissent,” he is merely reminding us that such dissent should be expressed with love and humility following in the footsteps of Christ and His many saints, including Thérèse. Steve, is this wrong? Do you disagree?
As for the blog’s tenor, I am continually grateful that MOJ has assembled a diverse group of Catholic (and even one who remains on the other bank of the Tiber) legal academics who have managed for over four years now to engage in sometimes robust but almost always respectful debate and dialogue. What a blessing!
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Ethics of Immigration continued
Kevin Schmiesing at the Acton Institute blog has this to say on the recent First Things coverage of immigration:
"Sure to be a significant issue in the presidential campaign going forward, the question of immigration reform continues to divide otherwise like-minded religious folks. Mirror of Justice sage Michael Scaperlanda penned an article on the subject for First Things in February. A raft of letters upset with what the writers deemed Scaperlanda’s unreasonably lenient view toward illegal immigrants followed in the May issue (not accessible to non-subscribers), along with an article-length exchange between Scaperlanda and attorney William Chip. Scaperlanda’s initial article as well as part of the subsequent debate revolves around statements made by Catholic bishops on the subject."
For the full post, click here.
HT: Mattias Caro
A large and strong tent
Susan Stabile has a beautiful post on her blog, Creo en Dios!, on what it means to be Catholic. Although not addressing directly our recent conversation of academic freedom and dissent, it provides a profound image of what it is to be Catholic. Susan is speaking for herself, but I think many of us can identify. Here is a bit, but I hope you read the rest:
"As I prayed ... one morning, I saw an image of the apostolic line stretching forward from Peter through the Popes over the years through to the present day Pope. I saw that it is that apostolic line that holds the structure of this tent we call Catholicism. And I realized that the fact that there is a tent held together by that apostolic succession means something. It keeps us united as part of one Body, as one community. It creates the necessary ecosystem for us to thrive.
Inside the tent, we squabble a bit and sometimes we squabble a lot (and some of those squabbles perhaps deserve a name more serious than “squabble”). And any given time, one or another of us may not be fully happy with some of the ground covered by the tent. And that’s OK. The thing is, not only is the tent large, but there is some give in the contours of the tent and over time it stretches a bit here and moves a bit there. It stretches, it pulls, it bulges, it strains - but it holds, it doesn’t tear. It holds and it helps us remember who we are."
Thank you Susan!
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
