I want to pose two questions that have been bubbling up in my mind this spring. As the Oklahoma legislature debates abortion and immigration issues and as the state of Oklahoma continues to practice the death penalty, it seems to me that the Catholic Church is the only religious institution consistently bridging the left/right divide, advocating against harsh immigration measures, for greater fetal protection, and against the death penalty.
1. Is my perception correct? Is the Catholic Church the only (or at least the only large) religious institution that consistently takes positions on both sides of America's ideological divide. If not, what are the other ones?
2. If my perception is correct, why is this?
In a sense, these questions are a continuation of my thinking on authority and reason, and the minor point I made in response to Eduardo's post.
What a wonderful discussion.Thank you Eduardo for posing the question.I’m afraid my response will be less academic and more autobiographical.
To quote Winnie the Pooh, “I am a bear of very little brain.”I am bounded by my own intellectual limitations, my education, my family, my culture, my biases, my preferences and desires (both ordered and disordered), my will, my profession (we are, I think, a profession of rationalizers), and this particular and very short moment in history in which I live my life.As a bear of very little brain, I must rely on the authority of others to help guide me through life, even (and maybe especially) life as a practicing intellectual.
For most of my life, I thought that I had placed my trust in the Church and looked to it as the authority for my life.In reality and unbeknownst to me, as regards the intellectual areas of my life, I had given authority (for the most part) to the high priests of secular liberalism as filtered through a reductionist version of Catholic Social Teaching.In a way, how could I have escaped this authority?After all, it is part of the cultural air we breathe, as Jean Elshtain has said.And, although I was raised Catholic in faith and concern for social justice, I was not raised in the Catholic intellectual tradition (most who went through CCD in the 1960’s and 1970’s can identify with this).
Once my eyes were opened a little over a decade ago (thanks in large part to a prominent law professor who is not Catholic), I could think freely and openly (at least to myself) about these questions of authority.One of the first things that I noticed was that secular liberalism, like communism and fascism, had an inadequate anthropology – an inadequate understanding of the human person.Using my limited reasoning powers, I refused to give any of these ideologies conscious authority over me or my intellect.The Catholic Church, however, seemed to have a more complete, a more reasonable, and more coherent anthropology.And, I consciously placed myself under its authority.
In practical terms, what does this mean?It means that if my own views do not correspond to the Church’s on basic issues of faith and morals, I become highly skeptical of my views.What am I missing?What biases or limitations are blinding me, preventing me from seeing the larger truth?This doesn’t mean that I (or the Church) can’t learn much from secular thinkers or thinkers from other faith traditions.Of course we can. Augustine and Aquinas, for example, learned much from Plato and Aristotle.And, secular economists, scientists, political theorists, etc. may have much to offer.But, when it comes to basic truths (the bedrock or fundamental truths) about the human person in community, I place my trust in the Church over my own fallible human reason.To answer Rob’s question “what happens if one's scholarly pursuits lead to a conclusion in conflict with the Magisterium, assuming that this conclusion remains firm after substantial reflection and consultation?”If the area of disagreement concerns one of these bedrock truths (as opposed to a conclusion that the Church has made based on faulty economic data for instance – see Michele Pistone’s work on brain drain/STEP OUT migration, for instance), my inclination would be to stay silent, at least publicly.I would trust that a) the Church has more experience and knowledge than I have – possessing 2000 years of experience and learning in nearly every culture of the world, b) the Church has the deposit of faith, and c) the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into the fullness of truth.
Being a bear of very little brain, I have to put my trust in some authority, and I freely (and after reasoned reflection) put it in the Church.I’ll let others judge this decision's impact on my scholarship.
Please remember in your prayers all of those who lost their lives, were injured, or were affected by the Oklahoma City bombing 11 years ago this morning.
In response to my post on immigration, MOJ reader, Chuck Roth, reminds us that currently "there is no 'line' for a poor Mexican without either (a) a close relative who was a US Citizen or green card holder, who could apply for them, or (b) a preexisting job offer (kind of tough to get if you're from some little village in Mexico) from a company that pays the prevailing wage in the community..."
Eduardo says:“I have no doubt that a great many scholars with any number of ideological and religious commitments argue towards, what are for them, preordained conclusions.”I would agree with him that this happens, but I actually think it is harder for a faithful and intellectually rigorous Catholic to do so because the Church’s teachings don’t cut neatly across the current ideological divide.I think many Catholics, intellectuals and not, struggle mightily to accept Church teachings that do not correspond with their own pre-ordained ideology or assumptions.I have talked, for example, with many “conservative” Catholics who have struggled to understand and accept the Church’s teaching that capital punishment is rarely if ever justified in modern society.And, I have talked with many “liberal” Catholics who have struggled to understand and accept the Church’s teaching on abortion.At some point, placing oneself under the Church’s authority will require reexamination of beliefs and values inconsistent with the Church’s teaching.
A few thoughts on the current immigration debate.The Church teaches (as I understand it) that persons have a right to emigrate.But, John Paul II noted that emigration – the uprooting of a person from one culture and placing him in another - is in some sense an evil.It also teaches that while sovereign nations have the right to control their borders, including denying admission to foreign subjects, this right is not absolute.The right of the sovereign to restrict immigration is a qualified right, allowing a sovereign to deny the emigrant entrance only if necessary to protect the country and its inhabitants.For the most part, Catholic teaching on emigration/immigration corresponds to the Law of Nations as it developed through the 19th Century.
The Church’s teaching is based on its understanding of the universal and particular nature of human existence and the universal destination of goods. The universal - every person has inherent dignity, including the ability to fully develop.The particular – this dignity manifests itself in particular places at particular times and within particular communities.The person develops in community and, in turn, has obligations toward that community.There may be times, however, when flourishing within a community is impossible.At these times, emigration might be the best option.Because of the inherent dignity of the person and the universal destination of goods, potential receiving countries have some duty toward potential immigrants, including the duty to receive them, at least when it won’t put too great a burden on the domestic situation.
Although not perfect, we could make an analogy to a family. The family has a particular right to home and land ownership and to use their resources for the flourishing of the family.But, even the family’s wealth and resources ought to be deployed for the common good of all.If they have excess (in money, land, or talent), it ought to be deployed for the benefit of larger community.In the Old Testament, for example, farmer’s were required to leave some crops in field so that they could be gleaned by the poor.
Given this understanding, I would ask a series of questions about our current and proposed immigration policies.
Do we need to further restrict immigration to protect our nation (family)?Or, do we have room in the pool house or out at the ranch for a few more desperate people trying to support their families?
Can we accommodate the people who have squatted on our land or in our pool houses?Even if we didn’t let them in the front door, aren’t we partly responsible for them using the backdoor, enticing them with jobs and then not enforcing our own law, which would punish the employer?
Even if it is in some sense just to deport those who line-jumped (this is where the term Sooner came from in the Land Run days), if we don’t have the political will to deport the 11 million or so people who are here unlawfully (and we don’t), should we find ways to bring them out of the shadows and into the mainstream?Or, should we further marginalize them, allowing them to be exploited because of their undocumented status?
Do we, like a wealthy family, have excess riches, which could be used for the common good of the hemisphere or even the world?Are we deploying those riches in such a way that people in other countries (particularly to our south) have a greater ability to develop and flourish (thereby decreasing the desire or need to emigrate).
If these are some of the right questions, I would tentatively answer as follows.
We should find a way to integrate the current undocumented into our society because they have started to build lives here, our desire for cheap and exploitable labor has contributed to their presence, we don’t have the political will to deport 11 million plus people, and we should minimize the possibility of exploitation.
We should get serious about border enforcement – placing most of the burden on the employer (the supplier of employment) and not the worker.A quarter of a century ago, Fr. Hesburgh said that it was necessary to close the back door on immigration in order to have a healthy front door.We tried to do that 20 years ago with employer sanctions but for many reasons that has failed.10 years ago we started penalizing the alien but that hasn’t worked either.
We need to rethink the front door policy.We allow family reunification but there are long waits if you are coming from countries like Mexico. A noncitizen can also immigrate if they have possess the right skills, but this is weighted heavily toward the educated and credentialed.Do we have room for more at the bottom rung of the economic and skill ladder?Can we let them in without harming the domestic labor force?If so, we ought to be more generous in allowing in less skilled workers who may have a greater need to access our resources in order to flourish.
We need to make explicit the tie between foreign aid and development and immigration.A just immigration policy starts with using our excess wealth to help countries develop so that their citizens can develop fully as humans in their own countries and in turn participate in the development of their own culture.
Here is an Op-ed I wrote, which appeared today in Oklahoma City's newspaper, "The Oklahoman." I thought it might be of interest.
"My fellow Oklahomans, I am confused. I thought this was a “red state” - a place
where families, hard work, and courage are valued. I thought Oklahoman’s understood that our
rights and duties emanate from God. But,
then I read State Senate Bill 1769 and House Bill 3119, which call for the
state to use its resources to hunt down hard working people trying to provide
for their families.
These bills require state and local government employees to
verify the immigration and citizenship status of every person they come in
contact with. These employees must report
the names of those who cannot verify their status to federal immigration
authorities. Failure to do so is a crime. And, those who cannot “produce proof of U.S. citizenship or valid documents or a visa” are to be jailed.
The authors of the legislation suggest that “illegal
immigration is causing … lawlessness.” But,
most undocumented non-citizens are “lawless” only in the sense that they are
evading the broken federal immigration system. They are lawless in the way that Jean Valjean was lawless in Les
Misérables, stealing bread to feed his family.
Our federal immigration system needs repair. It currently leads to the creation of a
shadow population living in fear and subject to exploitation. They cannot fully develop their talents to be
used for the benefit of family and community, their only crime – risking life
and what little money they have to be able to provide for family. As a nation, we need to find a way to stop
undocumented migration.
As Oklahomans, how do we respond? Do we respond like Inspector Javert who spent
his whole life – his resources and creative energy – in pursuit of the bread
thief Jean Valjean? Or, do we respond
with mercy the way the Bishop did when Valjean was first released from
prison. Will we play the part of the
sheep or goats as depicted in Matthew’s rendering of the last judgment? Will we welcome the stranger as we listen to
the words of Christ: “whatever you do
for the least of these, you do for me”? Javert’s quest destroyed him. He
couldn’t live in a world of mercy and love. And, we know what happened to the goats!
If we truly believe that Biblical values provide the
foundation for our public policy, if we reject the strict separationist
arguments so frequently heard in some quarters, then we must live those values
consistently. In Leviticus, God says,
“when an alien resides among you in your land, do not molest him,” remembering
that you once were aliens. In the New
Testament, Jesus’ followers are instructed to love their neighbor as
themselves.
Fortunately, the Senate sponsor of HB3119 has withdrawn it,
realizing it is too harsh. Unfortunately, the bills’ proponents continue, like Javert, on their mission
to hunt down the Jean Valjean’s of modern day Oklahoma. Let us together work to fix our broken federal immigration law, but let
us do it with a deep seated love for our undocumented neighbors."
I know the movable conference feast has moved from St. John's (last weekend) to Baylor (this weekend), but I wanted to add one more "thank you" to the list of "thank you's" due at the end of a wonderful experience at the Jurisprudential Legacy of John Paul II conference last weekend. After the closing liturgy a week ago Friday, David Gregory took a group of us down to the Catholic Worker House in Manhattan (where Dorothy Day started the Catholic Worker movement) for a poetry reading. Thank you David. It was a wonderful evening. And, I continue to thank God for the radical Gospel commitment of those who live and work with the homeless, the downtrodden, the addict, and the alcoholic.
Notre Dame history professor, Brad Gregory, recently wrote an essay, which was published in the school's newspaper, on the subjects of academic freedom at Catholic universities and whether Catholic universities can acheive greatness. The beginning ot this essay follows:
"In 2003, I left a tenured position at Stanford University, where I had taught for seven years, to come to Notre Dame. I did so partly because here, unlike at secular universities, we can engage religion in the classroom not only as a subject to be studied like any other, but as a human response to the living God. Here we can engage not only Catholic but also other religious beliefs in this way, because of Catholic imperatives to ecumenical understanding and interreligious dialogue. At secular universities, categories characteristic of revealed religions - including faith, revelation, grace, salvation, sin, prayer, miracles, the supernatural and more besides - cannot be pursued from standpoints of religious belief, without presumptive recourse to reductionist explanations dependent on secular beliefs embedded in social scientific and humanistic theories. In the classrooms of such institutions, neither students nor faculty can seriously address religiously related big questions - about life’s purpose, objective values and meaning that transcends human constructions - because the governing ideology is anti-teleological. It is antagonistic to any objective moral norms and naturalistic in its metaphysical convictions. At secular universities, a professor who in class sought to analyze prayer as a human experience of relating to God, or who sought to understand the Bible as God’s saving revelation for humanity, would quickly find herself censured. A Solemn Authority would admonish her that such notions were “inappropriate” in class and that she must keep her “personal beliefs” to herself. Secular universities restrict academic freedom because they exclude from the classroom engagement with religious beliefs precisely as religious. The secular academy thus puts itself in the curious position of excluding from non-reductionist consideration the beliefs by which the overwhelming majority of the human race lives. Such self-censorship is dangerous. Because of the sometimes threatening manifestations of religion in our world, the stubborn refusal even to acknowledge religion as religion and to study it as such amounts to an ivory-tower dereliction of intellectual duty.
Notre Dame rejects these secular restrictions on academic freedom vis-à-vis the great religions and their related ultimate questions. Hence I am much freer academically and pedagogically here than I was at Stanford - I can do everything I did as a Stanford professor and more. The same freedom applies to other faculty members at Notre Dame and, in its respective way, to students as well. As an intellectual community we have critically important academic opportunities that are lacking at higher-ranked, secular institutions and vitally needed by the wider world. . . ."
A group of Notre Dame students is hosting a two-day, inter-collegiate conference in the spring of 2006 entitled: “The Edith Stein Project: Redefining Feminism.” Harvard Law professor Mary Anne Glendon writes in her introduction to Gloria Conde’s New Woman, “Before a woman can form society, she must know who she is and what she has to offer society. A new and better feminism offers just that, a greater understanding of the specific role and contribution of the woman, frame-worked by what promotes the true dignity and highest aspirations of every person: women and men.”
The conference to be held at Notre Dame Feb. 10 and 11 features such speakers as Laura Garcia, Pia do Solenni, and Alasdair MacIntyre.
To find our more and to register, visit the conferences website.
