In response to Richard, sticking with the scenario of honors rather than an invitation speak or debate, more questions: let's add in the complexity of one person holding different stances on a variety of issues, some deeply attuned with Catholic identity, and others not; and let's assume that the school's intention is to highlight those aspects of the person's work which are in accord with Catholic identity. For example, say that a particular speaker is being honored for a strong anti-abortion record, but also has a muddy record on torture policy. Should the muddy record on torture, even if it was marginal to their work, preclude the honor? Does it matter what role or office this person holds (politician, judge, community leader, academic)? Does it matter what kind of sway the person holds over public opinion (which could contribute to the analysis of "scandal")? Are there some contexts in which honors might serve as partial endorsements, without necessarily claiming that the person's entire life or system of thought should be set forth as exemplary?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
More on Models of Engagement
Commencement Speakers: Models of Engagement with the Culture
I wonder if there are at least two (and perhaps more) different models (or emphases) at work in our conversation about commencement speakers:
1. Emphasize clarity (“purity”) so as to minimize confusion and engage the culture from a position of strong identity
2. Emphasize dialogue with difference so as to engage the culture from a stance of openness to exchange and growth in mutual understanding
I think that both of these approaches have distinct strengths and weaknesses; and both can find strong grounding in the CST tradition. My question is whether within the expanse of Catholic education in the United States we might want to encourage a variety of models engagement (perhaps with a baseline and a ceiling, but with quite a bit of room for difference) with the culture. Rick, do you agree?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Creative Tensions in Our Conversations
This is more all-over-the-place than Russ’s illuminiating outline, but I have been struck by what could be dubbed as four “Gs” which may capture something of the creative tensions running through our recent conversations about our mission and our reflections about the substance and depth of our ongoing work as a whole.
Gender: this was the topic of one of my first posts five years ago and I think Lisa’s most recent reflection captures well the ongoing dynamics. From a Catholic (and perhaps specifically “relational” perspective), to what extent are there real limitations in the blog medium itself, and to what extent does our commitment to be living witnesses to the relational dynamics of our faith call us to supplement the blog medium with ear to ear and face to face conversations?
Generational: the exchange between “a reader” (law student Stephen Braunlich) and Steve Shiffrin was fascinating for a number of reasons, not least because I think they indicate that depths and tensions of a cross generational conversation. Steve S., would it be fair to say that Humanae Vitae was something of a watershed moment for your generation; and that there is a generational tendency to tie together concerns about authority with discussions about the pastoral care regarding issues concerning sexuality and sexual morality? Stephen Braunlich, would it be fair to say that for many in your generation the starting point for reflection is the lived experience of shifting sands under your generation’s feet –so what often comes into relief is the search for clarity in the marks of Catholic identity, rather than an effort to claim space for dissent? Our blog crosses a number of lines, including generational lines. I wonder if those varying perceptions and frames of mind might be at the root of some of our definitional struggles.
Genre: when we count up the number of posts, and think about the voices we each bring and the roles that we play in our group, we may want to think about our various and varying approaches to posting, and work on how posts might fall within different genres. Some of the very frequent posters are often doing the service of simply picking up the interesting things that they find around the blogosphere an the internet. Certainly we make the judgment about what it interesting and post-worthy through the lens of our own perspective and criteria; but not all posts are intended to carry the charge of a particular viewpoint or perspective. On the other end of the spectrum, some of us gravitate toward the genre of mini-essays. Others come up with focused and tersely worded zingers. Others tend to simply pose probing questions. As we think about how we are using this medium, we may want to add this complicating factor of the varieties of blog “genre” into the mix.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Cardinal George's Letter to President-Elect Obama
Here is the USCCB press release and full text of the January 13th letter from Cardinal George to President-elect Obama, outlining an "agenda for dialogue and action." It concludes "I renew our expression of hope and our offer of cooperation as you begin this new period of service to our nation in these challenging times. We promise our prayers for you, that the days ahead will be a time of renewal and progress for our nation and that we can work together to defend human life and dignity and build a nation of greater justice and a world at peace."
Continuing the Conversation on Our Mission
I see Mirror of Justice as a place where we are making a shared effort to move beyond the comforts of an echo chamber into the hard work of conversing across profound differences. For me this is a miracle and a source of tremendous hope not only for the future of the church, but for the future of our world. My hope lies not in the fact that we always understand each other, but in the fact that we keep trying—and that at several points on our common journey, moments of difference and misunderstanding have become an opportunity for deeper (and at times off-line) conversation.
In response to your thoughts, Michael S., I wonder if our mission of exploring Catholic legal theory might call us to something beyond the “legitimate realm of professional criticism.” It seems that if we are going to leave room for the Holy Spirit to heal, and if the mark of what it means to be Christians is our love for each other—“by this everyone will know that you are my disciples” (Jn 13:35)—then we may want to emphasize in a particular way how our love for each other can shape the contours of our criticism and critique.
Here are a few questions that I find helpful before responding to someone with whom I disagree in both personal and professional contexts. Have I really made space inside myself to listen profoundly, letting go of my own agenda, perceptions, judgments, and ego in order to enter as much as I am able into this person’s perspective? Am I just reacting, or have I taken the time I need to let this perspective enter into me, and perhaps even change how I see things? In considering how this person expresses him/herself, have I given him/her the benefit of the doubt, reading his/her words with a generous, magnanimous eye? Have I done everything I can to appreciate what else might be going on in this person’s personal/professional life and the impact it might be having on how he/she expresses him/herself? In the context of continued disagreement, in what ways can I thank this person for how he/she has challenged me to grow, and helped me to articulate my own perspective in a way that is more sensitive, loving, and appreciative of difference?
When I went to mass this morning, I was touched by the Alleluia verse taken from Ephesians 1:17-18, “May the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ enlighten the eyes of our heart that we might see how great is the hope to which we are called.” It seems like this might be the greatest gift we could hope to receive on our fifth birthday.
Dear Mr. President
Here is a link to America Magazine's inaugural issue, which includes a selection of letters and memos to our new president, including my own small blurb about hopes for healing the wounds of division, including the discord over abortion law and policy.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Translation of the Pope's Letter to Marcello Pera
In reference to my previous post on the future of interreligious dialogue, here is the link to an english translation of the Pope Benedict's letter to Senator Marcello Pera, as posted by John Allen on the National Catholic Reporter's website.
The Future of Interreligious Dialogue
A few thoughts in response to the 11/24/08 New York Times article, “Pope Questions Interreligious Dialogue,” discussing Pope Benedict’s letter to Marcello Pera about his forthcoming book, “Why We Must Call Ourselves Christian,” including Pope Benedict’s comments that “interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible,” and then later, comparing interreligious dialogue with intercultural dialogue, “a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parenthesis.”
I have the full text in italian from the Corriere della Sera, but will wait to see how the official translations of the full texts spin out rather than venture into the tricky waters of parsing this. In the meantime, three thoughts that might tie into our Catholic social thought project.
First, it seems that however this is parsed, it will have to be reconciled with Pope Benedict’s very official and very public statements over the last few years, and especially when he was here in the US in April: in effect, at least as I read them, that interreligious dialogue is an important expression of the Church’s life, and is here to stay. For good summary of those statements, take a look at Francis Clooney’s 4/25/08 entry on the America Magazine blog. Perhaps the question becomes whether while he was here whether he was talking about interreligious dialogue in the “strict sense” of the word, or something else; and if not, for me the question becomes whether interreligious dialogue in the “strict sense” is all that interesting or helpful, especially for our project here in the US. Maybe not.
Second, a somewhat technical question about authority. What is the authoritative weight of a letter from the Pope to an individual commenting on that individual’s book, and published in an Italian newspaper? And how would that weight compare to public statements that were probably vetted and re-vetted by more than one Vatican entity? Considering the future of interreligious dialogue, my instinct would be to give much more weight to the more public and more official, but I’d welcome other’s insights on this question.
Finally, a silver lining: following up on my previous work to reconcile evangelization and dialogue, this latest controversy is the perfect introduction for my current writing project, which is actually a term paper to conclude my last course in the Theology Masters program here at Fordham (“Mary in the Christian Tradition” with Brian Daley, a wonderful Jesuit visiting here from Notre Dame). The working title is “Mary, Model of Dialogue.”
I’m right in the midst of parsing a text from Chiara Lubich on how Mary at the foot of the cross, precisely in her capacity to let go of her Son, and of her identity as his mother (“Woman, behold your son”), becomes the Mother of all humanity. How might this model of faith—which includes the capacity to let go—inform the question of “putting one’s faith in parenthesis”? Similarly, might the cry of Jesus himself on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” be itself a “parenthesis” which paradoxically generates identity in the most profound sense—redemption and resurrection?
A little taste from one of Lubich’s texts (published originally in Italian, Saper Perdere [Knowing How to Lose], and this specific text is also included in Lubich, Heaven on Earth: Mediatations and Reflections):
“Mary Desolate! One can have lost everything, one can not be attached to anything, but there can still remain something that we believe we can possess, that we must show and take pleasure in: the gifts of God! If the Desolate sacrificed God for God, we have to know how to lose the gifts of God for God. Therefore, we should not stop to consider them, or fill our soul with spiritual pride as we admire them, but empty ourselves to as to be filled with the Spirit of God. If one has gifts, these are talents to be placed in the sun of charity that must always envelope everything. But it is best then to forget, to let go, in order to be only love in front of souls and the works of the Church. Love thinks of the beloved, not itself.”
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Conversation That Will Happen A Little Later
Readers may remember that we had initially scheduled our MOJ conversation on sexual ethics for the second week of December, to begin with a discussion of Margaret Farley's book, "Just Love." Due to some unforeseen difficulties with our schedules, we have decided to move this conversation to late spring. The conversation will happen, just a little later than planned. Thanks for your patience, we look forward to it. Michael P., Michael S. and Amy
More Election Reflections: Limited Options
Continuing the discussion with Sean and Susan about whether “don’t vote for Obama” necessarily translated into “vote for McCain,” I think we also have to look at the practical reality of how our two-party system operated in the 2008 election. From what I recall of my New York ballot in 2004, there was a “right to life” option that year which could have sent a signal of one’s dissatisfaction with both parties. This year, at least in New York, the “right to life” party was no where to be found. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong (and I haven’t done any homework on this topic at all), but I am assuming that this year for strategic reasons the "right to life" party was essentially absorbed into the Republican party? In any case, it was not an option on my ballot, in any of the races. I think this practical reality sharpens Susan’s concerns: if one was not inclined to vote for McCain, the only seemingly "pro-life" alternative was to not vote at all.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
