In the context of my two recent entries on gun control, some bloggers have argued that am I elevating my own personal opinion to the level of Church teaching simply because I quote the US bishops on the topic, and further suggest that it might be prudent to listen to them (I should clarify that I am referring to Zippy in the comments, not the author of the post itself). The main point of his argument is that when I refer to the bishops’ “teaching” on gun control, I am in error, for there is “no magisterial teaching on gun control”.
Again, time for some unpacking. The debate centers around the old hobby-horse of a prudential judgement, defined as the application of moral principles to particular facts and circumstances. The crux of Zippy’s argument is that the “Magisterium has no special charism, indeed disclaims any special charism, with respect to [the] particular facts.” On one level (the strict legalistic level), he is correct, but more broadly, his position to too simple too black-and-white, and leads to unpalatable conclusions.
A good starting point is Lumen Gentium (25), which states that, even when not infallibly defined, the key teachings of the Church regarding faith and morals– whether taught by the pope directly, or by the bishops in communion with the pope– are owed religious assent. Obviously, and anticipating Zippy’s criticism, these refer to underlying moral principles rather than the application of these principles to particular facts and circumstances. I would hold that the broad body of Catholic social teaching belongs in this category. Life is sacred from conception through natural death. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman ordered toward the bearing and rearing of children. War is only valid when the strict just war precepts apply, including the last resort criterion. The death penalty is only licit when there are no other bloodless means to defend society. Economic affairs must be governed by the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, and the preferential option for the poor.
Of course, the problem arises when one attempts to apply these principles to particular facts and circumstances, that is, when one attempts to form prudential judgments. It is certainly the case that there are large gray areas where a genuine attempt to apply these principles can lead Catholics to support very different positions. And Zippy is certainly right when he says that the Church has no particular charism of factual interpretation. Which begs the question: why should the Church issue prudential judgments in the first place? Why not just state the principles and be done with it, letting the faithful make the application?
Indeed, this case was made a while back by Richard John Neuhaus when he took the US bishops to task for entering the debate pertaining to the Iraq war– they should, he claimed, avoid “making prudential judgments about eminently debatable circumstances.” Of course, Neuhaus makes an exception for abortion, blithely ignoring that the translation of a core principle (abortion is always and everywhere wrong) to public policy (how to end abortion in contemporary society) involves many layers of prudential judgments. Taking this logic to the limit, the bishops should resort to issuing vague platitudes and be done with it, never getting anywhere close to specific suggestions. Neuhaus’s camp is the logical end-point of Zippy’s starting premise.
The Neuhaus example is a cautionary one. When Catholics dismiss the prudential judgment of the bishops, sometimes they genuinely simply disagree on factual interpretation. They are many, many examples where the evidence is hard to discern, the facts are hard to interpret, and nobody’s opinion can claim priority. But it is often more complicated. We should not make the mistake of the contemporary American media in seeking a false sense of balance: sometimes, indeed oftentimes, some interpretations of the facts and circumstances are far superior to others. I think there are actually two distinct problems here, even if they are often difficult to keep separate: disagreement over principles and disagreement over facts.
First, whether they say so or not, many will disagree with the underlying principle itself, not merely the application of that principle to the facts and circumstances. As an example, consider the attempts of those like Michael Novak to re-design the just war theory, to include concepts like “preemptive war” and “asymmetric war”. If you start from this premise, then the facts on the ground in Iraq can appear to support your position. Or consider those who claim that the death penalty is justified for really monstrous crimes, when the magisterium makes no reference to the seriousness of the crime (the Obama position, a position that I think gets a lot of support among Catholics). And then there are the economic theories based on a preferential option for the rich, even though this language would undoubtedly be disputed.
The second set of problems relate to simply drawing unreasonable conclusions from the particular facts in question. To justify the Iraq war under the “last resort” principle, its defenders needed to come up with a tissue of lies based on WMDs and “mushroom clouds”. And yet, the application of reason to the facts in question would undoubtedly support the prudential judgment made by the Church: that the Iraq war was unjust. On the death penalty, the specific prudential judgment made by John Paul is that situations whereby the death penalty is valid in modern society are “rare, if practically non-existent”. Again, this is really hard to counter, without coming up with fanciful scenarios.
My argument therefore boils down to this: we should also listen to the Church, to the bishops, on matters of pure prudential judgment. We should do so not because they possess any special charism in this area, and may well be wrong, but because so many alternative interpretations are tainted by ideology and partisan leanings. There are judgments based on reason and there are judgments based on preconceptions.
When Pope Benedict XV issued his peace note during the dark days of the first world war, he was faced with disdain and derision. What after all, did a sheltered academic Italian churchman understand about foreign policy at the time? Well, it turned out that his analysis was prescient– because he analyzed the situation through the prism of the gospel rather than the prevailing nationalisms at the time.
Skip forward in time. When the delegation led by Cardinal Laghi came to America to try and dissuade the Bush administration from invading and occupying Iraq, as well as pointing out that the threat was in no way imminent, it noted that its diplomatic sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. Again, this turned out to be right, while people swallowed some fanciful fabrications…because it satisfied some psychological need to go to war at that time.
There are many other examples. Much of the criticism of the Church’s specific intervention in economic policy arises more from an attachment to laissez-faire liberalism than to any honest debate about the facts and circumstances surrounding the effects of economic policy on the poor and the middle class. I could point to examples of Michael Novak, for example, deliberately distorting facts in a facile attempt to prove that Republican economic policies benefited the poor.
Consider now the case of gun control, the springboard of this entire debate. What I argued is that the particular circumstances pertaining to the shameful levels of gun violence in the US mean the common good is best served by regulation even to the point of prohibition and that the US Catholic bishops have made similar arguments. And I am told there are no teachings on the subject! The rigid and robust rejection of these arguments from so many serious Catholics points clearly to ideological entrenchment, especially since the rest of the world looks at shock and horror at the peculiarly American firearms fetish. The last few days have taught me that very clearly.
For some reason, Americans are more inclined to tolerate, even glorify, violence than most other western countries. Many point to the mentality of the frontier past. Historian David Courtwright suggests that the prepdonderance of sexually-segregated societies in key stages of development– frontier towns, immigrant ghettos, mining camps– explains the propensity for violence. We see it in popular culture, we see it in the codpiece diplomacy that cheers macho posturing and violence as a first resort. It is also reflected in bad theology, a derivative Calvinism that promotes American exceptionalism and a metaphysical dualism that can neatly divide the world into good guys and bad guys. That holds at home also, which explains the defenses of liberal gun policies that rely on honest citizens being armed against a faceless but distinct criminal mass bent on harm.
Finally, it ties into the notion of personal liberty that comes out of the Enlightenment, emphasizing that a person’s rights ended only where another person’s nose began. Thus the individual trumps the community, and the philosophy eschews notions that we are all responsible for each other, that we should see neighbor as another self, and that disunity and “individualization” is a not a natural state of affairs but rather the result of original sin. “The freedom to be left alone”, one way of summarizing this philosophy, is not true freedom in the Christian sense. It cannot be. So yes, the American gun ownership fetish is ideology, pure and simple. It has very little to do with applying a consistent ethic of life to the particular facts and circumstances of gun violence in the US.
What I’ve tried to argue is that we should indeed listen to the bishops, even on prudential judgments, especially in these times when we are often influenced by particular ideologies, often in subtle forms, while the Church takes a broader, more global perspective. It’s not that the Church is more inclined to be right, but that we can often be wrong, because we look at questions with blinkers on. Sure, there are accusations of ultramontanism, but ultramontanism was also used to attack those who questioned the pervailing secular ideologies of the 18th and 19th centuries. Ultramontanism was a reaction against liberalism and nationalism, in many ways a natural course correction. If it is again attractive today, the reason is obvious.
Let me be honest here. I’ve changed my mind of a number of important questions over the years. In each case, I ended up aligning myself with the judgments of the Church, because I realized I was being guided by deep-rooted ideology. I’m equally certain that my journey is not yet complete. From this perspective, the bishop’s teachings constitute a handy road map through the ideological obstacle course of the mind. So even if there is no guarantee that they are right– listen to them.
The debate centers around the old hobby-horse of a prudential judgement,
No it doesn’t. Nobody has been more critical of the misuse of ‘prudenital judgement’, especially on the political Right, than me.
It centers around your false ecclesiology. You seem to see everyone who resists your false ecclesiology as necessarily locked in some ideological box. You are projecting your own error on others.
1. One would listen to prudential judgements on security when the body in question has demonstrated an adeptness at security matters. The opposite occurred in the US with that body taking no emergency actions to stop sex abuse against young people.
Ergo…no one thinks of them as adept in security issues.
2. Christ’s disciples carried swords (two of which swords were misinterpreted in Unam Sanctam) and we find this right up til Gethsemane in the missing ear incident.
Ergo Christ accepted it.
3. If the US would disarm all criminals, there would be little need to have guns in one’s home but due to “probable cause”, the US will not search criminals until they actually do something criminal just as the US does not protect women who get a restraining order against men…until the men actually do violence to the women.
4. In such a situation, the Catholic like the sword carrying disciples may protect themselves.
Read what I wrote, Zippy, not what you like to pretend I wrote (this is a constant theme of yours).
“the particular circumstances pertaining to the shameful levels of gun violence in the US mean the common good is best served by regulation even to the point of prohibition…”
This has been argued by you and the bishops. What it has not been is demonstrated. At least with arguments against the Iraq war, it was not just argued, but demonstrated, that Iraq pose dno imminent threat to the US. Prudential judgment does not mean “my opinion” even for the bishops, unless it is backed up by a solid determination and interpretation of the facts and circumstances.
I assume the “teaching” of the bishops being referenced is that blurb from the 1970s that came out of the USCCB? If so, you all realize that the USCCB has ZERO magisterial authority, right?
Sorry, MM: your false, equivocal ecclesiology.
Zippy: proof by quip and one-liner doesn’t quite cut it around here.
Dominic: it is judgment that applies moral principles to particular facts and circumstances. Does it require religious assent as defined by LG 25? Clearly not. Should it be simply ignored, then, and treated on par with any other opinion on the matter. No. Is it correct? Yes, it is.
We already went through the whole thing in the linked post, in great detail. No need to repeat it here.
I guess the real issue is that I walked over to a blog whose purpose is to oppose liberalism, defined in the classical sense, and I accuse them of liberalism, in the classical sense, at least in the area of gun control. Not very polite of me, perhaps, but sometimes the truth hurts.
Oh yeah, it hurts to be called a donut too.
MM
I too could never comprehend the American male’s unique obsession with guns. It is actually embarassing to me as a citizen of this country.
I think you are correct in pointing out how it is, among other things, interwoven in our frontier mythology; a rugged, perverse individualism; an uncritical acceptance of binarys way of dividing the world; and, above all else, a prideful means of taking the mystery of Being by the horns and trying to tame it with purely man-made devices.
MM,
You are talking about a group of Bishop, who when taken as a whole, over the past 40 years (my lifetime) completely failed to fulfill the most basic duties of their office: Teaching the Faith. A collection of Bishops who have allowed catechism of the young to be turned into joke (now changing in some places) allowed and even encouraged ridiculous and pervasive liturgical abuses, presided over a vocations crisis that is at least in part created by their own lack of leadership, allows 80% or 90% of married catholics to continue to contracept without preaching the truth, mishandled the sexual abuse crisis, has built 100′s of Catholic Churches with the architectural appeal of a bingo hall, presided over the forced ‘wreckavation’ of beautiful and historic cathedrals and churches and have been involved in innumerable personal scandals.
Now all of that does not make me lose faith in the Catholic Church – but I wouldn’t buy a used car on the advice of the USCCB.
Fact is they have no institutional authority as a body (the USCCB) and what ‘small a’ authority they might have as the collective voice they have squandered.
Hunthausan, Weeakland, Trautman, Mahoney , Brown, Clark, Neidrauer etc.
Yet I still actually read USCCB documents and consider them, but I consider them on their merits, not on the authority of the USCCB since it has none. Particularly in area’s not pretty directly related to Faith and Morals.
Individually, I follow several Bishops very closely including my own. Chaput, Burk, Curtis, Bruskavitz,
Certainly I have a great deal of respect for the prudential judgment of Pope Benedict, and any other pope. But you will notice that Pope Benedict (and JPII) does not waste his time writing silly statements on every issue of the day.
Peace
Exactly. I do not just dismiss the USCCB’s documents offhand but since the USCCB is just a bureaucracy and not part of the hierarchical structure of the Church, I too take them on their own merits. Much of their turnout is just the work of lay committees anyway.
Bishops have authority over their own particular dioceses, they don’t need to play the peer presure game in a made-up committee. It is easy to go along with the flow and sign off on fluff documents, it is harder to actually rule your own diocese. I like how Bruskewitz tells it how it is at the meetings and doesn’t put up with their crap if he doesn’t think it is good for his diocese.
Christ’s disciples carried swords (two of which swords were misinterpreted in Unam Sanctam) and we find this right up til Gethsemane in the missing ear incident.
Ergo Christ accepted it.
Um, no. Christ REBUKED the disciples in that episode, right after the ear was cut off. Do you willfully distort scripture, or did you just “forget” about that key part of the story??
You are talking about a group of Bishop, who when taken as a whole, over the past 40 years (my lifetime) completely failed to fulfill the most basic duties of their office: Teaching the Faith.
Donatism.
Sure, I’m not getting a Ph.D in theology, but how is that comment you quote anything like Donatism?
The attitude embedded in the quote suggests that since the bishops supposedly have failed in their duties (which would need to be proven, of course, but that’s a side issue), this means that they are not worth listening to. It’s an attitude of perfectionism toward clergy, and if they don’t live up to a particular standard, screw ‘em, so to speak. That’s essentially what Donatism was/is.
Michael I,
It is well known that Peter died with a sword in his hand. Check your history book. Should we have expected Peter to die any other way? Jesus told him to buy a sword. Do you really think that Peter would disregard Christ’s command that easily? This is ROCK we’re talking about, not Judas.
Peter died with a sword in his hand, and that settles it. Jesus taught him, Jesus chose him, and we must trust our first Pope’s example.
Now as far as these rogue bishops go, MM, maybe they think they know the Gospel, but lets face reality here. The bishops are blind: they stubbornly cling to the falsehood that Peter died on a cross! The day the bishops wake up and realize that Peter died like a man – with a sword in his hand – is the day I start listening to them.
Forgive me for the sarcasm. It’s late, and I forgot to arm myself against the Combox demons. I hope someone got a laugh out of it. Great post, MM.
Iafrate
The attitude embedded in the quote suggests that since the bishops supposedly have failed in their duties (which would need to be proven, of course, but that’s a side issue), this means that they are not worth listening to. It’s an attitude of perfectionism toward clergy, and if they don’t live up to a particular standard, screw ‘em, so to speak. That’s essentially what Donatism was/is
I do listen to my Bishop and the Bishop of Rome. The USCCB HAS NO AUTHORITY!!!
Iafrate
You will notice this is a discussion of the USCCB. I have firmly confessed on this blog and affirm again that I absolutely and totally respect and defend the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church.
Beyond that, I actually do ‘listen’ to the USCCB. I actually read their statement and publications, and somewhat closely follow their meetings.
However, the USCCB has not magisterial authority, and only a very limited institutional authority specific to the American Church (options in the liturgy, cooperation among the Bishops).
The statements made by the USCCB do not carry any magisterial authority. They do not even carry the authority of a single Bishop teaching in has own diocese.
When the issues are prudential and not matters of faith and morals, we are way past even talking about magisterial authority.
The only ‘authority’ of USCCB statements on issues of public policy (not directly related to faith and morals) is the collective authority of the Bishops behind the conference.
I simply submit that there is not particular reason on this point in history to place much value in the collective prudential judgment of the USCCB.
That does not mean I in any way diminish my respect for the actual authority of a bishop in his own diocese.
*In case you didn’t notice I am EXTREMELY offended by being accused of heresy!
I forgive and will now pray for you – May GOD bless you.
Paul
sorry, that should be
“The only ‘authority’ of USCCB statement…is the collective personal prudential ‘authority’ of the bishops….
Paul – I appreciate the prayer. Thanks.
That statement is 30 years old and in no ways binding, even to ‘good’ Catholics. People know best how to defend themselves. Not to mention that violent crime happens largely in areas where legal gun purchases aren’t part of the modus operandi. Should one of those miscreants show up here, I like having a .45 with laser sights.
It certainly also helps to encounter rural gun culture, where people hunt and everyone knows how to handle firearms – with none of the urban problems. Case in point: my in-laws in Ohio. There’s something about living in big cities that clouds people’s minds. That’s the only way why one’d think that the way to reduce gang crime is to disarm law-abiding citizens.
As far as the ‘collective prudential authority of the bishops’ goes…uh…Let’s just say over a billion dollars of payments to victims as a result of said prudence speaks a clear language. That, after and in addition to the general “Say what ?” response to Humanae Vitae 40 years ago, hasn’t left bishops with a whole lot of influence. A lot of people feel the same kind of disconnect they feel re: the ‘elites’ – someone with their own security making pronouncements on regular people’s self defense, and someone who’s unmarried making pronouncements on marital sex. Social engineers in an ivory tower.
Michael Iafrate
You wrote: ” Um, no. Christ REBUKED the disciples in that episode, right after the ear was cut off. Do you willfully distort scripture, or did you just “forget” about that key part of the story??
Mike….Mike…. I’ll enter the labyrinth. At Gethsemane, Christ rebuked the particular choice of the particular disciple to use his sword then and there in that context. He never forbade them to carry swords and He had all the time in the world in which to say that had He willed such prohibition.
To “live by the sword” (the rebuke) is to use violence outside the precise parameters in which it is due. One of the requirements of just war e.g. is that it is plausible as to success. It was implausible that 12 disciples could succeed against the temple soldiers and later the Roman soldiers. Ergo the disciple acted outside sane parameters of reality.
Christ never told the disciples to forgo carrying swords since they lived in a time in history when if you remained passive to a mugging, you stood to be disabled for the rest of your life due to the sorry state of emergency medicine in the ancient world and you would be a beggar at the temple for sustenance til death if you endured atrocious assault that could not be healed properly. Ergo Christ knew they had a right to carry weapons in order to prevent their lifelong disabling.
CNN interviewed an elder black lady who was glad that she could purchase a pistol for her house in DC for defense not to carry outside which many major cities render near impossible unless strangely enough one carries lots of cash weekly…excepting drug dealers of course. But she now has a option if she hears one of her windows opening at night.
Oddly enough TV should use some of its time to nuance the best options in this area. She should look into compensated Glocks and use low recoil bullets both of which would increase her accuracy under stress. She should also know of the possiblity of being sued civilly should one of her bullets travel through the window and kill a distant person in another house. Her new option comes with liabilities. In my opinion and in the opinion of others, A shotgun with low recoil shells and fast spreading shells kills with 5 times more force and certitude against the criminal at the near distance within a house and it has far less chance due to the small pellets involved of penetrating successive walls at a distance or killing distant innocents.
Well, I really don’t have a problem with them making pronouncements on security (or any other topic for that matter). Like others said, I take their prudential judgments on the merits of the judgment. They have clearly stated that banning guns reduces gun-related deaths. Where is the evidence to back it up ?
I know somewhere in the Gospels Jesus actually does admonish His disciples that at some point there would be a time for carrying a sword (haven’t looked it up though).
Luke 22:36
c matt
Check the footnote #13 at this link:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm
Evidence? See my first post on this, the “Shameful SC decision” one, which makes some empirical arguments.
Here’s a bit from the Bishops about marriage. I think Obama would oppose something like this.
“WASHINGTON (April 3, 2006)—Bishop William S. Skylstad, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has written to all Catholic Bishops asking that the bishops and the people in their dioceses become involved in the effort to support a federal constitutional marriage amendment.
In the letter, Bishop Skylstad also informed the Bishops that the Knights of Columbus have initiated a national postcard campaign with respect to public advocacy for the Protection of Marriage Amendment.
“Today there is a growing sense shared by many people, including a wide range of religious leaders, that a Marriage Protection Amendment is the only federal-level action that ultimately will protect and preserve the institution of marriage,” Bishop Skylstad said. “In particular, timely and focused efforts are needed to help the Catholic faithful form their consciences on such an important matter.”
Noting he was writing at the request of the USCCB Administrative Committee, Bishop Skylstad said: “In a matter of months we will have the opportunity once again to stand publicly in support of marriage as the God-given union of a man and a woman.”
He was referring to the likelihood that the Protection of Marriage Amendment (S. J. Res. 1) will be introduced in the Senate in June. The proposed text of the amendment reads as follows:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Michael,
As I understand it, the Donatists thought the sins of the Bishops and priests invalidated the Sacraments they ministered.
This is nothing like what you are describing, so I’m curious what sources you are drawing from?
I’m looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia on the internet.
MM,
I think you’re right that the bishops should not be dismissed out of hand — even in matters which are strictly of prudential judgement.
And so, although this is clearly a matter that is not at the top of the bishop’s priority list (given the relative paucity of statements since they first brought it up 30 years ago), I think one does well to think a bit about it. (As I did.)
However, I would find your argument a lot easier to take seriously if you seemed to have any propensity to take it to heart which bishops make statements which are not in agreement with your pre-conceived ideology. You’re very eager to demand that everyone “listen to the bishops” on issues where they explicitly agree with your policy preferences (gun control, Iraq war) or where you claim that their more general pronouncments can be read as endorsing your policy preferences (economics) — however you’ve been a very loud voice around St. Blogs for years about not denying communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians — despite the fact that a number of the bishops explicitly disagree with you. Nor have the USCCB’s statements on gay marriage and abortion caused you to denounce your preferred political candidates.
So you can hardly be surprised if most people think you only make a point of such faithfullness on political policy issues when it’s convenient to your preconceived ideology.
For all that you enjoy unleashing broadsides against the Novak’s and Neuhauses of the world, you do not give the impression of being any less ideological in how you choose to pick your political stances. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. You must do as your mind and conscience tell you is right. But you can hardly play Caesar’s wife in such a circumstance.
Sorry Bp. Skylstad (isn’t his diocese bankrupt ?), this is not a theocracy. Whatever you think is “God-given” is relevant for Catholic marriage, but not to the state. If marriage needs to be ‘protected’ from anything it’d be dumb straight people. It’s downright insulting to speak of ‘protecting the sanctity of marriage’ – it obviously implies and means gay people are ‘unholy’.
As far as said Donatist viewpoint, I recall a story about St. Francis – a priest accused of all kinds of immorality was in some danger from the folks, St. Francis took his hands and said, “All I know is that these are the hands that give me Christ”. Not to mention that putting the onus on the laypeople is rather unfair.
Chinese – Great eisegesis there. The cardinal sin of biblical interpretation.
Zach – Call it crypto- or pseudo-Donatism if you are more comfortable. It is very much like what I am describing, and the words Donatist and Donatism are used often in the way that I am using them.
As a side note, and not that this is relevant with this particular topic, but the online Catholic Encyclopedia is not the best source, generally speaking.
MM, MarkD, Nate: High IQ, Low RQ. Reality Quotient (RQ) – level of contact with reality.
I’m not surprised. Those people’s liberal bureaucrats are constantly wrong on abortion, too.
And, they throw billions more dollars each year at public schools and kids wax illiterate. These liberals are wrong on everything. Don’t they get tired of it.
Switzerland (where every able-bodied man is issued a loaded assault rifle) is the MURDER CAPITAL OF THE WORLD – not.
Seems you catholi-statist collectivists; those people; and four misinformed SC’ assoc. justices are, if nothing else, consistent. At least Kennedy got it right this time. Does he flip a coin?
NYC banned hand gun ownership by private citizens beginning in early 1960′s. The hand gun murder rate soared. Same same every other jurisdiction which imposed such lunacy. I call the NYC gun laws: the “Protect Crack Dealers Who Murder Black People Laws.”
I was stationed in CA in the early 1970′s. It was then legal to go into Sears and buy a hand gun. They were displyed in glass cases. It was also legal to carry as long as the hand gun was not concealed. Guess what the hand gun murder rate was in that county? Zero.
Per the NRA, 40 (out of 50, in case you savants forgot) states have “right-to-carry” laws. As those laws have spread, the homicide rates have fallen sharply from the peak reached in 1991.
Again, M. Malkin was prophetic last week when she posted:
“Prediction: Unlike the 5-4 Boumediene vs. Bush decision [the Gitmo case], which the MSM hailed as “landmark” [and] “historic” because it rebuked Bush, this 5-4 decision will be spun as a decision by the “conservative” Supreme Court, which was “controversial,” “fractured” or “splintered.” Anything to cast doubt on the decision.
“Landmark-Historic:” Any decision the court makes that the media likes.
“Controversial-Splintered:” Any decision the liberal media hates.”
“The same folks who can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find an unassailable right to abortion and gay marriage can’t find a right to possession of a firearm or a right to private property.”
If the consistently wrong SC asses interpreted the Second Am. the way they do the unwritten-fantasy-right to unborn baby murder, they’d issue each of us a Glock 9 mm and 100 rounds in clips.
PS: from the New Testament: The Lord’s admonition is “He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword.” Statement of fact. Right before that the Lord says to sell your cloak and buy a sword. No kidding!? NB: the Lord does not say, “be subject to judgment”, or, “will be thrown into fiery Gehenna.”
Anyway, Obamabortion (is he a flounder?) flip-flopped on this issue, too. Know how you can tell he’s lying? His lips are moving. He is going to make the Clintons look like saints.
Michael,
OK.
So would simply offering the opinion that the Bishops have struggled to teach the faith in the past 50 years constitute crypto-Donatism?
Zach – No. Only if one then draws the conclusion that the bishops have no authority, are no longer bishops, etc.
Michael….we await your extended scholarly commentary on why Christ’s disciples were never told by Christ to simply rid themselves of their swords :)
Darwin: I support the bishops when it comes to abortion and gay amrriage. I also support them when they refuse to pick one single issue (for political purposes, let’s not pretend otherwise) for deying the eucharist.
MM,
My point exactly. You agree with the bishops who agree with you on denying communion to notorious pro-choicers. You disagree with the bishops who disagree with you (which includes some of our most notable canonists) and you disagree with the CDF which said that they had the authority and were correct to do what they did.
Which is why, as I say, it is a little hard to take your “we should always and everywhere agree with the bishops” claim seriously.
I believe you, MM, you can’t even SPELL ‘gay marriage’ :)
MM, do you oppose civil unions, too ?
American Catholic bishops present the strange combination
of reactionary and progressive – which would be fine if the
areas were the opposite of what they are. Part ‘Focus on the Family’,
part ‘Internationale’.
Does he [Kennedy] flip a coin?
I don’t think so – then he’d be right at least half the time.
Darwin: on this issue, yes, I side with the 95 percent of bishops who made the right choice. And please do not assume that the CDF supports the minority opinion. Ask yourself why it is only in America that these issues come to the fore– could it be because certain Catholics like Deal Hudson bring their evangelical modes of thinking with them?
Chinese Music, if you claim that Jesus commanded the Apostles to literally go out and buy swords to defend themselves, then you need to explain why none of the Apostles did so.
Nate, of course Chinese Music will read into scripture and claim that the apostles did in fact all own swords and were card carrying members of the National Sword Association.
MM,
Keep repeating that. You’re making my point for me. (Especially with Burke, who you hold to be in the incorrect 5%, having just be appointed to the highest ecclesiastical court…)
Come to that, did more than 5% of the bishops actually have much to do with the statement on gun control?
Also, I like how your “supporting the bishops” on abortion and gay marriage involved providing rhetorical support to a party which effectively tells them to go stuff it on those very issues. By that same argument, I could claim that I support the bishops entirely on gun control — I just happen to universally support politicians who disagree with them. Maybe I could even put together some graphs showing that when anti-gun-control administrations are in office, gun crimes go down. That woudl prove that being against gun control was actually being for gun control.
Of course the thing preventing me from acting out such a charade is that… It wouldn’t be honest.
The NSA? That’s a powerful lobby. I think they wear funny looking hats and give themselves funny sounding titles.
Come on, Darwin, don’t be disingenious. You know as well as I do that both major parties told positions directly opposed to Catholic teaching. Refuse to vote by all means, but don’t pull a Deal Hudson and try to claim that all Catholics must support the Republicans.
And of course you can choose politicians who do not support gun control– I would simply hope for Catholics to do so in spite of, not because of, their person.
As for Burke– as an excellent canonist, it’s a good choice. But I can’t help thinking that part of this most was motivated by a desire to remove a troublemaker on the communion issue.
read “their position” not “their person” above. Ugh!
But I can’t help thinking that part of this most was motivated by a desire to remove a troublemaker on the communion issue.
ROFLMAO! MM’s respect for the Bishops isn’t even slightly selective, is it?
What a hoot.
From Steve Chaoman:
“Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, lamenting the decision overturning his city’s handgun ban, said Thursday, “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence.” That’s a dangerous statement for a politician to make–an empirical claim that can be judged against empirical data.
“I emailed Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, one of the nation’s leading gun scholars, to ask if the proposition Fenty set out is true. Surprise: It’s not.
“Falsehoods in support of gun control? Stop the presses.”
MM,
Just to be clear, I agree with you that a Catholic is not morally required to vote only for candidates from any given party. It’s just that my prudential analysis is that at this time in history most GOP candidates hold position much more in tune with the common good than most Democratic candidates.
Zippy,
I should note a moment of strong agreement with you, as MM’s theory about Burke’s new appointment set me too rolling about on the floor — though I can at least claim that my ass did not become unfixed while I was doing so.
And yes, it rather underlines his, “I listen to the bishops at all time” stance, doesn’t it.
Oh yeah, Zippy, no bishop at any time and any place can ever possibly disagree with any other bishop on any issue. Yeah, that’s what I an arguing. You clearly have a lot of straw in your barn.
I’m coming across some peculiar things various bishops and saints advocated over the last 2000 years – reading “Eunuchen fuer das Himmelreich” (Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven) by Uta Ranke-Heinemann. Menstruating women weren’t allowed at Communion for quite some time, eg.
When 95 percent of bishops say A and 5 percent say B, does that mean B cannot be right? No. But is likely to to right? No. This even happens at the highest level of authority– ecumenical councils– when there is effectively majority voting on the drafts. And it can certainly happen at the level of prudential judgments. I can’t believe I need to state this.
MM,
First of all, it would be important to see if it’s actually the case that only 5% of bishops back the communion ban approach.
Second, it might be taken as significant both that the minority position was backed by then-head-of-the-CDF-now-pope Card. Ratzinger, and also that Burke (most famous for holding the line on that issue) was in turn promoted specifically to a canonist position.
Third, given that your claim apparently is that we should consider these brief gun control references in USCCB documents as somehow directive and yet not consider the decision to refuse communion to pro-choice politicians directive (despite the fact that the argument was mainly between whether it should be actively refused them or whether they should be expected to have enough sense of shame to not bring themselves forward) I think it would be encumbant upon you if you want to convince us to find out how many of the bishops actually looked at, discussed, and actively assented to the demand that handguns be totally banned. Otherwise, we might suspect that few if any bishops actually had any hand in it — and that it was a simple committee finding which no one paid much attention to.
Darwin:
(1) It was less than 5 bishops, if I recall.
(2) Well, we have a disagreement. I do not believe Ratzinger supported the casting of American “pro-choice” politicians from the altar rails. Formal cooperation with evil in this particular context is hard to show (that’s not to say it’s not there, but it’s hard to show). For if we draw this to its logical conclusion, well, a lot more people than you think would be refused. See here: http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/29/communion-wars-again/
(3) Like it or not, the USCCB is the collective voice of the US bishops.
MM,
1) I dont’ recall the percentage of bishops who came down on each side, if that was even revealed, so I can’t dispute you there.
2) I can’t be responsible for what you believe, but it is factually the case that then Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 letter to McCarrick said that pro-choice politicians specifically should be first called to repentence, and then if they failed to head that call, denied communion. Nor, despite your desire to ban the editorial staff of National Review, was this sanction advocated for dissent on the Iraq war, so far as I recall.
3) The USCCB is certainly the collective voice of US bishops — but that does not by any stretch mean that every item which comes out from a USCCB committee represents something the bishops collectively agree on or even have discussed. Stationary does not make for a magisterium.
Honestly, though, when an argument gets too silly for words, it becomes important to stop wasting words on it. Your attempt to give a handgun ban anything like ecclesiastical authority is, quite simply, very weak. If you want to stick to it (as you clearly do) no one can stop you. But do stop being so very shocked that people do not all circle up and follow you.
Darwin Catholic
Your attempt to give a handgun ban anything like ecclesiastical authority is, quite simply, very weak. If you want to stick to it (as you clearly do) no one can stop you. But do stop being so very shocked that people do not all circle up and follow you.
Thank You! And Amen.
Ranke-Heinemann’s book is interesting… She digs up scathing examples, as you note, but her book would be easier to stomach if it weren’t so clear that she has an axe to grind.
It’s really interesting that you’re enjoying that book, considering the theologians you have trashed on your (previous!) blog who have a similar perspective and method…
Darwin,
My argument that Kathryn Lopez should be denied communion has nothing to do with the Iraq war. By the standards you are professioning, it is manifest grave support for an intrinsically evil act. Ms. Lopez defends and promotes torture as something good. Anthony Kennedy would also be banned for his abortion position, as would Catholics like Phyllis Schlafly for their support for nuclear weapons.
If you want to about serious about this, far more people than a few politcians will be implicated. But nobody really wants to get serious; they want Eucharistic sanction of politicians they don’t like.
And again, the “Ratzinger letter” was simply a recycling of doctrine, cribbed from other documents, largely Evanglium Vitae. Ratzinger was not coming up with anything new here, and it was not addressed to the particularities of the US. It amuses me that people treat a private letter like a unique and singular revelation. Just like when Zippy thought he was quoting some insight from Ratzinger, when in fact he was quoting the 25th chapter of Lumen Gentium.
Don’t make Zippy’s mistake when it comes to the handgun argument. Their approach to guns is a mere prudential judgment. But if you disagree, try to to bring any particular Americanist ideology to the table. That never happens, though.
Michael I., I’d say reading books on sex abuse opened the doors to that. I see interesting aspects to all sides. The sheer nastiness of ‘traditionalists’ also helped a lot. I took a closer look at other views. That and I’ve been on SSRIs, which brought back the libertarian in me :) Catholicism is perfect for OCD. Yes, no, black, white. As I said to my wife, give a ‘staunch’ Catholic SSRIs and you’ll get an Episcopalian. That said, I never bought into the more absurd intricacies of various rules, nor did I ever view masturbation as evil, or homosexuality as evil and so forth. I just didn’t write about it. That I eventually did was brought out by the constant “Sodomite perverts!!” insults. I also wasn’t really aware that some people still subscribe to Pauline women-ought-to-be-submissive ideas. As I’ve said before, I used to think of myself as on the conservative end, until I’d been blogging for a while :) In general, one tends to become more sober after initial inebriation.
And yes, Uta Ranke-Heinemann (daughter of German president Gustav Heinemann) has since left the Catholic church. She was the world’s first female professor of theology. As has Eugen Drewermann. They did realize that after the hopeful times of Vatican II reaction recovered the controls, much like after the 1848 revolution. Why more progressive people had to develop such bad liturgical tastes, however, is a mystery to me :o)
Heinemann, btw, still has respect for her former colleague Ratzinger:
Home > Faiths & Practices > Christianity > Catholic
‘A Humble Intellect’
Controversial German theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann explains why she’s glad that her former classmate has been made pope.
John D. Spalding
Print Page
Like many, I was stunned to learn yesterday that Cardinal Ratzinger, the great Enforcer of church doctrine, had been elected pope. Once the shock wore off, one of my first thoughts was, “What does Uta make of all this?”
By Uta, I’m referring to German theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann-one of Pope John Paul II’s most outspoken critics. She had also been a classmate of Joseph Ratzinger’s, when they were doctoral students together at the University of Munich in the early 1950s.
The daughter of the late Gustav Heinemann, president of West Germany from 1969 to 1974, Uta went on to become the world’s first woman professor of Catholic theology when she was given a church-appointed chair at the University of Essen. She also became the bestselling author of several controversial books, including “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven” and “Putting Away Childish Things,” both of which sold millions of copies around the world. In 1987, the church declared Uta ineligible to teach, after she declared the virgin birth to be a theological belief and not a biological fact. She still holds a chair in religious studies at Essen-a state chair.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, of course, did not run afoul of the church, which is one reason why he is now the pope and Uta Ranke-Heinemann is not.
I thought of Uta yesterday because–to make a long story short–I met her in April 1994 when I was working for Harper San Francisco, which had just published “Putting Away Childish Things.” Harper had organized a U.S. book tour for Uta, two days into which she claimed to have suffered a “nervous breakdown” and threatened to cancel the tour unless someone was sent to escort her from city to city. I was put on a plane the following day. Over the next two weeks, I heard a great deal about Pope John Paul II (little of it good)–and about Cardinal Ratzinger, of whom she spoke highly.
I reached Uta, now 77, by phone late last night at her home in Essen, Germany. We spoke for more than an hour. Here’s some of what she had to say about the new pope.
What was your reaction when you learned that Cardinal Ratzinger had been elected?
I never in my life would have imagined that I would be happy over the election of a new pope. But I am happy for Cardinal Ratzinger–or, I should say Pope Benedict XVI–because we have had a long-standing mutual respect for one another.
You’re not the only person who might be surprised by your response. After all, you were one of the sharpest critics of John Paul II, whom Ratzinger served as chief theological adviser…
Well, yes, there is obviously a discrepancy between my respect for Ratzinger and my total disagreement with John Paul II. I asked myself this question earlier-why on earth have I always liked Ratzinger, for more than 51 years, while over the past 26 years John Paul II constantly got on my nerves? I confess I’m not sure I know the answer.
Let’s back up. When did you first meet Ratzinger?
We were doctoral students together at the University of Munich in 1953 and 1954, which was the first time a woman was allowed to get a doctorate in Catholic theology. And our respect for each other deepened when we had to defend our theses in Latin. In preparation, we translated our theses together from German into Latin.
“Ratzinger has much more of what the French call esprit de finesse. And John Paul II had none!”
What was the new pope like as a theology student?
He was very intelligent. He was the star student-the star-male student; there were very few female students-and we all admired his intelligence. But there was something more about him I admired. He was a rather shy student, not obsessed with his ego. I liked his humble intelligence. I still do like many passages in his books, and I’ve quoted them in my books. And all my life, many people have been astonished that I’ve always sort of defended Ratzinger, even though I’ve said that many of his opinions are totally wrong.
Was he theologically conservative as a student?
Well, when I studied theology I was a sheep. I believed everything I was taught, and Ratzinger, of course, did as well. But soon he became a very progressive theologian. And at the Second Vatican Council he served as the theological adviser to Cardinal Frings of Cologne, a very beloved and progressive voice, along with Karl Rahner and others. Ratzinger was chosen because of his modern perspective.
But under John Paul II, the repression of women and a kind of anti-sexual pessimism reached it highest peak, and Ratzinger didn’t protest this in any way. I still can’t quite figure it out.
Why?
The enormous difference between John Paul II and Ratzinger is intelligence. Ratzinger is more, much more, intelligent. Quite frankly, John Paul II was tedious without end. I couldn’t stand it any more. He was obsessed with Mary. “Mary, Mary, Mary,” he repeated over and over and over. I mean, I feel much for Mary myself, because she lost her son. But John Paul II said Mary was glad to see her son on the cross and that she would have put him there herself because it meant our salvation. I tell you, Ratzinger would not say such a stupid, horrible thing! No, he has much more taste than that. Ratzinger has much more of what the French call esprit de finesse. And John Paul II had none!
For the record, the document I cited on another blog was not Lumen Gentium.
MM,
The Church has made clear repeatedly, both at the level of the USCCB and the Vatican that politicians who help to enshrine “rights” to abortion and gay marriage, and who by their actions actively support cloning, euthenasia and ESCR are taking formal cooperation with grave evil to a rather high level. But as I’ve said to you before — I actually think it would be better for the Church (in America and elsewhere) to see ecclesiastical discipline used even to my detriment and that of those who agree with me than the current situation where it is almost never used at all. You show little understanding of your opponents when you say, “But nobody really wants to get serious; they want Eucharistic sanction of politicians they don’t like.”
Far from it. Many of us actually have a profound respect for the Sacrament, and also a great desire to see the shepherds of the Church use their teaching office to proclaim Christ’s truth firmly to their flocks.
But if you disagree, try to to bring any particular Americanist ideology to the table. That never happens, though.
Want to see me not be Americanist? I suspect it would be rather better for the common good if only property owners were allowed the right to bear arms. Indeed, it would also be better for the common good if only property owners could vote. Communities are generally better and more responsibly served by those who are truly invested in them and have reason to behave responsibly.
However, I don’t advocate my rather medieval sensibilities because I think there is a valid point to be made that even if it would be more to the common advantage only to allow property owning heads of families to have many rights — it is not fair to those who do not have the money to meet those requirements to share those rights. Sure, people who don’t own property are far more statistically likely to vote foolishly, engage in criminal behavior, and generally be destabilizing influences on society. But it seems to me that even if it would work better to reserve many rights only to property owners, it is only right to give the rest of society the benefit of the doubt — treating people as if they were equal even if they often don’t act equal.
Somehow, however, I do not think that a more medieval approach such as this is what you have in mind when you advocate we stay away from Americanism. Rather, you want to see a modern European statist solution, where the duty of each citizen to protect his neighbors is permanently and by law delegated to law enforcement officers and individual citizens forever forget those personal duties to each other.
This must be the thread where Darwin and I find out what we have in common.
Darwin: not quite, I favor a “Europe of the regions”. like Edmund Stoiber of Bavaria, where you a suprantional authority (the EU) and devolved power at the regional level. There’s no greater anti-nationalist than me. I would even disband the United States army. But I still don’t believe the common good could support the freedom to own handguns. No, scratch that, that’s too general. If handgun ownership proves compatible with public peace and does not elevate murder and suicide rates, then let it happen. But, absent strict jurisdictional border controls, I don’t see that happening. Not even close– espcially not in a country lilke the US that is prone to violence to start with.
Well, Zippy, he’s a Republican, so if the shoe fits…
(Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I’m just pointing it out.)
Just to clarify, Darwin, on the communion issue. I admit certainly that a case can be made for the application of the canon on question. Canon law, though, operates much more in the Italian sense of norms of behavior than the American legalistic sense, and its very last line says that everything is geared toward the salvation of souls.
As I said, a case can be made, but proving formal cooperation is not watertight. If somebody went around in public saying abortion is a great thing, and all women should have one to keep the population down, and presented himself for communion– then the canon applies. If a politician simply favors not attaching any criminal sanction to abortion, it may or may not be formal cooperation with evil.
But my broader point is tha if we want to take a legalistic approach to the question, it must be done consistently. And that goes well beyond abortion, and pertains to manifest support for any intrinsically evil act. That would encompass a rather large category of people. So, do it right, or don’t do it at all.
Gerald – That’s a fascinating interview. Thanks for posting it. I forgot all about her other book, Putting Away Childish Things. I think that’s the one that has more “attitude.” Eunuchs is the better book.
Well, pushing for federal funding and requiring all state licensed hospitals and physicians to provide abortion is much more than merely “not wanting to criminalize abortion.”
Nate
I never said that Christ told the apostles to buy swords….you are conflating me with another poster……the gospel seems to say that if you take Christ literally which I warned Matt against doing in that case. In fact my lead post implies that Unam Sanctam was mistaken in taking Christ allegorically about the two swords which it said showed that the Pope had spiritual and secular power over all the earth which led to a series of Popes from 1455 til 1510 turbo charging Spain and Portugal toward imperialism and enslaving hundreds of thousands since these Popes felt that the world was the Pope’s to give (see Romanus Pontifex/mid 4th paragraph…subsequently confirmed by three other Popes and imitated for Spain by still another Pope).
No….I simply noted that some disciples carried swords til the end of the ministry and Christ never commanded them to rid themselves of them. Indeed the Good Samaritan story is based on a robbery with severe assault as a factor. And the expression “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword” is about those who solve too many problems with force. Christ praised the Roman Centurion for having the most faith in all Israel and the centurion in the pedestrian sense lived by 101 swords but in Christ’s acceptation of “live by the sword”, the centurion certainly did not live by the sword or he would not have had the greatest faith in all Israel.
Zippy, he’s a Republican
I am not a Republican.
MM,
I originally told the voter registration worker that I was a Tory, but she said she didn’t have a slot for that and informed me that Republican was the closest thing she had.
Well, try “Ant-Nationalist Christian Democrat” and see what happens. :)
Chinese Music, sorry for the confusion. But it does seem that you take Christ’s admonition about the swords literally, which still brings up the question – why didn’t the Apostles listen to him? They were the ones he told to buy swords, and Peter had one in the garden.
A more accurate translation is, “all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
About the centurion, in what sense does the soldier have “faith”, if he is an unbaptized pagan working for a self-proclaimed divine emperor? In what sense does the soldier have “faith”, if he owns slaves? If what sense does the soldier have “faith”, if he does not follow Jesus to the cross? Does this pagan soldier change his life upon receiving baptism – entering into the communal life lived by the Apostles and disciples in Jerusalem, selling his property and laying the money at their feet to feed and house the needy?
I simply noted that some disciples carried swords til the end of the ministry and Christ never commanded them to rid themselves of them.
So you’re suggesting that the Jewish apostles actually carried swords around openly in occupied Galilee? Riiiiiiight…
And the expression “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword” is about those who solve too many problems with force.
“Too many problems.” Nice. That’s not what the text suggests. You are reading into it.
If it is okay for NYPD to stay armed, despite the fact that they shoot unarmed black men to death (Sean Bell being the latest victim), then it is okay for anyone to be armed.
By what moral authority do the police have in telling us we can not have handguns if they continue to possess them even after they misuse them?