Once more on Notre Dame
Opinion is somewhat divided at Vox Nova on the University of Notre Dame’s plan to have President Obama give the university’s spring commencement address. M.Z., Blackadder (who attended Notre Dame Law), Katerina, and Morning’s Minion have written posts on the matter, looking at it from varying angles. I initially had no qualms whatsoever with President Obama giving the commencement address, for he is, after all, the President of the United States and, well, Notre Dame likes to have U.S. presidents–with their attendant sins–give commencement speeches. There is much to President Obama’s life and career worth emulating (as there is to the lives and careers of the other presidents who spoke at Notre Dame commencements). Given the fact that he would not be campaigning or promoting abortion rights, I did not see his presence at Notre Dame as problematic.
I do think Notre Dame plans to make an egregious error, however, in awarding Obama an honorary doctor of laws degree. This award signals to me that Obama’s career as a laywer, legal scholar, and legislater is being singled out as especially praiseworthy by a Catholic university. I find this completely unacceptable and morally offensive in light of the fact that Obama has worked through legal means to strike down restrictions on abortions at state and federal levels. In this, I agree with the prevailing opinion of the several U.S. bishops who have spoken out against the award, and I take a stand with both Katerina and Michael Iafrate in supporting the opinions of those bishops.
I read tonight that 10 priests from the Congregation of the Holy Cross (the order that runs Notre Dame) have petitioned Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins and the university board to reconsider the invitation. All things considered, I now object to the invitation itself and not only to the award. Why the change of heart? In light of the statements made by Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend and USCCB President Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, and the inner turmoil of the Holy Cross Fathers, Notre Dame ought to rescind the invitation. At stake is the authority of the Church (especially of the U.S. hierarchy) and peace within the religious order that runs the university. Indeed, I think it is now a matter of obedience and prudence. At this point, I think there is a lot to be lost for both Notre Dame and the Church in the U.S. Now that we are heading into the Triduum, some immediate humility from Notre Dame officials would not be out of place.
It would almost seem the most prudent course at this point. I do think the practice of a number of bishops acting like they have universal jurisdiction is not healthy and is a poor precedent from the recent election. (Objection would be that they are just offering their opinion and the rejoinder would be it’s on office stationary.) You have the President of the USCCB, the Archbishop designate of New York, the local ordinary in a huff over this. 1 of 3 or even 2 of 3 would be one thing. This is another. The only other significant cleric would be Cardinal Mahony. I suppose you could add Archbishop Wuerl, although I’m hoping that goes back to being a relatively minor see.
I do think arguing over the value of an honorary law degree is like arguing over the instrinsic worth of the prize in a box of Cracker Jacks. The prize comes with the territory and only has as much value as the receiver gives it.
As for the 10 priests, I’m not sure what to think. In the age of the Internet, organizing 10 people is not difficult. Where they are in the leadership and how representative they are of the whole are the real questions.
If I were Obama, I’d now write to Notre Dame rejecting the invitation, appoint Kmiec to be Ambassador to the Holy See and throw down the gauntlet to the American Catholic Church, which has now become a sect that is more interested in politics and ideology than in religion.
Nowhere in Europe would such a tempest in a teapot be being created over such a ridiculous, minor concern as the elected head of state, who happens to be pro-choice, receiving a degree from an institution whose connection to religion is as tenuous as that of Oxford to Anglicanism.
From our perspective over here, it looks suspiciously as if the American hierarchy is continuously inflaming the faithful over this issue in order to distract you from their priest-scandals, and that they have little or no interest in actually working WITH the elected government to lessen the incidences of abortion–which even the pro-choice government agree are a sign of societal dysfunction.
You American Catholics are as strange a sect of fanatics as the murderous Holy Leaguers of the French Sixteenth Century, who, in their refusal to compromise any issue, created such revulsion in the minds of moderates as to give rise to the paganism of the French Enlightenment.
If the concern of you folks over this and other issues related to the Roman Catholic “Theology of the Body” were genuinely religious—rather than political—you would be able to adopt seamlessly the attitude of this commentator over at Rod Dreher’s website the other day:
Regardless of the ill effects of SSM, divorce is the true disaster that has hollowed out the familial core of our civil society. As a conservative Catholic, I would welcome any help we can get to encourage offering of covenant marriages and suchlike. If gay people want to help with that, then God bless them.
Fighting against SSM is a losing battle, demographically and culturally. Fight instead for conscience protections. Preach the Theology of the Body. Persuade gays of orthodox morality through loving conversation, not state coercion. From the Byzantine throne to the Papal States to the Inquisition to the Moral Majority, every time we Christians get caught up with Caesar and turn over our duty to preach to the swordsmen of the secular arm, we fail God. That libertarian crunchy con fusion is a great idea in many ways–but it means granting liberty to those we disagree with, too. That’s the bargain. Christian orthodoxy is becoming a minority culture, like the Amish. The kinder we are to the new secular majority on our way to the Benedict option, the more kindness we can expect in return: Cast your bread upon the waters.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/religious-right-gay-marriage-c_comments.html
But this pious and holy disposition is really NOT what you’re all about; what you and your bishops are all about is political POWER!
To clarify my position:
I “agree” with the bishops insofar as they disapprove of “honoring” Obama with a degree. I don’t think Catholic institution should honor to those who are clearly out of bounds on Catholic teaching. I see my opposition to Obama’s honorary degree in continuity with my opposition to Boston College giving Condolseeza Rice a degree, and my opposition to Wheeling Jesuit University giving WV’s Gov. Joe Manchin a degree. Perhaps it’s best that Catholic schools refrain from giving politicians degrees, period. I don’t know.
But I disagree with the bishops too, because all I have seen (and correct me if I am wrong) are bishops “deeply offended” that Obama was even invited to speak at Notre Dame. I see no problem with Obama being invited to speak, and even being invited to give the commencement address.
The “deep offense” that the bishops feel due to Notre Dame’s mere invitation to speak rings awfully hollow in light of Catholic institutions’ continued deep complicity with u.s. foreign policy and war-making and the lack of respect for life that this complicity represents. Few bishops (actually, none to my knowledge) raise a peep about “Catholic identity” when it comes to ROTC programs, for example.
Despite my disagreement with his decision to grant Obama a degree, I’m not convinced that Fr. Jenkins’ refusal to change the plan amounts to “disobedience.”
digby,
Arguably, Americans politicize too many things. Gay marriage, for instance, could have been quietly handled by County clerks handing out marriage licenses to whoever asked for them, instead of needing courts or legislatures to debate, discuss, and issue rulings, and activists on both sides to pop a new red star cluster every other day.
But because we politicize almost everything, and seem to feel we need laws spelling out almost everything, Churches actually have some fear that legalized gay marriage will lead to harassment of churches by lawsuits – back in the day even Cdl Bernadin, widely decried as a liberal by the American right, for his ‘Seamless Garment pro-life ethic’ – opposed gay marriage, or domestic partnership, for fear that his archdiocese would then be forced to hire, and provide insurance for, same-sex partners. You would think that people wouldn’t want to work for an institution that regards their lifestyle as sinful – but some would apply for a job, just for a chance to file a lawsuit for discrimination. Now, maybe if the Churches made nice with the gay marriage movement over freedom of conscience, the help would be remembered, and there would be fewer friction points. That may be a useful way to look at it. Although I have to think it through, at first glance, I like it – strengthen, in effect, the First Amendment, for everyone.
OTOH, I think there’d still be disgruntled individuals who’d sue to get married in the Cathedral — FREX there was a lawsuit recently against a wedding photographer who said she couldn’t photograph a lesbian wedding. Conscience. Instead of taking their business elsewhere and posting on craiglist or some such for people to boycott, the couple sued her. It doesn’t take much more than one lawsuit to put a small business down. My point is, there are implications to all these things that have nothing to do with people wanting power.
Notre Dame’s relationship to Catholicism in this country, however, is a lot stronger than you think. Vagina Monologues or not, ND is still the home team for a lot of American Catholics, even ones who never went to college. Not just football, though — ND was always part of the project of persuading 19th and early 20th century Protestant America that Catholics could, in fact, be good Americans. Training and educating Catholic young adults and then sending them into public life with a clear understanding of the faith and a clear Catholic identity.
Anyway, you’re completely misreading American Catholics – laity and hierarchy alike. The hierarchy can fairly expect the abuse scandals to be thrown in their faces any time they make a statement about anything, for probably the next hundred years. They’re not distracting anybody. Dioceses are still paying out lawsuits. But they’re still bishops – they have to teach the faith – and with too many prominent Catholic pro-abortion politicians, they have to give witness on this particular point, often an conspicuously, lest people think that Biden and Pelosi actually know their ass from their elbow with respect to Church teaching. The bishops have also generally been on the side of a lot of the Democratic social programs that are supposed to combat the conditions that lead to abortion, so that aspect of your criticism may fairly apply to the part of the pro-life movement that’s gotten in bed with the Republican party, but the Bishops have really been falsely accused of partisanship in this regard.
I think the ND issue is a result of that same American legalism, desire for every issue to be governed by a universal principle or whatever it is that has us fighting in the courts about legal recognition for gay relationships. A European attitude might be more ‘is there a contradiction here? so what?’ But it bothers a lot of American Catholics that the home team would so honor, not a garden variety pro-choice pres like Clinton, but one who has basically promised NOW and NARAL that he’ll stop health providers who oppose abortion from retaining their medical licenses. That, and pushing legislation in Illinois that protected ‘a woman’s right to choose’ from the dread possibility that the baby might contravene her choice by surviving the abortion, make Pres Obama kind of a special case. In an American context, even if ND has a tradition of inviting every new president to speak at their first commencement after his inauguration, they should have make an exception.
On the other hand, maybe there’s a cunning plan, given Mary Ann Glendon’s selection for the Laetare medal, for the president to be at least forced to sit through an opposing view.
On the other hand, maybe there’s a cunning plan, given Mary Ann Glendon’s selection for the Laetare medal, for the president to be at least forced to sit through an opposing view.
I didn’t even know that! Don’t you think, then, that that makes the whole matter TRULY a “tempest in a teapot”? Don’t you think that this gesture alone could be taken as a tactful public scolding of the American President for his position on abortion?
Again, I think the whole thing is ridiculous, and, as regards your comments about litigation, I’m beginning to think that Americans have more confidence in legal stipulations than in decency, good manners and COMMON SENSE. I believe that in most parts of the world a judge would throw the photographer you mention’s case right out of court.
On the other hand, Americans don’t seem to understand the enormous necessity of trying war criminals to ensure that their misdeeds don’t acquire the status of precedent for further depredations by ANY rampaging “superpower.” You truly ARE a strange lot!
While many of you are looking to this university, I am looking (yet again) on the how American Catholicism differs from the mainstream. After all, “pro-choice” Sarkozy received the title of honorary canon of St. John Lateran in Rome, and I don’t recall much uproar. The Tablet in London has a nice piece on this very issue:
“First, is it correct to regard abortion as so crucial an issue to relations between Catholics and a secular government that no other consideration carries any weight? In America that seems to be the view taken, not least by many bishops but also, in even more extreme terms, by Catholic anti-abortion campaigners. ….It is not a view that would find much sympathy in most Catholic circles in Europe.
Nobody has suggested that President Obama should be shunned because he has not promised to end the death penalty, which is also part of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life; nor that his predecessor should have been shunned because he engaged his country in an unjust war in Iraq, where untold innocent lives were lost. It seriously damages the whole Catholic contribution to democratic politics to treat abortion not only as a black-and-white issue, with no shades of grey, but as the unique black-and-white issue that trumps all others.”
MM
That is one of my problems with the whole issue and how it is being treated. President Obama is being singled out, and no over-arching discussion is being had, reflecting upon other politicians whose stands run contrary to Catholicism, having been given awards without a similar level of protest. If they want to change the standards, do so — but do it honestly, and not single out one person, making it look political and personal, but rather, establish the far reaching guidelines, and present examples of people who might have once recieved awards who probably should not have. That it seems to be merely about Obama, the person, and using various kinds of rhetoric (“anti-Catholic”) to justify this attack, is dangerous; I just don’t like where this is coming from, and where it seems to be going.
If I were Obama, I’d now write to Notre Dame rejecting the invitation, appoint Kmiec to be Ambassador to the Holy See and throw down the gauntlet to the American Catholic Church, which has now become a sect that is more interested in politics and ideology than in religion.
I’m tempted that way myself. If the next four to eight years is going to be Catholic authorities continuing to spew their personal hatred for the President, let’s have it out; see who stands where and who is left standing. it if comes to that, I like my odds.
But while we migth be there by May 17, I’m not sure we are there now. Cardinal George’s remarks were made in response to a question at the private meeting, recorded without his knowledge (did he learn nothing from Burke?) and he seems truly ashamed that they have been publicly reported. He certainly has made it clear he is not confirming or repeating it. Dolan, to his credit, put his remarks in the context of his opinion and on the same day announced he was accepting a speaking invitiation from a pro-abortion organization. Less than 10% of the episcopate has felt the need to go after ND.
And even the loudest voices, gutless that they are, have not gone where they know no one will follow. They have not asked for a vote on this issue at the USCCB meeting a month after the Commencement (because they would lose) and they have not asked the lay faithful to not particpate in this pro-abortion event (because they know the graduating class and other participants including Ambassador Glendon would ignore them).
I just don’t like where this is coming from, and where it seems to be going.
A shared frustration, particularly the latter. Is this really the hill to die on?
Cecilia Muñoz,a deputy assistant to the president and one time employee of the Catholic Church, says the President will be giving a major address on immigration “sometime in May.”
Hopefully, it will be before a group of Presbyterians, because that would be a statement by the President that they are the social element he expects to take the lead on this issue and that he most wants to interact with on immigration.
What has Obama done to deserve an honorary law degree???
What is the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding abortion laws in a secular state? Is there something authoritative or infallible?
If a Catholic president were in office, what would be his duty regarding abortion law? Would he be required to attempt to make it the law of the land that no abortions were legal, including in cases of rape, incest, and real threats to the life of the mother?
Would a Catholic president be obligated to attempt to outlaw Plan B as an abortifacient? And would he or she be obliged to ban oral contraceptives on the theory that they (like Plan B) may sometimes prevent implantation?
Can a faithful Catholic serve as president of the United States?
Digby-
We get it. Europe is so much more enlightened than the United States.
Kurt-
Are you Catholic? If so, then I think you need to seriously reconsider this comment of yours:
“If the next four to eight years is going to be Catholic authorities continuing to spew their personal hatred for the President, let’s have it out; see who stands where and who is left standing. it if comes to that, I like my odds.”
I “agree” with the bishops insofar as they disapprove of “honoring” Obama with a degree. I don’t think Catholic institution should honor to those who are clearly out of bounds on Catholic teaching….
But I disagree with the bishops too…
The “deep offense” that the bishops feel due to Notre Dame’s mere invitation to speak rings awfully hollow in light of Catholic institutions’ continued deep complicity with u.s. foreign policy and war-making and the lack of respect for life that this complicity represents. Few bishops (actually, none to my knowledge) raise a peep about “Catholic identity” when it comes to ROTC programs, for example.
So what you mean is basically that you agree with the bishops on those occasions when they happen to fall in line with your existing opinions, but otherwise you disagree with them, and indeed think they are not sufficiently Catholic?
So what you mean is basically that you agree with the bishops on those occasions when they happen to fall in line with your existing opinions, but otherwise you disagree with them, and indeed think they are not sufficiently Catholic?
Darwin, I didn’t say any such thing. Consider for a moment that what I said about agreeing and disagreeing with “the” bishops, I am referring to that handful of bishops who have voiced an opinion on the Obama/Notre Dame situation. The vast majority of u.s. bishops have said nothing. The vast vast vast majority of bishops throughout the world could care less about such things. I most certainly did not say anything about anyone being or not being “sufficiently Catholic.”
I am in agreement with the u.s. bishops’ statement on not honoring politicians who are in deep disagreement with Catholic teaching. As I said, I oppose ND granting Obama a degree. I think the bishops who have spoken out, though, need to be more serious and consistent about their concerns. While they are expressing a legitimate concern here, they tend to 1) go overboard by suggesting Obama should not be allowed to speak at all, and 2) neglect other serious situations in which individuals should not be honored at Catholic institutions.
I hope this explanation (which has become much more extended that most rational people would find necessary) clears up my views for you. I would appreciate it if you quit your continual witch-hunting tendencies and distortion of my position by claiming I said things that I did not, in fact, say.
What has Obama done to deserve an honorary law degree???
He was kind enough to agree to accept the invitation to give the commencement address. The other way to get one is to donate enough money to build a new gym or dormitory.
Kurt-
Are you Catholic?
I’ve been told by some I am not. I’m baptized and I go to Mass and communion at least weekly. They cash my checks. Catagorize me as you will.
My previous comments stand.
Kurt-
You seem awful hostile to your own Church. Perhaps another Church would be more to your liking and personal policy preferences.
feddie,
whatever.
your continual with-hunting tendencies
Ummmm… If you say so.
(What do we burn? Witches!! What else do we burn? More witches!!!)
I apologize. It seems that my witch hunting zeal overcame my desire to clarity of expression. My point was more: If you find yourself in basic agreement with with “the bishops” (to the extent that the couple dozen bishops who have voiced any opinion on this matter can be referred to as “the bishops”) on the issue of giving a pro-choice politician and honorary degree, yet find yourself disappointed that no bishop has ever (to either of our knowledge) called on Catholic colleges to kick out ROTC programs and otherwise attacked the “complicity” of Catholic institutions with the war — is it possible that the reason for this disconnect is that the bishops do not actually agree with the steps that you wish they would take (kicking out ROTC, etc.)?
Indeed, maybe, just possibly, while Catholic promoting Catholic teaching does require not giving explicit honors to pro-choice politicians, perhaps it does not require being against ROTC, etc.
“The vast vast vast majority of bishops throughout the world could care less about such things”.
The vast vast majority of bishops at the time of Arius were in agreement with Arius [who denied the divinity of Our Lord].
The question remains: who issued the invitation = Fr. Jenkins or the Board of Trustees?
You seem awful hostile to your own Church. Perhaps another Church would be more to your liking and personal policy preferences.
This is what the mostly-despicable American Catholic Church has become: Catholics inviting other Catholics to leave their Church because they are not “pure” enough in ideology.
Pathetic!
You seem awful hostile to your own Church. Perhaps another Church would be more to your liking and personal policy preferences.
Fedder – Cut out the pseudo-excommunications and exclusionary anti-evangelization, pal. If you want to do that garbage to the readers of your own blog, go right ahead. Don’t do it here. I won’t ask you again.
Indeed, maybe, just possibly, while Catholic promoting Catholic teaching does require not giving explicit honors to pro-choice politicians, perhaps it does not require being against ROTC, etc.
[Shrug] Of course it’s possible. I disagree. I think it’s inconsistent. I’m not alone in that opinion. You can surely imagine why I would have that opinion. Get over it and get ready for church, okay?
Henry,
This discussion is frustrating to me too.
It seems that whenever there is disagreement among Catholics, the reporting suggests the entire Catholic universe to be up in arms. This is crazy. My suspicion is the majority of Catholics quietly support ND’s decision, and are proud that Obama is being honored.
If I recall correctly, Obama received 73% of the Catholic vote in the last election, despite a hailstorm of misleading or slanderous accusations leveled against him. This was a big shift in support for the Democratic candidate. But none of this could be foreseen in the reporting before the election.
ND’s decision is a matter of prudential judgment. As such, there is wide latitude for healthy disagreement and debate. Even Cardinal George’s dissent must be taken within that context.
Finally, there is no room for the vilification that now infects this discussion. The use of invectives invites sloppy journalism. Journalists would rather report a food fight than the logic of disagreement.
MI-
Interesting. You rebuke my comment, but take no issue with Kurt’s nasty diatribe against the “Catholic authorities.”
You are free, of course, to do as you wish with your own blog. I would respectfully suggest that before taking such an action, however, you might want to go back and review some of your own prior comments here at VN and elsewhere.
Gerald-
Obama received “58 percent of Catholics overall voted for Obama while 49 percent of weekly churchgoers did.”
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/newsreport.aspx?id=319
Whoops! Sorry about the sentence/quote structure. You get the gist though.
Gerald,
I believe your numbers are off. Obama won the self identified Catholic vote 54 to 45 and lost the mass going vote by 43 to 55.
Make of that what one will, but the 73% number you’ve got there is waaaay of.
I like Darwin’s numbers better. Whatever the percentage was, it was not 73%
Feddie/Darwin Catholic …
Thanks for the correction and reference. I saw something the other night about the Catholic vote being 73% in reference to Obama and it came as a surprise to me. That’s why I hesitated — “if I recall correctly.”
I accept that 73% is inaccurate. But I think the logical point I was trying to make remains true.
I think 54/45 are the most widely accepted numbers. More favorable than the general public.
Among various faith groups. Catholics had the narrowest difference between weekly and less often worshippers. The widest difference within the Catholic vote depended on if they attended an all-white parish church or not. The former strongly for McCain; the later strongly for the President.
73% sounds pretty close to percentage of ND students that support Obama coming.
M.Z.,
It appears you are correct.
I found this quote from a column by Tim Rutten of the LA Times:
“According to Notre Dame’s campus newspaper, student reaction to the invitation has been overwhelmingly positive, though the paper reports an interesting split: 70% of the letters it has received from alumni oppose the president’s appearance, while 73% of current students and 97% of the graduating seniors approve of the invitation.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten28-2009mar28,0,4208139.column
“‘On the other hand, maybe there’s a cunning plan, given Mary Ann Glendon’s selection for the Laetare medal, for the president to be at least forced to sit through an opposing view.’
I didn’t even know that! Don’t you think, then, that that makes the whole matter TRULY a “tempest in a teapot”? Don’t you think that this gesture alone could be taken as a tactful public scolding of the American President for his position on abortion?”
Nope. I’d like to think that if Bp D’Arcy could have said, “I am fully persuaded that Notre Dame truly intends to engage the President in dialogue on the life issues — let’s wait and see how it goes,” he would have. In the meantime, president or not, Obama has promised to sign legislation that would eradicate conscience protections for health-care providers who don’t want to participate in abortions – which could threaten the Catholic hospitals in the US; and he has supported legislation in Illinois to ensure that the right to choose is protected from the moment of conception to however many hours after birth it takes for an abandoned baby to die. This isn’t garden-variety, Clintonesque ‘pro-choice.’ He’s transcended choice – he’s pro-abortion for all practical purposes. I’m not demonizing him – he’s a nice Lakefront liberal – wants everybody to get along in a well-ordered society – wants too much government for my taste, but, eh. I went to the U of Chicago – I know intellectual Lakefront liberals. They’re nice. They think they’re better than everyone else, ’cause they have tenure at the University of Chicago; but they love their kids, are kind to bewildered undergrads – even from the benighted suburbs, they give to the local food pantry, they take in strays, and contrary to popular belief, a few of them even go to daily Mass. They’re more than nice- a lot of them are good.
But Obama, nice and probably good as he is, honestly doesn’t see a problem with FOCA – and honestly does see a problem with doctors or hospitals conforming to the teachings of the Church. These positions disqualify him from an honorary JD from the flagship Catholic university in the US.
“‘You seem awful hostile to your own Church. Perhaps another Church would be more to your liking and personal policy preferences.’
This is what the mostly-despicable American Catholic Church has become: Catholics inviting other Catholics to leave their Church because they are not “pure” enough in ideology.”
This reminds me of a friend in college who was shocked when she had two sisters as roomates on summer. They fought with each other, can you imagine? My friend had no siblings close to her own age. She’d never heard anything like it. All this is, is the mild-by-comparison (really, really mild)* Catholic version of bog-standard American political rhetoric. Also, it’s a couple guys with blogs who’ve kind of had a p*ssing contest going on before now. BFD. I respectfully invite you to rethink your uninformed assessment of the Catholic Church in the US. I mean, you just called 65 million people despicable, based on one guy’s comment on the internet.
(*Good news is, it’s been over a hundred years since we’ve had, y’know, assault and battery on the Senate floor. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm)
Have a blessed Easter!
Digby,
You just called 65 million people despicable because of what some guy said on the internet.
re Glendon – well, if there was a cunning plan, it’d be nice; but I sort of think that if Bp D’Arcy could say “I really think they do mean, and have a way to, engage the president in constructive dialogue– wait and see,” he would. Even so – Katerina’s right. What has he done to deserve an honorary JD?
My answer would be, his positions on FOCA (eager to sign) and his opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois, should disqualify him from receiving an honorary law degree from any Catholic university. He’s transcended choice, and is practically pro- abortion.
Re the crazy lawsuit – I hope it was thrown out! Believe it or not, that can happen here, too. Prior to getting it thrown out, however, the defendant will have had to spend a couple grand to hire a lawyer in case it wasn’t thrown out.
You just called 65 million people despicable because of what some guy said on the internet.
You don’t come here very often, do you? Because his view is quite representative of that of a very large contingent here and in the rest of the American Catholic Church, if my experiences there in the last ten years indicated anything.
If you want to get a really good idea of how different European Catholicism is from a lot of the rubbish that’s posted by the commentators here, I suggest you take a gander at THIS:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/09/religion-catholicism-uk-gay-acceptance
I like what the Guardian reporter wrote but fail to see how this reflects on commentators around here – particular since the man does not represent official ‘European’ church opinion.
Did you ever read comments over at the National Catholic Reporter? You can find plenty of very very
smart comments from folks like yourself.
Yes it is a shame that here in the US the more conservative leaning Catholics dominate the airwaves-
but nothing prevents the more progressive elements of the catholic church from speaking up – other than that the official church actually really does not care all that much for our voice – neither in Europe nor here. A couple of key moves could change that downward spiral – one would be to allow marriage for Priests, the next one female ordination. In the long run it really does not make much sense for folks that fully embrace equality to accept the rather lame excuses offered by the male celibates in charge of our church – why under no circumstances the status quo can change.
I can also assure you that you can find parishes like the cited London one here in the US.
My own parish is very inclusive – and often in quite some trouble with the official church.
But the way our church is organized these days they can pull the plug on any parish they find to be out of line – they just change the priest – end of story.
In any case the way I see a blog like Vox Nova – it is a somewhat diverse electronic meeting place – it is a chance for you digbydolben to ‘talk’ to ‘crazy’ American people you would normally not be able to talk to. I hope you can see those ‘crazy’ people as the potentially very nice human beings they likely are. Try to muster a bit more generosity – I doubt that people from the various regions and countries around the world really are fundamentally all good or all bad – they all try to make sense out of their circumstances.
Yes it is a shame that here in the US the more conservative leaning Catholics dominate the airwaves-
but nothing prevents the more progressive elements of the catholic church from speaking up – other than that the official church actually really does not care all that much for our voice – neither in Europe nor here.
Grega, before leaving America, I actually WORKED for the Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and I’d like to assure you that the Archbishop of Santa Fe would NEVER do what the Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster did, in allowing that parish in the Soho district of London to do what it’s doing. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe is CONTROLLED by a radically conservative element of lay people and priests who are able to manipulate its Archbishop by threats to publicize his misdoings as a seminary director in Texas, where a boy committed suicide on account of the old hypocrite’s refusal to investigate the complaints against his harasser in the seminary.
I think that this is not a particularly remarkable story regarding the proud, callous and indifferent hierarchs of the American Church. This same Archbishop banned the practice of “interfaith dialogue” with visiting clergy that had been being conducted according to canonical standards for TWENTY YEARS by a veteran theology teacher at the instance of some “identity politics”-Catholics and refused to reconsider when HUNDREDS of other parents wrote that their children’s faith had been STRENGTHENED by the gentleman’s practice of letting deeply religious people share aspects of their faith in front of their children.
The old hypocrite of an Archbishop later LIED when confronted with the facts by a group of his theology teachers and claimed an EQUAL number of parents had protested against the banning of “interfaith dialogue” from their children’s theology class.
However, everybody knew what was going on; everybody knew whom the Archbishop was afraid of. He is afraid of THESE people, and considering how unscrupulous they are, and how much they know about him, he has good reason to be afraid of them:
http://www.lospequenos.org/StPiusSpec.htm
Consider THIS: in an age in which so much depends upon interfaith tolerance, respect and mutual affirmation of genuine spirituality, and in which so much murderous destruction is being fostered by religious bigots, an American Catholic Archbishop BANS “interfaith dialogue” that is being conducted according to the canonical stipulations for such activity. (I KNOW this was true; I visited the gentleman’s classes, and had seen the practice in action in India, being conducted by Jesuits who’d been specifically TRAINED to do it.) Making myself very much persona non grata in the faculty lounge, I said aloud what I’ll say here: “The banning of ‘interfaith dialogue’ from the lives of genuinely spiritual youth by POLITICIANS posing as religious people is to ACTIVELY prepare them for SECTARIAN WAR in the 21st century.”
That’s what your American Catholic Church is doing, and we don’t have any toleration of such atrocious behaviour over here in Europe that I know of. Even the other day, in defiance of the old bigot in the Vatican, a Catholic association moderated and funded by the German Catholic bishops announced that Jews do not need Jesus Christ in order to be “saved.” If you said something like that in Santa Fe as an employee of its bishop, you’d be sacked, deprived of unemployment insurance through a secret agreement between the Archdiocese and the New Mexico legislature and black-balled from ever working in another church institution. So, please, Grega, do NOT try to tell me that the American Catholic Church is anything like what we have here in Europe: here the Church is a benign, self-confident, and a–for the most part–scrupulously ethical body which more resembles a CHURCH than a political FACTION.
Above, I meant to write that “an EQUAL number of parents had complained against the offering of ‘interfaith dialogue’ in a high school theology class.”
Digby — could you put a few more words in all-caps? I’m having trouble understanding your posts when the capitalization rate dips below 10%.
could you put a few more words in all-caps? I’m having trouble understanding your posts when the capitalization rate dips below 10%.
hahahahahahahaha!
Yes, I know that you are an illiterate IGNORAMOUS, S.B., and that, by your own admission here, you couldn’t read anything written in English before the twentieth century.
I’m sorry that I’m so much burdened by my scholarship in ancient and early modern literary texts, but you’ll have to but up with it, because I won’t change and don’t aim to please the likes of you!
I admitted I can’t read anything pre-20th century? You’ll have to remind me of that one.
By the way, it’s cute that you misspelled “ignoramus.” One of those ironies that occurs in someone who is a bit too eager to praise his own superiority.
hahahahahaha!, again!
You missed that I ALSO mis-spelled “put.”
Unlike you, I see no need to wear my erudition on my sleeve, because, believe me, it requires no vaunting.
Also, almost every literary text prior to the twentieth century uses all-caps for emphasis. I like it, and I’ll continue doing it.
Really? I don’t recall seeing many authors use all-caps quite so profligately, and when I look at folios of Shakespeare (see the excellent
“Internet Shakespeare” site) or of Boswell’s Life of Johnson (available via Google books), I don’t see any uses of all-caps, let alone multiple times per sentence.
Hint: emphasis is fine, but it should be reserved for the occasions when emphasis is actually required. Otherwise, it’s like the boy who cried wolf. It also looks histrionic.
It became a practice in the 17th century and it continued well into the 19th. Have you never read an original text of one of Jane Austen’s novels? Have you never seen copy of an original publication of a Metaphysical poem–one by Crashaw or Herbert or Donne?
In any case, I believe I use my all-caps quite judiciously and I’m not going to buy into the barbaric Internet convention that all-caps is “yelling.”
Oh, and histrionic is something I LIKE to be!
I’m afraid the oldest Austen edition that I currently have is a 1930 one, however pulling out my 1795 Rambler, 1840 edition of the Spectator and 1865 edition of Trollope’s Can You Forgive Her, I only see CAPS used to indicate someone’s signature in correspondence. Italics are more frequently used for emphasis, which of course in handwritten letters would be achieved by underscoring. Not to say that no one used caps, but I didn’t recall it at all when you mentioned it. (Though I thank you for the incentive to pull some of the too-seldom-read books off the rare book shelf. Just the smell of century old volumes is enough to calm the nerves and quiet the mind.)
Keep in mind that until typewriters became truly common, all manuscripts originated in longhand, and underscoring is much faster then tediously writing out a series of capitals.
I’d have to look it up, but if memory serves Mr. Collins has a tendency to write heavily underscored letters to Mr. Bennett. And, of course, L. M. Montgomery’s young authoress heroines invariably make very heavy use of underscoring. By the 20th century this was starting to have a rather old-maiden-aunt feel, denoting that one had spent a great one’s time in a lady’s academy of the 1880s and reading romantic novels.
Thus in Dorothy Sayers’ Lord Peter mysteries, Miss Climpson invariably sends Lord Peter letters with a great deal of underscoring, AS YOU WILL REMEMBER!
one had spent a great one’s time in a lady’s academy of the 1880s and reading romantic novels.
I’ve done very much the equivalent.
The attempts to chastise with insinuations simply won’t work on me, as I’m sure you and SB are discovering, by now. I’m way beyond THAT kind of anxiousness, by now.
What exactly do you suppose that you gain by being deliberately histrionic no matter what the issue?
I’m not interested in “gaining” anything; I’m just being ME. And, you know what? one of the worst things about Americans is that they positively CANNOT STAND non-conformity. You are a NATION of conformists, and that’s why it’s so easy for your media to manipulate you. We Brits love our eccentrics, but you DESPISE yours.
Digby-
I take it that you’ve never lived in the South. We’re chock full of eccentrics; and we don’t despise them. We often elect them to higher office. :)
I take it that you’ve never lived in the South.
“The” South? Why don’t you pontificate for us about what it means to be a “real” Southerner?
We’re chock full of eccentrics; and we don’t despise them.
Except for “homos,” right?
Happy Easter to you too, MI.
As I suspected.
What it you suspect, MI? I made a little joke, and you want to wade in with a nasty comment/personal attack. Why should I respond in kind?
“We Brits”? I thought your story was that you grew up in the South and were living in Germany now. When did you become a “Brit”?
SB, I hold dual citizenship because of ancestry. I specifically said that a while back, on another thread.
digbydolben,
I do not think it is helpful to make this into an ‘those Americans us Europeans Catholics’ story.
From my perspective the stuff that hurts the church in the long run is squarely in the Vaticans court.
There was a very interesting book comment in this weekends New York Book Review regrading James Carrolls new book “PRACTICING CATHOLIC”.
I plan to read this book and hope to be able to agree with the James Carroll vs. Jack Miles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/books/review/Miles-t.html?_r=1&ref=review
“In terms of lived religious practice, I concede, these differences shrink away to almost nothing. But behind them, there does stand one substantial divergence of judgment. “The Catholic people have already changed,” Carroll writes, “and this book” — autobiography though it may seem — “is that story. Catholics came to understand that they themselves — not their priests, bishops and pope — are the church.” ”
One can only hope that is true – and if you see evidence of this in Germany – I am delighted.
Grega, I see MUCH evidence of it in Germany. It seems to have actually helped the process, as a matter of fact, for the last conclave to have elected a pope whom only German PROTESTANTS like.
I tell you what, Grega, I just read Jack Miles’ review of Carrol’s book, and I can give you a different reason that Carrol’s for staying in the Catholic Church (and one that Miles’ objection to that decision doesn’t consider): what’s going to happen in the Catholic Church, as a reaction to Benedict’s attempts to put the reforms of Vatican II “back in the box” is going to to be FAR more exciting intellectually and spiritually than anything that’s going to happen in the mainline Protestant or Evangelical churches.
I read once that it takes 50-100 years for the true effects of any Ecumenical Council to take hold, and I believe that the world-wide reaction AGAINST the Augustinian fundamentalism and authoritarianism of the modern papacy will be where the true Spirit will be moving among the “people of God.” It probably requires that a papal tyranny like John Paul’s and Benedict’s to re-ignite the “Spirit of Vatican II.”
What I see going on in Europe (youth pilgrimages, worker-priests, priests ministering to AIDS victims, priests ignoring strictures against “gays” and “divorced persons,” etc. and ignoring threats originating in America about “dwindling numbers”) would indicate that the papacy-obsessed, culturally Protestant American Catholic Church is on the WRONG side of history.
Digby,
To corroborate your point, I have two PhD students from the Sorbonne staying in my house in Washington, D.C. on a student exchange. One is from France and the other from Italy. Both have a very low regard of Benedict’s stand on all of the social issues. They were especially appalled and embarrassed by the Pope’s recent trip to Africa.
A further point. You mention Benedict’s attempt to put the reforms of Vatican II “back in the box.” To me it goes even further. I think the “spirit of Catholicism” that he evokes is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime. My formation was prior to Vatican II. I don’t see him retreating to pre-Vatican II so much as I see him imposing a spirit that is alien to anything I’ve witnessed. There is a distinct fundamentalist flair to what he says and does, and its not at all inspiring or relevant in today’s world.
The dynamics of world history are smashing through many of the social and political barricades that have existed for centuries. The Church should embrace these changes and begin to lay the groundwork for the future. It is in its Teaching that the Church can make a real difference.
But In the U.S., at least, it appears they are doing something quite different. From what I can tell, they are actively siding with one political faction in matters that are really of a prudential nature, that is, where there is room for legitimate disagreement. I don’t see this as helpful to the Church or the Nation.
Judging from the past 2,000 years, the Church will outlast temporary political fads. Some might think it a good thing that the Church didn’t change all of its doctrine to accommodate the Medicis, or the Huns, or whoever seemed to be part of the “dynamics of world history” at the moment.
“would indicate that the papacy-obsessed, culturally Protestant American Catholic Church is on the WRONG side of history.”
Oh I hope you are correct here.
For the time being it seems to me that the Catholics that could not get enough of Mr. Bush now are rather encouraged by quite a few American bishops to get very comfortable in a very authoritarian dogmatic version of the Catholic Church.
A bunch of the most vocal folks interestingly enough are converts. I imagine quite a few did not appreciate the mixed catholic bag they bought into and now rather do some tidying up according to their priorities. Now they are well along to establish a version of ‘Catholicism’ in their head that rather calls the elected American President a baby killer than fess up to societal reality. It probably will not take them too long to reduce ‘Catholic Social Teaching’ to ‘Abortion 24/7′ and label the inconvenient lumpy rest ‘Catholic Socialism’.
But perhaps you are correct – by the time they and the Pope are done housecleaning nobody is left paying the bills.
S.B.,
I was not talking about doctrine in my comments. I would never question doctrine. No need for me to do so.
What I’m talking about are those areas where prudential judgment decides a question, particularly in politics and ethics. A case in point is the question that currently revolves around Notre Dame. Another has to do with whether one strategy or another is better suited to address the myriad challenges presented by the unborn. Another has to do with gay marriage.
As for your reference to the “dynamics of world history” [the title of Christopher Dawson's great study of Christian civilization, by the way] the Church, as a worldly institution, has changed as much over the last 2000 years as any other. On the other hand, it’s doctrine hasn’t changed in substance but it has certainly evolved over the years.
When treating matters of prudential judgment respect must be given to opposing views, especially when a consideration of means is the locus of attention. It is at this level that the Bishops have become too involved in recent years. Teaching is their forte. They should try to do a better job in what they do best.
Well, Gerald certainly revealed his true colors with that last comment.
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Feddie,
I’m sure all my comments are stunning to you … haha … well, that’s ok. It comes as no surprise to me. I’ll just accept that you disagree and go about my business.
Where in Catholic doctrine — which you say you don’t want to “question” — do you find that abortion and gay marriage are matters of “prudential judgment”?
S.B.,
Abortion and gay marriage are not discussed in terms of Church Doctrine. There are discussed within the context of the Church’s Teachings that have developed over the years. The Church’s Teachings on abortion and gay marriage flow out of philosophical and theological considerations that are ultimately grounded in first principles. Though these principles are used in moral deliberations, they are not matters of Church Doctrine either. The Apostles Creed, on the other hand, speaks to a litany of Church Doctrine.
“Abortion and gay marriage are not discussed in terms of Church doctrine. There are discussed within the context of the Church’s Teachings that have developed over the years.”
Oh, that’s right –
St. Paul never said a word concerning homosexuality nor do we actually find a word in early christian literature, such as that God-forbidden work called Didache, concerning abortion.
The Church’s present animosity toward both homosexuality and abortion were but one of those things that just ‘developed’.
Hmmm. Do you consider the Catechism to be “Doctrine”? It seems to have been called for as such: The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 asked “that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed.” And 2273 is particularly clear that there is no room for prudential judgment (not from the Catholic Church’s perspective) as to how the law should deal with abortion.
How about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Anything doctrinal going on there?
The Church’s present animosity toward both homosexuality and abortion were but one of those things that just ‘developed’.
The Church’s view of homosexuality should not be described as “animosity.”
S.B.,
Henry and I have commented on the questions you asked above in earlier posts. I can’t point you to exactly where we did so. But apart from that, I think the answers you seek would best be discovered if you were to research the matter for yourself. If I said yes the Catechism is Church Doctrine, I’d be wrong. If I said no, the Catechism is not Church Doctrine and then went on to clarify, I’d be vilified. so, I think it’s best al around for you do the work for yourself.
Well, I suspect that you’re offering yet another theological innovation, akin to saying that the subsidiarity doctrine “justified” your pro-choice legal position. But it’s probably best that you sidestep the question. Thanks.
S.B.,
By the way, I spoke with my pianist friend about your website recordings. He said he knew little about the guitar so he was reluctant to say much.
But he did want me to pass on that your arrangement of Shumann’s Little Soldier’s March was quit nice … “Very nice,” he said. Knowing him, he meant that as a sincere compliment. I suspect he chose to comment on that piece because he frequently performs Shumann.
I think that most sophisticated moderns—with the possible exception of the “foetus clique” within the modern American Catholic Church—would agree that slavery is as “grave” a “moral evil” as abortion or so-called “gay marriage.” Nevertheless, the Catholic and Apostolic Church once not only endorsed slavery, but PRACTISED it.
Some of you might, therefore, be interested in my debate, over at the Guardian, with “lozar77” and “laurentius4”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/09/religion-catholicism-uk-gay-acceptance?commentpage=2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/09/religion-catholicism-uk-gay-acceptance?commentpage=3
(Notice how, in this debate, the dishonest “laurentius4” tries to pretend—probably for the sake of his historically ignorant audience—that Christianity’s experience with slavery STARTS with the discovery of the Americas.)
I don’t think there’s any better test case than the Roman Catholic Church’s evolved position regarding slavery to PROVE that Newman is right regarding the “development” of “doctrine” and that I am right regarding the Church’s traditional championship of the primacy of conscience in making what Gerald wisely calls “prudential judgments.”
The Catholic Church WILL eventually change her tune regarding the “objective evil” of “homosexuality”; she WILL change her position regarding the “sinfulness” of faithful, so-called “gay marriages”; she WILL modify her teachings regarding abortion to take into account the recent scientific information regarding the impossibility of defining the so-called “moment of conception” (probably so that third-trimester abortions must be somewhat arbitrarily labeled, for the sake of confessors’ work, as “murder”); she WILL eventually implement the recommendations of Vatican II regarding the collegiality of bishops; she WILL take steps to empower women in the Church and to honour their role in protecting, managing and even SHEPHERDING the faithful.
All of these things WILL happen, and the best proof of it that I know is how the Church GREW in her understanding of the “grave moral evil” of chattel-slavery.
I take the position of Francois Rene de Chateaubriand, in La Genie du Christianisme, that all the movements toward human liberation of modern times, including even the often-terrible Revolutions, are implicit and even made possible, in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
And here is ample evidence of how the Church’s refined wisdom–disciplined by and inclusive of scientific information–regarding issues pertaining to the “sacredness of life” is going to be increasingly relevant in the not-too-distant future:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131717.html
It is absolutely essential, for the sake of the whole of humanity, that the Catholic Church not be left in the hands of the fearful and the fundamentalists.
Thanks!
Gerald —
By the way, some time ago (perhaps a year or so ago), I took issue with your view (as I understood it) that pro-lifers should abandon attempting to change the law and instead focus on trying to convince other people to oppose abortion on a personal level. I said that I saw no evidence that you were undertaking such a tactic yourself, since all of your efforts seemed to be concentrated on convincing people that the pro-choice position was “ethical,” that it was justified by the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, and even that government payments for abortion would be a matter of “equity.”
Well, certain other bloggers took great umbrage, not at your defenses of the pro-choice position, but at the fact that I would dare question your efforts to persuade people to be prolife. After all, how did I know what efforts you were undertaking elsewhere?
It might be a good time for you to do a post on the extensive pro-life efforts that you’ve been engaged in for the past year. Obama is already safely esconced in office for the next four years, so there’s no need to worry that anyone’s voting behavior would be affected. What better time than now?
digbydolben,
Your aims are more towards the perversion of the Gospels and Church Teaching rather than faithful adherence to it.
It’s best that you find greener pasteurs that would more conveniently accomodate your ‘liberal’ theology (which would dare classify abortion not as murder, mind you, but as a convenience all have a right to given our technological age & the great things we can do at the expense of even human life! — as well as homosexuality which is nothing more than one of those things which old farts like St. Paul himself just happened to be upset about in the old days which should not apply to us especially in our enlightened modern times), such as the more colorful protestant sects that might be found even more pleasing to such a ‘taste’ as yours.
“Ari,” I’ve noticed that ONLY IN AMERICA do Roman Catholics invite other Roman Catholics to leave the Church–ONLY IN AMERICA!
“Ari,” I’ve noticed that ONLY IN AMERICA do Roman Catholics invite other Roman Catholics to leave the Church–ONLY IN AMERICA!
Strange, isn’t it?
Gerald — are you too busy or something? It surely couldn’t be that there’s nothing to report?
S.B.,
It’s funny. I noticed your post less than thirty minutes ago! Apparently you were writing your last comment as I was rushing to get something completed.
I recall the exchange you referenced. Seems like only yesterday but, come to think of it, I guess it was that long ago. Geeeez! Slip, sliding, away!
I have been thinking of writing a series of posts. They may take a slightly different tack than you’ve suggested. But I’m interested in enriching the dialogue among those committed to a consistent ethic of life that is predicated on personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity. To my way of thinking, all three of these notions must be integrally linked if we are to speak properly to the human questions we face in common, including the fate of the unborn. My purpose will be to sketch some of the elements of a national prevention strategy that over time might loosen the grip of a “culture of death.”
Given this, I will try to address the spiritual dimension of behavioral dysfunctions, including homelessness, substance abuse, the myriad challenges revolving around the unborn, youth violence, and gangs. These have long captured my attention, pre-dating the collapse of the Berlin Wall. As an aside, it might interest you to know that my involvement behavioral issues grew out of a perception that they posed a national security threat to the U.S. I may address that linkage at some point.
Given your intense curiosity, you may not be comfortable with all I write. But I hope, nonetheless, my reflections will serve as a catalyst to inspire and enrich your own thinking on these matter. Suggestion: put elements of musicality into your analysis, and let narrative and drama be part of your thinking process. Escape the lifeless world that law has become! You have a richness inside best encapsulated in your music. Let it radiate through all you do.