Yet the pastor also reprimanded the Vatican for its importunate “attack” on those same sisters, as he called it.  Also on this Mother’s Day, I think it well to reflect on a part of this discussion that is often left out.  That is on the current crisis of Catholic feminism in the United States.  

In her excellent sociological analysis of nuns and feminism, Visual Habits: Nuns, Feminism, and American Postwar Popular Culture, Rebecca Sullivan notes that in the post-war era, nuns became the blank slate upon which many feminine dreams were written.  They were deemed acceptable as such a slate because “they fired up dreams of feminine independence while smothering any possibility that the flames might spread out of control.” Eventually, of course, nuns reacted strongly to playing this role for American civil society and instead embraced a more radical form of feminism.

Unfortunately, part of what was embraced was the slowly emerging feminist ideal of the exclusive right of women to their body.  Betty Friedan and others decided to found the National Organization of Women.  Sister Mary Aloysious Schaldenbrand went further by allying herself with Planned Parenthood in their efforts to make contraception more widely available.  These sisters began to pave the way for the feminist culture wars that were to come.

On the last page of her book, Sullivan remarks: “More importantly, however, they [nuns] force a reappraisal of femininity and feminism beyond a body politics of desire and pleasure, and into the realm of spiritual and intellectual fortitude.”  I could not agree more.  And part of me thinks that the current actions by the Vatican, however inopportune they may be, are encouraging just this kind of reappraisal.

Let me explain.  Among the many adherents of Catholic feminism in the United States, one of the great divides that continues to split the Church is that between those feminists who see abortion as an issue of women’s rights and those feminists who see it as an attack upon those same women.  The spectrum is quite polarized between those who chant that “abortion hurts women” and those who see abortion as a pillar of the women’s movement.  In the midst of this, figures such as Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Bernardin called for a new form of Catholic feminism and for a consistent ethic of life.  Here was a chance to be prophetic, for the Church to embrace both a healthy feminism and a firm rejection of its unhealthy manifestations.

Yet as I recently read Sister Elizabeth Johnson’s intriguing book on Mary, “Truly Our Sister,” I couldn’t help but notice that abortion was never mentioned.  Intended to be a modern retrieval of Mary for women in need of liberation, Johnson draws consistent attention to the “shared Calvary” of women throughout the world who suffer from civil wars, political repression, genocides, seeing their children “disappeared” in Central and South America, and numerous other forms of oppression, noting that they “all drink from the same cup of suffering.”  Absolutely right.  Yet in her moderate attempt to recover the figure of Mary for a modern Church, why the silence on abortion?  It only confirmed for me that there continues to be a crisis in American Catholic feminism, a crisis to which perhaps only those nuns who have the “intellectual fortitude” can truly speak.

And so in the midst of a very challenging time, I would like to ask those nuns to be the Catholic spokeswomen for us of what a healthy Catholic feminism should look like. I would like to ask them to weave a new seamless garment of Catholic feminism, a garment of which the Church in the United States and the world is in dire need.  Perhaps such a garment could be one of the positive outcomes of the current investigation, if pursued with intellectual fortitude and a courageous heart.

This acclamation was there before, but I guess the reduction of options leaves us stuck with it more often.  The old standby “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” is off the books, against the request of the U.S. bishops to keep it.  Gone too is my personal favorite, rich with Christological meaning: “Dying you destroyed our death; rising you restored our life; Lord Jesus, come in glory.”  I have a really hard time seeing how these acclamations can be less canonical than one that skips over the resurrection altogether.  Isn’t the memorial acclamation supposed to mention the death, resurrection, and second coming of Christ?  The conspicuous absence of resurrection seems odd enough in ordinary time, but in the Easter season (and at the Easter vigil, no less!), it’s just too much.

I’m trying, really I am.  I have no desire or determination to remain bothered.  I do have difficulty understanding how a memorial acclamation without the resurrection can really be fully orthodox, but if anyone has an explanation that can redeem this one, I’d love to hear it.

Case in point: the always amiable Jesuit James Martin, God bless him, tried to simply give his “sister friends” a needed morale boost by expressing his gratitude to Catholic sisters via Twitter and inviting others to do the same, with the idea “that people could show their gratitude for sisters, and read other messages of support, without being in any way negative. No need to be anti-Vatican or anti-bishop or anti-anything. Just pro-sister.”  The Huffington Post promptly missed the point, calling Martin’s expression of support a “Twitter drive” (changed from “campaign” at Martin’s request, although that word slips in at the end of the HuffPo story), and drawing a stark line in the sand (complete with predictably unnuanced good-guys-and-bad-guys language, including a conjecture about the motives of “the U.S. bishops and the Vatican” that, oddly, contains the unfounded suggestion that “the nuns” support abortion).  Reactionaries on the other side just as predictably rose to the occasion, raining vitriol on what was intended as a simple gesture of good will.

Before getting into my own evaluation of the “doctrinal assessment,” as it is officially named, let me first clarify that by “balanced” I do not mean “neutral.”  My intention is not to avoid evaluative judgments, or even to make them come out even on both sides.  I do, however, hope to make them in a way that does not merely add to the cacophony or even make it about “sides” in the first place.

Largely because it has been so polarizing, the reprimand was a mistake.  The CDF should have been more circumspect in anticipating how it would be perceived.  Putting the accuracy of the perceptions aside for a moment, by provoking a popular reaction that sees the U.S. nuns as being “under attack” by the Vatican, the CDF (along with every other element of church structure and leadership that it gets conflated with as the more hard-lined face of the Vatican) is simply making itself look bad, even indefensible.  This is not a wise move, either politically or, more important, pastorally, which makes it hard to escape the conclusion that the CDF is thinking neither of its own public image nor of pastoral concern for the faithful but is simply thinking ideologically.  Perhaps that goes with the territory as the doctrinal arm of church leadership, but on the other hand, pastoral and doctrinal concerns can’t be neatly dichotomized, which means the CDF can’t be completely absolved of its responsibility to consider the former.  It could at least put itself more clearly in perspective as complementary to the church’s other magisterial offices.

That said, the actual content of the document has sometimes been distorted in the ensuing reactions.  By the time I actually sat down to read it, I was bracing myself for a scathing condemnation, along the lines of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof‘s summary that “the Vatican accused the nuns of worrying too much about the poor and not enough about abortion and gay marriage.”  But the document was considerably less inflammatory than I had been led to expect, and nowhere in it did I see any criticism of a focus on caring for the poor.  On the contrary, it praises both the LCWR and women religious in general for their social justice work, though these commendations have gone basically unnoticed.  The accusation is of being “silent” on abortion and euthanasia, and of publicly dissenting from official church teachings on issues of sexuality and women’s ordination.  The uncomfortably authoritarian tone of this, and of the document as a whole, makes it easy for the praise to be missed in the sting of the critique.  Moreover, it reflects a certain naïveté regarding how authority is received.  Automatic assent can no longer be taken for granted (if indeed it ever could), and the CDF, along with the rest of the magisterium, needs to come to terms with this and find a way to voice its concerns such that they might actually be listened to.  Critiques such as this might perhaps be better received if they were better explained: for example, if there are concerns that public dissent on ordination and sexuality may jeopardize the ecumenical progress being made with the Eastern Orthodox churches, it would be better to say so rather than to simply say, “Don’t go against church teachings.”  My having to resort to a speculative example here further illustrates my point on the need to be honest about what the underlying concerns are.  Appealing to magisterial authority in and by itself can only backfire, further entrenching the self-appointed crusaders for the magisterium and alienating everyone else.

Whatever position we take on all this, we do well to take a Catholic long view and remember that on numerous occasions the church has been known to admit to previous mistakes.  (Even Kristof, after his carelessly misleading references to the CDF document’s source and content, recognizes this.)  If we can keep this in mind, then perhaps we can have faith that the church (laity and magisterium and whatever – nobody is off the hook here), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will continue to learn from its mistakes.  And perhaps we (laity and magisterium and whatever) can take a few lessons on pastoral and charitable approaches to ecclesial controversies from the Acts of the Apostles, which we’ve been hearing through the Easter season – so that, as in today’s reading, there may be “joy in the exhortation.”

Forgive me if I don’t join in. To me, this issue is simply not that important. It’s really a niche issue for comfortable middle-class people in their comfortable little world. With all the attention, you might forget the real issues that are still not being addressed. Economic issues like unemployment, poverty, inequality, access to health care, the rights of workers. Political issues like immigration, the death penalty, the lack of gun control, ceaseless war and foreign belligerence, the corruption of the system by monied interests. Global issues like global warming, global poverty, war and terror, the exploitation of workers and women.  Cultural issues like consumerism, pornography, the ubiquitousness of violence.

Still, this evolution of thinking was perfectly predictable. Perfectly natural, even. Same-sex marriage does not redefine marriage. That has already taken place. The institution of marriage has been transformed from a social institution geared toward the bearing and rearing of children to an individualistic institution geared toward personal happiness and fulfillment. Once homophobia started to fade away, and gay people were finally treated with the dignity they deserve, then same-sex marriage – defined in this way – is a completely natural progression.

In other words, we now define marriage in purely Lockean terms, as the unfettered ability of the fully independent individual to choose and exercise power, to be fully in control of  his or her possessions and persons. Marriage, in this sense, becomes a natural right and any prohibition against marriage becomes an unjust act of coercion, especially since there is no apparent competition with the rights of others.

Of course, this is far removed from the Catholic understanding of marriage. Here, any “right” to marriage cannot be distinguished from a corresponding “duty” to order the married life toward the good, including the good of society and the social order. It must be open to the bearing and rearing of children, and it must not create a false dichotomy between the unitive and procreative elements. Marriage is a sacred bond that cannot be dissolved, and for that reason requires a consent based on a deep understanding of the obligations that are being undertaken. As the Catechism summarizes, “unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage”. Marriage is not only a social bond – it is sacramental bond, giving it a superratural as well as natural dimension.

Here’s the problem – you would not know any of this from Cardinal Dolan’s press release yesterday, in which he found the “redefinition of marriage” to be “deeply saddening”. He asks for people to “uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman”. Does this embody the Catholic understanding of marriage? Not at all. He claims that the decision to recognize same-sex marriage constitutes a redefinition of marriage, without any acknowledgment that heterosexuals have done a good job redefining marriage themselves.

Nothing he says here would cause discomfort for those who believe that married should be entered into lightly or that divorce should be quick and easy. Nothing he says here would cause discomfort to adulterous serial monogamists like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, who seem to have commodified marriage – trading in wives every few years for better models, just like used cars. Nothing he says here would cause discomfort to the vast majority of Catholics in the pews who use contraception as a matter of course (in fact, during the HHS mandate debate, Dolan went to great pains to say the issue was not about contraception).

He seems blithely unaware that this move is merely a natural consequence of a Lockean view of society, once we strip away some unjust prejudices against gay people. Of course, this Lockean view also underpins the individualist view of economic relations – the poisoned spring of the evil individualist spirit, as Pope Pius XI put it. It’s all related, all part of the same problem. In their own ways, both President Obama and Cardinal Dolan seem blind to these obvious connections.

Sometimes I think we need a “last alliance” of Catholic progressives and Catholic traditionalists to take on this dominant Lockean paradigm. I would not push for a rollback of same-sex marriage. That train has long left the station. The demographic forces are just too strong. Plus, I actually don’t feel strongly about this one way of the other - it does nothing to the institution of marriage that has not already been done, and I’m not in the business of picking on gay people.

But I would like to see a greater degree of reflection on the pitfalls of Lockean liberalism as it relates to the dignity of the human personal and responsibility to the social order. I would like to see a greater distinction between the Catholic and the secular ideas of marriage. And I would like to see fingers pointed in the right direction – not blaming Andrew Sullivan for the sins of Newt Gingrich.

The idea is to support the following language in the Democratic platform:

“We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty.  We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

However, we can find common ground.  We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies.  We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support.  We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term.”

Here in Australia, our taxes and health insurance premiums undoubtedly help to fund abortions, sterilisations, and the provision of contraceptives at more affordable rates. Most Australian Catholics, including most of our bishops, accept that universal health cover includes some remote material cooperation with activities which might not pass muster with the strictest codes of Catholic moral behaviour. We do not lose any sleep over this.

Let’s hope the agitation by the US bishops does not lead to a similar campaign here.

If such a campaign were launched in Australia, we would all need to fill in a questionnaire on our tax return and health insurance applications indicating which medical procedures we thought consistent with our consciences informed by Church teaching. The questionnaire in principle could be extended to approval or disapproval of all other taxpayer funded government functions including war and border protection.

We would contribute only to those universally available citizen services of which we morally approved. Very soon, our public square would be toxic too.

To be sure: the teaching office of the church would have to change not only its understanding of human sexuality, but also its teaching about its own teaching authority. And I find it nearly unfathomable to think that the church could make such changes within a framework of what Pope Benedict calls a hermeneutic of continuity—the principle that new developments in teaching, doctrine, worship, etc. corroborate and confirm what came before. Nonetheless, the lives and experiences of gay and lesbian persons pose a challenge to the church’s traditional teaching, a challenge I do expect the church to answer more concretely, one way or another, in the coming years and decades.

Traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality makes no room for understanding the love between gay or lesbian persons as a legitimate form and expression of erotic love; such “love,” from the church’s perspective, must always be disordered, disorientated, and unnatural. Same-sex attraction is always an instance of concupiscence. Erotic love between members of the same sex cannot actually exist. And yet—and here arises the challenge—those with same sex attraction perceivably experience their love as an authentic and genuine eros. To all appearances, sex between gay or lesbian persons can be an expression of affection, compassion, tenderness, intimacy, and the gift of self. Their experiences and self-identities give testimony to an understanding of love denied by the magisterium, whose position is that, ontologically, gay and lesbian persons don’t really exist because human sexuality is ontologically complementary and ordered toward procreation.

Officially, church teaching on these issues cannot change. Catholic advocates of LGTB rights therefore hope against hope in seeking any fundamental change in teaching from the magisterium. The church authorities will undoubtedly have a hard sell to make as society becomes more accepting of homosexual relationships and as these relationships and their fruits become more visible; nevertheless, the bishops are no strangers to taking unconventional and unpopular positions, even in the face of moral outrage. They’ll insist on the truth of their position whatever the successes of LGTB relationships.

If, hypothetically, the church magisterium were to change its teaching and profess the existence and goodness of erotic homosexual love, other foundational changes would first have to be made. First, it would have to broaden its ontological understanding of human sexuality to include as authentic both sex ordered toward procreation and sex not ordered toward that end. Sexual identity would include but not be limited to difference and complementarity. Second, the church would have to revise its traditional reading of the creation myth, perhaps taking a less literal interpretation of the passages related to God creating the human race as male and female. Third, it would have to redefine its conception of chastity so as to include the possibility of exercising temperance and self-mastery with respect to expressions of non-procreative erotic love.

All of these changes in teaching would imply that the magisterium had been wrong about not only homosexuality, but also human sexuality in general, the bible, and the virtue of chastity. To accept homosexuality as a legitimate orientation would mean admitting error about matters of faith and morals—error that, according to the magisterium, cannot be made. Consequently, you won’t see the magisterium giving thumbs up to LGTB people without it first giving thumbs down to its traditional self-understanding. I don’t see that happening. Whether the obstruction is due to the protection of the Holy Spirit or to what Garry Wills calls “the structure of deceit” will continue to be a matter of much debate among those who believe the Catholic Church ought to be a prophetic voice within society. Meanwhile, society will continue on its present course.

Follow Kyle on Facebook, Twitter, and at Journeys in Alterity.

The bishop responded with a letter to the parish in which he sided firmly with the priests.  (The original petition has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been posted on the web.)  The controversy has been ongoing since then and has recently come to broader attention again.  The bishop has written to the parish (pdf file).  The purpose of the letter was twofold:  first to confirm the decision by the pastors to close the parish school.  Apparently donations to the parish have remained well below their previous levels, and the school is no longer financially viable.  Second, the bishop again firmly sides with the priests in their dispute with their parishoners (and I suspect, former parishoners).  He admits that the priests “undertook some changes in a way that was abrupt for many people” and “this resulted in some misunderstanding, instability and hurt.”  He urges the priests to heal these divisions, but he does not suggest (in the letter) that they undo any of the changes they made or otherwise act differently.   Moreover, he continues to place the majority of the blame on the parishoners, going so far as to accuse them of calumny and rejecting the faith.    He hints very strongly that canonical sanctions may be necessary, and concludes his letter with quotes from a variety of church documents on the authority of bishops and pastors and the canonical penalty of interdict.  (He is not threatening interdict, per se.  As one commentator put it, he appears to be threatening to threaten interdict.) Press reports can be found in every Wisconsin paper:  here is a report from the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.  Bishop Morlino’s curt response to this article, including charging the paper with being anti-Catholic, can be found here.  The blogosphere has, predictably, erupted:  one sort of discussion can be found at PrayTell, another at Fr. Z’s blog.

There are many different ways to view this affair.  But after reflection it seems to me that at its heart  this conflict is about the rights and responsibilities of pastors to their flock.  First, to get one point out of the way:  the priests in Platteville were within their rights to make the changes they did to liturgical practice.  That is not up for question.   Bishop Morlino is also correct in pointing out that the lay Catholic faithful have a responsibility to obey their bishop and their pastors and to work for peace and harmony.

But what are the responsibilities of pastors to their flocks?  This seems to be an important counterpoint and, I suspect, is the foundation of the grievances shared by so many of the parishoners in Platteville.   In his letter, Bishop Morlino briefly and obliquely summarizes his view on this:  he says that he is confident that the pastors “will provide Jesus Christ, the teachings of His Church, and the Sacraments.”  These are necessary, but are they the sum total of pastoral responsibility?   Shouldn’t pastors also have a responsibility to respect their communities and their practices?  To seek input before making radical changes in practice?  To respect the legitimate desires of their parishoners, even when they are not fully in accord with their own preferences?   Priests are called not just to lead, but also to serve.  As the Catechism puts it:

The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a”sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ.  The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself least and the servant of all.  “The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him.”  (CCC 1551)

If abuses are found, then change (even painful change) may be necessary.  But no one has suggested that this was the situation in Platteville:  indeed, the practices mentioned are canonical and definitely within the mainstream in the United States—indeed, they are the norm in most parishes.   Making these changes unilaterally, even for the best of motives (and I do not accuse them of acting with malice) shows a lack of respect for their parishoners and for the community they are called to serve.

Bishop Morlino wrote to the parish: “I think, however, that at the end of the day, the Catholic faith is being taught according to the proper understanding of the Second Vatican Council.“  Reading about this imbroligo, I do wonder, however, if the Catholic faith is being lived according to the precepts of the Council.  There is a lengthy passage in  Lumen Gentium that speaks directly to this situation.  It is worth quoting in full:

The laity have the right, as do all Christians, to receive in abundance from their spiritual shepherds the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the assistance of the word of God and of the sacraments. They should openly reveal to them their needs and desires with that freedom and confidence which is fitting for children of God and brothers in Christ. They are, by reason of the knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which they may enjoy, permitted and sometimes even obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church. When occasions arise, let this be done through the organs erected by the Church for this purpose. Let it always be done in truth, in courage and in prudence, with reverence and charity toward those who by reason of their sacred office represent the person of Christ.

The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church. Let them follow the example of Christ, who by His obedience even unto death, opened to all men the blessed way of the liberty of the children of God. Nor should they omit to pray for those placed over them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of their souls, so that they may do this with joy and not with grief.  Let the spiritual shepherds recognize and promote the dignity as well as the responsibility of the laity in the Church. Let them willingly employ their prudent advice. Let them confidently assign duties to them in the service of the Church, allowing them freedom and room for action. Further, let them encourage lay people so that they may undertake tasks on their own initiative. Attentively in Christ, let them consider with fatherly love the projects, suggestions and desires proposed by the laity.   However, let the shepherds respectfully acknowledge that just freedom which belongs to everyone in this earthly city.

A great many wonderful things are to be hoped for from this familiar dialogue between the laity and their spiritual leaders: in the laity a strengthened sense of personal responsibility; a renewed enthusiasm; a more ready application of their talents to the projects of their spiritual leaders. The latter, on the other hand, aided by the experience of the laity, can more clearly and more incisively come to decisions regarding both spiritual and temporal matters. In this way, the whole Church, strengthened by each one of its members, may more effectively fulfill is mission for the life of the world. (Lumen Gentium, 37)

Is there a way out of this situation, one which brings about the peace that the bishop so earnestly desires?  There is, but I think both sides need to give ground.  If the parishoners have indeed been guilty of “caluminous inciting of hatred of [the] priests, the faith” and the bishop, then apologies are in order.  (Though in their defense:  while not privy to what they have written privately to the bishop, that have been very circumspect in what has been said publicly.)  If possible, the parishoners should consider whether there school can, at this late date, be resurrected.

On the other hand, before this can happen I think that for the good of their parish, the priests need to give ground and restore many of the practices that they abolished when they took responsibility for their parish, in particular, those that have strong symbolic importance (which they may not recognize) such as lay eucharistic ministers and altar girls.  Moreover, they need to develop a leadership style that is more affirming of the dignity and responsibility of the lay faithful.  In the end they still have to make decisions, but they need to do so in a way that unites rather than divides their flock.  Only then will they be able to “more effectively fulfill their mission for the life of the world.”

Most people today no longer possess beliefs, love and ideals. The spiritual dimension has been lost. My intention is to provide food for the soul and this is what I preach in my works.  (Latvian composer Peteris Vasks)

This a a performance by the Choeur et orchestre de chambre Estonien, directed by Paul Hillier

Classrooms are diverse environments. A growing number of worldviews are being represented by an increasingly diverse student body. Alexander McKay, author of Sexual Ideology and Schooling: Towards Democrat Sexual Education, identifies three specific areas related to sexual health education where an increasingly diverse classroom can challenge those responsible for the education of learners.

The first surrounds homosexuality. Some believe sexual health education should reinforce the ideology of parents who view homosexuality as immoral or as psychologically or socially dysfunctional, while others view homosexuality as morally acceptable and healthy and expect such an understanding to be conveyed in any instruction related to the matter. Some believe that sexual health education should teach students to nonconform to traditional gender arrangements, while others believe teaching should reflect the views of those who hold to innate differences between male and female sexuality. When it comes to methods employed to prevent pregnancies or STI’s, some view sexual health education surrounding contraceptives as legitimating sexual activity where it should not be legitimated. Others view the sexual activity of teenage persons as inevitable and perceive the need for measures to be taken so as to ensure that such choices carry with them as little risk as possible.

Where does the public school teacher stand in the face of such competing ideologies?

I have met parents more than comfortable with public school teachers teaching certain values (values which correspond with the parent’s own, incidentally), but if parents are okay with this on what grounds could they then criticize or fault a teacher for passing along values not necessarily their own? It is not a teacher’s job to cater to the ideology of the largest number of parents.

An important aim in education, to someone like John Dewey, was “civic efficiency, or good citizenship.” This meant, to Dewey, the “breaking down of barriers of social stratification which made individuals impervious to the interests of others,” and Dewey felt that only an education that was democratic would allow for future citizens to contribute in a democratic way as citizens.

Education related to sexual health, then, should not have as its primary interest the changing of the way people think about homosexuality or gender roles or even the way in which one evaluates teenage sexual activity. Rather the goal, I think, is to allow for differences in conscience, in religious thought, in belief, opinion and expression to be voiced, and to take such differences and teach that just as in a society where there exists the expectation that one will respect the rights of others who have come to different conclusions, so also in the classroom does this expectation exists.

I don’t think matters which are socially divisive should be ignored by public school teachers. My hope is that teachers in public schools understand that it is not their primary purpose to have their own value judgments about particular lifestyles or choices accepted by their students (although this happens and it is okay when it does). Instead, a teacher’s job is to facilitate the discussion that ensues surrounding socially divisive topics while laying down necessary ground rules for discussion. The key, as it always is, is to teach students to think critically, and to help them evaluate and challenge their own presumptions and those of others. To quote Dewey, it is the ability to “make rational judgments [that is] essential for the preparation of citizens in a democracy.”

K.

Kelly Wilson is from the Canadian province of Manitoba. Besides Vox Nova, he writes at his blog Musings.

Astonishing and unbelievable as the idea is, the doctrine of infallibility makes logical sense given the complex ambiguity of revelation. God supposedly speaks to humanity about matters of eternal life and death, and yet is said to do so through inerrant religious texts and traditions marked by ambiguity and layers of meaning, a variety of genres, and myriad historical and cultural nuances (not to mention inaccuracies and inconsistencies). The inerrancy of sacred scripture, for example, has little to no practical consequence if its meaning can be interpreted in a variety of diverse, conflicting ways. The assurance that the bible is divinely inspired and free from error in the essentials doesn’t mean much without any assurance that a proposed interpretation of it is true or false.

Infallibility doesn’t actually solve this hermeneutic problem, however. Magisterial interpretations are themselves texts that call for the work of interpretation. They may be more clear and straightforward than the sacred writings composed in the early decades of the church, but, as texts, they remain open to a field of valid interpretations, even if the field is smaller than, say, biblical myths. The development of doctrine testifies to this. Religious authorities clarify their own definitive statements and those of their predecessors. Yet even clarifications can retain ambiguity. Infallibility doesn’t eliminate this possibility, even in cases where some meaning has been grasped.

Therefore, whatever its overall practical value, the doctrine of infallibility offers limited assurance. In addition to the hermeneutic problem, the doctrine itself is complex and ambiguous. There are allegedly degrees of infallibility, which can in effect suggest inconclusiveness about matters deemed infallibly taught. Moreover, it remains unclear whether some magisterial statements qualify as infallible or merely authoritative. You’ll find debate in the church, for example, over whether its teachings on human sexuality have really been infallibly stated and are therefore irreformable. Rome speaks; the meaning of the matter is questioned.

Whether with or without infallibility, the faithful row from within the same boat, under the same foggy night sky, struggling against the same waves and currents, without any absolute assurances that they’re headed in the right direction. The life of faith is always a journey in the dark.

Follow Kyle on Facebook, Twitter, and at Journeys in Alterity.