Pope Benedict subverts the party line
NCR’s John Allen posts a transcript of Pope Benedict XVI’s in-flight “press conference”* on his way to Mexico (he heads to Cuba today), that includes this standard conservative talking point about being a “personally opposed but…” kind of Catholic:
One sees in Latin America, and also elsewhere, among many Catholics a certain schizophrenia between individual and public morality. Personally, in the individual sphere, they’re Catholics, believers, but in public life they follow other paths that don’t correspond to the great values of the Gospel which are necessary for the foundation of a just society.
Except, oops, B16 is talking about social justice and the gap between rich and poor, and the need to bring the church’s social teaching — all of it — to bear on political life:
Certainly, in the light of faith we can see many things more clearly that reason can also see, but it’s precisely the faith that also serves to liberate reason from false interests and the obscurity imposed by those interests, thereby creating in the social doctrine the substantive models for political collaboration, above all for overcoming this social division – which is truly anti-social – that unfortunately exists.
Sort of complicates things for Catholic conservatives and Paul Ryan Republicans. Not that you’d know from our political and ecclesial discourse.
* The “air quotes” are to denote that “press conference” is a rather liberal term to describe these pre-fab exchanges in which questions are submitted ahead of time and assigned to particular journalists to “ask.”
UPDATE: John takes this line and runs with it.
UPDATE II: At MOJ, Rick Garnett responds to my post (and also Michael Sean and John Allen), kind of agreeing but also saying he doesn’t know Catholic conservatives who fit the description of not taking social justice teachings seriously. At NCR, MSW calls BS on that, but in a nice way:
C’mon, Rick. Have you ever watched an EWTN interview between Raymond Arroyo and Fr. Robert Sirico? In what meaningful way do either of them address the preferential option for the poor that is an integral part of the Church’s social teaching? Or, their defense of torture, which is not only a violation of the Church’s teaching but is an “intrinsic evil”? Surely, you saw some of the GOP debates in which all of the candidates pledged to support the Arizona anti-immigration law which not only threatens the well-being of immigrants, in direct contradiction of many and repeated statements by the Holy Father and by the U.S. bishops but which also raises direct and dangerous threats to the religious liberty of Catholics who minister to the needs of immigrants. Or, you might note that turbo-Catholic Rick Santorum called out President Obama for exercising a “phony theology” regarding the need to protect the environment, even though if you follow recent papal statements, the proper indictment of Obama’s environmental policies would be that they do not go far enough. Do you not recall George Weigel getting out his red and gold pens when evaluating Pope Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate? If that is not a “party line,” what is it?
An embrace of seamless garment?
As the papl trip continues, there will be (maybe here) a lot more talk about the mission there and the frames one takes in viwing it.
As Ann would say, “complexity.:”
Quite a bit of press already on the message of hope to the weary of cartels, death and fear -clearly a moment of surcease (but given in the most conservative Catholic sate).
A special message to youth to try to reclaim that group (over a lost generation of Catholic young?)
A quietly political nudge for the conservative Calderon PAN government -as suiggested in yesterday’s Times.
A bypass of the Maciel issue getting lots of press nevertheless -part of a distancing of Rome from abuse messes
I think all of the above have some truth and this mixed bag wil have mixed bag results, including
the message of care for the poor both in the global South and North.
The Pope’s answers to the vast difference between the rich and poor in Latin America and other Catholic cultures were not specific. Why do the Scandinavian countries seem to be able level the economic playing field and does this mean that the Lutheran tendency away from hierarchy and aristocracy ought to be admired and copied? That the rejection of liberation theology was led by both elites and hierarchy is no coincidence.
“Sort of complicates things for Catholic conservatives and Paul Ryan Republicans. ”
Yea, cause it sure gives those Nancy Pelosi Democrats a free pass, huh?
Jeff, I’m always interested in this phenomenon among conservatives: why do you think only Catholic Democrats and liberals should be called on to observe church teaching?
The Pope talks about schizophrenia and, sure enough, Gibson engages in schizophrenic political division of the Church’s teachings, both ignoring that part of the question concerning liberation theology and Marxism (ideologies of the left), and seeking to separate out purely economic aspects of the Church’s social doctrine from the whole, which goes far beyond the economic and also includes, among other things, matters of marriage, family, human sexuality, life issues, and rights of religious liberty and conscience.
At the same time, the Pope very pointedly corrects those who have been trying to smear the Church as a mere political actor, reminding all — and that includes Gibson and the rest of Commonweal — that “the Church is not a political power, it’s not a party, but it’s a moral power. . . . the first thought of the Church is to educate consciences and thus create the necessary responsibility. It must educate consciences in individual ethics as well as public ethics.”
Nice try, Bender! Next time, just keep cutting and pasting the line: “I know you are but what am I?!” Hey, it works in middle school, no?
I do wonder how and whether a more “Catholic” version of politics can emerge in the secular world if it doesn’t first emerge in the church world.
“. . . and Marxism (ideologies of the left), . . . ”
Bender =
Isn’t it some time you learned a bit of history? Not all of the left is Marxist. In fact, when Marxism was emerging as an actual political force and taking over governments,aomong the first of their opponents to be eliminated were the other, i.d., non-Marxist socialists. They wanted nothing to do with the other socialists. No, Bender, not all socialists are Marxists. So when the popes condemn Marxism they are not condemning all socialism. Not that i’m a socialist — I’m not. But you are obligated to tell the truth about everyone — even your hated socialists who are not Marxists.
It’s time you got with it
David G – if I may ask this in all seriousness – how does Paul Ryan relate to the divide between rich and poor in Mexico? I’d think it is its own country with its own history, culture and politics, as are we. What works, and doesn’t work, here, may not be applicable to our neighbor. Or so it seems to me.
Jim Pauwels,
How is it possible to reconcile the philosophy of Ayn Rand with Catholic Social Teaching?
Bender: Well said. Disregard the first paragraph of David Gibson’s response (1:56 pm). It was merely a lame and very juvenile attempt to mock your comment.
Jim P, yes, in all seriousness, there are certainly some differences between the causes and solutions for the problem of income disparity in the U.S. and in Latin America, as there are on a range of issues of social injustice in the Americas, North and South. But there are also many similarities, alas.
Above all, my point was to highlight that the pope seems to consider the social justice teachings of the church to be an indispensable part of a public Catholic witness, as opposed to the many conservative Catholics (in particular) who see it as an option, at most, and something to be disdained, at worst. Paul Ryan and many if not most Catholic Republicans seem to fall into that categroy, even as they often hype themselves as truly “orthodox” Catholics.
Jim P; A follow up — whatever the different circumstances of a country and culture, wouldn’t a Catholic public official (in some ideal world only, no doubt) be one who takes into account both “pro-life” and “social justice” church teachings?
Myself, I think the division between those two categories, both within the church and in public life, is a root of our various woes.
MSW also takes up the thread: http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/b16-provocateur
Mr. Gibson: what is the dichotomy between ‘pro-life’ and ‘social justice.’ Isn’t social justice simply a component of a true ‘pro-life’ philosophy? Or did I miss your meaning?
jbruns: I think there is a fairly wide divide between “pro-life” Catholics and “social justice” Catholics, with the former often cast (and casting themselves) as “conservatives” and the latter as “liberals.” Those categories also often correspond to the two parties. They should overlap, or perhaps be complementary, if that’s possible. Above all, both camps should be more politically savvy, IMHO, which would mean courting the other side.
I think the pro-life Democrat camp was an important effort in this regard, for example, and their serious losses (thanks in part to “pro-life” conservatives and bishops, irony of ironies) after the health care reform passage was a real loss.
David. Thank you for the further explanation. I think it is a sad statement. Of course they should be ‘complementary.’ To say that pro-life ends at birth would be to embrace social Darwinism at its worst. To not be ‘pro-life’ at some level seems equally without compassion. One doesn’t need to be a Catholic of any stripe whatsoever to believe that both social injustice and abortion represent failure on the part of both individuals and society. IMO
Bender, Michael J. Kelly, et al.,
Let’s not pretend that the only political party in the United States that is in some ways out of synch with Catholic teaching is the Democratic Party. Let’s not pretend that Republican conservatives all look to Catholic Social Teaching as their guide.
And there are concepts in Catholic Social Teaching that are so “left wing” that not even liberal Democrats would dare embrace them. The idea of a “just wage,” in which employees’ compensation is based not just on what they do but how much they need is anathema in America. Try to explain to two people with exactly the same experience, exactly the same productivity, etc., that one is getting paid more than the other because that person needs more.
David, I’m not familiar with that aspect of ‘just wage.’ Where is it authoritatively explained?
jbruns,
From the Catechism:
The concept of “fairness” has been seen as an integral part of economics by at least some of the greatest economists, e.g., Adam Smith and J. M. Keynes. But it is a very, very dificult notion to define. Keynes tried to define “fair price” but gave up. Saying that a “fair wage” is what a person can “support” a family with is also very indefinite, and, I think, doesn’t take into consideration the contingencies of different economic systems, even the little systems that are a small, individual businesses.
Damned Marxist socialists!
“This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat.” (Ex 16:16-18)
“All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” (Acts 2:44-45)
“There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.) (Acts 4:34-37)
“When Jesus heard this, he said to him, you still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’” (Lk 18:22)
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.” (Lk 12:33)
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27)
“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” (1 Jn 3:17-18)
“Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” (Mt 5:42)
David, I think your comment about conservative Catholics ‘disdaining’ Catholic social justice issues overly harsh. The economics of poverty etc, are much less clear for example, than the issue of abortion. The change in US welfare policy in the mid-90s was a change toward a more conservative policy, time-limiting benefits and requiring work. It was fought by liberals and championed by conservatives, and is now widely regarded as successful, with former beneficiaries benefiting from meaningful work and the public benefiting from reduced expenses.
I think it’s good the Pope used the phrase “social justice”; those opposed to it here in the US keep trying to make it some kind of negative.
I’m not sure welfare “reform” of the 1990s was successful since most data I’ve seen shows the poor have been getting poorer since then
@Bruce (3/26, 6:06 pm) “The economics of poverty etc, are much less clear for example, than the issue of abortion.” I’m curious; what do you mean by this statement?
The late Dean Brackley S.J. took up some of these issues on this blog several years ago. Here are some excerpts. For the rest, see “Reply to Mark Lilla,” http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1219
The economics of poverty etc, are much less clear for example, than the issue of abortion.
Bruce,
I think that is less true than many anti-abortion spokespersons would have us believe.
The Church’s teachings against procuring abortions and performing abortions are very clear. However, politicians rarely if ever are involved with abortion itself. They are involved with laws.
As I say, the Church’s teachings against abortion are very clear. The Church’s teachings about what the law ought to be in the United States are much less clear, and the Church’s teachings about how an individual legislator ought to vote on a particular bill, and how a voter ought to choose between candidates are also not clear. That is not to say there are never any clearcut choices a politician or a voter may make. But it is rare that a politician, and especially a voter, is faced with anything that is so clear that one may say, “The Church forbids abortion, and therefore the only correct vote is obvious.”
Bender: “…the Pope very pointedly corrects those who have been trying to smear the Church as a mere political actor, reminding all — and that includes Gibson and the rest of Commonweal — that “the Church is not a political power, it’s not a party, but it’s a moral power. . . . the first thought of the Church is to educate consciences and thus create the necessary responsibility. It must educate consciences in individual ethics as well as public ethics.”
Sounds good in principle until a hierarchy, while educating the masses in one area of morality, joins hands in the public square with a political party that voices agreement in that one area even as it stands as the antithesis of Christian values and ethics in virtually everything else. Then how do Catholics who realize their Church has been had reason with those who insist what that political party and their hierarchy agree on supercedes all else?
David N. Thank you. I take it you believe that teaching is not appropriate in our society?
Irene, Here’s one summary.
Following the reform, the caseload in the program fell dramatically and several other
indices changed as well: employment rates of single mothers rose, as did average earnings and
family income among the single mother population. Poverty rates of single mothers fell. The
often dire warnings of large-scale deprivation which were made at the time of the reform did not
materialize, although there is some evidence that a small fraction of the single mother population
was made worse off by the reform.
http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/people/moffitt/sweden_v4.pdf
And here is a another more extensive analysis
Overall, the changes of the late 1990s were very dramatic for single mother
families. There were dramatic declines in caseloads, dramatic increases in work, and
(measured with less certainty) moderate increases in overall economic well-being. It is
striking that these gains do not appear to have been entirely eroded (based on data
available in early 2004) despite a mild recession and an extended period of low growth
and higher unemployment.
http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/Ch2Blank0404.pdf
In fact what Pope Benedict said is (should be) no trouble at all for conservatives. There is such a thing as catholic social teaching and we are all bound to try to understand and follow it.
This is where, in my opinion, too many of us Pro-lifers lose focus a bit; in the follow-up. In this case, whether Conservatives like what Pope Benedict said or not, is not important. The fact of the matter is Pope Benedict is right and we should all pay heed.
While liberation theology is no answer (he is not talking about that anyway), we must not forget what Saint James noted about simply praying for someone who has an empty stomach while not lifting a finger to help him physically.
In addition, since the Pope said this to remind us all, it is the duty of all of us in the laity to pay attention and do our best. Both Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict have criticized Darwinistic capitalism and mindless materialism; it is our job to listen and try to change.
The Church’s teachings about what the law ought to be in the United States are much less clear
David,
I dont agree. The Church’s teachings are a very clear no to contraception and abortion. Any law that moves tries to legalize either is counter to that teaching. Seems pretty clear to me. Now, I will agree that a flat-out ban on either is unlikely anytime soon. But I think the personally opposed but… crowd has done great harm to society, government and the church.
David Nichol: “As I say, the Church’s teachings against abortion are very clear. The Church’s teachings about what the law ought to be in the United States are much less clear, and the Church’s teachings about how an individual legislator ought to vote on a particular bill, and how a voter ought to choose between candidates are also not clear.”
That’s because determining how to get civil law to match moral law is always subject to prudential judgment, esp. in pluralistic democracies such as ours. JPII sometimes spoke as if it were as easy as demanding abortion be made unlawful, but even he had to admit forcing the adoption of anti-abortion laws among a people who disagree would likely lead to contempt for the law and massive civil disobedience, not a change of hearts and minds, which is what’s required in the end. Unfortunately, some US bishops seem to have decided the best and most direct route is to empower Republicans and let the chips fall where they may, a prudential judgment more judgmental than prudent, IMHO.
The Church’s teachings are a very clear no to contraception and abortion. Any law that moves tries to legalize either is counter to that teaching. Seems pretty clear to me.
Bruce,
It didn’t seem all that clear to Cardinal Cushing.
So would you say that Rick Santorum has been in the wrong in his support for women’s rights to contraception? When he was asked about the bad joke made by one of his supporters, this was his response:
Oh, come now, Jimmy Mac — you can’t expect us to take those texts seriously! They’re only the word of Go.
Oops — word of GOD.
David, Yes to both. I think history has proven Cushing wrong. But Santorum I could argue either way.
The bottom line is that Catholic way is to pursue the common good. Given the disintegration of the family and marriage, I dont see how anyone can claim that contraception and abortion have advanced the common good. That said, how to change what we have now is, as Beverly says, open to prudential judgement. So that may be a justification for Santorum.
I’m a little surprised, David, that you say “the social justice teachings of the church”, as though they were a single corpus, a reference book against whose contents all Catholics are obliged to check their consciences. Surely there isn’t just a single party line, written in Rome?
Mr. Nickol — I would be more than happy to finally move beyond the incessant politicization of the Church and Catholic Faith. Some of the posters here at Commonweal do understand that it is supposed to be a Catholic site. Too many, though, like David Gibson, who falsely purports in the MSM to be a “reporter,” are nothing but political, all politics all the time, even seeing everything to do with the Church through the lens of politics.
I’m a little surprised, David, that you say “the social justice teachings of the church”, as though they were a single corpus, a reference book against whose contents all Catholics are obliged to check their consciences.
David Smith:
From the Presentation by Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino:
Surely there isn’t just a single party line, written in Rome?
Surely there is.
Ann – word of God? word of God! We don’t need no stinkin’ word of God!
Aha, David N, here’s the out:
Floating doctrine.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Something from the Catechism.
THE PERSON AND SOCIETY
“The human person… is and ought to be the principal, the subject and the end of all social institutions” (GS 25 #1 quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church #1882).
By the Common Good is to be understood “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (GS 26 #1; cf. 74 #1). The common good concerns the life of all. … It consists of three essential elements. First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. … Second the common good requires the social well being and development of the group itself. … Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1906-1909).
SOCIAL JUSTICE
The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40 quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church #1932).
There also exist sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1938).
The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of “friendship” or “social charity” is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1939).
Solidarity is manifested in the first place by distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1940).
Socioeconomic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace in part depends upon this (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1941).
The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1947).
That’s nice, Rick, but with the exception of
it’s all very vague. Remove the references to church, Bible, and God, and, I imagine, it would fit in perfectly with many if not most secular social programs.
David Smith, perhaps “secular” programs took something from religious tradition.
In any case, it’s good to see cafeteria Catholicism is alive and well on the right. Or not so good. Alas.
But then, when one removes the reference to God in regards to respect for the inherent Dignity of the human person, that changes everything, as The State becomes our father.
“Call no one Father but your Father in Heaven.”
Jimmy Mac, according to The Treaty of Paris, this Nation declared our Independence from England ” In The Name of The Most Holy And Undivided Trinity”, thus we know at least England and The United States recognized the role of God as Father in regards to Peace and Justice.
Aha, David N, here’s the out . . . . Floating doctrine.
David Smith,
It’s interesting how easily you dismiss Catholic Social Teaching with one indifferent wave of the hand.
Why have so many Catholics left the Church?
Maybe because those who grew up in the era when social justice mattered no longer feel comfortable in an organization where they must associate with people who think it does not matter.
Interesting opinion piece in The Portland Press Herald:
“Maine Voices: Catholic social justice concerns eclipse ‘culture war’ rhetoric
Centering on social and economic parity, essential church teachings part ways with the right wing.”
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/catholic-social-justice-concerns-eclipse-culture-war-rhetoric_2012-03-14.html
“Jeff, I’m always interested in this phenomenon among conservatives: why do you think only Catholic Democrats and liberals should be called on to observe church teaching?”
David, I certainly don’t purport to speak for “conservatives” as I’m not sure how much I actually count as one these days, but I certainly don’t think that “only Catholic Democrats and liberals should be called on to observe church teaching.” Rather, I find it amusing (and confusing) that the extremely broad statement you’ve quoted above from his Holiness regarding the social teaching of the Church freeing reason “from false interests and the obscurity imposed by those interests” somehow works to undercut Paul Ryan’s (and Ron Wyden’s, not to mention Alice Rivlin, John Breaux and Bob Kerrey’s, too!) Medicare reform proposals (or tax reform proposal, or Medicaid reform proposal, or….) on moral grounds. So I guess my point is, it seems to me you’re guilty of doing what you’re accusing “conservatives” of doing: running with a papal statement as a means of de-legitimizing a policy perspective you disagree with them on. I’d also add, that such “gotcha” games from both left and right seem to further undermine the “political and ecclesial discourse” you bemoan.
Great topic but very complex. Would like to pick up on what Gene Palumbo provided. Eventually, the long and sad story of JPII, his ego and biases, and its negative suppression of “liberation theology”, Guiterrez, Sobrino, the bishops’ conferences at Puebla and Medillen, his almost suspension of Oscar Romero will be told.
JPII understood communism in eastern Europe, he supported Solidarity but he was unable to understand the culture, history, or peoples of the Americas. He saw everything through the prism of anti-communism. Thus, he suppressed the Americas’ ability to grow its own theology, its own church pastoral practices, and weigh the church down with conservative hierarchy that were too often aligned with the “old” colonial power structures.
Would suggest that some day this narrative (read Penny Leroux) will be comparable to the Chinese Rite fiasco of the 19th century when papal power aligned with Franciscan/Dominicans to outlaw the Jesuit initiatives that would have grown the church in Asia.
But, this power struggle has been going on for centuries.
Here is an interesting story of a Vincentian bishop in Peru – Born in Arequipa, Peru, in 1872, Emilio Lissón joined the Congregation of the Mission and was ordained priest in 1895 in Paris. Pope St. Pius X named him bishop of the Amazon diocese of Chachapoyas in 1909, where he carried out great evangelical ministry (obisop de los pobres). He was 37 years old then and he went about his diocese, with the help of the natives, in a canoe as well as on foot. At age 46, in 1918, he was named archbishop of Lima by Benedict XV. There he opened four smaller seminaries and founded a Christian newspaper, and visited parishes which no prelate had visited for over 400 years.
Archbishop Lissón was forced to resign his episcopal see in 1931 due to pressures from the Peruvian authorities (in collusion with other Peruvian bishops (mainly from Spain) who accused him of “interference in politics, of bad administration, and of having little theological formation.” Lissón was summoned to Rome where lived virtually as an exile. Following the exile came misunderstandings, poverty, loneliness and the abandonment of him by even his most intimate collaborators. He was forced to work as a tour guide in order to pay for the cost of residing, from 1931 thru 1940, at the International House of the Congregation of the Mission in Rome. During his stay in Rome, he got acquainted, at the Catacombs of St. Callistus, with Marcelino Olaechea Loizaga, a Salesian priest, with whom he subsequently struck up a deep friendship. While in Rome, Lissón also studied archaeology and church history and attended to the spiritual needs of various religious communities.
Lissón was allowed to go to Spain in 1940 upon the invitation of Marcelino Olaechea who had become the bishop of Pamplona in 1935. Lissón moved with Olaechea to Valencia when Olaechea was appointed archbishop of this archdiocese. While in Valencia, Lissón administered the sacraments to thousands of young people, ordained numerous priests, made pastoral visits throughout the archdiocese. He put himself at the service not only of the archdiocese of Valencia but also of the Church in Spain as a whole and its conference of bishops. Many people apparently sensed and valued his holiness and wanted, so the speak, a piece of the holy man. His Vincentian confreres in particular wanted him to live with them in Madrid. Archbishop Olaechea supposedly reacted to the suggestion by saying: “While I am alive, Archbishop Lissón will not leave this place, dead or alive. His presence among us is God’s blessing upon the diocese.” Archbishop Olaechea is said to have attested that Lissón “practiced in a heroic degree the virtues of charity, humility, obedience and poverty.”
Another testimony has it that, as archbishop of Lima, Lissón used to visit the districts where the poor lived in the city. During one of these visits, a family approached him in an alley to ask for money. Not having it, the archbishop removed his episcopal ring and gave it to the family so they could pawn it. It is also said that then President Augusto B. Leguía gave the archbishop a car as a gift because the latter used to take the street car to get around. Lissón sold the car, however, to use the proceeds for his social projects for the benefits of the sick and the aged. When Leguía reportedly offered him another car, he made clear to the archbishop that he was just lending it to him.
Archbishop Lissón died in Valencia on December 24,1961. He was buried in the cathedral where his body stayed incorrupt for thirty years. Upon the request of the Primate of Peru and other Peruvian bishops, Lissón’s mortal remains were transferred in 1991 to Lima and are now in the Lima cathedral. Lissón’s detractors had asked for forgiveness and recognized the injustice of their allegations. The cause of his canonization was opened in Valencia, Spain, on September 20, 2003.
So, the narratives of folks such as Romero, Lisson, Morris, etc. go on.
Find the split between “pro-life” and “social justice” to be artificial. Here is how the Liberation Theologians approached justice and life:
“This is not to suggest, however, that the crucified people are themselves identical with the crucified and risen Christ. As Gutierrez warns, the poor themselves are called to make a preferential option for the poor; the poor themselves can be accomplices in victimization. Likewise, this warns against a simplistic notion of victimhood that merely perpetuates an “us against them” mentality:
Now, again, the knowledge of Jesus, the crucified and risen victim makes a difference here. For if you know the crucified and risen victim, you know that you are not yourself the victim. The danger is much more that you are either actively, or by omission, or both, a victimizer. We have only one self-giving victim, whose self-giving was quite outside any contamination of human violence or exploitation. The rest of us are all involved with that violence. The person who thinks of himself or herself as the victim is quick to divide the world into ‘we’ and ‘they.’ In the knowledge of the risen victim there is only a ‘we,’ because we no longer need to define ourselves over against anyone at all.
Insofar as we succumb to the temptation to romanticize the victim, whether ourselves or others, we thus perpetuate the logic of suum cuique, which is fundamentally divisive and conflictive rather than unitive.
Both outside and within the Church, the crucified people are the privileged locus for encountering today the extravagant, unexpected mercy of the wounded and resurrected Lord. In so mediating that mercy, the victims remind us that, precisely as the wounded and resurrected Body of Christ in the world, the Church herself is called to a cruciform existence in history. This is true not because the cross is the goal of Christian discipleship but precisely because it isn’t. Precisely because Christian discipleship is ultimately not about death but about life, not about justice but about mercy, not about respecting rights but about restoring communion, not about denying the reality of human suffering but about engaging it head on—precisely because all this is true—we also know that all resurrections are wounded resurrections. All resurrections participate in and are made possible by Christ’s own wounded resurrection: “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord . . . But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God, and not to us. We are afflicted in every way but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (2 Cor. 4:5-11). The crucified people of our world make their preemptive offer of forgiveness and refuse to cease suffering “so that the life of Jesus,” the crucified and risen Jesus, may be manifested in our oh-so-broken world. By taking the victims down from the cross we become capable of receiving their offer of forgiveness and Christ’s own offer of life.”
To the extent, therefore, that the crucified people reveal the Church as a crucified Church, they mediate Christ’s own mercy in the world and in the Church.”Now this has consequences!,” observes British Catholic theologian James Alison, “It means that holiness is our dependence on the forgiveness of the victim. That is to say, our being holy is dependent on the resurrection of the forgiving victim.”(28) The preferential option for the poor, for the victims, is thus always a preferential option for all, since we are all dependent on the victims’ forgiveness if we are to live freely in a reconciled community where there is no need for victims; this is what Christ himself offered his disciples as he appeared to them after his resurrection.”
“The preferential option for the poor is nothing other than the assertion that the crucified people of history are the privileged mediators of God’s mercy in the Church and the world. The crucified people are the privileged historical mediation of the crucified and risen Christ in the world. When they offer forgiveness they embody Christ’s own offer to the apostles after the resurrection: “Peace be with you.” It is a forgiveness that judges even as it reconciles. Yet, in doing so, the crucified people embody the good news that “there is another way to live.”
Thus, to simplify – it is a communal action directed at “ALL” (not subdivisions; not an exercise by individuals). It highlights relationships that are marked by conversion, mercy, and forgiveness (rather than “issues”). Thus, it is a community that seeks to be “wounded resurrections” in the world.
If Benedict XVI is concerned with social justice, he could order all Catholics — priests, religious, lay social workers, etc., who were/are involved in the adoption racket to open their files.
Dan Rather’s article about his forthcoming t.v. show gives some examples of the way mothers and their babies were separated by Catholic agencies.
Adopted or abducted?
Veil of secrecy lifts slowly on decades of forced adoptions for unwed mothers around the globe.
http://news.yahoo.com/forced-adoptions-for-unwed-mothers-around-the-globe.html
Thanks to Gene and Bill who highlight that it’s about not hindividual, but the community eand especially the poot that matters.
We jav eallowed our ecclesioogy to become so much focused back on the individual that we can hav eRyan, santorum, Gingrich and on and on who can tell you hpw complicated social justice is to suit their ideology.
That kind of divide rings through this blog so often and through the US Church, despite some nice words here and there, that it seems unable to be bridged.
Dan Rather? After his nonsense on CBS? Now that is a good one!
Rather seems to me like just one more southern boy who thinks Catholics are bad, just like his old grand pappy told him.
Can we do w/o overwrought ad hominems?
Ken, I hope you’ll read the article and watch the show. Maybe you’ll change your mind about Dan Rather’s decision to report on the social agencies and to give a platform to women whose babies were taken from them.
A few paragraphs from the article:
The Australian Parliament “released the findings of an 18-month-long investigation revealing illegal and unethical tactics used to convince young, unmarried mothers to surrender their babies to adoptive homes from the late 1940s to the 1980s.”
—
“Two weeks ago, a prominent Canadian law firm announced that it would file a class-action lawsuit against Quebec’s Catholic Church accusing the Church of kidnapping, fraud and coercion to force unwed mothers to give up their children for adoption.
“Attorney Tony Merchant represents several hundred women who claim that when they were in maternity homes in the 1950s and 1960s, social workers, nurses, doctors, and even men and women in the employ of the Catholic Church cooperated with government officials to force or, even coerce, young women to sign away their rights to keep their child never knowing they even had a choice.”
—
“In Spain, an 80-year-old nun, Sister Maria Gómez, became the first person accused of baby snatching in a scandal over the trafficking of 1,500 newborns in Spanish hospitals over four decades until the 1980s. The babies were either stolen, sold or given away by adoption.”
—
In some cases, they too were told that their babies had died. Many signed away their rights while drugged and exhausted after childbirth. Others were threatened with substantial medical bills if they didn’t surrender or were manipulated through humiliation. According to Fessler, these seemingly unethical practices were used against as many as 1.5 million mothers in the United States.”
Gerelyn,
I had no idea what so many (roughly 1.5 million) young women/birth mothers experienced in this country, post-WWII, with regard to giving up their babies for adoption until I recently read the book The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler. I also did not appreciate the extent of the effect of adoption on the adopted babies, nor upon the adoptive parents, until I read (recently) The Primal Wound, by Nancy Verrier. It provided me a perspective that has made an enormous impact on my view of…just about everything.
I look forward to Dan Rather’s investigation. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Hi, Marcia:
There are many people who are unaware of the situation. And because it is seen as a women’s issue, it is of little concern to the men who rule the Church. If the Pope were to issue an order to all social workers to open all files, could they refuse? Simple justice calls for adults to have access to records about them. Why should records exist that social workers may look at, but that the people named in the records may not see?
From a 1994 article in NCR by Patricia Lefevere:
Hotchkiss, who supervises Pregnancy and Adoption Services for Central Virginia and is program director of Catholic Charities in the Richmond diocese, characterized those who are demanding unsealing the records as “people who need therapy. … Finding (the birth mother) is not going to solve their problems,” she said.
Already adoptees have been given more rights than birth mothers, Hotchkiss said. Adoption, she noted, is not even possible without the birth mother. “Let’s get one thing straight,” she said she advises adoptees. “Your mother didn’t abort you. She didn’t place you and then jump off a bridge. She has a right to have her privacy respected.”
Fr. Thomas Brosnan adamantly disagrees. So adamantly that he told New Jersey state senators that a person’s right to his or her name and identity weighs “far more than the right of a woman to privacy from her own child.” Brosnan, an adoptee who did not learn who his real mother was until age 31, testified that it was standard practice for dioceses to alter data on the baptismal certificates of adoptees.
Such alteration includes certificates that attest that the adoptee was born to his adoptive parents. Often two certificates with two different dates are issued, Brosnan testified. Dual certificates lead people to believe they were baptized twice, he said, a practice the church forbids.
By far the most serious falsification of such documents occurs when church authorities alter the child’s baptismal name when that same child is adopted. Brosnan charged that such changes undermine “the very essence of the meaning of baptism, which is the naming of the human person before God.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n8_v31/ai_16025843/
Yes, lets apply the standard of the 21st century:
when they were in maternity homes in the 1950s and 1960s, social workers, nurses, doctors, and even men and women in the employ of the Catholic Church cooperated with government officials to force
And Bob, ad hominems are certainly relevant to Mr. Rathers credibility and motivations.
Here’s a very cogent article on economic inequality in the US
http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4703/pub_detail.asp
Agree, Bruce, that it’s absurd to keep files sealed in the 21st century that were sealed in the 20th century by social workers who thought girls and women who got themselves pregnant should be punished.
How can ANYONE disagree with Raymond Arroyo and “Fr” Robert Sirico without extreme peril to their immortal souls?
Why isn’t Rick Garnett a dotCommonweal contributor? That’s my take away from this.