CTSA considers resolution on contraception mandate.
At the Catholic Theological Society of America business meeting today, the membership considered a resolution urging “federal and state government to exempt employers from funding or providing contraception and sterilization when such funding or provision directly violates the moral tenets of the employer’s religious tradition.” Even though the original version of the resolution was tweaked after initial discussion (e.g., the final version excised the original’s naming of the Obama administration), its chances of passing were never high. Privately, some CTSA members expressed a concern that a no vote would only serve to highlight the distance between the organization and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But, thanks to an exceptionally clever intervention by one member, the CTSA dodged that bullet. Here’s the full text of the resolution:
The Catholic Theological Society of America expresses deep concern with the decision of the federal government to not extend full exemption from the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraception and sterilization coverage mandate to all Catholic employers. While the society recognizes that differences of opinion exist in terms of the morality of contraception and sterilization, it also upholds religious liberty as well as the fundamental right of both individuals and institutions to not be forced to act contrary to their informed consciences. The society urges federal and state governments to exempt employers from funding or providing contraception and sterilization when such funding or provision directly violates the moral tenets of the employer’s religious tradition.
Richard Gaillardetz, chairman of the Resolutions Committee, opened the discussion with an explanation of the committee’s purpose: not to recommend passage or rejection of a given resolution, but simply to assess whether it’s worthy of consideration by CTSA membership. In the case of this resolution, the committee decided that it ought to be brought to the floor. In other words, the resolution could have died in committee. It didn’t.
One of the eleven members who sponsored the resolution framed the statement as a simple affirmation of religious freedom. “Nothing more, nothing less.” Its drafters, he said, are aware of the landmines in the debate. And he emphasized that the statement was not intended to be a political statement, an ideological statement, or an ethical statement. Why should the CTSA consider the resolution? Because, he claimed, the mandate undermines the free exercise of religion, and challenges the self-definition of the religiously based institutions most members work for.
One member noted that ‘Dignitatis Humanae,’ the normative document on the Catholic Church’s understanding of religious freedom, states that while government must respect the corporate and individual right to religious freedom, that right is guaranteed “within due limits.” One of those limits is “justice and the fundamental rights of persons.” An argument could be made, the member said, that on the basis of the teaching of Vatican II, the contraception mandate presents an appropriate limit on the religious freedom of some people. Yes, the group could get into a long debate about how to interpret such matters, but the resolution itself doesn’t address these issues with sufficient complexity.
Another member stood to point out that the resolution, as written, holds that any business should be exempted from the mandate–in other words, it endorses the so-called Taco Bell exemption. She also said that the resolution presents a curious, if not incoherent, notion of corporate conscience. The tradition lacks a commonly accepted theology that allows us to know what we mean when we talk about informed institutional conscience.
The resolution does not address the mandate’s exemption structure, which narrowly defines a religious employer as one that hires and serves “primarily” co-religionists, and whose purpose is to inculcate its values. Still, one ecclesiologist urged support for the statement because the mandate’s definition of religious employer is “profoundly un-Catholic, sectarian, introverted, and cultic.” Are we going to look out only for our own? he asked.
Another member simply noted that the resolution does not contain the terms “religious institution” or “church.”
Finally, as the discussion was winding down, another theologian rose to ask a procedural question. Is it possible for the membership to table the resolution without a vote, “so the CTSA would not be in the public media as appearing to be against or for the U.S. bishops?” As the Fortnight for Freedom approaches, on a day that saw religious-freedom demonstrations across several U.S. cities, the member’s concern was eminently warranted. “We need a motion,” the chair said. The motion came, was seconded, and passed by voice vote–nearly unanimously. Problem solved.
For now.
Tags: contraception, CTSA, health care reform, HHS, USCCB
” She also said that the resolution presents a curious, if not incoherent, notion of corporate conscience. The tradition lacks a commonly accepted theology that allows us to know what we mean when we talk about informed institutional conscience.”
The notion that an organization has a mind and will of its own as does a person is by-passed in the courts with respect to commercial “corporations” — they are *called* persons and allowed to be treated as such in some important ways.
But what of the Church and other religious organizations? Are they to be given the same legal status as commercial corporations? Or do they already have that status? (As I understand it, some *dioceses* and *parishes* are incorporated in some legal sense.)
Good question, Ann. EJ Dionne has a good column today about the Wisconsin recall results and what we can learn from it.
His recommendation is for progressives to learn that campaign finance reform needs to move to their highest priority. SCOTUS Citizens United may be technically aligned with some type of narrow legal development but codifying that corporations are people and can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns corrupts our democratic process and should require Congress to act and make laws to overturn that decision. (just like they did with Scalia’s Smith decision resulting in RFRA)
This same approach raises questions for me in terms of bishops/church trying to say that the church as institution is just like a Citizens United corporation. This approach to me is very problematic and weakens the bishops’ position.
We have a four fold definition creating tension (competing goods); HHS has used IRS definition for a couple of these tiers (based upon IRS code writtne by a Jesuit years ago); HHS has compromised so that issues with a couple tiers (self insured and social/teaching/hospital outreach) can meet the HHS mandate without formal cooperation. Elevating this via legal suits carries great risk – SCOTUS will rule vs. dealing with a much lower level definition of a US department that can be easily modified, changed, etc. later.
Continue to be dismayed by the episcopal minority who ignore the above; talk/publish in a way that ignores the four levels, conflates & misrepresents the whole issue into one level (churches or schools which are alredy exempt) as if universities, hospitals, agencies must hire only catholics and only serve catholics (this is not accurate and reinforces the charge of “partisanship”). There is almost no discussion about the fact that at any of the four levels, one can choose to stand up for “liberty” & “conscience” and pay an “assessment” (which is less than the cost of employee insurance). It seems to be an “all or nothing” gambit that does appear to be partisan. Surprised that you have CTSA members who basically were proposing the “Taco Bell” criticism – doesn’t indicate critical thinking; nuance; or using the analytical tools that are necessary when doing theology? Just my opinion – thank God it was tabled.
CTSA comes out for Taco Bell? [and their ilk?] Ought not these CTSA bright lites Google Taco Bell corp and find out there are no employee health benefits?, Tacos goal is Federal right to work laws.. Taco Bell would not know how to spell magisterium without access to a dictionary. Will the bishops be asking us to ‘take to the streets’ for every fast food Catholic franchisees?
http://www.tacobell.com/careers/corporatepositions
{check their positions and ask how Catholic is that]
Libs like me have long experience being arrested for homeless, sanctuary, end war and nuclear testing but sorry bishops you will have to make do on your revolutions with stay-at- home Trads who can only write anonymous letters.
Since the personhood of corporations is not guaranteed by the Constitution, I don’t understand why Citizens United seems to have such special status as a precedent. As the metaphysically impossible 3/4 personhood of slaves was overthrown, why can’t Citizens be rather easily overthrown on the grounds that it is even less connected with reality?
Citizens is the kind of nonsense you can get when you use a metaphor (“corporation”) as a definition. If the churches and their sub-units are subsumed under that “definition” all sorts of nonsense become possible. What we need are legal definitions of religious institutions (not the core institutions) as being part of a religion’s ministry and as such as intrinsic but subsidiary parts of the religion.
@Ann Olivier (6/9, 12:56 am) My understanding is that Citizens United actually has a rather ordinary status as precedent: the Supreme Court decided it, and thus it is a precedent that all lower courts are bound to follow until and unless the Supreme Court changes its mind (e.g., from Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed.).
As for the 3/5 clause, overthrowing it required the bloodiest war in US history. (And so it’s not, one hopes, a close analogy for Citizens United.)
Ann Olivier: I understand that you are concerned about metaphysics as you understand it.
However, so far as I can tell, metaphysics has not been a prominent part of legal reasoning in the American legal system. If I am wrong about this, I will be happy to stand corrected.
But in the American legal system, corporations are indeed referred to as persons for legal purposes. This is admittedly a legal fiction, which does not necessarily mean that the legal person in question has to have the metaphysical qualities that you say a human person has. So a legal person is not a full-fledged human person metaphysically, as you say. But we might say that a legal person (aka corporation) is understood in the legal system to be analogous to a human person in certain ways.
Now, regarding the Citizens United decision, yes, it is built on the legal fiction of a corporation being a legal person.
Yes, if the legal fiction of regarding a corporation as a legal person were abolished as a legal construct on the grounds that corporations are not metaphysically full-fledged human persons, then the Citizens United decision would automatically be abolished.
However, the legal fiction is not likely to be abolished anytime soon.
So in the meantime, people can contrive to bring cases to the Supreme Court that might lead the Supreme Court to modify the Citizens United decision.
It appears that a challenge to Citizens United from Montana is headed to the Supreme Court. So there is a possibility that the Supreme Court might modify the Citizens United decision.
I’m having trouble understanding what’s exceptionally clever about not having the forthrightness to vote up or down on a simple resolution. Does the CTSA not even have the courage of its (lack of) conviction?
Would suggest that there may be other issues and principles at stake here and that it was not just a “simple” resolution.
During the floor discussion and from a respected justice theologian at Boston College:
“During the discussion, several present urged the gathered theologians to dismiss the resolution, saying it was either too partisan for the group, or that the mandate did not represent a significant intrusion on religious liberty.
Making the latter argument was Jesuit Fr. David Hollenbach, the director of Boston College’s Center for Human Rights and International Justice.
Referencing Dignitatis Humane the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom, Hollenbach said: “The mandate to provide health care, including contraception…is an appropriate limit on the religious freedom of some people.”
Seems to echo some of the more non-vocal bishops and the agenda item at the USCCB meeting starting Wednesday to discuss the ad hoc committee, the dangers of partisanship appearance, etc.
Mark: Are you really so naive? This has nothing to do with lacking the courage of one’s convictions. No one believed the resolution was going to pass. It had no chance. If the body voted it down, the optics would be unfortunate: CTSA against USCCB. I explained this in my post.
Grant–
But the CTSA is against the USCCB, correct? It’s not optics, it’s to the core, unless I’m missing something. You said the CTSA did not vote so that they could “dodge a bullet.” How often have you called for the Bishops to be more transparent? Why are you now crediting the CTSA with being exceptionally clever, simply for being, if not deceptive, certainly not transparent?
Mark: You are out of line. There was nothing deceptive about what took place. The body decided to table the motion. Nor was there anything opaque. I wrote about it, didn’t I? The CTSA is not against the bishops. They meet with the Committee on Doctrine every year. Sure, there are people who would like it to look like the CTSA picked a fight with the bishops over the contraception mandate — sorry, over religious freedom. But in fact the CTSA declined to swing at that pitch. Sometimes there is wisdom in silence.
Grant–
Attempts at bullying commenters by calling them out of line when they disagree with you are not helpful. Yes, you wrote about it, but that has nothing to do with the thrust of my comment. I simply disagree with you: I think the CTSA is against the bishops (on this issue) and I think the decision to table the motion was not out of respect for the Bishops, but rather to protect themselves from a PR bullet, though I hope I am wrong about that. Now that I have hopefully clarified my point, I will not belabor it, and take heed of your closing sentence.
I was going to ask the same question that Mark asked. I read the opening post twice, trying to find the exceptionally clever bit, but what I found was pusillanimity.
I guess I can understand why people whose livelihoods depend on advancing unprovable claims about invisible beings would hesitate to annoy those with the power to cancel their meal tickets.
Privately, some CTSA members expressed a concern that a no vote would only serve to highlight the distance between the organization and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
So dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Mark: Please. I’m not bullying you. I’m telling you that you’re out of line to call the CTSA deceptive. Where did you come by this knowledge of the CTSA’s disposition toward the bishops? Why would you presume the body would vote down the resolution out of animosity for the bishops? Why not speculate that the body may have had several reasons not to support the resolution (it is very sloppily composed). Do you have any evidence? Do you read the CTSA proceedings? Have you ever attended a CTSA meeting?
Gerelyn: Well, at times, even would-be prophets need to consider their meal tickets and those with the power to cancel their meal tickets.
Thomas; “would-be prophets need to consider their meal tickets and those with the power to cancel their meal tickets.’
If bishops can hand out ‘go away’ money to pedophiles why can’t Catholic cheapo laity gather up funds for prophets meal tickets?
ed gleason: As I’m sure you know, Catholic cheapo laity do support most of the Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, not the bishops.
Many of the theologians in the CTSA are employed at Catholic colleges and universities. As a result, their meal tickets are funded at least in part by the Catholic laity who support their colleges and universities.
Two issues here:
loyalty is really hard to maintain in the command/control Church of today, especially when politics(partisan?) are wrapped up in patriotic rhetoric.
The issue of money in politics is so ugly that the point on Citizen’s united is well taken; also Walker’s advantage in the incumbency protection law there.
Casting the approach of CTSA as adversarial to say the least doesn’t do justice to either the issues or the dynamics.
Bob Nunz: I like your characterization of “the command/control Church of today.”
Suggesting that the CTSA voted to table the resolution because its members feared losing financial support is off the mark. Most of the members have tenure.
Thomas –
Of course the courts are concerned with metaphysics. In the criminal courts the point is to establish what is fact and what is fiction, and other courts also are concerned with establishing the real or the absence thereof. That is so patently obvious we rarely think of it. It is only when legal fictions are taken as facts that problems — serious ones — can arise. Metphors are particularly enticing because they *are* something like the facts. In the case of United, the Court has over-extended its poetic license.
And it shouldn’t have to take a civil war to over-turn it, just as the Civil War should not have had to happen. Had the South been more metaphysically inclined — had it had more respect for facts — it would have saved itself a world of pain. See what happens when you’re more inclined to Roman tropes than hard-headed Greek philosophy? But I digress.
Ann Olivier: You have an extremely expansive understanding of metaphysics.
The basic point of my message was to say to you that your metaphysical reasoning about human persons is NOT applicable to legal persons (e.g., corporations), and your metaphysical reasoning is not likely to influence the American legal system. In short, the Citizens United decision is not likely to be overturned on your kind of metaphysical reasoning about human persons.
Hi, Grant:
What is tenure if the mandatum is withdrawn or if the CDF denounces a tenured theologian? Will reputable journals or publishers publish articles and books written by disgraced theologians?
Are the academic rivalries found in other disciplines absent from theology departments? If they couldn’t agree to support/reject the war against Obama, how loyal are they to individual members?
And, imho, it’s cold to ignore the young theologians, those without tenure whose future depends on the good will of the bishops who will issue their mandata. What are the job prospects for new theologians? Was there a meat market at the convention?
I am glad to see that Jesuit Fr. David Hollenbach referenced “Dignitatis Humane” the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom. Here we are at the point of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II and our Catholic church here in the U.S. is making a mountain out of a molehill about persecution of Catholicism (in my humble opionion.)
Yesterday, I attended the “Stand Up for Religious Freedom” Rally in Philadelphia. I wanted to see what was happening close up and was part of a counter rally in support of our sisters. There were 4 of us. My aunt who is an SSJ called to say that she and the other sisters in her convent were delighted and grateful. She is 82 years old and has been in the religious community for 66 years. So there, Cardinal Levada.
One of the speakers at the rally quoted John Courtney Murray. I cannot believe that he would have been in the forefront of this issue. I wish someone with more knowledge about his thinking could confirm or deny my opinion.
“Gerelyn: Well, at times, even would-be prophets need to consider their meal tickets and those with the power to cancel their meal tickets.”
Then it proves Carl Marx’s assertion that a person’s philosophy is determined by her economics. The lack of prophets hurts the church. Sadly mediocrity permeates the church on all levels. Some theologians, who happen to be CTSA members, have taken the risk to be prophets. But they are few and that is what is wrong with theolgians in general. They will not lay down their life for their faith. The fact that Prophets are always stoned or censured is why few respond to the charism. I understand the utilitarian claim but that makes one’s voice ever so shallow and reduces the activities to exercises in symantics or casuistry. Just as most Catholics stop practicing after their Confirmation (the end of religious instruction) so do most Catholics go astray after graduation. SNAP, VOTF, Hans Kung, Andrew Greeley and some others are where the prophetic voice is strong. It is certainly true that one has to distinquish between a true and false prophet. Theologians, in general are not in the prophetic group.
“so the CTSA would not be in the public media as appearing to be against or for the U.S. bishops?”
That statement is hilarious. Why call yourself the “Catholic” Theological Society of America if you are concerned about appearing to be on the side of the US Catholic bishops? Just find another name the “public media” will look favorably and be done with it (PTSA= Proggessive TSA? LTSA= Liberal TSA? ATSA= Americanist TSA? NYTTSA= New York Times TSA? The possibilities are endless!)
Then it proves Carl Marx’s assertion that a person’s philosophy is determined by her economics.
Yes. We ask Our Father for daily bread, not for subscriptions to theology journals.
—
The lack of prophets hurts the church.
Not sure what Thomas meant by that. Aren’t prophets God’s mouthpieces? (As opposed to being prognosticators.) I think there are prophets all over the place. All of us, all of creation, relay the Creator’s messages.
—
Sadly mediocrity permeates the church on all levels.
Agree. Maybe an occupational hazard for professional religionists. All who enable the bad actors to continue the charade are complicit.
—
Some theologians, who happen to be CTSA members, have taken the risk to be prophets. But they are few and that is what is wrong with theolgians in general. They will not lay down their life for their faith.
Imho, “what is wrong with theologians in general” is that they don’t believe in their discipline. It’s not like math or history. It’s like philosophy, astrology, phrenology, psychology, etc. An art/craft that depends on the gullibility of the customers. It must be emotionally debilitating to pretend to believe in what they “privately” know is nonsense.
—
SNAP, VOTF, Hans Kung, Andrew Greeley and some others are where the prophetic voice is strong.
Agree. Those currying favor with bishops/cardinal/etc. by denouncing SNAP are about as low as it gets, imho. Andrew Greeley? Love him. Miss him. I was reading about the infamous Cardinal Cody the other day. I had forgotten Greeley’s role in exposing him.
Gerelyn,
The situation for young theologians is related to the bishops, but not as directly as that. It is the rare college that requires a mandatum for its theology teachers; those that do require a mandatum, are primarily not interested in hiring anyone on the more liberal side, so those of us that are would be out of luck anyway. I would defend my Nicene orthodoxy before anybody, but I’m certainly not going to agree to pretend I’m not in favor of women’s ordination, so I really can’t see Steubenville being interested in my application in the first place.
The much larger concern for young theologians is the financial stability of the Catholic colleges overall, related to the ongoing recession and the general financial crisis affecting nearly all colleges that aren’t extremely well-endowed. In years past, most young theologians would have been hired by one of the 200-odd Catholic colleges; many of those either have closed or are struggling to stay afloat (and thus not hiring) these days.
That said, if the CTSA’s resolutions in support of Sr. Farley (for example) did put its younger members in a tighter spot than I think they will — I suppose theologians of my generation are as concerned about our job prospects as any other young academics our age, but I also hope we have enough courage to prefer that our professional association take appropriate action when necessary, than that they maintain silence on important issues.
It seems to me that the theologians should speak the truth and not worry what people are going to think about it.
“Ann Olivier: You have an extremely expansive understanding of metaphysics.
Thomas F. –
Do you not agree that metaphysics is the widest of all subjects? And does it not succeed to the degree that it is applicable to all things, including the facts considered in legal cases?
My point is that even SCOTUS can be irrational, and it needs to be called down when it is. In the case of United Citizens, it needs to be reminded that metaphorical thinking cannot substitute for accurate descriptions for the simple reason that taken literally it violates the founding principle of all rationality: a thing cannot both be (a person) and not be (a person) at the same time in the same respect. There is no room for poetry in legal judgments.
That the Court rejects a criticism is irrelevant to whether or not it deserves criticism.
Paul: We all should speak the truth, of course. But there are times when not speaking is the wiser course. A lot of people seem to think they know what theologians ought to do and how they ought to do it.
Paul, I commend to your reading bradford Hinze’s “lamentations” in Magisterium Intervention.
I agree it’s not that easy.
If by “speak the truth” Paul Moses means vote the resolution up or down, it seems to me that the resolution is neither true nor false. Urging the government to do something can’t be considered true or false.
It seems to me that the CSTA’s area of expertise would be in explaining how being required to comply with the mandate is a violation of conscience sufficient to justify the current level of resistance. Many people, including many Catholics, cannot see how the “accommodation” (insurance company, not employer, bears the burden of providing contraceptive coverage to those that they contact and who then request coverage) requires religious organizations to act against its conscience.
Aside from everything discussed so far, I wonder who wrote that CTSA statement and why it refers to the need to exempt all “Catholic employers,” which would necessarily include individuals as well as religious institutions? Is that really supposed to be the goal? Are the bishops really arguing that ALL Catholic employers should be exempt? I can see how many individual employers, even those who don’t give a rip about contraception, might welcome an “exempt” status if they thought it would lower their premiums, which it really shouldn’t, but even so…This whole campaign seems too broad on one hand, too narrow on the other, open-ended and out of control. Never mind John Courtney Murray, what would Thomas Aquinas say?
Help me to understand. IF the theologians in question mostly work for universities/colleges not immediately under the jurisdiction of bishops, how is their “meal ticket” at risk?
The bishops don’t pay them, nor do they own/directly control these universities/colleges.
The bishops would have the right to withhold nihils obstat/imprimaturs (are those things even an issue any more?) but in this day and age does that make any difference?
And if, as has been pointed out, most of these professors/theologians have tenure, where is the risk?
Beverly Bailey asked: “Are the bishops really arguing that ALL Catholic employers should be exempt?” I thought this argument was adequately addressed by William Galston in “The Bishops and Religious Liberty” …
“In 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia—a famously staunch Catholic —ruled against the claim that the ceremonial use of peyote in Native American religious rites warranted exemption from drug laws of general application. At the heart of his majority opinion in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872) was the concern that such accommodation creates a system “in which each conscience is a law unto itself.” The legislature may, if it chooses, write specific accommodations into law. But in the absence of explicit provisions, individuals may not claim exemption from the law as a matter of right. … I have long argued that Scalia’s opinion was deeply misguided. Nonetheless, the Court has not overruled it in the two decades since it was handed down.”
“Will reputable journals or publishers publish articles and books written by disgraced theologians? ” Hans Kung and Charles Curran don’t seem to have suffered in that respect.
Another point that bears mentioning is that the CTSA comprises theologians across the political spectrum. People spoke passionately for and against the proposed resolution. Tabling the resolution served to respect the strong opinions of all members on a matter of prudential policy choice. For those who are ready to scoff at the CTSA as too left-leaning, you should note that the resolution was to oppose the mandate in the name of religious liberty, not to support the mandate, as would have seemed more direct for a left-wing group.
As to cowardice, economic or otherwise, take note that many of us here have already spoken publicly on the mandate, for or against. But it did not seem to be the proper role of the CTSA as a professional body to take a stance on this question at this time. The vote to table was supported by a large majority here.
First, I think we owe Grant a debt of gratitude for posting about this.
Maybe we could follow up by a thread on the talk by the Nigerian priest who, I think, touched on the problem evident in the posts here.
The issue is justice – not nice words – but a Church seen more and more to be linked to an inmjustice in defense of the Catechism in the CDF fashion.
Injustice towards nuns, women, theologians, gays etc. .
Publications can be withdrawn, faculty denied trenure or even being fired, etc. by arcane and (despite some provions) secret and unaccountable processes.
It doesn’t matter if unfavorable judgements bring better book sales or finding employmen tin a non-Catholic setting.
The issue is justice in proces, honesty in dialogue and a genuine respect for the people of God (enshrined in a few canons) but less than important in the scheme of CDF Church.
Grant said: A lot of people seem to think they know what theologians ought to do and how they ought to do it.
———-
True. And why not? Catholics study God from earliest childhood. By the time they graduate from high school, many/most have been fortunate enough to have been taught by highly qualified religion teachers. By the time they finish college, many have taken theology courses.
Imho, the notion that non-specialists should keep their noses out of theology is more evidence that theologians don’t really believe what they preach, teach, study, publish, etc. If they believed it, they would be glad/impelled to share their knowledge, methods, etc. with all.
—–
Thanks, Catherine O, for the 06/09/2012 – 3:13 pm post. Very interesting. I didn’t realize how few colleges required mandata and theologians’ oaths. (NCRegister’s pdf on those that do: http://www.ncregister.com/images/documents/csection0911.pdf )
“Why call yourself the “Catholic” Theological Society of America if you are concerned about appearing to be on the side of the US Catholic bishops?”
Carlo,
It is an old heresy that you cling to, namely, that just by being Catholic you enter heaven.
Grant, how about a thread on Sr. farley’s address – might raise some interesting views for Carlo et al.
Bob, I’m afraid I don’t have time right now to set up such a thread. Perhaps tomorrow. I covered the session via Twitter. And you can find the first of my long series of tweets here: https://twitter.com/gallicho/status/211277647563587585
Work up from that one and you’ll get a sense of how the conversation unfolded.
A quickie on Sr. Margaret’s Friday CTSA speech, no substitute for Grant’s warmly anticipated contribution, is at
http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/vatican-criticized-nun-addresses-fellow-theologians
Bill:
I said:
“Why call yourself the “Catholic” Theological Society of America if you are concerned about appearing to be on the side of the US Catholic bishops?”
you responded
“It is an old heresy that you cling to, namely, that just by being Catholic you enter heaven.”
I conclude:
I don’t conclude anything, because your reply is completely random!! What are you talking about, my friend? Did you get enough sleep?
Since the personhood of corporations is not guaranteed by the Constitution
Ann and Thomas,
IMHO, you both have a completely false reading of Citizens United. The decision has nothing to do with corporations being persons. Rather, citizens have the freedom of association under the constitution. One of those associations is known as a corporation. Citizens do not lose their right to free speech simply because they are exercising their right to associate under a legal structure called a corporation. And of course you realize that unions are also generally structured as corporations, so Citizens United removed restrictions from their purse strings as well.
Why call yourself the “Catholic” Theological Society of America
Carlo,
I agree. How about we just call them TSA? Be just as useful as the first group with that moniker
Just to follow up on Lisa Fullam’s helpful on-the-scene comment above (6/10, 9:42 pm):
It’s an old organizing maxim that “an issue that divides your base is a bad issue for your organization”. From that perspective, *any* resolution that divides the membership of the CTSA is a bad resolution for the CTSA. Better to table the resolution, continue the discussion internally and return to it when/if there’s broad and deep agreement within the membership.
This, by the way, is one reason for concern about the USCCB’s recent actions regarding the contraception mandate. It’s a divisive issue *within* the Church, and thus weakens the Church’s ability to act powerfully on the issue.
Nice article on the front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this morning by their religion writer, Tim Townsend:
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/at-meeting-in-st-louis-catholic-theologians-defend-one-of/article_40a6f28f-5ee7-50ed-96f1-8fdedd583321.html
He describes the meeting and Sr. Farley in particular.
From the article:
Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theology professor at Boston College, said it was “appalling” that the bishops entirely ignored the book’s treatment of violence against women, among other issues, and focused on what Farley called the “hot-ticket issues.”
A “profoundly important” question for Catholic theologians, Farley said, is: “Should power settle questions of truth?”
In its notification, the Vatican had said its original purpose for investigating “Just Love” was because of “doctrinal errors” that are “a cause of confusion among the faithful.”
Richard Gaillardetz, a theology professor at Boston College, said the bishops’ use of the term “confusion of the faithful” was “infuriating” and “an ongoing problem we see in these statements.”
“It’s a mind-boggling step back from everything that has happened, or that we hoped would have happened, since Vatican II,” he said.
Farley said that at the heart of the study of Catholic moral theology is an acknowledgement that “if we come to know a little more than we knew before, it might be that the conclusions we had previously drawn need to be developed, or even let go of.”
To say that wasn’t possible “would be to imply that we know everything we need to know and nothing more need be done.”
“Is it possible for the membership to table the resolution without a vote, “so the CTSA would not be in the public media as appearing to be against or for the U.S. bishops?” ”
This is not nothing. It strikes me as a gesture of unity. I’m grateful to the CTSA for taking its relationship with church leadership this seriously. It strikes me as a very *Catholic* thing to do! It is something that can be built upon.
Just one more thought: both Sister Elizabeth Johnson and Sister Margaret Farley have shown extraordinary grace and poise in the face of public official disapprobation. I suspect that the witness they are giving to their fellow theologians, particularly the younger ones, is immensely important.
“Richard Gaillardetz, a theology professor at Boston College, said the bishops’ use of the term “confusion of the faithful” was “infuriating” ”
I’d like to understand why it is infuriating. It strikes me as a legitimate concern: that any careful distinctions and bracketing that Sr. Farley may make in her book get lost as the controversial content gets translated from the book itself to a parish catechetical presentation in which a local catechist proclaims that masturbation and same-sex marriage are morally acceptable, and then sites a religious sister as his authority. I suspect this sort of scenario gets to the heart of the CDF’s concerns.
I don’t know if Richard Gaillardetz reads the comments of dotCom posts, but if so, perhaps he’d share his thoughts.
@Jim Pauwels (6/11, 10:00 am) Here’s my own guess at why some find it infuriating:
Local catechists who don’t read/aren’t aware of Sr. Farley’s work aren’t going to be confused by it, and neither will the parishioners they instruct.
Local catechists who do read/are aware of Sr. Farley’s work are going to understand when and where she deviates from current Church teaching (in no small part because she clearly indicates those points in her writing), so the catechists won’t be confused and will pass along their own lack of confusion to the parishioners they instruct.
Jim, let me explain it to you in more detail, otherwise you will be confused.
Luke explained why it was wrong to be worried about catechists’ confusion. But why would that be “infuriating”? Because it assumes that catechists reading Sr. Farley’s writings do not know enough or are not smart enough to avoid getting confused. It’s a patronizing attitude just like my attitude towards you right here and now in this comment.
The notion of “confudion” as has been pointed out has been around for many years as a bugaboo to support the status qup.
I’m not sure that we’ll continue toi visit the CTSA (and I think they should keep the title) conference doings, but the notion of the teaching office(s) of the Chutch, theologians and lay roles within that and issues of process were clearly front and center – beyond which was the major question of if we know it all now raised by Sr, Fraley herself.
In the meantime, dedicated and real thinkers need to be clebrated and I for one am delighted to see Terence Tilley from Fordham honored. I thought that should be noted here as well.
The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church.
Jim,
It seems to me to raise the question, “Who are the faithful?” Apparently not Sr. Farley or the Catholic Theological Society of America or people like Luke Timothy Johnson who reviewed the book for Commonweal over five years ago and said the following:
It seems to me that the CDF implies that books that “confuse the faithful” ought not to be written. I am still trying to sort out all the issues here, but it does seem to me that the CDF is trying to discourage Catholic theologians from “confusing the faithful,” and yet Sr. Farley is held in very high esteem, and clearly a lot of Catholic theologians feel her books and people who write books the way she does are making very valuable contributions.
It would be one thing if a “Notice” from the CDF was seen as something other than an act of discipline, but I can only imagine that theologians see it in somewhat the same way as taxpayers see being subjected to an audit by the IRS. The CDF is not saying, “You have presented some very challenging ideas and we can’t see how you can reconcile them with Catholic thought.” They are saying, “By the authority vested in us as the CDF, we hereby declare you wrong and a threat to ‘the faithful’.”
Easy to understand why educated laywomen and -men who live in the real world, raise real families, work at real jobs, etc., find it infuriating and insulting to be regarded as clueless idiots by ordained men who do not live in the real world, raise real families or work at real jobs.
http://www.gaillardetz.com/
Some interesting “Upcoming Events” for Dr. Gaillardetz.
“Local catechists who do read/are aware of Sr. Farley’s work are going to understand when and where she deviates from current Church teaching (in no small part because she clearly indicates those points in her writing), so the catechists won’t be confused and will pass along their own lack of confusion to the parishioners they instruct.”
Let’s consider a chain of communication in a scenario that I would see as fairly typical:
Link 1: Sr. Farley writes her book, and makes the careful distinctions that we all agree is essential for a work like this.
Link 2: An instructor in a diocesan catechist formation program adopts Sr. Farley’s book as a textbook for the program. Her class reads the book. There is considerable in-class discussion of the controversial points raised in the CDF notification, and the spirited nature of the discussion makes a lasting impression on the students. The formation instructor does a creditable job of making the careful distinctions that Sr. Farley herself makes.
Link 3: Some time later (one or two years later, after the catechist candidates complete their formation and are certified as catechists), one of the catechists from the course in Link 2 decides to run a program in his parish on sexual morality. In his slide deck, he includes a single slide with a handful of brief bullets to summarize the issues covered in the chapter in question from Sr. Farley’s book. In his parish presentation, he mentions something along the lines of, “Sr. Margaret Farley believes that masturbation is morally acceptable.”
Link 4: An attendee of the parish event comes home, tells his wife about the content, and shows her the print-out of the slide deck.
I think the chances are pretty strong that quite a bit will get lost in translation, moving from Link 1 through Link 4.
I seriously doubt her book has been or will be used catechetically.
“Luke explained why it was wrong to be worried about catechists’ confusion. But why would that be “infuriating”? Because it assumes that catechists reading Sr. Farley’s writings do not know enough or are not smart enough to avoid getting confused. It’s a patronizing attitude just like my attitude towards you right here and now in this comment.”
Hi. Claire, my view of parish catechists may be overly jaundiced, but I don’t think it is a question of whether or not they are smart enough – although, in fact, some of them may not be smart enough! But, as I hope my reply to Luke illustrates, I do think that, as a communication chain gets longer, the possibility of miscommunication increases.
I also think that confusion is very real, and sometimes more detail really is needed to clear up the confusion, and providing additional detail need not be patronizing. I would have liked to have seen a more detailed explanation in that NCR piece as to why Professor Gaillardetz finds it infuriating that the faithful can be confused. Just speaking as someone who has said things from the pulpit on occasion that, I subsequently learned, really did confuse some people, I don’t think it’s far-fetched that people can become confused. It seems to me that it’s part and parcel of communicating. In my own teaching days, I spent a part of every lesson answering questions because people were confused. Not everything is easily digested on the first bite.
If the CDF notification comes across as patronizing – that may be a communication problem that the CDF needs to work on. It seems to me that on the question of the *content* of the book, there is not much disagreement between CDF and Sr. Farley – they both agree that it’s not a recitation of official church teaching.
Helen 06/09/2012 – 2:35 pm
You stated:
“I am glad to see that Jesuit Fr. David Hollenbach referenced “Dignitatis Humane” the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom. Here we are at the point of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II and our Catholic church here in the U.S. is making a mountain out of a molehill about persecution of Catholicism (in my humble opionion.)
Yesterday, I attended the “Stand Up for Religious Freedom” Rally in Philadelphia. I wanted to see what was happening close up and was part of a counter rally in support of our sisters. There were 4 of us. My aunt who is an SSJ called to say that she and the other sisters in her convent were delighted and grateful. She is 82 years old and has been in the religious community for 66 years. So there, Cardinal Levada.
One of the speakers at the rally quoted John Courtney Murray. I cannot believe that he would have been in the forefront of this issue. I wish someone with more knowledge about his thinking could confirm or deny my opinion.”
———————————————————————-
Sorry, Helen, that this came so far down from your original message. I can give you a little background about John Courtney Murray, S.J.—-and you can formulate your own opinion.
Joh Courtney Murray, was a giant in American theology. He was a brillant and formidable scholar whose views have dominated the Church’s understanding of religious liberty today. John was a professor on the pontifical faculty at Woodstock College in Maryland. He engaged in a years-long debate in the pages of American theological journals with theologians who believed in traditional Catholic positions regarding separation of church and state (The Vatican was against any separation of Church and State—-and long bemoaned America’s ‘divorce’ of Church and State—more on that later).
Murray, also believed in greater dialogues with other religions in openess and friendship. He believed that such separation (as America has it) served both church and state the best. His opponents, with the strong support of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani of the Holy Office (he was the head of the Inquistion when young Fr. Joseph Ratizinger was a peritus at Vatican Council II). The Roman Curia held to a more traditional view.
For Ottaviani and his followers, the union of church and state was the ideal, and any loss of this union was deplorable. They also believed that ecumenism was not possible because athe Roman Catholic Church was the one true Church and eveything else was apostate.
Eventually, Murray was required to submit his writings for approval by authorities in Rome, and he withdrew from the fracas. He was also not included as a peritus for the first session of Vatican II. Later, at the insistence of Cardinal Spellman, however, he was included and eventually rewrote the Declaration on Religious Freedom {Dignitatis Humanae}, the final version of which bears his stamp. Murray died in 1967.
A brief synopsis of the “Delcaration on Religious Freedom” approved on December 7, 1965 by a vote of 2,308 to 70.
This most controversial of council documents began as a chapter in the document on ecumenism. The document allows for the development of doctrine and states that the freedom of persons requires that no one ever be forced to join the Church. The Church claims freedom for itself in this document, but also for all religious practice of every kind everywhere.
The document contains 15 articles all in one chapter.
——————————
I submit that too many people, including many of the ‘official’ Church have sneezed over this powerful little document. Murray, in his typical fashion, loaded it with concepts that we haven’t up-packed yet.
Sr. Farley tells the truth in plain English.
Should the other links in the chain pretend to prefer the nonsense ordained men pretend to think they should pretend to believe? Should they pretend to be be confused in order to keep the charade from coming apart?
“It would be one thing if a “Notice” from the CDF was seen as something other than an act of discipline, but I can only imagine that theologians see it in somewhat the same way as taxpayers see being subjected to an audit by the IRS. The CDF is not saying, “You have presented some very challenging ideas and we can’t see how you can reconcile them with Catholic thought.” They are saying, “By the authority vested in us as the CDF, we hereby declare you wrong and a threat to ‘the faithful’.””
I agree with you that the very act of issuing the notification publicly is itself a form of discipline (somewhat assuaged, perhaps, by the spike in book sales?).
Here is what the CDF said: “With this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expresses profound regret that a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life, Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality. The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. Consequently it cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Furthermore the Congregation wishes to encourage theologians to pursue the task of studying and teaching moral theology in full concord with the principles of Catholic doctrine.”
It’s a fairly subtle form of discipline. The only thing that seems overtly like a punishment is its decree (if that is the right word) that the book cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching in the circumstances listed. It expresses “regret” that she says things in her book that contradict church teaching. “Regret” probably conveys something more than mere wistful sadness. The bit about encouraging theologians to do theology in full concord with Catholic doctrine may be more than a fond hope.
Jim Pauwels 06/11/2012 – 11:25 am subscriber
You stated:
(“Local catechists who do read/are aware of Sr. Farley’s work are going to understand when and where she deviates from current Church teaching (in no small part because she clearly indicates those points in her writing), so the catechists won’t be confused and will pass along their own lack of confusion to the parishioners they instruct.”
Let’s consider a chain of communication in a scenario that I would see as fairly typical:
Link 1: Sr. Farley writes her book, and makes the careful distinctions that we all agree is essential for a work like this.
Link 2: An instructor in a diocesan catechist formation program adopts Sr. Farley’s book as a textbook for the program. Her class reads the book. There is considerable in-class discussion of the controversial points raised in the CDF notification, and the spirited nature of the discussion makes a lasting impression on the students. The formation instructor does a creditable job of making the careful distinctions that Sr. Farley herself makes.
Link 3: Some time later (one or two years later, after the catechist candidates complete their formation and are certified as catechists), one of the catechists from the course in Link 2 decides to run a program in his parish on sexual morality. In his slide deck, he includes a single slide with a handful of brief bullets to summarize the issues covered in the chapter in question from Sr. Farley’s book. In his parish presentation, he mentions something along the lines of, “Sr. Margaret Farley believes that masturbation is morally acceptable.”
Link 4: An attendee of the parish event comes home, tells his wife about the content, and shows her the print-out of the slide deck.
I think the chances are pretty strong that quite a bit will get lost in translation, moving from Link 1 through Link 4.)
————————————————-
Sorry, Jim. ONE of my jobs is that of a Director of Religious Education. I can tell you that in most of the Dioceses of America—-there is a list of acceptable textbooks that parish directors and catechists MUST use. Most Diocesan Offices for Evangelization and Faith Formation—have outlined content of what is to be taught—grade by grade (K-12), and it corresponds with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also keeping within the guidelines of the writings of the USCCB—for example “Sharing the Light of Faith” which is the National Catechetical Directory for Catholics in the United States.
A parish director of religious education or a catechist would be literally, putting her/his
head on the chopping block to ‘use their own choosen text’.
NO PROGRAM OF SEXUAL MORALITY MAY BE RUN IN PARISHES FOR YOUNGSTERS THAT DON’T CONFORM WITH PRESCRIBED TEXTS APPROVED BY THE DIOCESE.
Secondly, if I know Sr. Margaret—-she, herself, would be the first one to state that her book is not be used with children or high school youth. She didn’t even write her book for undergrad students in colleges/universities.
Just speaking as someone who has said things from the pulpit on occasion that, I subsequently learned, really did confuse some people, I don’t think it’s far-fetched that people can become confused.
Primates like us have an innate capacity to separate the true from the false. We would not have survived if we couldn’t interpret the tells on the faces of those who seek to bamboozle us.
Link 1 . . . Link 2 . . . Link 3 . . . Link 4
Jim,
It seems to me that if we accept your scenario as cause for concern, it would bring Catholic theology (and other Catholic writing) to a halt. If everything must be so simple and unambiguously “Catholic” that people who hear it third hand can’t get a wrong impression from it, nothing but primers could be written (if anything at all).
Hi, Little Bear, that is quite interesting, and I wasn’t aware of those details. As it happens, I was envisioning a catechetical program for adults.
“I’d like to understand why it is infuriating.”
Jim P. –
It’s infuriating because it’s plainly false. One of the reasons Sr. Farley is so respected is because she so clearly expresses exactly what she means to say. She thinks masturbation is not a problem for women? She says masturbation is not a problem for women. What can be confusing about that? If Rome thinks that it is confusing for her to say it, then it doesn’t know the laity. There is nothing confusing about saying “I disagree with Rome”.
What no doubt confuses many lay persons is Vaticanese. E. G. saying that “as the Church has always taught . . . ” when they know damn well that the Church sometimes contradicts itself. (Excuse my French, but I use the term “damn” in the interest of accuracy. Do you or don’t you appreciate clarity and accuracy?)
Part of the problem is we want everything clean and neat in a world of normativity while the real world is shot through with ambiguity.
Living with that ambiguity as intelligently as one can is not”confusion” .
Which gets us back to Sr. farley’s question about do we know it all now.
Farley said that at the heart of the study of Catholic moral theology is an acknowledgement that “if we come to know a little more than we knew before, it might be that the conclusions we had previously drawn need to be developed, or even let go of.”
To say that wasn’t possible “would be to imply that we know everything we need to know and nothing more need be done.”
The problem, it seems to me, is that Sr. Farley and her supporters are assuming that Catholic moral theology is like, say, physics. Knowledge and theories built on that knowledge are provisional, and whereas often you build on what has gone before (Newton: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”), sometimes you have a revolution that turns the work of your predecessors on its head (Einstein).
But as I understand it, Catholicism is not like physics. You have the “deposit of faith.” You have revelation, which took place over a certain period of time and then ended with the death of the last apostle. You have the Magisterium, which (continuing with the physics analogy) is not to religious truth what the consensus of living physicists is to the truth of physics. The Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit. On certain things, it can’t be wrong.
When there is a “development of doctrine,” it is similar to certain kinds of advances in physics. Laws of physics get modified. The law of conservation of matter became the law of conservation of matter and energy. But when you have a scientific revolution, it does not build on what came before. It shows that it was not true. Doctrine isn’t developed by abandoning an old doctrine and replacing it with a new one.
So, taking us back to square one, it seems to me that Sr. Farley has contradicted Catholic doctrine that is considered to be authoritative and true. Some have suggested that the CDF out to have engaged in dialog or elaborated on the doctrines that Sr. Farley contradicted. But when you say something like masturbation is seldom a matter of morality, the CDF would basically have to reiterate the whole of Catholic teaching on morality. From the little I know, Sr. Farley didn’t wrestle with Catholic teaching on sexual morality and demonstrate the traditional Catholic approach was wrong and her approach was right. She just pretty much ignored Catholic sexual morality, approached the whole issue from another angle, and made flat assertions based on her own new approach.
So it seems to me what we have is two incompatible models of how we arrive at moral truth—the CDF sees it one way, and Sr. Farley and her defenders see it another way. My Catholic education was based on the CDF understanding, and my personal (un-Catholic) view is based on something much more akin to the scientific method.
And that’s why I think very little progress has been made in discussing the CDF versus Sr. Farley. No one has explicitly acknowledged their two different approaches and tried to either reconcile them or choose one over the other.
As one of the sponsors for the resolution on the HHS mandate at the CTSA meeting, I can lay to rest any suspicion that this was an effort to embarrass the society or to show up the distance between the CTSA and the US bishops. First, our intention was simply to join with the bishop and many Catholics in expressing concern with the mandate and its implications. We were not naïve about its chances, but we thought it was worth a try. Second, and here I speak for myself, the distance between the society and the bishops is a sad but very established fact. Passing the resolution, or even seriously considering the issue behind the resolution, would have been an opportunity to go ‘against type’ but one that the majority did not wish to take.
Primates like us have an innate capacity to separate the true from the false
Gerelyn,
I could not disagree more. I believe humans have an innate capacity to convince themselves satisfying their every desire is ultimately the true and correct path.
Further, your statement about Sr. Farley is also a perfect demonstration of the ‘confusion’ which concerns the CDF
James: While the sponsors of the resolution may not have intended it to embarrass the CTSA or to show up the distance between the society and the bishops, that would have been one of the effects, had the resolution been voted down. You say you knew its chances of passing were minimal, but it was worth a try. I’m not sure what you mean by that. Did anyone in the room believe the resolution would pass? If your purpose in bringing it to the floor was to encourage debate, then why not push for such a conversation, rather than float a doomed resolution? The short debate that followed the resolution’s introduction highlighted its shortcomings — not the least of which was its suggestion that any employer should be able to opt out of covering health services he deems contrary to his religious convictions. The statement went quite a bit further than merely “expressing concerns.” It’s not clear to me why the CTSA should have considered such a resolution in the first place. The content of the statement was not terribly theological, apart from its suggestion that an institution can have a conscience. In fact, the most theological critique of the mandate came during the discussion of the resolution, but was not contained in the resolution itself — namely, that the structure of the exemption presents a sectarian view of religious exercise. You might have gotten more support if you’d focused on that. Instead, you waded into a complex policy debate, recommending a course of action endorsed by the USCCB — but not one Catholics must agree with in order to be in union with their bishops.
There were contra-HHS mandate rallies last week:
http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/2012/headcount/
My wife, son and mother-in-law and I attended the Sacramento rally. there were about 400 people and the weather was perfect. After the rally, we briefly toured the Capitol building – very nice. All around it was an enjoyable day.
Yes, I ran into one of the protesters who rallied outside the CTSA hotel. She helpfully explained that peaceful democratic societies can easily slide into fascism. “After all, look what happened with the Nazis.”
Thanks Grant – always nice to hear your thoughts.
While I am not sure what sort of person you ran into – maybe she was a raving hysteric, I do not know – it is worth keeping in mind that we Americans are not somehow so superior to Europeans and other societies that tragedies can’t happen here.
It is true we have been blessed and ought to be thankful, but we Americans are not inherently “better people” that those in other parts of this old world. Indeed, a quick look at our history shows things like the treatment of Native Americans, slavery and other terrible things can and do happen here.
After all, a million abortions each year for the last 40 years is nothing to sneeze at.
David Nickol 06/11/2012 – 1:56 pm
I think the CDF issue with Sr. Farley is that she did not demonstrate why or how Catholic Moral teaching needed development. Rather, she developed her own framework and said in that her world these are not problems. Frankly, I do not see how that advances our collective intelligence since we already have plenty of authoritative individuals who hold that Catholic Moral teaching is wrong on these issues. Many other religions hold her view.
Einstein didnt tear down Newton but said that there was a more insightful way to look at the world. Newtonian physics is still valid today, as far as it goes.
She seemed thoroughly reasonable and even friendly, right up to the point when she warned that the contraception mandate was obviously the first step toward fascist America.
“From the little I know, Sr. Farley didn’t wrestle with Catholic teaching on sexual morality and demonstrate the traditional Catholic approach was wrong and her approach was right. She just pretty much ignored Catholic sexual morality, approached the whole issue from another angle, and made flat assertions based on her own new approach.” You’re saying quite a lot about her work and methodology. Why are you hung up on her “flat assertions”? Scholars develop arguments across their careers, and then make judgments based on those arguments. There is nothing strange about that. Yet it seems to bother you. Why?
Also: According to you there is no progress in this discussion. There won’t be, because your view of doctrinal development is incompatible with the tradition. Theology is not science. It advances in fits and starts, through creative tensions built into its very nature.
Ken–
Wow, over 50,000 people countrywide! What a great turnout. There will always be naysayers out there who will try to minimize these efforts, in whatever way the can, but that’s a terrific show of support.
“I could not disagree more.”
Google “microexpressions dishonesty” and “microexpressions primate” for some leads to help you understand how we primates read one another’s tells and detect baloney.
Here’s the link to an FBI one:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june_2011/school_violence
And here’s one with a good list of references at the end:
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/05/facial-expressions.aspx
“We need faithful questioners, people who dare to float a hypothesis, experiment with an idea, venture into a new way of thinking, not knowing where it will lead,” he said. “Meister Eckhart said that we only attain the truth if we make 1,000 errors on the way. If the great tree of the Church does not have these leaves open to the world, then we shall end up with what Karl Rahner called the heresy of dead doctrine,” he said. Fr Radcliffe defended the need for a Vatican doctrinal office to “keep us steady as we search”, but with a twist. “I believe that its main function should be to stop us succumbing to premature answers. It should keep open the debate until God grants illumination for the next step on the journey.” That will come, he said, only by being “rooted in the life of prayer and silence”.
Timothy Radcliffe OP, speaking on “A Spirituality for the 21st Century” at the Lay Centre at Foyer Unitas, February 2010.
“The search for shared commitment to beliefs for which the church could live or die is, and has always been, a messy process. It involves the mind and the spirit, the senses and intuition and passion. It is inevitably enmeshed with bias and projection, with lives and hates. It is often a drama of heroes and villains, and of little people not afraid to speak to either. It has been tarred with venality and arrogance and polished to a lustre with holy audacity. “Homoousios”..was not generated in a theological hothouse. It is in and through the agency of this messy interplay of human, and therefore political, holy and sinful commitments that the Spirit leads the earthly body of the risen Lord to the truth that frees. To reduce the work of the Spirit to that of a mental censor is to caricature the God who delights in passionate creatures and respects them as free agents.”
George B. Wilson, SJ, The Church Isn’t a Democracy … Meaning?, “America”, 9 22 90.
Mark – I get your jesting sarcasm (I trust you are being light hearted), but keep in mind it was on a workday – friday afternoon. I happened to have the day off as part of my regular work schedule, but most folks were busy working.
I did notice that not all were Roman Catholics. There were many protestants, mainly Evangelicals I would say, but others as well. Finally, in Sacramento it was noted, that some Muslim groups have also come out against this mandate.
Scholars develop arguments across their careers, and then make judgments based on those arguments.
Grant,
Well, this will make you angry, but since you asked, I’ll answer.
Her judgements, according to the CDF document, are that marriage is not indissoluble and that masturbation is rarely a moral issue. These two judgments contradict the teachings of the Church. She is a Catholic theologian. I understand the concept of the development of doctrine, but I really don’t think the indissolubility of marriage is open to a development that is a reversal. Annulment may seem a clever way out of the indissolubility of marriage, but it is not a denial of the doctrine (or the words of Jesus). Sr. Farley seems to be talking about couples who “grow apart” to the extent that they are not suitable as spouses of each other. I think that makes a lot of sense. I think the Church’s teaching is perhaps even cruel. But it is most definitely the teaching of the Church.
And, as I have said before, saying that masturbation is rarely a moral issue completely undermines the entire Catholic position on sexuality. It’s not that I wouldn’t like the Church to take an entirely different approach. It’s just that it seems utterly impossible to me that the Church will abandon its teachings.
So once again, the question is what kind of assent do Catholics, including Catholic theologians, owe Catholic teachings of the kind we are talking about here? And even if a person spends a lifetime studying a particular issue and comes to a conclusion that is opposite that of the Church, what is that person’s responsibility as a Catholic? To share his or her conclusions with the world?
Ken–
I was not being sarcastic at all. I would have attended the rally in center city Phila, but was attending a graduation from (a Catholic) high school. I am not surpirsed that non-Catholics would have attended–they’ll come for them next.
I understand the concept of the development of doctrine, but I really don’t think the indissolubility of marriage is open to a development that is a reversal.
In the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, people who are divorced are allowed to marry again (but only once) after undergoing a period of penance and reflection. They still have access to all the sacraments after remarriage. The Ukrainian Catholic church is in full communion with the Roman Catholic church. Thus in practice there is a way to accept or at least tolerate remarriage and yet be in complete unity with Rome on the essentials of the faith.
“So once again, the question is what kind of assent do Catholics, including Catholic theologians, owe Catholic teachings of the kind we are talking about here?”
David N. –
As I see it, the question at issue is not what kind of *assent* is required but what kinds of *dissent* are *allowable* to theologians and others.
ISTM that clearly the answer is to be found in the same old places, Scripture and tradition, i.e., Church history. The longer and more universally a belief has been held, the less cause there is — generally — to challenge it, and the teaching at issue must be challenged on the basis of Scripture and history. What one must *not* assume is that the current teachings of Rome have always truly represent Scripture and tradition. Even long-held and generally-held teachings can legitimately be subject to development and even some revision or outright rejection when equally long-held and generally-held teachings contradict the ancient teachings.
What is my evidence for saying this? Tradition/history: the Church has in fact done these very sorts of things: it has changed and developed some teachings, even some ancient and generally-held ones, e.g., on slavery and usury,
I’d be interested in what the Church teaches about “degrees of assent” . As an old logic teacher I can’t say that there is such a thing as degrees of assent, at least not as logicians understand the terms “degrees” and “assent”. Either we think a proposition is true, false, or is a conjunction of elementary statements at least one of which is true, and one of which is false. The multiplicity involved is in the truth values of the meanings, not in the degrees of some sort of mental agreement.
Or what does the Church mean by “assent”? Accept? But what does that mean when one actually thinks the proposition is false?
“I was not being sarcastic at all. I would have attended the rally in center city Phila, but was attending a graduation from (a Catholic) high school. I am not surpirsed that non-Catholics would have attended–they’ll come for them next.”
Yes, I am sure that Muslims in America have been reading the paper and saying to themselves, “Oh man, those poor Catholics. I hope the government never harasses us the way they do the Catholics!”
“ISTM that clearly the answer is to be found in the same old places, Scripture and tradition, i.e., Church history. The longer and more universally a belief has been held, the less cause there is — generally — to challenge it, and the teaching at issue must be challenged on the basis of Scripture and history. ”
What is interesting about Sr. Farley’s book (I’m told – I have not read it) is that she approaches the topic of sexual morality from other angles such as sociology or anthropology.
As I see it, the question at issue is not what kind of *assent* is required but what kinds of *dissent* are *allowable* to theologians and others.
Ann,
I am not sure how you can answer the question of dissent without first answering the question of assent.
On page 126 of By What Authority?: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful by Richard R. Gaillardetz, there is a chart that identifies four LEVELS OF CHURCH TEACHING and the Response of the Believer:
_________________________________________________
DOGMA
Assent of faith: The believer makes an act of faith, trusting that this teaching is revealed by God.
DEFINITIVE DOCTRINE
Firm Acceptance: The believer “accepts and holds” these teachings to be true.
AUTHORITATIVE DOCTRINE
A Religious Docility of Will and Intellect: The believer strives to assimilate a teaching of the Church into his or her religious stance, while recognizing the remote possibility of church error.
PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS OF CHURCH
DOCTRINE, CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND PRUDENTIAL ADMONITIONS
Conscientious Obedience: The believer obeys the spirit of any church law or disciplinary action which does not leave to sin, even when questioning the ultimate value or wisdom of the law or action.
_________________________________________________
I don’t quite understand why Catholics, who believe the Church is watched over and guided in a special way by the Holy Spirit, would want to know how much they can get away with not accepting. One of the things that, according to the Church’s own self-understanding, make the Catholic Church the “one true Church” is its special access to Truth and a guarantee that it cannot teach error. For many Catholics, this is a the appeal of Catholicism, not a stumbling block to be explained away.
Grant, thanks for what appears to be a fairly dispassionate report on this CTSA incident. Though I would hardly call tabling “exceptionally clever” as a procedural matter. Are there primary sources we can access?
I am impressed by the CTSA statement put up for discussion, and that it didn’t die in committee. The objections you describe being lodged from some members are sad, but unsurprising. If the CTSA is so divided as Lisa describes, then it seems to be impotent to get involved in any really important issue because such issues will always involve deep disagreement. But maybe it is OK with just being a trade association.
“I don’t quite understand why Catholics, who believe the Church is watched over and guided in a special way by the Holy Spirit, would want to know how much they can get away with not accepting. ”
I thought the only things we Catholics are absolutely required to believe is what we say in the Creed at Mass each Sunday.
I thought the only things we Catholics are absolutely required to believe is what we say in the Creed at Mass each Sunday.
Irene,
Well, the two infallible pronouncements regarding Mary (Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption) aren’t in either the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed. The Real Presence isn’t mentioned. I wouldn’t venture to list what the infallible moral teachings of the Church are, but certainly the evil of direct abortion must be an infallible teaching, and there are no moral teachings at all in the creeds.
Whether assent or dissent, I think David N. asumes (or maybe he doesn’t) a univocal view of catholic teaching(s).
Issues of sexual morality may be rooted in Scripture to some degree and perhaps somewhat timebound .
Can we learn new things and does it allow CHANGE?
And what frame(s) do you view that from?
“Well, the two infallible pronouncements regarding Mary (Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption) aren’t in either the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed. ”
Infallibility isn’t in the Creed either.
Infallibility isn’t in the Creed either.
Irene,
Infallibility is a dogma. If you don’t believe it, you are denying one of the fundamental beliefs that separates Catholics from other Christian denominations. The creeds are used by many churches other than the Catholic Church, accepting the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed is part of what makes a Catholic a Catholic, but not all who accept the creeds are Catholic.
I perfectly understand the resistance to the concept of “you have to believe.” However, it is a fundamental aspect of Catholicism. You can’t make it go away. You can attempt an in-depth understanding of what it means to have dogmas and infallible truths, and exactly how one is supposed to deal with doubt, or even dissent. But you can’t just wave it away and pretend it is not an issue.
Far be it from me to say who is and who isn’t a Catholic, but I will say that any Catholic who dismisses the idea of dogma and infallibility is in fundamental disagreement with what the Church teaches.
Apostles’ Creed
Far be it from me to say who is and who isn’t a Catholic, but I will say that any Catholic who dismisses the idea of dogma and infallibility is in fundamental disagreement with what the Church teaches.
What the Church teaches ebbs and flows. The burning (literally) issues of one generation are forgotten by the next.
It seems to me that nobody speaking up here accepts that the Catholic Church—the Magisterium, the pope, the bishops (collectively), Church councils, and so on—can make any serious intellectual demands on them.
What does it mean to be Catholic? To many people, the answer seems to be, “Not much.”
I am really taken aback. Perhaps the people who have a stronger sense of what it means to be Catholic are just not speaking up for fear that they will be regarded as quaint. Or perhaps they feel it would be pointless.
David, I think that being Christian has precedence. We should think of ourselves as Christians first, and it is more constructive to focus on what we have in common with other Christians than on our differences. But it means a lot to many of us to be Catholic, and if you explore past threads, you will see that much of it is couched in terms of our experience more than specific beliefs (although those are related, of course). The prayers to the saints, the rituals, the liturgy, the life of the church induce beliefs: they grow out of how we practice our faith, and that gives it a distinct Catholic flavor.
In terms of our relation to authority, it is clear that our search for unity across vast communities leads us to look for governance, and it ought to be obvious from discussions on this blog that we pay quite an enormous amount of attention to what bishops and pope are saying. I don’t think you would find such hand-wringing, anger, and anxious interpretations if we weren’t constantly, intensely, almost desperately looking for a trusted leader.
So, for me and (for many others here) it means a lot to be Catholic, but it seems that I, at least, am not looking at it with your prism.
David N – Please don’t take my silence as willingness to leave you out on an island of conventional Catholicism all by yourself.
I do agree with you, and I’ve been impressed with your line of argumentation. I think conventional church teaching does need to be brought to bear in these conversations from time to time. Although it would get really wearisome to trot them out every time someone ventures out an opinion that varies from the Catechism, and one of the great virtues of dotCom is that it doesn’t get bogged down in incessant “You’re anathema!” / “You’re a Luddite!” back-and-forth. But I don’t think you’re doing this – in fact, you’ve been very careful to note your personal sympathy with dissenting views.
Just speaking for myself – I don’t care if people find me quaint. And I don’t think it’s ever pointless to proclaim the Gospel.
FWIW – my view, which I’ve probably expressed once or twice already, is that arguably the CDF would be negligent in *not* pointing out when a Catholic theologian advocates moral teaching that contradicts church teaching. Wrapped up in that view are a number of things that probably could be contested here: that the CDF has a right to do this at all; and that its notification needs to be public. The CDF’s specific process is also open to critique.
But if that proposition is accepted that the CDF has a right and even a duty to inform the church that a theologian is teaching something at variance, I think it becomes a question of how best to point it out. Whether the CDF hit all of the right rhetorical notes is something worth considering. My opinion is that it could have been more obnoxious.
Comparing and contrasting this affair with the USCCB’s doctrinal committee’s notification of Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s “Quest for the Living God” is interesting. In the latter case, there was vehement disagreement, including from Commonweal’s editors, that the Committee on Doctrine had properly understood and fairly characterized Sr. Johnson’s work. There was a rough consensus here that Sr. Johnson was really the victim of an injustice.
That dynamic is missing in the Sr. Farley affair. (And, honestly, I don’t feel the same energy in the objections to the CDF’s ruling). There seems to be basic agreement, including from Sr. Farley herself, that the specific things the CDF highlighted are in fact not what the church teaches. So there is no objection that the CDF misunderstood the work. The objection, as you note, seems to be that the CDF is doing its job.
One of the things that, according to the Church’s own self-understanding, make the Catholic Church the “one true Church” is its special access to Truth and a guarantee that it cannot teach error. For many Catholics, this is a the appeal of Catholicism, not a stumbling block to be explained away.
AND
Can we learn new things and does it allow CHANGE?
I personally find the the special access to Truth appealing. It does have implications for CHANGE, particularly given that God is unchanging and unchangeable. If you believe the catechism that ‘…sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us…’ its inconceivable to me that any sacrament could be erroneous or ‘evolve’. Since the morality of sexual interactions is inextricably linked with marriage, changing marriage seems contrary to God’s nature.
Dear Grant,
We are both free to disagree about the wisdom of the resolution. We put it forward because we believed the CTSA should support it. Indeed, I thought and still think this issue is a rather obvious one. Of course, there are legal precisions that need to attention, but the basic ideas are uncontroversially Catholic: a) church does not exhaust the category of religious institution, b) the federal government should respect the religious convictions that guide religious institutions unless there are serious reasons for not doing so. The HHS mandate in my view violates both of those principles and should be an item of concern for theologians of whatever politics.
I did not write the resolution and won’t debate the rightness of every word or every word left out. The intent was clearly to support the judgment of the bishops and many Catholic universities that something is wrong here and that it threatens religious liberty. If we got this or that wording wrong, there was a procedure for friendly amendments and we indicated our willingness to attain greater precision.
The majority disagreed with the intent behind the resolution, one even said that Church teaching requires us to provide birth control and sterilization (I assume) as part of the right of health care. Not a Catholic position to be sure, but one expressed with high-minded vigor.
In any case, the CTSA is not particularly representative of the large community of Catholic theologians in the United States. It’s too dominantly left-leaning for that. Even so, we were hoping that our resolution or something like it might pass. We were wrong. So it goes.
David, I think that being Christian has precedence.
Claire,
But the Catholic belief is that the only way to be fully and completely a follower of Christ is to be a Catholic. And the Catholic Church (not generic Christianity) represents Christ on earth. There is nothing wrong with feeling solidarity with other Christians, but the Catholic Church makes it clear that only by being a member of the Church can you follow Jesus in the way that he intended.
I don’t think you would find such hand-wringing, anger, and anxious interpretations if we weren’t constantly, intensely, almost desperately looking for a trusted leader.
But the belief in Catholicism is that you can always trust the Church for what is really important—that is, what is important to salvation.
Some days I think we’re reverting to the time of Len Feeney.
Only one ecclesiology in play?
Unoivocal view of being Catholic?
I reject David’s assertion that folks here don’t take the chutch and its teachers seropusly – just the opposite as they try to make sense of how the dynamic interplay of heirtacht, laity and the Spirit play out.
I posit we’ve lost our delicate balance in this.
As to “Luddites”, those who think it’s all there in CCC may fall into that category with their”truth plain and simple” meme.
David, I think that the Church that you are talking about is the perfect Church that currently exists only as a dream, as what we are trying to build through reforms. It is not here yet, as evidenced both by the lack of universality and by our divisions.
As to “trusting the Church”, we have to remember the possibility of human failures. They can be inspired, yet largely mistaken at the same time. Actually, voicing constructive objections is a form of trust: we trust that a way will be found for the truth to reach us. (For example, I will challenge a trusted science teacher, because I trust that he or she will be able to answer my objections or will have the honesty to recognize the limits of our current knowledge. When the teacher answers: “It’s true because I say that it’s true, and I don’t want to talk about it any more”, that does not work and, in fact, it undermines trust.)
“In terms of our relation to authority, it is clear that our search for unity across vast communities leads us to look for governance, and it ought to be obvious from discussions on this blog that we pay quite an enormous amount of attention to what bishops and pope are saying. I don’t think you would find such hand-wringing, anger, and anxious interpretations if we weren’t constantly, intensely, almost desperately looking for a trusted leader.”
Claire –
Thanks. Beautifully put. Not only do we pay attention to the bishops, some of us agree with the conservatives that we are *obliged* to take the bishops seriously, and, further, that we may not disagree lightly. Dissent must always be a matter of study and an unavoidable conclusion that the bishops are not completely right or even wholly wrong in some way.
What I don’t understand is why so many conservatives find it necessary to misjudge our motives and honesty. Why do they find it necessary to think we are being dishonest?
Primates like us have an innate capacity to separate the true from the false
Hi Gerelyn,
Thanks for the articles you quoted. Unfortunately I do not think they support your statement above for the following reason: these articles indicate that its possible to tell when people are lying. But that really has little to do with determining moral truth. For example, if Sr. Farley told you she thought masturbation was morally acceptable, you would have no innate way of determining the truthfulness of that statement because she would not be lying; she actually believes what she told you to be true. There are no tells to discern. Determining the moral truthfulness of that statement requires much more thought and analysis. And I believe that we humans have the innate ability to perform that thought and analysis in a way which produces the outcome that satisfies our desires as opposed to the ability to determine the morally truthful outcome.
And I believe that we humans have the innate ability to perform that thought and analysis in a way which produces the outcome that satisfies our desires as opposed to the ability to determine the morally truthful outcome.
I agree. We cannot trust ourselves either!
David Nickol, a question: why do you comment here? You don’t consider yourself a Catholic, from what I can tell. What is your aim and interest?
“The majority disagreed with the intent behind the resolution.” Point of fact: The majority voted to table consideration of the resolution. They did not vote on the resolution itself — or the intent behind it. I still don’t know why it was brought to the floor when even its sponsors knew it didn’t have a snowball’s chance of succeeding.
“I am not surpirsed that non-Catholics would have attended–they’ll come for them next.”
Yes. Those member of ecclesial communities (you know, not REAL churches) and those non-Christian infidels had better look out for the black humungous SUVs and the black helicopters. I hear that the concentration camps are already being taken out of mothballs. And they will be opened only in blue states!
David G. I think that there are a few of us who are on the periphery of Catholicism (I style myself as a “Roaming” Catholic) and comment here. Many of us are of an age that finds it hard to shake from our sandals that last bit of dust from a church that we feel has left us.
What did the Jebbies say? (I think there are various iterations ….)
“Give me the child, and I will mold the man.”
“Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man.”
“Give me the child until he is seven and I care not who has him thereafter.”
“Give me the child till the age of seven and I will show you the man.”
“I see seismographic change after change as churches begin to understand that the authoritarian model of leadership cannot work. Since the time of Luther the Roman Church has attempted to preserve itself by becoming more authoritarian. Its unilateral excommunication of the Northern Bishops and Cardinals at the time of The Council of Trent has spilled into European wars, divisions of peoples and countries, and the loss of external Vatican power. It seemed to culminate in a very tumultuous Vatican I. Pius IX could not get the entire Council to agree on more authoritarianism, i.e., papal infallibility, so he sent many of the Council home only to reconvene it when some of the detractors of his authoritarianism had left. He then got the vote establishing the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. So the Church in the 1870′s suddenly had an infallible Pope. This doctrine has been enforced by forcing people from the security of their retirement if they did not prostate themselves in front of an authoritarian Pope. It is no surprise that Vatican I occurred in a frightened Church right after the church lost so much temporal power with the fall of the Vatican States.
The Church did come to its senses during Vatican II and attempted to correct some of these bad errors, but the power of the established inbred leadership was too much for the majority of the body to withstand. We as a Roman Catholic Church are now facing a wait until a more truthful and Christian structure can emerge. This tendency for authoritarian thinkers to want to be with each other is somewhat natural but my caution to them is that it will cause a lot of internal disagreement as to who knows THE truth, only to cause more schismatic movements.
The better answer will be an emergence of a more humble Church with a much more mellow, and hallow, leadership that understands the consequences of authoritarian thought and structure. This may take centuries and in the meantime, Catholics with integrity will not be able to agree with or support such false dogma as propagated by men who we cannot even depend on to protect our children. Until the leadership understands the necessity of using millstones on themselves, we will have only seismologic shakings with little if any progress. ”
R. Dennis Porch, MD http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/crisis-anglicanism-revisited#comment-68173
But Jimmy Mac, it is one thing to question your own faith, another to question that of other people, I think.
Hi, Bruce:
Sr. Farley? Of course she believes what she wrote about the topic that the bishops listed FIRST in the Notification’s section on Specific Problems, even ahead of Homosexual Acts and Homosexual Unions.
(And, imho, everyone agrees with her, although some are pretending otherwise for various reasons.)
(Would God have given us feet if S/He didn’t want us to walk? Are we mammals supposed to pretend that one area of our bodies is off-limits and one mammalian capability is not to be developed?)
I wish a newspaper or magazine or t.v. show would issue a challenge to Catholics — hierarchy, clergy, laity — to take a polygraph test (and a microexpressions test) on what they claim to believe. Wouldn’t it be funny to know which, if any, doctrines, dogmas, etc., various “believers” believe? E.g., see the recent poll in Ireland on transubstantiation.
As to “trusting the Church”, we have to remember the possibility of human failures.
Claire,
Of course human failures are possible. The sex-abuse scandal is a perfect example and there are countless others throughout the history of the church. But mistakenly moving priests from one location to another is a fully human activity and our church leaders do not lose their ability to sin. However, administering the operations of the church is fundamentally different from shepherding the faithful to salvation. The latter is the primary purpose that Christ established and guides his Church. So could the USCCB be wrong about the ‘Fortnight of Freedom’? Sure, it possible. Are they right about the teachings on sexual morality including contraception? Almost assuredly yes.
The Church is one with Christ. I think Christ is the leader you are searching for, but all we have here on earth are those humans he has ordained.
David Nickol, a question: why do you comment here? You don’t consider yourself a Catholic, from what I can tell. What is your aim and interest?
David Gibson,
Well, first of all, I am a subscriber to Commonweal. Not everyone who posts here is. I also read the blog, and when the blog refers to a piece in another publication, I almost always read that before commenting, and frequently I find, read, and link to additional information that is relevant. I was raised a Catholic. I read and comment on other Catholic blogs (like Catholic Moral Theology and Vox Nova). I do a fair amount of reading about religion and biblical scholarship, and I lean most of the time to reading Catholic authors. Right now I am reading Charles Camosy’s Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization. I just bought, and look forward to reading, When the Magisterium Intervenes: The Magisterium and Theologians in Today’s Church by
Richard R. Gaillardetz, whose book By What Authority?: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful I have reread parts of and quoted from, since it is extremely relevant to this discussion. I also ordered Margaret Farley’s book, although it has not shipped yet.
Participate here because Catholicism is really the only religion that interests me, although I keep meaning to learn more about Buddhism. At the moment, I really don’t see myself joining another Christian denomination. For me, Catholicism is Christianity, so it is pretty much keep an association with Catholicism in some way (without claiming to be a Catholic) or abandoning the whole search for answers to ultimate questions altogether (at least from a Christian perspective).
So, I’d say I’m a subscriber to Commonweal, I’m interested, I’m informed, I feel I actually contribute to the discussion, I have opinions and love to discuss—even debate and argue. But I also try to be civil avoid personal attacks. So I see no reason at all why I shouldn’t comment here.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t comment, at all. I’m just trying to get a sense of where you are coming from to illuminate your agenda some more.
Agenda?
David Nickol: I just went to a talk about faith with the following description: faith is a divine gift, that you may accept or reject. It’s a little like falling in love. One can choose to let oneself fall in faith, or resist. I have the impression that you are pulled into Catholicism but resisting with all your might by trying to first parse everything analytically, and also by taking a maximalist interpretation of episcopal and papal authority. Several homilies I heard recently comment on Christ telling his disciples that he is the Way, and feeding them the Eucharist rather than continuing to explain everything to them: the homilists said that understanding does not precede faith but develops along with it. We don’t have to have everything figured out before we can believe. Our understanding will also be helped not just by reasoning but also by our experience, the sacraments etc. I can see that you need intellectual understanding more than most, but wonder if it gets to the point where it becomes an obstacle. As usual Catholicism is about finding the right balance.
Bruce: You are more sensitive to the (to you, obvious) transcendent aspects of the Church and treat the human side as secondary, but I am more sensitive to its (to me, obvious) human aspects and can accept the transcendent dimension only as far as I can fit it in with the human dimension. The preface of Fr. K’s writings on Foundations in Ecclesiology, linked to from his blog, may help explain why your argument, that seems so clear to you, does not quite work for me. “I became convinced that one of the chief challenges was to bridge the gap between the lofty theological language which the Council had restored to the center of ecclesiology and the concrete reality of the Church as realized in the community of believers. [...] When the Council declared that the Church is a single complex reality composed of a divine and a human element, it set out the real “mystery” of the Church [...]. Mystery sets the challenge of understanding the presence and the activity of the divine in the at times all-too-human.” I think he’s right that it is a mystery: neither of us, or anyone, can claim to have figured it out to complete satisfaction. It’s always work in progress, and we are working at it from different sides. But here’s a particularly interesting angle that he gives, that might help us go beyond back-and-forth arguments based on the divine/human dichotomy: “ Later I began to conceive the Church as the community through which Christ continues to have a redemptive impact on history. In this way I thought I could give concrete meaning to Vatican II’s teaching about the Church as the sacrament, the sign and instrument, of Christ’s reconciling salvation.“
David Nickol – I appreciate your thoughtful, researched, well-written comments and hope you will keep posting them here. I consider them a valuable addition to the discussion.
Claire,
Thanks for considering me more sensitive to the transcendental. Personally, I feel more empathy for the sinful aspects of my fellow humans. I find it easy to envision myself having made the same errors since I often find that things I do turn out badly even when I’m trying to do my best. :)
Some are now saying this issue (HHS mandate) might affect how Catholics vote this fall:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302613/catholic-vote-swings-michael-novak
Claire,
I appreciate your comments and will give them some thought.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t comment, at all. I’m just trying to get a sense of where you are coming from to illuminate your agenda some more.
David Gibson:
In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to answer your question. The issue isn’t me and my “agenda” (which the past five years of my writings here might reasonably be expected to reveal). The issue is what kind of assent to various levels of teaching does the Catholic Church expect (or require) of its members (and of its theologians). Since development of doctrine has been brought up, I think another issue is to what extent individual theologians have brought about or should expect to bring about development of doctrine.
“Some are now saying this issue (HHS mandate) might affect how Catholics vote this fall”
It will definitely affect my vote. I’m underwhelmed by Obama and had been planning all along to just do a write-in for Bernie Sanders. But the way the way the bishops have consistently criticized Obama like they’ve done with no other President before him changes my mind. As things stand now, Obama will get my vote in the Fall.
I think that David N. is right to ask his question, but I think his expectation of a clear answer is part of the problem he brings.
The question’s resolution is “in process” and may be for some time to come.
The nubs of the issue are evident in the paralllels one sees in the matter of Sr.Johnson and now Sr. fFarley.viz.:
-the role of theologians in the process of “teaching” (which both Johnson, Farley and CTSA seem to think that CDF or USCCB do not grasp in their naturally consevrative way of”safeguarding” the current magisterium.)
-the “processes” by which dialogue/correction happens insidet he Church(issues of justice we’ve already discussed here and why many are turned off by the”command/control” Church);
-isues of development and confronting modernity/postmodenity(with big issues on’feminism”, evolution and even mystery and analogy.)
I think the asent/dissent notion question is then part of a continuing dynamic(in fact it may always have been such.)
I suspect the problem of dealing with that very real and perhaps unsatisfying to some ambiguity is not helpful, but is better than the unreeal “clear consistent” notion put forward so easily.
Bob Nunz,
The cases of Sr. Elizabeth Johnson and Sr. Margaret Farley are really quite different. Sr. Johnson, as I understand it, claims (and a great many people agree) that she is being misunderstood. She has not gone beyond the bounds appropriate for Catholic theology. Sr. Farley, on the other hand, is acknowledging some of her conclusions are in conflict with teachings of the Church.
Recall the lovely words from Gaudium et Spes that described the human conscience as the “secret core and sanctuary” where we are alone with God. We are judged by our hearkening to conscience, says the document. If Catholics were to simply accede to every magisterial statement, there would be no need for such a robust doctrine on conscience. (And, arguably, popes and religious orders would still be trading in slaves, since the approval of slavery was itself authoritative magisterial teaching.) The formation of conscience, then, is critical–and good conscience formation includes careful attention to magisterial teaching. But it cannot stop there.
We are responsible before God for the moral stances we take, and “I was only following magisterial teaching” is not enough. At least so says the tradition of the Church. As Newman said, “I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, but to conscience first.”
The formation of conscience, then, is critical–and good conscience formation includes careful attention to magisterial teaching. But it cannot stop there.
IMHO, for the vast majority of the laity, current formation stops well before careful attention to magisterial teaching. ‘Conscience’ is used as a free pass for ‘principled dissent’.
David, I think I agree there is a”difference” but also a similarity in that the matters raised are about how we understand things in the light of modernity,
Wgich is really part of the struggle to answer your question.
@Bruce, On this we agree, though it doesn’t stop with laity. Not sure entirely what you mean by “principled dissent,” (again, as Catholic Christians, we believe we are answerable to God for our moral stances–principle is good, yes? Though I’d argue for virtue first… :-) ) An appeal to conscience is never an excuse for lazy reasoning or facile “opinionating.”
Disagree that the cases of Sr. Johnson and Sr. Farley “are really quite different”. Both are women, both are nuns, both are right.
Sr. Johnson’s notions about the feminine attributes of God are backed by scripture. Sr. Farley’s notions about the feminine attributes of God’s creatures are backed by science.
Just as in the “heresies” of the past, it’s the WOMEN who arouse the destructive impulses of the women-haters. It’s the messengers, not their messages, that must be eradicated.
Sr. Farley’s notions about the feminine attributes of God’s creatures are backed by science.
Gerelyn,
I don’t remember any criticisms of Sr. Farley’s writings about feminine attributes of God’s creatures in the CDF document. It said some of the things in Just Love contradict Church teaching, a point Sr. Farley herself does not dispute.
If Catholics were to simply accede to every magisterial statement, there would be no need for such a robust doctrine on conscience.
Lisa Fullam,
I will say this tentatively, because I need more time to mull it over, but it seems to me one can stretch the notion of freedom of conscience too far. I am not sure Sr. Farley contradicting the Catholic belief on the indissolubility of marriage is a matter of her conscience. I believe I read in the Gaillardetz book that if one disagrees with a Catholic teaching, one is still bound buy it unless it would cause the person to commit a sin. Consequently, if I am divorced and agree with Sr. Farley that the Church is wrong about the indissolubility of marriage, I am nevertheless not free to remarry unless I find myself in a situation where I sincerely believe it would be morally wrong not to.
The question is how much deference a Catholic, and particularly a Catholic theologian, owes to the Church when he or she has an intellectual disagreement with it. Amazon hasn’t even shipped my copy of Just Love yet, but if it is true (as it seems to be) that Sr. Farley disagrees with the Catholic Church on the indissolubility of marriage, on masturbation (and, it would seem, the very basis on which the Catholic Church thinks about sexual morality), and on same-sex unions, I don’t know how her public statements against Catholic teachings could be justified on the basis of freedom of conscience. (I suppose one could believe that Catholic teaching is so unjust and burdensome that one simply must speak out against it, but I gather that is not Sr. Farley’s position.)
So the question is what deference, or allegiance, does a Catholic owe to the Church. I understand the argument that blind submission would have prevented many developments in the Church that a regarded as extremely important. But still, from my reading of what the Church teaches (not what I personally think Catholics ought to do). I can certainly understand people who are displeased with the way the CDF handles matters like this. And I can see that the CDF has a major PR problem when it comes to the treatment of women. (Actually, it’s more than a PR problem.) But all that aside, I don’t see how it can be claimed that the Church is wrong and Sr. Farley is right. And I still see the issue of religious assent to the teachings of the Magisterium as an issue that has largely been unexplored here.
I would say that Catholics (and all others, too) have freedom of conscience. But it seems to me Catholics have limited freedom of thought. Catholics are not free to disbelieve something that the Church declares a divinely revealed truth (a dogma).
Disagree that the cases of Sr. Johnson and Sr. Farley “are really quite different”. Both are women, both are nuns, both are right
Gerelyn,
Come on – both are women, both are nuns – what could be a more superficial analysis?
I am unhappy about continuing to talk tp David about change.
I think the homily of Fr. Beloin at America blog (reported by tim Reidy) gives another perspective then his.
Basta from me.
I don’t remember any criticisms of Sr. Farley’s writings about feminine attributes of God’s creatures in the CDF document.
Given the Specific Problems listed in the Notification, I can’t see how anyone would think 50% of God’s creatures, with all their attributes, are excluded.
http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/29292.php?index=29292&lang=en
And check out the book itself. Try “feminine” as a search term to see page 156: Whether Gender Matters. The rejection of the notion of “complementarity” must have annoyed someone. Try “female”, “women”, “girls”, etc.
” But it seems to me Catholics have limited freedom of thought. Catholics are not free to disbelieve something that the Church declares a divinely revealed truth (a dogma).”
David N. ==
What is your reason for saying this? How do you *know* this? Because you have searched Church history and found that the Church has always taught this? Or is it something that you have been taught extremely emphatically and are having trouble breaking this habit of thought?
Ann,
I am saying it because I know what dogma means in the Catholic Church. The Catechism says:
Are you really prepared to argue that when something is declared dogma in Catholicism, belief in it is in any way optional?
Here is an excerpt from Munificentissimus Deus, in which Pius XII defines the Assumption as dogma:
A Catholic is not free to deny, or even disbelieve, dogma. That is a fundamental fact about Catholicism. It goes without saying. It should not be a matter of dispute on a Catholic blog.
One way to think of a dogma is as a definition, a minimal criterion for membership in the Church. Belief in the Trinity is a dogma, for example. How we each enter into that mystery is another question, but affirming a Truine God is one requisite of Catholic Christianity. And as history teaches, coming to satisfactory language for what we mean when we say “Triune God” was itself a process of using then-contemporary language to add words to what, fundamentally, cannot be completely explained. One who denies a dogma is a heretic, strictly speaking, a person who defines themselves outside the community.
Church teaching on masturbation is not a dogma. It is also based on obsolete science. Our understanding of many things has changed since the time many magisterial sexual teachings were first formulated. It doesn’t make them wrong for that reason, but unless they can be argued on satisfactory grounds now, why should they bind one’s conscience? After all, the Church claims that sexual teachings are matters of natural law, i.e., human reason reflecting on human nature. Natural law is a process any thinking person can engage–but one has to think. Does a 14 year old boy’s act of masturbation really separate him forever from God? Really? Jesus’ God? And if masturbation is a moral question, is it a moral question because of what happens to his semen, or for some other reason? The teaching originally was all about semen.
Nor is same-sex marriage a matter of dogma, or marital indissolubility, or any of the other teachings from which Farley dissents. What she does, in a nutshell, is to take fundamental principles of Catholic teaching–human dignity, justice, the equality of men and women, and bring them to bear on sexual teachings. Hers is a profoundly Catholic project. Violations of equal human dignity and justice are, sad to say, not uncommon in our world. In the sexual arena, violations of these can cause great suffering. It was that suffering that motivated Farley to propose her framework for sexual ethics.
I think you will enjoy the book.
Lisa Fullam,
Thanks for the clarification on dogma. My point has been that there is some level of obligation for Catholics to give assent to all the teachings of the Church (see my chart from By What Authority? above at 06/12/2012 – 9:31 am), and of course for dogma the obligation is total.
My point is not that she is contradicting infallible truths (although I think a very good argument can be made that the indissolubility of marriage is dogma). It is just that saying, for example, that masturbation is seldom a matter of morality and that it can actually in some cases be a good is not just contradicting the Church’s teaching on masturbation. It seems to me to be pulling the rug out from under all Church teachings on sexuality. According to the Church, masturbation is intrinsically evil:
I am not arguing the Church is right. I don’t think they are. I am arguing that saying masturbation is not intrinsically evil basically denies the sentence I have put in boldface is a criterion by which any specific sex act can be judged moral or immoral. And, of course, if Sr. Farley approves of same-sex relationships as reported, she is for a second time rejecting the criterion by which the Church judges sexual acts.
So she seems to be offering an entirely different “framework for sexual ethics.” I am reasonably certain without having even received the book yet that I will find her framework superior to the principles I quoted from the Catechism. My only point is that the new way of looking at things that she is offering is at least as dramatic as the shift in the Church’s attitude toward the Jews or toward freedom of religion. It is not some obscure point that only people with degrees in moral theology would understand. It would be a very dramatic shift.
“I am saying it because I know what dogma means in the Catholic Church. The Catechism says …”
David N. –
So your argument is that if the Catechism says “this is the teaching of the Church” that the Catechism guarantees that that is really the teaching of “the Church”.
I’ll grant you that that is what the current “official Church ” says are teachings of the Church. However, some of the matters in the Catechism are still disputed — by other bishops and at least one pope. For instance — consider, for instance, the last sentence of the quote you give from the Catechism:
“100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.”
But Vatican II says that what is believed by the whole Church is also reliable as being what the Lord meant. In other words, the bishops and popes are not the *sole* interpreter of doctrine. That’s a mighty huge conflict of teachings — an ecumenical council v. the current Catechism.
My conclusion: you put too much trust in the Catechism. Here’s a further question: why do you believe the Catechism? I’ll bet that ultimately you give it such authority because your parents/nuns/CD classes first told you that you must believe the Catechism. In other words, your first authority(s) was someone less than a pope or set of bishops.
I certainly don’t mean to reject the Church as the authentic interpreter of the Lord’s message — I just mean tht we should not be so sure that any given interpreter (by pope or set of bishops) must be correct. Yes, it is their job to interpret. But that doesn’t mean they always will be correct. We even know from Scripture itself that Peter and Paull didn’t always see eye to eye. One of them must have been wrong, and it turns out it was Peter (the first pope according to the Catechism).
“Are you really prepared to argue that when something is declared dogma in Catholicism, belief in it is in any way optional?”
David N. –
If you mean by “optional” that we may simply choose to believe or not believe it, then, No, of course dogma is not optional in that sense. But is it *possible* to licitly disagree with a declared dogma? I say Yes, if we have what we honestly think is compelling that the interpretation of a dogma as interpreted is wrong or inaccurate.
NOte: there is a difference between interpretations of early dogmas and the early dogmas themselves. When I say “early dogmas” I really have in mind the teachings of Jesus Himself, the ones in Scripture, and, very probably, what His disciples say He said. (Scripture itself is a saying of what He said, is it not?) For instance, Jesus said that God is our Father so many times that I don’t think one can be a Christian and believe that God is not our Father — in some sense. That is where interpretation has to be distinguished from the actual words. We must believe, on Christ’s authority, that “God is our Father” has meaning, important meaning. But just what does He mean by that statement? Obviously, it’s a metaphor, and that alone makes it difficult to interpret exactly and/or fully.
I just don’t think we can ever be sure of our own interpretations, including those of the bishops and popes. Sure, there is a core meaning there, but what exactly is it? Sure, the bishops who have studied these things and have good intentions — and also have their own charisms as teachings — must be taken extremely seriously when they say, ‘this is what the Church teaches’. But all that really can mean is that, that is the best interpretation available at the time, or so they think.. But that doesn’t mean either that their interpretations are always exact or full.
If what I’m saying isn’t true, then how do you explain the facts that some of the bishops’ teachings have been changed?
Oops — should be “charisms as teachers”
So your argument is that if the Catechism says “this is the teaching of the Church” that the Catechism guarantees that that is really the teaching of “the Church”.
Ann,
Yes, absolutely. Pope Benedict XVI has pointed out that teachings have no more authority by reason of being listed in the Catechism than the would otherwise have. And the Catechism certainly doesn’t contain the last word on every topic. It is a Catechism, after all. But yes, the Catechism is a definitive summary of the teachings of the Catholic Church created and published by the Church itself.
On the matter of dogma, I refer you back to Lisa Fullam’s comments:
I think you are very much intent on thinking for yourself and you find the idea that people must believe something they can’t believe to be offensive. I feel the same way.
But if you want to be a Catholic, you “have to believe” Catholic dogma.
David, you asked a question and now you’ve answered it with your own answer – which, as you can see, a number of us see as more complicated.
Makes me thinkl of a word much descriptive of the problem of relating to “definitive doctrine” and magisterial authority and obedience today,
The word is “impasse” and IMO it wil go on.
And that’s where we are in this thread.
Bob Nunz,
You’ve made it clear I am annoying you, but if you feel the thread has run it’s course, or that I am repeating myself (both of which may be true), I don’t know why you are still reading.
Now, since it takes two sides to be at an impasse, you might try convincing your side to stop posting. :P
I will leave it to the theologians to parse the nuances of dogma. When I go to the USCCB website and select “What We Believe” under Beliefs and Teachings, what comes up is this:
“Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed:
( The Creed follows) ”
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/
And that’s all we have there.
And that’s all we have there.
Irene,
If you look at the navigation bar (to the left), What We Believe is a whole section of which you are looking at only the first page. The Nicene Creed is no doubt a good starting point, but the outline for that section is as follows:
WHAT WE BELIEVE
Bible
Canon Law
Complementary Norms
Catechism
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Compendium
Conformity Review
U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA)
Catholic Social Teaching
Morality
Stewardship
As I pointed out above:
“What We Believe” is my no means limited to the Nicene Creed.
David,not to quibble, but don’t you find it interesting that when you click on What We Believe, on the USCCB homepage, it gives you the Nicene Creed ( and not all of the other things you mention that are in the sidebar). And there is a nice prefatory statement that Catholic belief is “succinctly” expressed in that Creed. Succinctly, I think is the operative word.
If reading papal encyclicals and canon law brings you closer to Jesus, that’s terrific. But I think being baptised, participating in the Mass, believin the Creed and most importantly, opening your heart to what Jesus tells us in the Gospels- and trying to live those Gospels- is enough to qualify you as a Catholic. A
And far from it being some kind of minimum standard, I think you have a pretty full plate with all of that.
Sorry to get on a soapbox, but why make it hard for yourself to be a Catholic?
“Yes, absolutely. Pope Benedict XVI has pointed out that teachings have no more authority by reason of being listed in the Catechism than the would otherwise have. And the Catechism certainly doesn’t contain the last word on every topic. It is a Catechism, after all. But yes, the Catechism is a definitive summary of the teachings of the Catholic Church created and published by the Church itself.
This looks contradictory to me. First you seem to be saying that the Catechism has no ultimate authority, and yet you also say that it is “a definitive summary”, which implies that there is nothing more authoritative. How can both those descriptions be true at the same time?
I’m really not trying to criticize the Catechism etc. (not at the moment anyway). I”m trying to get at why you trust the Catechism is your very ground of belief. (As I see it, the ground of belief has to be found in history — which establishes that there was a Jesus Christ who preached a certain message.)
P. S. I also think that there is corroboration of our belief to be found in the experiences and actions of Christians, and, in a few extremely rare instances, miracles.
This looks contradictory to me. First you seem to be saying that the Catechism has no ultimate authority, and yet you also say that it is “a definitive summary”, which implies that there is nothing more authoritative.
Ann,
Regarding the levels of teaching laid out by Richard R. Gaillardetz in By What Authority? (dogma; definitive doctrine; authoritative doctrine; provisional applications of Church doctrine, Church discipline and prudential admonitions), the level of a teaching is not changed by the fact that it is included in the Catechism. Definitive doctrine does not become dogma just because it is included in the Catechism. The Catechism is an authoritative summary.
I”m trying to get at why you trust the Catechism is your very ground of belief. (As I see it, the ground of belief has to be found in history — which establishes that there was a Jesus Christ who preached a certain message.)
According to Catholic thought, Jesus established the Church and promised to watch over it and safeguard it. The Catholic Church is the representative of Christ on earth. The pope is the Vicar of Christ, and the bishops are the successors to the apostles. This, as I see it, is the very essence of Catholicism. If the Catholic Church does not represent Jesus in a special way, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in a way that no other organization possibly can, then Catholicism is just one Christian denomination among many.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_Christianity_and_Catholicism
lists 12 doctrinal differences between Catholics and mainline Protestants. Papal infallibility is only number 12 in that list.
Sorry to get on a soapbox, but why make it hard for yourself to be a Catholic?
Irene Baldwin,
It is not within my power to make it easy or hard to be a Catholic. And this is not really about me. I am commenting on what I understand Catholic teaching to be. If I am mistaken, I should be corrected. But the argument here seems to be, “You’re just quoting the ‘official’ Church. You have to look beyond the ‘official” Church, the bishops, the pope, encyclicals, the Catechism, etc., for the ‘real’ Church.” Now, there is a certain amount of truth to that. These issues are very complex, and a quote from the Catechism doesn’t exhaust what may be said about any particular issue. But it is an excellent place to begin a discussion. And certain statements in the Catechism are dogma and simply cannot be denied by Catholics.
Papal infallibility is only number 12 in that list.
Claire,
I would say that papal infallibility is a rather minor part of what I am discussing. As your source notes, there are only two statements by popes that are universally agreed to be intentional uses of infallibility. But there is a large body of Catholic dogma based on scripture, tradition, proclamations of Church councils, and so on. And also, teachings of the Church do not have to be infallible to be binding on Catholics. Let me repeat my chart from above in a slightly improved format. The level of teaching is in bold, and the appropriate response of the believer is in italics.
_______________________
DOGMA
Assent of faith: The believer makes an act of faith, trusting that this teaching is revealed by God.
DEFINITIVE DOCTRINE
Firm Acceptance: The believer “accepts and holds” these teachings to be true.
AUTHORITATIVE DOCTRINE
A Religious Docility of Will and Intellect: The believer strives to assimilate a teaching of the Church into his or her religious stance, while recognizing the remote possibility of church error.
PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS OF CHURCH
DOCTRINE, CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND PRUDENTIAL ADMONITIONS
Conscientious Obedience: The believer obeys the spirit of any church law or disciplinary action which does not leave to sin, even when questioning the ultimate value or wisdom of the law or action.
____________________________________
I am a little bit bewildered, since for a large number of Catholics, it is the great attraction of the Church that it offers truth that may be believed without reservation. Many here are arguing against the idea that the Church is the source of doctrinal and moral teachings that can be embraced with complete confidence. The idea seems to be that the pope and bishops are owed respect, but they are not to be regarded as authoritative teachers.
David- Your original question, I thought, was along the lines of what are the minimum standards of what is required to be a Catholic. I think it is really easy to be a Catholic (but really hard to be an excellent Catholic). And even if a lot us don’t fully grasp the entire universe of catholic teaching, we’re all still Catholics. I don’t think Jesus meant his Church to only be open to scholars and intellectuals. My grandmother, who was uneducated and only semi-literate, was also the most devote Catholic I’ve ever met.
Irene,
What I am talking about is what a faithful Catholic accepts and gives assent to, not necessarily what he or she knows or understands. Someone without any significant knowledge of theology or ecclesiology who says, “I believe what the Church teaches because Jesus started the Church and promised the Holy Spirit would guide it,” passes my test with flying colors. It is a matter of faith and trust, not a matter of great knowledge or deep understanding. I am going to guess that when your grandmother was told that the Church taught something, she did not ask if it was infallibly taught so she would know whether she was obliged to believe it or not. She accepted it because it was a Church teaching. That is what Catholics are supposed to do—trust the Church as a teacher. I realize things can get very complex when a knowledgeable and sincere person finds himself or herself doubting a particular teaching, or has an insight or a theory about a particular point that seems difficult to reconcile with another particular Catholic teaching. But to keep things simple, I am basically saying that part of being a Catholic is having faith in the Church and trusting the Church so that when the Church teaches something, the faithful Catholic accepts it.
David Nickol should be declared the favorite to replace Cardinal Levada as head of the CDF. Like Henry VIII he deserves the title Defensor Fidei. :)
David N. –
I still haven’t gotten my question across. I’m not asking about what other people think is surely Catholic dogma. I’m asking where YOU find Catholic dogma. From what you first said it’s a matter of being incorporated in the Catechism. At 6-14, 7:01 p.m. you say
“I am saying it because I know what dogma means in the Catholic Church. The Catechism says:
. . .:
Your immediate appeal is to the Catechism, which leads me to think that the Catechism is your first, basic authority as to what is “Catholic” teaching. Not the pope or bishops in council, but the Catechism. In other words, your immediate appeal is to what the nuns, and maybe your parents, gave you in first grade.
This seems to be why you find the teaching about the indissolubility of marriage to be unchanging — it’s in the Catechism. And this seems to be a matter of great concern for you personally. You don’t seem to think that a Catholic may legitimately sometimes look past the Catechism for the basis of *its* claims.
If I’ve misread you I’m sorry.
David N. –
The FOUNDATIONS of our belief are NOT the current sayings of the current pope and bishops. The current pope and bishops do not — or, rather, SHOULD NOT — say that we ought to believe what they say BECAUSE they say it. ONLY IF what they say is itself based on Scripture and tradition (history of the Church) are they competent to say, “This is our best understanding, based on Scripture and tradition, of what Jesus’ message actually was and what it meant”.
But bishops have actually made some mistakes. Their MISTAKES TEACH US that it is possible for them to be wrong.
Your immediate appeal is to the Catechism, which leads me to think that the Catechism is your first, basic authority as to what is “Catholic” teaching.
Ann,
I see the Catechism is a comprehensive summary of the Catholic faith. It is a kind of primer. It is obviously not exhaustive on any topic, but it is a good place to start. If you want to go deeper into any particular topic, the Catechism is heavily footnoted. As I have said before, the inclusion of something in the Catechism, such as the teachings of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage, does not make the teaching any more authoritative than it was before. The Catechism authors were not creating doctrine. They were reporting and summarizing in the Catechism what the Church already teaches.
Not the pope or bishops in council, but the Catechism.
Well, of course the Catechism is heavily footnoted and relies on the Bible, encyclicals, council documents, writings of the Fathers of the Church, and so on, many times quoting them verbatim.
In other words, your immediate appeal is to what the nuns, and maybe your parents, gave you in first grade.
You flatter me if you think I was in first grade in 1992, when the first edition of the Catechism came out. I am a bit older than that! If you are implying that the Catechism is somehow on a level with the religious education I got in grade school, I think you are vastly underrating the Catechism.
This seems to be why you find the teaching about the indissolubility of marriage to be unchanging — it’s in the Catechism.
I don’t believe I quoted the Catechism on the indissolubility of marriage. I think every Catholic knows that the Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble. I said I thought it possible that the indissolubility of marriage was infallibly taught. I said that because of this from the Council of Trent:
I believe the Church’s position on the indissolubility of marriage can be traced back to explicit statements of the Fathers of the Church (even if you think the words of Jesus seem to allow for possible exceptions). I don’t think the idea of the indissolubility of marriage itself will ever be abandoned by the Church. Now, I have just discovered something then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 1972 on the topic of divorce and remarriage, and his opinion is that when the second “marriage” of divorced and remarried people has gone on for a long time, there are children, and so on, the Church may make a pastoral decision to allow husband and wife to receive communion. From the very tiny bit of Sr. Farley’s work, it seems she may be saying that there is a sense in which marriage is indissoluble, but nevertheless that would not rule out divorce and remarriage. As some have cautioned, there is more to her thought than what was quoted by the CDF.
ONLY IF what they say is itself based on Scripture and tradition (history of the Church) are they competent to say, “This is our best understanding, based on Scripture and tradition, of what Jesus’ message actually was and what it meant”.
First of all, it is explicitly stated that the Catechism is based on scripture and tradition. As I said, it contains literally thousands of references to the Bible, the Fathers of the Church, church councils, encyclicals, and so on. Of course, it inevitably will reflect the beliefs and decisions of the authors and editors who assembled it. But I would say that at the moment, it is the authoritative one-volume reference for what the Catholic Church teaches.
You seem to want to deny that the Church teaches certain things infallibly. Why? The Catechism is not the enemy of the Catholic faith. It may be that some things stated simply in the Catechism are actually very complex. But take this statement (not from the Catechism!): “The sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light.” It’s true, but it doesn’t deal with what light is, with what molecules are, how molecules and light interact, how human beings see, or what it means to say that something is blue. That doesn’t mean we should beware of simple explanations of why the sky is blue.
David Nickol should be declared the favorite to replace Cardinal Levada as head of the CDF.
Patrick Molloy,
Just as long as it’s clear the position is only a stepping stone.
DN,
After a successful few years at the CDF you may become the first non-Catholic Pope.
Since I have some rime this morning, I’ll try to express at least my point of view.
The Church beauraceacy today (even with its medieval trappings) is like other beaurocracies and its Catechism and canons are like the policy and procedures manuals of the orgabization.
Ther eare some who like the guy in How To Succeed will adulate by playing it the”Company Way.”
Man ywil carry on doing their jobs as best, but with some ideas of how to do it better.
Some wil be rethinking improvements but whether they pas it up the chain or not wil depend on the rigidity of the boss.
So the orgaization will bump along or grow progressively.
Some will argue that the difference is that Church leaders are graced especially.
Butn ot only does grace build on nature, bu the balance of getting at the truths is interplay between hierachy, laity including theoogians (.ike R and D men) and the same Spirit.
In an organization where discssion is stifled, it’s easy for the troops to lppk at things satirically or cynically (e.g. analogizing Cardinal levada to teh evil Catbert of Dilbert.)
Or like David’s new thread, just tell people who are unhappy to quit ala Bill Keller and Donahue.
My contention is that we are (perhaps way) out of balance.
Going by the book will just increase the turmoil.