The Magdalene Laundry
Perhaps those of us who are more progressive ought to realize that a cultural milestone has been reached when conservatives take for granted positions that were first espoused and fought for by liberals. We ought to take a deep breath, and see how far we’ve come. I see two points of progress.
1. The fact that Sarah Palin is on the GOP ticket means that no one, liberal or conservative in this country, can respectably argue that women –including mothers with young children — are as a class not fit to be leaders and commanders. And if you don’t think that that position is still out there –among conservative Catholics and conservative evangelicals, you might want to spend some time with Google.
2. Bristol Palin, for all the horrors of publicity she has been through, has not and will not be buried in an unmarked grave, separated from her child and punished for life for her sexual sins. Those days are over.No one who has any claim to authority–liberal or conservative–comes anywhere close to advocating this way of dealing with unplanned pregnancies.
Deo Gratias.
“…the Sisters accept the part they played in this regrettable era and asked that it be examined in context.”
Words like “in context, the times, historical consciousness” are so misleading. The real lesson is that most of us would have done the same thing whether it is the crusades, killing of infants, denigration of women and even the holocaust. Yet Jesus stressed way before all this that we must love our enemies and he praised the faith of the “unclean woman.”
Sadly, Cathy, you may only be partially right. Palin’s evangelicals as well as the Catholic right have been touting “abstinence only” as the sole venue of sex education. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1320417.aspx
So while we applaud the absence of Magdalene Laundry (which only closed two years ago) treatment the exhibitionist self righteousness of “abstinence only” program is in full contrast here. Did her program fail?
Does it always depend on whose ox is being gored?
Ms. Kaveny,
Perhaps you’d like to explain what women as commanders has to do with a young woman with an out-of-wedlock child being buried apart from that child. You really had to reach for that one. It’s a dreadful thing to say. “Conservative” Catholics love their daughters just as much as “liberal” Catholics. Headlining your post “The Magdalene Laundry,” an IRISH Catholic initiative directed at prostitutes, doesn’t hit the mark, either. By the way, in Ireland, for all the animus against women that your post implies, Mary Robinson was elected Prime Minister in 1990. So Ireland has already crossed THAT threshold.
And please stop coupling conservative Catholics with conservative evangelicals. It’s getting old. You’re doing the same thing that many so-called conservative Catholics are doing, to the point of practically eliding the two groups. It’s imprecise, both theologically and sociologically.
Laura,
I would not blame Cathy for that association. It has been out there at least since 1994.
http://www.seekgod.ca/ect.htm
Laura,
The point of the post was to show how far we’ve come–moral progress, from an admittedly progressive point of view. I was using two points drawn from and contextualized by the Palin affair to illustrate progress. The thesis of the post is that victory for moral progress on a contested issue can be declared when no one disputes the point any more–liberal or conservative.
Whether you like it or not, for most of the tradition, Christians (both Protestant and Catholic) did not believe that women should take a leadership role in either the family, the church or the larger society. The Pauline injunction of submissiveness for women was intertwined with a pervasive belief that by natural law, women were less fit to rule and lead than men are. The barriers in this area were first broken by liberal Christians, not conservative Christians, by questioning the interpretation of the natural law, and by reading the Pauline injunction as tied to a particular historical cultural context, not as articulating a timeless norm. In fact, conservative Christians resisted mightily. The fact that they are no longer resisting –that the conservative Christian base (both Catholic and Protestant) is the demographic most excited about Palin is to my mind, a moral victory. The position that women are not fit to lead and command, and that mothers with small children have to stay home, is now officially morally marginalized, by social conservatives and social progressives alike.
Also, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in the US as well as in other countries, Christian girls who got pregnant out of wedlock were sent away in shame. Parents did not “love and accept” their pregnant daughters, they sent them away, sometimes disowning them. Girls (and not guys) who had sex before marriage were not considered simply to have made a “mistake,” but to be “fallen” women –who were doubtfully redeemable. Mothers and babies were separated, despite the wishes of the mothers. It was the religiously conservative, rigorist, shame-based approach to sexual sins that provided the rationale for this treatment.
The Magdalene Laundries is a notorious example of a shame-based approach to premarital sex; it was, sad to say, common enough. The women were separated from their children, forced into a life of servitude in penance for their sins, and buried in unmarked graves. (Did you read the article?) It took place in Ireland, yes, but it embodies some of the sensibilities of Irish Catholicism that shaped American Catholicism. If you read about some of the homes for unwed mothers run by both Catholics and Protestants in the late nineteenth and twentieth century, you will find many of the same normative judgments about the women involved. The fact that the approach to Bristol Palin’s unplanned pregnancy is diametrically opposed to the shame-based approach there (and to a lesser extent, dominant before the sexual revolution in the US) is a good thing.
This association may have been out there since 1994, but you should notice that the signatories on the Catholic side are, for the most part, evangelical converts to Catholicism. “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” is a construction out of whole cloth. There’s no a priori reason for their association beyond the desires of Neuhaus and Colson. They speak of their “common mission,” which, when associated with the 16 or 17 major areas of disagreement, is a cause of puzzlement. But this association of Catholics and evangelicals is the pipe dream of a small group of Catholic converts who do not represent conservative Catholics as a whole.
I must agree with bill, Cathy -you’re partially right.
How far we’ve not come is reflected in the posts of recent times.
-”Are we polarized?” You bet. Laura’s circular postson “authentic: Catholoicsm undescores the deep divide in perception that is made worse here by;
-obvious partisanship -defended, by some as I remember, as what ought to be the regular discourse’ obviously this will color much discussion here on Ms. Palin;
-priorities in policy considerations about the family.
And on and on it will go.
I hope any discussion will at least try to be honest about positions held by politicians, apart from not only gender but class etc. and would also prescind from facile attacks on the media as the cause of trouble (we heard enough of that from the hierarchy on the sex abuse crisis.)
Laura,
I find it intriguing that, according to you, this “isolated group” which is not representative of conservative Catholics. But you should know that Benedict is aligned with that group and pays a lot of attention to them. A cursory google of “Benedict and Evangelicals” will give you much to consider. Benedict has often been with that small group when he visited the US before becoming the bishop of Rome. You might help by making sharper distinctions between the two groups.
Cathy, nevertheless, your point is well taken. Whatever one’s political affiliations the appointment of Palin highlights the gains made in recognizing women’s rights and privileges.
Just a small note, I go along with those exegetes who maintain that Paul never said those words. To me it is clearly a later interpolation. The reason is that it is so inconsistent with everything else about Paul.
Dr. Kaveny – excellent post and even the dialogue makes good but different points. (by the way, there was also a Magadelene movie which was shocking but thought provoking).
Reflecting on your points (realize they are more American politically related) reminded me of a comprehensive lecture by Anthony Padovano. Along the same line as your point in terms of advancements in the culture but highlighting the Catholic Church, etc.:
Our Hopes. We might do this by taking account of developments in this period, developments we take for granted, developments we found unthinkable even in the euphoria at the close of Vatican II.
Latin-rite married convert Catholic pastors
Ecumenical and Interfaith Weddings
the Pope at the World Council of Churches or praying in a Lutheran Church to honor Martin Luther or entering with devotion a synagogue or mosque
a formal apology by the Pope to the world for the evil done to it by Catholics
a majority of Catholic laity in favor of abortion in some circumstances, homosexual committed relationships, a married priesthood, the ordination of women (even though all of these were condemned by three popes in succession)
the legal status of homosexual marriages in traditionally Catholic countries
a conviction, Church-wide, by most Catholics that one remains a Catholic in good standing and is entitled to communion in divorce and remarriage, in homosexual relationships, after excommunication, resigning from canonical priestly ministry without dispensation, after an abortion
Catholics taking a bishop to court, favoring the bankruptcy of dioceses, forcing cardinals to resign in Austria and in the United States
world-wide acceptance of the ministry of non-canonical married priests
organized communities of Catholics favoring issues Church administrators condemn while insisting they are Catholics in good standing
a Pope meeting for hours, in a friendly environment, seeking no retraction, with Hans Kung, a theologian who seriously challenges the legitimacy of papal infallibility
Assisi days of prayer with leaders of world religions gathered with the Pope as his equal
a formal acceptance by the Pope of the Augsburg Confession, the charter of the Reformation
communion at the Vatican, by the Pope, to those who are not Catholic, such as United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair
A number of the above items could have led to formal heresy charges against John Paul II by the Council of Trent.
Pius X at the beginning of the twentieth century excommunicated Catholic theologians for less than this.
In the United States, some bishops, before Vatican II, excommunicated laity for not sending their children to Catholic schools. That, at a time when excommunication was terrifying in the extreme.
Vatican II was not prepared to accept the Augsburg Confession or to have a Pope dine with the leading theologian questioning papal infallibility. It did not intend that laity would bring bishops to court or that lay people, opposed to Church teaching, would decide for themselves, without confession, whether they should receive communion.
A good deal of this is done unofficially but not without widespread lay and considerable clerical approval. The Catholic laity now see the world as Protestants or even secularists did in 1960. Indeed they take these choices as a matter of course, not worth mentioning. Large numbers of Catholics consider their non-canonical wedding fully Catholic if a married priest celebrates it for them. Such a statement could not have been parsed theologically in 1960.
Apologize if I am getting away from your thread.
Bill,
I think at the beginning of his pontificate Benedict XVI was perceived as being close to Catholic neocons (Neuhaus, Weigel, Novak, Hudson, et al.) and evangelical Protestants in terms of certain issues, but Neuhaus, Weigel and the rest of that groups is truly linked with John Paul II, not Benedict.
In fact, the influence of the Catholic neocons has suffered since Benedict’s election. Weigel and Neuhaus no longer have access to the Vatican the way they did during the previous pontificate (remember John Paul sent Neuhaus as a legate to some conference or other and Weigel wrote a 1000 page biography of John Paul). Benedict has gone out of his way to clarify ecumenical matters (CDF Response of 29 July 2007), which had the effect of distancing evangelicals (as well as other Protestants). The group to which Benedict is most affiliated is the Communio group of David Schindler (along with Tracey Rowland and the European editors of the French and German editions), who follow von Balthasar and de Lubac.
The Catholic neocons, unlike the Communio group, have been very anxious to present the Catholic message in terms of public discourse, acceptable to a broad constituency. The effect, of course, is to attenuate Catholicism into a syncretistic civil religion. Neuhaus’ “Catholic Moment” is a watered-down mirror image of evangelical Protestantism. It’s just Americanism. The Communio group believes that you should present the Catholic faith whole and entire, rather than capitulating to the American liberal culture. And I do make a distinction between these neocon Catholics and traditional Catholics, of which I am one.
Thanks Bill for expanding on Cathleen’s point by sending such a brief post about how many breakthrus have occured in the last 50 years. I remember when my working class sisters were condemned by the local pastor for taking a job cleaning an upscale Protestant Church in Scarsdale NY in 1938. I think they were denied communion too.
I’ll bypass Laura’s continuing gratuitous interpretations of where the Church is at.
As to Ms. Palin, I’m convinced that she wants to be the “pit bull in lip stick” -a divider, not a uniter (unlike the unfulfilled GWB promise.)
The adulation expressed by the delegates further convinces me that the GOP is really the party of attack, since its leadership has performed so poorly.
That will keep the culture wars warm. but do little or nothing to help the American people… and. I fear, may perpetuate stereotyping, which goes hand in hand with all the partisan spin that some love to revel in.
Mr. Nunz,
I don’t know where your hostility comes from, but I can do without it. Is it simply that I disagree with you? Or that my “gratuitous interpretations of where the Church is at” are at variance with yours?
I confess to being a bit confused in this discussion. I cannot figure out how by NOT sleeping with a female person there is still a chance that she might become pregnant. Which is to say, that I do not understand the objection to abstinence as a way of not becoming pregnant. It worked pretty well in my youth.
That the Church had little care for bastards and their mothers is contradicted by such as the NYC Foundling Hospital, and Fr. Drumgoole’s Mission of the Immaculate Virgin on Staten Island.
That women did not have leadership roles in Church and Society before the advent of Progression seems to me contradicted by facts. Such medieval queens as Eleanor and Matilda and the rest were certainly not subservient to men [except to popes]. What of General St. Joan of Arc, killed by the English?
That the Renaissance and Reformation gave rebirth to the Roman theories of the chattel status of women is well documented by Regine Pernoud. Somehow I do not see St. Catherine of Siena [who told off a couple of popes] or St. Bridget of Sweden taking any guff from men; did I mention St. Theresa of Avila? And in our own country there was Mother Seton.
In all the discussions of the activities, I seem to hear a note [rarely expressed] “let men keep busy with their little games of politics. We women have better things to do”.
[A footnote: the expression "the Bishop of Rome" is one used by Protestant and Orthodox apologists to limit the true claims of the papacy to universal jurisdiction. Father Kueng's thesis has found little echo outside of himself and his favorite pulpit, the secular media].
Here’s an indication of how far we’ve come.
So far, I haven’t seen any objection to the fact that Levi, the 18-year-old father of Bristol Palin’s unborn baby, conceived out of wedlock, was on the stage waving and smiling and shaking hands with John McCain. However, I have seen many complaints that he was CHEWING GUM!
He is the bishop of Rome. I am sure you prefer Pontifex Maximus. Obedience only works when leaders wash the feet of the disciples as Jesus did. No one said anything about abstinence here. Just that abstinence education did not seem to work for her daughter. While we do not condemn the daughter we can note the dissonance of the mother. Her own trumpeted course failed for her daughter.
Your use of the term “bastards” is most telling. Not only pregnancy but even divorce was rarely mentioned out loud until the last few fifty years.
Women, have always, and still do the most of the work in the church. The very few you mention proves the point how few were in leadership roles.
As far as Kung’s thesis is considered, very few people today consider the pope infallible. Which one of Kung’s books did you read?
The great American Catholic historian, John Tracy Ellis, wrote an article in 1955 in which he criticized American educators about not being honest in church history. You might take a look.
We have come a long way in our treatment of unwed mothers since Roe. A really interesting book on the subject of unwed mothers in America is “The Girls Who Went Away” by Ann Feseler Penguin Books 2006.
The author is a professional sociologist who was herself adopted at birth. She decided to search for her birth mother, who she never found. In the process she became aware of homes for unwed mothers and decided to do a research project on what happened to them. She interviewed many girls who had been sent to such homes, both religious homes and secular ones.
Reading the stories told to her by the women who had experienced unwed motherhood will bring you to tears. Some wanted to marry the father of the baby and keep the child, but the parents insisted that the girl go away. The worst of the lies that the girls were told was that soon they would go home and forget all about this. In no case was that true. Most said they thought of their lost child every day. Whenever they saw a group of children of the age of their child they looked for their child’s face. They were told in all cases that the child would be adopted by a professional family who could give him or her all of the advantages that the mother could not give. Many said that they found their child, and often the circumstances of his or her childhood were less than adequate both economically and emotionally. One woman said, “We were only in high school, but we could have done better than that.”
Since Roe such homes have closed down, and thank God for that. Even if abortion were again criminalized in the United States, which I hope will never happen, many girls would be supported in a decision to keep their child, rather than give it up for adoption, if that is what they wished to do. That would be an advance over pre Roe days.
Laura – agree with you and you have contributed good information about B16′s current alignment. (In fact, Neuhaus spent a great deal of time with JPII in his last years – no one will comment about that or what he was doing – Matt Boudway slapped my wrist for asking that question because, I guess, it casts suspicion on Neuhaus -and rightly so – he has an agenda)
Mr. Austin – your lack of historical knowledge continues to amaze me. Vatican II stated clearly that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome – but also recognized as the head of the church within the apostolic tradition. Various Catholic rites recognize the Pope has holding a special place and yet their own leaders/patriarchs are considered equal to the Papacy (they are not held as less than Catholic because of that view)…..see link: Shortcut to: http://vatican2voice.org/need/need.asp
Vatican II placed the papacy within the context of collegiality and subsidiarity – concepts that were introduced to balance the over-emphasis of Trent and especially Vatican I. We can argue all day about Kung and his views but if you read about the historical period of Vatican I, Pius IX and his fears, motivations, etc. the dogma of infallibility was not welcomed by almost 50% of the bishops – more than 30% left before a final vote was taken. Infallibility is recognized as a stumbling block to attaining christian unity, impact on the credibility of the papacy, “creeping infallibility” in terms of all papal statements is a growing issue. Link: Shortcut to: http://books.google.com/books?id=cYV2wMG8tU0C&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=Vatican+I+-+Infallibility&source=web&ots=nIKsF82K2U&sig=UX-DTD7xmcHItOHtuTItmMjqFo8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA87,M1
You mention some remarkable women in history…..Dr. Kaveny remarks, I believe, have to do with the ordinary culture and the role or place that society gives the vast majority of women; not the exceptions.
In terms of foundling hospitals, etc. – yes, the church did do good work but the Magadalene incident highlights another side of that historical chapter – how orphans and children were raised by religious orders in Ireland, Canada, England, Australia – plenty of historical records that indicate significant abuse (physical, psychological, racial, sexual) by both women religious and orders such as the Christian Brothers…..in the last ten years, the Christian Brothers have made settlements worth millions because of what they did in the late 19th and early 20th century in Canada, Ireland, and Australia. From google link: “The congregation has received sustained criticism in recent years after repeated revelations of child sexual abuse in its institutions in Canada, Australia, the UK, and Ireland. Apologies were issued on behalf of the order in several parts of the world towards the end of the 20th Century.
In Ireland, during the latter part of the 20th century, Christian brothers schools were noted for allegations of brutal and frequent use of corporal punishment.”
Details: (by the way, note that most abuse was prior to or during 1950-1970 and by older priests/brothers – sorry, can’t blame this on Vatican II or the Novus Ordo – oh yeah, brothers don’t say mass)
Canada
Allegations of sexual abuse at Mount Cashel Boys Home orphanage in Newfoundland led to a royal commission (The Hughes Inquiry) and further investigations followed into allegations at other institutions across Canada. The Hughes Inquiry concluded that officials had transferred offenders and covered up the sexual abuse at Mount Cashel; it recommended that victims be compensated. There was insufficient evidence to charge church and government officials with obstructing justice. Eleven Christian Brothers were eventually convicted and sentenced to between 4 months and 11 years in prison.
The orphanage was closed in 1990, and on April 5, 1992, the Brothers formally apologised to the victims of abuse at Mount Cashel.
The fight to compensate the victims of Mount Cashel lasted for many years and in 1996 the Newfoundland government paid $11.5 million in compensation. The courts ordered the assets of the Brothers sold to compensate the victims, who were to receive between $20,000 and $600,000 each in compensation. In 2002 St. Thomas More Collegiate in Burnaby and Vancouver College in Shaughnessy paid victims $19 million in an out-of-court settlement.
In Ontario, over two hundred and thirty former students of a training facility run by Christian Brothers were awarded compensation for abuse taking place in the 1950s to the 1970s.
Australia
There were allegations that during the 1970s sexual abused took place at the junior campus of St Patricks College and St Aliphius Primary School (now closed) in Ballarat, Victoria. After investigation, Brothers Robert Best, Edward Dowlan and Stephen Francis Farrell were all convicted of sex crimes. Dowlan and Best were later transferred to the senior campus, and continued to offend.
In 1971, Bishop Mulkearns (retired) referred a priest, Fr Gerald Risdale for counselling. Fr Ridsdale was later convicted of 46 counts of sexual abuse against 21 victims over two decades. His victims claim that he selected children from the class and abused them. Ridsdale admitted that his victims number in the hundreds. In 1994, Bishop Mulkearns claimed that while he was aware of the abuse, he was not aware of the extent.
Finally, your comments about abstinence programs…….plenty of research that indicates or proves that one stop abstinence programs are no different than more comprehensive programs in terms of teenage pregnancy but they have higher rates of teenage pregnancies. Just like Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No’ substance abuse policy – abstinence only programs have not measured up. Shortcut to: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_sex_education/
Cathleen:
Agreed with some qualifications. It is true only insofar as Modern history is concerned. It wasn’t always the case as Gabriel points out.
As to the whole abstinence only. I say this as someone with a daughter in school, aside from teaching children about biology I think the broader issue of sexuality and its expression needs to be taught by the churches, families or faith communities.
My daughter attends (publicly financed in Ontario) Catholic schools and so Catholic values pertaining to sexuality and its expression are taught in that context (and rightfully so!). There are debates around that but so far, as far as I know, the province has not mandated sex education to include abortion, and contraception. I think that whole issue falls under Christian living.
I think that schools should be amoral about sexuality, and simply teach the biology of reproduction, and leave it for the students to shape their own values and perspectives of sexuality and what it does or does not mean based on their own communities understanding.
But then again I am a big fan of Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society and Medical Nemesis.
PS:
The Ontario Bishops approve curriculum for family living courses for publicly funded Catholic schools in Ontario. And all Catholic schools from primary to secondary level are publicly funded. That hasn’t been challenged, as far as I know, from the provincial government.
“And I do make a distinction between these neocon Catholics and traditional Catholics, of which I am one.”
Laura,
Other than the Evangelicals what distinguishes the neocon Catholic from the traditional one? Is there a difference on war, torture, the magisterium, collegiality, for example? Anything else?
Hello Carolyn (and All),
Thank you for steering the discussion back towards the topic of Cathleen’s original post. I had a question about one of your comments:
Since Roe such homes have closed down, and thank God for that.
This suggests that the Roe decision and its aftermath was the cause of our changed treatment of unmarried mothers in the United States. Do you know if Feseler or any others have seriously tried to defend this claim? Seems to me that if this claim were true it would reflect quite terribly on all we Americans.
“1. The fact that Sarah Palin is on the GOP ticket means that no one, liberal or conservative in this country, can respectably argue that women –including mothers with young children — are as a class not fit to be leaders and commanders. ”
Completely agree. In fact, in this sense her candidacy seems somewhat unremarkable. The feminists won, a very long time ago.
FWIW – I really think the GOP also reached this point a long time ago. President Bush is a boomer, and brings a lot of the same boomer sensibilities that, say, boomer President Clinton brought. And there are many women in GOP elective and other leadership positions, and have been for many years now.
I’ve been trying to figure out if Palin is a baby boomer. If she is 44, and if we accept the definition of boomer as those born from ’46 thru ’64, then seemingly she qualifies by the skin of her white and bared teeth. But she’s on the cusp of “X”, istm, in approach and attitude.
(Btw, I might as well ‘fess up: I really like her, and thought she hit it over the fence last night.)
Okay Cathy, I think that this is silly.
Sarah Palin is not a milestone. The milestones occurred some time ago. Barbara Jordan ran for president, and Geraldine Ferraro was the first female VP nominee — 25 years ago.
Other women could have run for president, most notably, Patricia Schroeder in 1988. Even though I’m not a big fan, I kind of wish she had. There are plenty of women senators, state and congressional represenatives, and governors, including Republicans with small children. Whether any of these women are able to hold together the pieces of their official and personal life is something we will probably never be privy to.
The same for the second. It’s been a long while (at least 30-40 years) since the Bristol Palins of the world were ostracised for giving birth out of wedlock. Just for example: my aunt had an out of wedlock child more than 50 years ago. My uncle’s wife provided daycare (she already had two little kids) while my aunt worked. And yes, it is still an embarrassment in families who are vested in a different kind of future. Please don’t kid yourself that it is not.
But the main societal “problem” with teen pregnancy is that it is pervasive and tests the limits of society’s ability to pick up the pieces for all of those involved, particularly when the father is absent in multiple generations.
Sarah Pulliam at the Christianity Today blog interviewed Richard Land, a macher at the SBC, and they had this exchange, which I think puts the conservative Christian position pretty well–at least it is familar to me since as far back as I can remember (thats getting to be a long time:
Q: What will this do for John McCain?
A: The enthusiasm gap has been closed considerably. Let me answer a question you haven’t asked me. I had two secular reporters ask me, ‘Dr. Land, you as a Southern Baptist believe that women are not to be pastors of churches and women are not to be head of the home. Wouldn’t it mean that if Sarah Palin were elected vice president, her husband would tell her what to do? And I said, ‘If you don’t mind my saying so, that’s an asinine question, but I’ll answer it.’ Mrs. Thatcher said that her husband was head of her home and she ran the country. Queen Elizabeth said that Prince Phillip was head of the home and she was head of the country. If Mrs. Thatcher had been an American, I would’ve enthusiastically supported her for president of the United States. The only restrictions we find in Scripture are, that for whatever reason women are not to be in charge of a marriage and women are not to be in charge of a church. That has nothing to do with governor, or senator or the House of Representatives, or president, or vice president.
Read the rest here: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/09/richard_land_gl.html
I don’t know where you live, Barbara, but where I live, it’s not silly.
I’m not writing a treatise here, I’m making a point about how moral consensus develops.
And the point is that we’ve reached a broad social consensus on these matters, across liberal and conservative boundaries, that didn’t exist thirty years ago.
No one’s claiming that Sarah Palin has achieved a milestone–she’s not the first woman anything. That’s not the point of my argument. The point is that the mainstream religious and political right have loudly proclaimed this is not an issue. It’s precisely because she’s not a milestone –and she makes such a big deal of her working motherhood– that the debate is settled. Poke around on a blog called “Feminine Genius” and you’ll get a different view. Read some of the “new feminism” based on JP II and you’ll see a strong expectation that women with small children (what you do after they’re grown is your business) won’t work outside the home. I have talked to a number o f ND women who believe that if they have children, they have to stay home –that categorically, it would be wrong to work with small children. This is Notre Dame–not Steubenville.
You’re quite right about the social problems of teen pregnancy–social, economic, and educational factors all combine to make a different problem. I don’t think bringing back the culture of shame and embarrassment is going to solve those problems–in many cases, these pregnancies are not accidents.
But I think you’re living in a very blue state if you think girls don’t “go away to visit their grandmother” or have abortions to avoid the shame of pregnancy. In conservative Catholic and Christian circles, it’s still not uncommon. And the shame, precisely, is pregnancy –the visible sign of sex.
Jim Pauwels, I have to ask, even though I’ll regret it: Why did you like Palin so much? I found her sarcastic and playing to the crowd in a way that surprised me, especially given her talk about having a servant’s heart and all that blather. It was red meat to the fans, but I thought it was a low road as far as public speaking and rhetoric. The community organizer snark was particularly galling–and community organizaing folks aren’t happy, esp in the Catholic community. That said, I’m sure she was effective. I wonder if it’ll play quite so well with the geenral public, but going negative has worked, so I am probably expressing a hope rather than a belief.
PS: I think I may also have been influence–negatively–by the fluffers, Romney and Rudy, who were almost laughable. Rudy bashing those libertine, secularist “cosmopolitans”?!
Good points and I will try to return to the subject. Dr. Kaveny – agree with your broad points but also have to side with Barbara.
Allow me to suggest some continued tensions:
a) if you have a teenage daughter in a Catholic high school that clearly indicates pregnancy is against the Catholic moral position, and your daughter gets pregnant. That Catholic high school in all of its christian catholic mercy, will probably expel the student. Ongoing tension between those who support a strict black and white policy and those who are more realistic;
b) also, it is probably a fact that the young man who is the father will not be expelled from his Catholic high school especially if he is the star quarterback, daddy is a big donator, grandpa is legacy and has a building named after him;
c) so, yes, society has changed in terms of the manner of dealing, accepting teenage pregnancy but some of the Catholic stigma, double standards, etc. continue to exist;
d) and would agree with Barbara that certain communities would still look upon a teenage pregnancy as a black mark; family mistake; and would isolate those folks in terms of community activities, acceptance,etc.
Not sure if others face thsi dilemma or if you recognize your community in my comments.
Perhaps Catholic conservatives have come a long way politically in regards to women’s right to public office and the way unwed mothers are treated, but it contrasts severely with women’s right to equal treatment within the Catholic Church. By equal treatment I mean access to ALL of the sacraments listed in the catechism. As it stands now there are six sacraments for women and seven sacraments for men. There is no room for women as priests, bishops, archbishops or pope. These offices determine most of the laws that affect both men and women but at present is a completely homocentric culture devoid of the balance which women could offer if given a chance.
Peter:
I’ve returned the book to the library, so I can’t check what she said about Roe, if anything.
It was I who connected abortion becoming legal and the disappearance of homes for unwed mothers, for which I have no proof. I only meant Roe as a point in time to which we can look back.
My thought was that even people who want to re-criminalize abortion are more open now to a girl keeping her child than they were before Roe. I hope that no one now would declare a girl unfit to be a mother just because she is not married and force her to give her child up for adoption. That would be an advance over some of the situations described in the book in which parents who could well afford to support their daughter economically forced her to go away and give up her child.
My other point, if I may post two times in a row, is that while I agree a woman can do just about anything a man can do and hold any political position, I worry that the children are falling through the cracks. Babies and toddlers need so much love and attention from their mother for the first five to eight years of their lives.
Nannies and babysitters are ok for a few hours but not for hours at a time. Motherhood in early childhood is a full-time occupation and for our society to move to the point where even conservative pro-life people are comfortable with a mother returning to work full-time three days after the child is born is troubling. In Palin’s case, she not only has a special needs infant, but also a pregnant teen and a boy going off to Iraq. This appears to me a lot for one woman’s palette even without running a state or country. I support women who choose a profession such as doctor, lawyer or priest, but they need to take a time out if they are rearing infants.
What I meant to suggest is that the consensus of which you speak has been the consensus for some time now.
Peter, abortion made adoptable babies more scarce but the decisive factor for why unwed mothers are treated so much better is that premarital sexual activity is no longer much of a black mark even if people are sotto voce about their own behavior. An unwed mother is just unlucky and deserving sympathy, not a pariah deserving scorn. This goes for the people working at the adoption agency, her own family, and the prospective parents of her baby.
Yes, Deo gratias, Cathleen, and thank you for this thread. Let’s indeed give credit to the influence of liberals and progressives for moving beyond the rigid, cultic, anti-intellectual, repressive, triumphalist, self-righteous certitude of my pre-Vatican II youth. There now, that feels better. (Indulge me, please.) My experience then calls forth endless similar adjectives.
I am sure many of us like Ed Gleason can recall family instances where the shame-based mindset of the church has caused untold hurt, anger, and pain, and still does in too many quarters. I find it truly frightening that conservatives have such nostalgia for those days, while the new young ones are beyond my understanding, period.
The true stories of Magdalen girls are available in a compelling documentary, “Sex in a Cold Climate” at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1732953937770017672 . Interviews with four women reveal the sadistic, torturous, sexually abusive environment that prevailed not so long ago in the name of Christian ministry.
Note also 2003’s conditional non-apology apology by the nuns: “a time … of which we are not proud…we grieve with all victims…we’re all human, we’ve all made mistakes. We do reach out and apologize to anyone who may have been abused at the hands of our sisters…” (How dare they say “MAY have been abused” instead of “WERE CRUELLY abused!” Do watch the film.) Mercy Sisters learned well from the bishops. Sorry, this link is inactive now.
Another time I shall broach the subject of the Irish famine in forming Irish and American Catholicism in their attitudes toward sin and sexuality. A Benedictine monk at Glastonbury Abbey in MA, and an investigative reporter have both written on the subject. It plays into the sexual abuse scandal.
Cathleen, regarding your post on Sept.4 at 5:36-
“I don’t think bringing back the culture of shame and embarrassment is going to solve these problems…”
What if we brought back Respect for God’s intention for Sexual Love? Only good can come from that.
“Jim Pauwels, I have to ask, even though I’ll regret it: Why did you like Palin so much? I found her sarcastic and playing to the crowd in a way that surprised me, especially given her talk about having a servant’s heart and all that blather. It was red meat to the fans, but I thought it was a low road as far as public speaking and rhetoric. The community organizer snark was particularly galling–and community organizaing folks aren’t happy, esp in the Catholic community. ”
I don’t know … not for any checklist-of-positions-on-particular-issues reason … e.g. her membership in the NRA doesn’t get her any cred with me.
I think part of it is just her freshness. And beyond that, the gasp-inducing audacity of the McCain in choosing her appeals to me. Can you think of another example of a Democrat or Republican who has transformed the playing field with a single, bold stroke? I can’t. I think it will go down as one of the great political gambles in our history.
Also, her demeanor of utter non-nonplussedness in responding to the media maelstrom of the past week hit just the right note with me.
And I don’t know if “sarcastic” is the right word. I think she very deftly stuck a pin in a candidate who is over-inflated in the extreme. I’m a fan of humor. It works. In this case, it was very effective.
As for community organizing: Does being mayor of a small town involve more executive responsibility than organizing neighbors to shake down a politician or a utility? Of course. Still, I would be the last to claim that being mayor of Wasilla thereby makes one qualified to be Vice President of the United States. But the notion that inducing housing-project residents to picket an alderman’s office thereby makes one qualified to be President of the United States is even more absurd.
It was an extraordinarily effective line, on a lot of levels. The way one can tell, is by the (humorless) ferocity with which the Obama campaign has responded.
Sorry if I’ve left you feeling regretful, David. :-)
The Palins certainly seem to be good Parents. I believe, that the decision that was made, in regards to their daughter, was the right one. I am sure, as loving Parents, they helped to guide her.
Bill De Haas, regarding your comment on Sept. 4, at 12:16-
Who would of thought that such developments would occur. The idea behind Vatican 11, had been to Unite the various Christian churches into One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Catholic Church, not to make the Catholic Church, Protestant. Unity without compromise. The Blessed Trinity has always been about Unity, never Has it been for compromise.
ooops, that would be Vatican II, hopefully there will be no need for a Vatican 11.
Nancy, with all due respect, you know as much about Sarah Palin’s and her husband’s parenting skills as i know about yours. Which is nothing.
Nancy – always open to trying to educate especially about One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic as defined by Vatican II:
See these links from Richard McBrien:
One = Shortcut to: http://129.74.72.9/rm/FMPro?-db=rm%5f&-format=record%5fdetail.htm&-lay=full&-sortfield=yyyy&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=mm&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=dd&-sortorder=descend&new%5fid=now&-max=15&-recid=34914&-find=
Holy = Shortcut to: http://129.74.72.9/rm/FMPro?-db=rm%5f&-format=record%5fdetail.htm&-lay=full&-sortfield=yyyy&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=mm&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=dd&-sortorder=descend&new%5fid=now&-max=15&-recid=34915&-find=
Catholic = Shortcut to: http://129.74.72.9/rm/FMPro?-db=rm%5f&-format=record%5fdetail.htm&-lay=full&-sortfield=yyyy&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=mm&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=dd&-sortorder=descend&new%5fid=now&-max=15&-recid=34916&-find=
Some highlights in terms of your statement – “unity without compromise”:
In the years and decades preceding the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the common assumption of Catholics and the official teaching of the Catholic Church was that the Catholic Church is “the one, true Church of Christ.”
All other Churches and ecclesial communities (although they were never referred to as such during this pre-conciliar period) were simply regarded as “false churches,” completely outside the Body of Christ and, therefore, beyond the pale of salvation.
Only gradually did the Catholic Church of modern times come to recognize officially the possibility of salvation for non-Catholic Christians and then for non-Christians and even agnostics and atheists.
Vatican II decisively changed that earlier mentality and doctrine in its Decree on Ecumenism, which viewed the goal of the ecumenical movement as the restoration of “full communion with the Catholic Church” (n. 3, my italics). This is so because those who have been “properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
As Father Sullivan points out therein, the apologetical approach of the Counter-Reformation period was severely marred by the theological presuppositions that were prevalent at the time. The four marks of the Church, he observes, “were practically reduced to the requirement that the true Church must be one governed by the Bishop of Rome.”
Another problem with the apologetical approach was its insistence on the visibility of the marks, such that any objective person could readily see them in the Catholic Church. But, as Father Sullivan insists, “there is much more to the oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church than what can be seen of them.”
Catholic theologians today, and since the mid-20th century, have abandoned the apologetical approach in favor of one that is called eschatological. This means that the four marks are as much future goals of the Church, still to be achieved, as they are present realities.
Thus, the Church already experiences some measure of unity because of the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit, who is the principal source of unity, and also because of the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of unity.
The oneness of the Church is also, but not primarily, insured by the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the pope, whose major pastoral responsibility is to insure the unity of the whole Church.
At the same time, however, the Church is not united; it is divided: East from West, and Protestant and Anglican from Catholic. So it is theologically — and empirically — more accurate to say that the Church is already one, but not yet fully one.
We live today in love and faith but the church lives already, but not yet.
Bill Mazzella wrote: ““…the Sisters accept the part they played in this regrettable era and asked that it be examined in context.”
Words like “in context, the times, historical consciousness” are so misleading. ”
Remember that the Sisters, in Ireland, housed and employed a great number of women who had been prostitutes before prostitution in Ireland was made illegal and who had nowhere to go. These women lived to a ripe old age.
Mr. De Haas,
“Mr. Austin – your lack of historical knowledge continues to amaze me. Vatican II stated clearly that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome – but also recognized as the head of the church within the apostolic tradition. Various Catholic rites recognize the Pope has holding a special place and yet their own leaders/patriarchs are considered equal to the Papacy (they are not held as less than Catholic because of that view)…..see link: Shortcut to: http://vatican2voice.org/need/need.asp”
My ignorance of the Church, and of theology, is a constant amazement to me as well. I have just gotten hold of copies of Fr. J. Balmer’s EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION: Protestantism and Catholicity Compared. And of a book on Johann Adam Moehler, whom many consider one of the great theologians of the 19th Century. Both are rather more serious that Frs. Kueng and McBrien.
Obviously the Holy Father is the Bishop of Rome; he does not neglect his episcopal duties. But he is also the head of the Universal Church. The “leaders” [patriarchs] of other congregations are not considered equal to the Pope, and never have been [except by schismatics]. Do you really consider that My Confused Lord of Canterbury [who wrote a book sympathetic to the Arians - you know, the ones who denies the divinity of Our Lord] is on a level with the Bishop of Rome?
I have read Bishop Butler’s article to which you refer. It does not challenge this papal claim in any way. [Certainly there is much to be said against the interference of the curia; but this has been a complaint since the beginning, even by popes].
You might read Newman’s writings on the subject, beginning with the LETTER TO THE DUKE OF NORFOLK. Newman was firmly and repeatedly insistent on the Catholic Church as the Only Bark of Salvation. Newman took sin, and original sin, quite seriously.
I gave as sporadic examples names of women who were prominent in politics and in the Church. There is not enough space on this blog to list 1 one thousandth part of the possible names. But one could begin with the position of the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of God. I doubt that one can get more powerful than that.
Bill, thank you for you information. I am afraid that I found the articles written by Father McBrien, well, somewhat muddled. I found the document, “Dominus Iesus” to be consistent with the Catholic Church’s teaching in regards to ecumenism.
The Catholic Church has been entrusted by Christ with The Deposit of Faith. Christ ensures, through the Holy Spirit working within His Church, that His Church will remain Faithful. Only the Catholic Church possesses the Deposit of Faith, although there does exist elements of Truth in other churches.
Regarding Father McBrien and his criticism of Dominus Iesus, I find it interesting that he referred to the Filioque as divisive. It is the Faith of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. How could it be otherwise? The Trinity is a Unity. Wherever the Holy Spirit is, so too, is the Father and the Son.
Nancy and Mr. Austin – to each his own. You can always choose to live in the 19th century church. Newman was a great leader of the Oxford Movement but his thought and the times have dramatically changed. Ecclesia reformanda est.
You mis-quote me a number of times……Vatican II used the phrase for the bishop of Rome as pater inter pares….walking the fine line between collegiality and the apostolic tradition that sees the bishop of Rome as having a special place in terms of history, tradition, and magesterium.
The Eastern Catholic Church recognizes the bishop of Rome but not to the hierarchical degree that you ascribe to him. They are NOT schismatic – another error on your part. We do believe that there is an apostolic link and tradition but scripture (gospels or letters) can not prove this…it is part of our tradition but not as if Peter ordained bishops or that later christian communities passed some type of episcopal baton. Nancy – McBrien mentioned the term “divisive” because the Catholic Church is made up of east and west (B16 calls this the east and west lungs of the church). The east finds the notion of Filioque as divisive as some in the middle ages and later defined it. Unity in his writings refers to the ultimate goal of all christians to be united – in spirit & hope, we are there; but in reality not yet. The traditional Catholic both/and.
Quoting and referencing 19th century writers is fine but we have had one and in some instances two councils since that time and would suggest that their writings (within their time and context worthwhile) are not the final word on most of these issues today.
You can reject Vatican II or re-interpret it all you want but its achievements will impact the church long after you, me, and the current church leadership are in their graves.
Bill, I never said I rejected Vatican II, just the re-interpretation of it. Vatican II was never the problem to begin with.
Agree – example: Dominus Jesus raised a number of questions because it reflected a one sided interpretation of Vatican II. Both Walter Kasper and Jewish experts such as Pawlokski had to issue clarifications because of the reaction from other denominations.
Disagree- Dominus Jesus IS the interpretation of Vatican II, and is consistent with the Deposit of Faith.
Okay guys, I think this thread has run its course. DI is just a bit too far afield.
After further consideration, I will have to disagree with myself, regarding my statement at 7:48. It appears that Dominus Iesus may have had some inspiration from some “ghostwriters” resulting in some statements that are not consistent with The Deposit of Faith. Leaving out the Filiouque, would not be consistent with the Deposit of Faith, and regarding the statements on Salvation outside The Catholic Church, well, they are somewhat, muddled.
Cathy, I agree the thread has (long) outrun its course; i would like to reference Pamela’s comment a while back on only 6 sacraments for women – a sore spot to be sure and would suggest a thread about the situation of Fr. bourgeois of Maryknoll, maybe using this week”s piece by Gary Stern in Journal North (available at Bishop Accountability) about the big disconnect between a large number of devoted Catholic women (and some guys too!) and leadership on the role of women and equally important, how the offical position is presented and enforced.