Flag on the play
The Denver Catholic Register, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver, led by Archbishop Charles Chaput, published a George Weigel column aimed squarely at Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop emeritus of Washington, D.C. (The Register distributes Weigel’s column to more than sixty U.S. Catholic papers.)
The piece, “Truth at the Fifty Yard Line?” (hint: Weigel thinks not), takes as its starting point an anecdote McCarrick “frequently” told as he approached retirement:
the story of the Pope walking up the center aisle of Newark cathedral in October 1995, touching people on both sides. This, Cardinal McCarrick suggested, was how priests and bishops ought to act — sticking to the “middle,” in order to be in touch with everyone. Or, as he told National Public Radio, “the job of a priest always forces you to the middle…We’ve got to be in the middle so that we don’t let those on the left or the right get lost.”
“It’s not easy to know what Cardinal McCarrick means by his oft-repeated admonition to moderation,” he continues. After pointing out McCarrick’s alleged immoderation in supporting school vouchers, Weigel moves to “questions of doctrine.” On this subject, he summarizes McCarrick’s Washington Post piece
about three Catholics…described as “Catholicism’s great hope” in the 21st century: “a Jakarta nun who describes herself as both a devout Catholic and a devout Muslim; a Sri Lankan Jesuit whose Asian-inflected theology of Christ and the Church has little room for the ancient dogmatic formulas preserved by Rome; the president of a Benedictine college in Manila who has no qualms about celebrating Mass without a priest.”
Did I say McCarrick wrote that piece? Sorry, I meant R. Scott Appleby. Director of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. At the University of Notre Dame. In South Bend. Indiana.
What does this have to do with McCarrick? “Shortly before the Holy See announced that Pope Benedict had accepted Cardinal McCarrick’s retirement,” Weigel explains, “R. Scott Appleby wrote in the Washington Post about three Catholics…” That’s all the context he provides. He uses Appleby to set out the list of doctrines on which one oughtn’t be moderate.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of God or he isn’t; Mohammed is the final Prophet or he isn’t; you can’t split the difference at the fifty-yard line. Is the “ancient dogmatic formula” which attests to “Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord” true? Or is it false? To stand in the center of the aisle and claim to be in communion of mind and heart with people who both affirm and deny that formula is to confess to severe intellectual confusion. Is a validly ordained priest necessary for the valid consecration of the Eucharist, or isn’t he? It’s hard to believe that Cardinal McCarrick would have wanted his archdiocesan vocation director to stand in the center of the aisle on that one.
But these issues were raised in Scott Appleby’s piece, a book review in which he summarizes the views of other people, none of whom has the name McCarrick. So, I’m left wondering, what is George Weigel attempting here? A late hit by proxy?
In an unusual move, Cardinal McCarrick has issued a response (currently this is available only on dotCommonweal):
Moderation and
Civility
Cardinal Theodore
E. McCarrick
Former Archbishop
of
July 26, 2006
when it probably is better not to reply to articles that unfairly or even
irresponsibly distort one’s own teaching on issues, lest one gives more
importance to the misinformation than it deserves.
however, it truly is important to set the record straight in the face of
half-truths or innuendos, lest the old axiom that silence presumes consent
gives the impression that one has no reply, and the field is left to those who
manipulate words into fanciful concepts with little relevance to the facts.
by George Weigel that ran in this newspaper is a case in point. The column
incorrectly equates my repeated calls for civility in public life and in the
Church with a lack of uncompromising commitment to the doctrine of our faith.
Nothing could be further from the truth, as anyone who has taken the time to read
my many talks and columns would know.
the column goes on to describe the positions of three Catholics from other
nations — people I don’t know – as if their erroneous views were my own. That
is, at the minimum, deceptive journalism, if not worse. It is an old trick of
debaters to create a straw man and then demolish it, giving the false
impression that one is thereby proving a point.
me be clear once again. I will continue to call for moderation and civility,
and to reach out and talk with everyone, regardless of what side of the aisle
they are on. That doesn’t mean compromising our faith and our teachings, but it
does mean that we treat each other with respect as befits the dignity of our
brothers and sisters, avoid name calling and personal attacks and be careful
that what we say is always true both in its expression and its implication.
to enter into a long controversy on this question, but I do believe this
newspaper’s readers at least deserve the facts.
pray for each other that soon it may be said again of us what was said in days
of old: “See these Christians, how they love one another!”
on July 27th, 2006 at 11:31 am
I have just read Weigel’s column as well as Cardinal McCarrick’s reply. I started out here with no very high opinion of Weigel. His belief, as I understand it, that John Paul II could do no wrong seemed to me to indicate either a lack of intelligence or an unhappy nack for not adverting to the obvious. The column would make me lean toward the latter diagnosis. The column deals quiite plainly with two unrelated themes, and yet Weigel seems to have managed, with no little skill, not to have noticed their unrelatedness. Or what?
on July 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Weigel is not unknown to take cheap shots at people, but usually he does so somewhat articulately, though not always convincingly. But this Weigel piece makes no sense. You’re right to point out the lack of connection between the comment on McCarrick and the rest of the piece. As is Cardinal McCarrick to point that out as well.
I have followed Weigel’s career with some interest and, at one time, saw in him some reason for hope. But his writing becomes more and more muddied, I think by his political rather than Catholic convictions. This short piece, as well as his continued support for the Iraq war, are quickly chipping away at the hope I had once placed in him.
I pray that his bevvy of fans might take a look at unsubstantiated attacks like this one and see him with a more critical eye. He has some important things to say to the Church, but I have increasingly less confidence in his credibility.
on July 27th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Weigel’s mentioning that the Pope accepted Mc Carrick’s resignation just before Appleby’s piece in the Washington Post appeared manages to imply that there is some connection between Mc Carrick and the positions of the three people described by Appleby, and to hint that the acceptance of Mc Carrick’s resignation might be associated with his sympathizing with those views. As the Cardinal makes clear in his reply, this implication is misleading and unfair.
Moreover, the quotation from Scott Appleby is actually from a Washington Post review by Appleby of Robert Kaiser’s “A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Search for the Future.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401673.html
In his review, Appleby summarizes (and draws some conclusions about) material from interviews Kaiser describes in his book ( Kaiser, Ch. 9 and Excursion III). Appleby’s assessment of Kaiser’s book is essentially that he is right about a lot of things, but oversimplifies his case. Unfortunately, Appleby simplifies even further what Kaiser’s informants tell him, and it is that version of the case that Weigel takes out of context to undermine McCarrick.
It’s a tangled web Weigel weaves, and certainly deceptive. He owes McCarrick an apology, but Appleby and Kaiser’s informants might complain as well.
.
on July 27th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
OOPS. My apology to Robert Kaiser: The correct title of his book (discussed in an earlier thread on this site) is : “A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future.”
on July 27th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Cardinal McCarrick’s response to Weigel is both civil and yet sufficiently pointed.
What needs attention is the publication of Weigel in Bishop Chaput’s paper. Many have been confounded by Chaput’s representations in that paper about proosals in Colorado to change SOL laws and, in particular, about the amount of child sex abuse by civil servants there.
The issue of intellectual honesty in the Catholic press is always going to be troublesome, I guess, but methinks there is a huge aro,ma rising over Denver that is not due to ozone problems.
on July 27th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Weigel’s late hit borders on the absurd, for McCarrick is basically out of the picture. What does Weigel gain from the hit? Furthermore, Weigel’s swipe at Clinton is equally absurd. What would Weigel have had Clinton do following the servce…retire to the Blessed Sacrament chapel? Had Clinton done so, would Weigel have approved a non-Catholic doing such a thing?
on July 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Like many conservative Catholics, Weigel loses track of context. Which isn’t to say that his concerns aren’t real concerns for more people than just the conservative set. Real presence and valid ordinations are of great concern, but as other commenters have pointed out, they are not germane to his point.
And while we’re on his point, I suspect that what’s really going on here is that Mr Weigel has some bottled-up feelings about the outgoing archbishop of Washington that he never got around to airing earlier.
Sometimes we do things like harbor resentments and suspicions. I guess having a memory about such things is helpful if one feels one might be ambushed at a later time. Somehow I doubt Weigel is on McCarrick’s enemies list.
I guess my suggestion to Weigel (like I’m really on his enemies list and he’s going to consider this advice) is to learn to let go of some things. Eleven years is a long time to simmer over a confluence of a president, a pope, and a prelate. I find his sharing about as embarassing as listening in on shock tv.
on July 27th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Susan.
If Kaiser did nothing else in the book but introduce us to Sister Mary John Manananzan, it would be blessing enough. http://www.multiworld.org/m_versity/changemak/sister.htm
She is the one who will not invite priests into her community because they do not show respect for the sisters. They have no problem with believing that Jesus is there with their Eucharist because of his assurance that whenever two or three are gathered toghether in his name…
According to Mananzan Filipino women have never taken a subservient position to their men.
I know that many of you do not think so but I believe that the church will be better off without priests. They have become lazy peacocks whose only claim to fame is sacramental power.
Benedict XVI has it right. It is witness that counts.
Not some vague notion of esoteric sacramental pronouncement.
on July 27th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
It’s not Weigel’s finest effort, but I fail to see what the larger fuss is about.
Weigel takes a plausible interpretation of one of the Cardinal’s favorite sayings (”truth is at the 50 yard line”) and holds up three real-life examples of what this mentality might look like.
on July 27th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Yes, you do. Where and when has McCarrick ever said “truth is at the 50 yard line”? Where has he articulated this “mentality”? The serious error Weigel makes is in confusing a pastoral approach with a doctrinal one, and he exacerbates it by mistaking someone else’s writing for McCarrick’s considered views. This sort of sleight of hand is difficult to defend.
on July 27th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
We know more about Michael Novak than we know about the rest of the “gang of four.” Supposed to consist of Novak, Weigel, Neuhaus and, depending on whose list you follow, Fessio or Mary Ann Glendon.
Here is a pretty good analysis of Novak. http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:16442155
on July 28th, 2006 at 9:25 am
It is indeed, as you say, a magnificent analysis of Novak, so long as you assume the substantive things he’s written about for 20 years have zero relevance.
The irony is that that piece on Novak is “pretty good” but the admittedly lazy piece by Weigel is uncivil.
We can all agree that neither piece will find their way into “Best Catholic Writing 2006.”
on July 28th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Certainly not the piece on Novak. It was published in 1995. MLJ, you still haven’t substantiated your claim that one of Cardinal McCarrick’s “favorite sayings” is “truth is at the 50 yard line.”
on July 28th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Poor sentence structure. It was my intention to suggest that “truth at the fifty yard line” was one possible interpretation of the Cardinal’s repeated calls for a curious kind of moderation. Examples of this would include his perplexing statements about civil unions.
The Cardinal’s apparent ability to inspire vocations ought not to go unmentioned in this mini dust up either. He is to be commendend.
on July 28th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
In my estimation, the Weigel dig at McCarrick is simply indefensible. I wonder what we can learn from such exchanges.
Each camp in the Catholic culture wars has its own ‘gang of four, a core of high profile, media savey pundits with no shortage of provocative prounouncements their opponents love to deplore and rarely contextualize.
Here’s a couple of outrageous ideas:
…how about each camp recognize that certain positions are inconsistent with the tradition, however stretched, even while we explore where those boundaries might be?
…how about each side dispense with the comtempt for those of us between the two 40 yard lines and acknowledge the benefits of a church with a middle?
…how about each side resolve to focus more on the beam than the splinter?
on July 28th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
I don’t know Mr. Weigel, but in light of his discombobulated piece, might he have had a mini-stroke or an adverse reaction to some kind of medication? I pose this question in all seriousness.
on July 28th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Weigel could have, perhaps, been more prudent. Nevertheless, the Cardinal’s words at the following link are precisely why the Weigel is not entirely wrong.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5417131
on July 28th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Yes, I’ve seen this link appear on several…other blogs. Would you be more specific about how you think this demonstrates Weigel’s point?
on July 29th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Thanks for this discussion!
Weigel’s column runs in our local diocesan paper regularly.
I read Weigel with interest and often dismay. Most of his columns boil down to two themes: “Liberal Catholics aren’t Catholic enough, and ttey should wake up and die right” and “Catholicism justifies the Republican Party platform.”
As a Democrat, I my faith and party are often at odds. Catholicism challenges Democrats to work toward a more pro-life stance and toward more tolerance of religion in public life.
But Catholicsm challenges Republicans to think about the consequences of encoding desired behaviors into the law and about how their taxation and spending decisions affect the poor, sick and aged.
In other words, Catholicism ought to make us all more like Christ. I sometimes wonder whether Weigel, who I see primarily as a political creature, and others feel that Christ ought to be more like their own particular political party.
I think mlj is probably on the mark with his read on Weigel’s intent: “Weigel takes a plausible interpretation of one of the Cardinal’s favorite sayings (”truth is at the 50 yard line”) and holds up three real-life examples of what this mentality might look like.”
Whether the interpretation in “plausible” and whether McCarrick has actually said “truth is at the 50-yard-line” is still to be determined, and Grant is doing a fine job holding mlj’s feet to the fire on that score.
on July 29th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Anyone would have to be exceedingly dim to have as favorite saying “truth is at the 50 yard line” and to impute such nonsense to anyone without evidence borders on the malicious. As for Weigel’s column, he surely meant to insinuate that McCarrick agrees with the people cited by Appleby. Such an insinuation without argumentation is an insult to the reader.
on July 30th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I’m sorry, but I read the Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to the US Biships in 2004, and also Cardinal McCarrick’s representation of that letter before it was available to the public. He is not in much a position to accuse others of misrepresenting others’ opinions.
on July 30th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
I should have read the article first. You people, and Cardinal McCarrick are nuts. Weigel doesn’t in anyway suggest that McCarrick agrees with these people, and your reading is twisted to suggest he does. His mention of McCarrick’s resignation only sets the timing. His point is that there are some things that “Catholics” profess that aren’t worthy of being “touched from the fifty yard line.”
on July 30th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
The subtext here is that there’s probably no love lost between Chaput and McCarrick, ever since McCarrick misrepresented a letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger re: abortion and politicians. [http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0410/public.html]
Anyway, I think this is a serious misreading of Weigel:
“The serious error Weigel makes is in confusing a pastoral approach with a doctrinal one, and he exacerbates it by mistaking someone else’s writing for McCarrick’s considered views. This sort of sleight of hand is difficult to defend. ”
I don’t see anything in Weigel’s piece that even remotely implies that he mistook anyone else’s writing for McCarrick’s considered views. Instead, Weigel’s overall objective is fairly straightforward:
First: Point to the fact that McCarrick has on many occasions avowed a “middle” approach — apparently without specifying at to which issues.
Second, point out that a “middle” approach wouldn’t work as to many issues of Catholic doctrine and faith, at least, not from a Catholic point of view.
Third, to support point #2, come up with an *example* of how this “middle” approach doesn’t work very well. In that regard, point to a few self-professed Catholics who have been putting forth some very not-Catholic views or practices.
I don’t see anything whatsoever in Weigel’s piece that suggests that McCarrick personally agrees with the not-Catholic views. Instead, Weigel is clearly using those views as an example to show up some areas where McCarrick’s “middle ground” approach doesn’t work.
on July 30th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
“I don’t see anything whatsoever in Weigel’s piece that suggests that McCarrick personally agrees with the not-Catholic views.”
Unconvincing.
McCarrick obviously perceived the need to address Weigel’s piece.
Guilt by juxtaposition. A cheap shot if Weigel was in full control of his mental faculties.
on July 30th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
I step away for 36 hours and “Sean H” is calling Cardinal McCarrick and us nuts. Sean, let me be clear: this is your one and only warning not to make ad hominem attacks in the comments boxes.
Stuart: Weigel’s column is not a legal brief. If he had no intent to link the ideas in Appleby’s review to McCarrick, why mention McCarrick in the graf describing them? Why bring him in again in the penultimate graf? The “middle approach” has never been articulated by McCarrick as anything other than a pastoral one, so Weigel has no need to demonstrate to his readers that “it doesn’t work” on questions of doctrine.
One major problem with the column, demonstrated by McCarrick’s reading and those who have voiced similar concerns here, is that his intent isn’t very clear at all, despite Stuart Buck’s assertions to the contrary.
on July 30th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Grant —
Weigel wasn’t “linking” McCarrick to anyone else, unless by “link” you mean “mention in the same article.” What Weigel was doing, as I have explained, was offering up an example where (in his view) McCarrick’s approach wouldn’t work. That simply isn’t the same thing as “linking.”
Here’s an analogous situation:
1. A “Conservative Catholic” writes piece after piece arguing that the Church should never change in any way.
2. Someone responds by saying, “Well, then, should the Church have changed as to the Crusades or the Inquisition?”
3. The “Conservative Catholic” responds indignantly, “How dare you accuse me of participating in the Crusades and the Inquisition! I did no such thing.”
To which the obvious response is: Hold on, no one accuse you of personally participating in the Inquisition or the Crusades. The only point is that if you’re going to argue that the Church should never change in any way, you should have an explanation for these areas where most people are glad that the Church did, in fact, change.
The same applies here. No one is accusing McCarrick of personally believing that it’s ok to be both Muslim and Catholic (for example). The point is this: If McCarrick says that as to doctrinal disagreements (i.e., over the Catholic teaching that legislators are obligated to oppose abortion) the bishop should play it down the ‘middle,’ then he should have an explanation for how he would handle other doctrinal disagreements.
on July 30th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Your analogy limps. Weigel’s piece lacks a logical progression of this sort. The gentle analogical information you’re helpfully providing here is simply absent from the source material. Most readers won’t tease out in a responsible, measured, lawyerly fashion the steps one must take to get from your A to your C. If Weigel had no intent on painting McCarrick as soft on doctrines, what do you make of the second to last graf? Or the last, where the following appears: “That priests and bishops can be true ministers of the Gospel by thinking and acting as if every question were a football field on which truth lies at the fifty-yard line is another matter entirely”? Leaving aside the fact that neither McCarrick nor Appleby suggested anything so dramatic (and that’s what he’s engaging in here, overdramatizing), what bishop(s) do you think Weigel has in mind?
Let’s break it down: do you believe in the possibility of innuendo or not?
on July 31st, 2006 at 7:02 am
It strikes me that the example used by the Cardinal is not given sufficient attention by either Weigel or his suppporters. It it is Pope John Paul II, walking down the center of the aisle of the Cathedral ( in the context of a mass, I assume).
The example constrains and contextualizes the analogy. It is the key, I think to accurate interpretation of the Cardinal’s remarks. Clearly, one who points to JPII as his model can’t be implying that “walking down the middle” means ideological wishy-washiness. Clearly, as well, with respect to the divisions in the church, he’s not talking about matters to be held de fide. What he’s referring to is “walking down the middle” of the other issues, large and small, that divide a community of believers. Fundamentally, he’s talking about being the pastor of a whole community, not a pastor of a segment of the community. That’s why pointing to a pope as an example works so well: the Pope is the pastor of the whole church. His job is to keep us all together– somehow, not to favor one segment of the church over another.
on July 31st, 2006 at 8:00 am
I’m not doing anything “lawyerly” to Weigel’s piece. I’m just reading it like anyone else.
McCarrick’s “middle of the road” philosophy is most famous for being deployed as to the abortion issue. [See http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article_print.cfm?id=4441] Abortion is not a mere pastoral issue of how you handle people who prefer the Novus Ordo vs. people who prefer the Tridentine rite, or people who prefer 60s folk music vs. people who prefer more classical music, or whether the parish should have a bingo night.
There’s some pretty clear Catholic doctrine on the morality of abortion, on the legislator’s duty to oppose it by any means possible, etc. It’s not an issue where doctrine generally leaves people the right to engage in good faith differences of opinion based on their own prudential judgment. So if McCarrick uses this “middle of the road” approach to handle one doctrinal disagreement — along with language suggesting that priests “always” have to stay in the middle — then why isn’t it a fair point to ask about other doctrinal disagreements?
You mention the last paragraph of Weigel’s piece, where Weigel says, “thinking and acting as if every question were a football field on which truth lies at the fifty-yard line is another matter entirely.” You say this is exaggerated. But again, McCarrick says that priests “ALWAYS” have to be in the middle. And again, why isn’t it a fair point to say, “Always? Really? What about this doctrine or that one?”
on July 31st, 2006 at 9:44 am
This thread should have been, “The Ethics of Battle.” It seems clear from almost all points of view that Weigel overstepped the bounds.His defenders, however, keep pitching he’s got a larger point to make - the point being that Catholics on the right are right and they are the TRUE BELEIVERS,
Bishops who support such views should be supported while others, like McCarrick are “soft” or worse.
This kind of argumentation is not surprising in a world where we’re continuously pummeled by talking heads of all flavors in every media; it’s also tedious, divisive and probably not civil since it operates on the theory that I only really listen to what I first agree with,’What is sad is the hierarchy snipimng (through others) at each other. See how these Christians…
on July 31st, 2006 at 9:59 am
>>Bishops who support such views [i.e., orthodox views] should be supported while others [i.e., those who do not]…are “soft” or worse.<<
You say such statements are “tedious, divisive and probably not civil .” I would say your statement is nearly flawless.
How would Weigel’s approach to The Ted be similiar to or different from Luke Johnson’s unloading on Cardinal Scola in a recent issue of Commonweal?
on July 31st, 2006 at 10:00 am
What’s lacking in your analysis, Stuart, is theology: we’re not talking about “doctrinal disagreement.” (MCarrick doesn’t disagree with Weigel on abortion.) We are talking about a difference in pastoral approach. These distinctions musn’t be muddled, yet Weigel and you seem unwilling to recognize them. You are aware, are you not, that in 2001 Pope John Paul II gave Communion to the Italian politician Francesco Rutelli, a practicing Catholic whose prochoice politics were well known?
Before anyone steps into MLJ’s bear trap, I’d like him (her? they?) to define what he means by “Weigel’s approach to [Cardinal McCarrick].”
on July 31st, 2006 at 10:37 am
Grant, I’m sorry I called you nuts, but, in keeping with the football analogy, if the Cardinal drew a flag, it was by taking a dive.
I read and re-read the Weigel piece, and Stuart is right. You need to be seeking offense to read that he said Cardinal McCarrick agreed with the doctrinal errors described in it.
You said - “Did I say McCarrick wrote that piece? Sorry, I meant R. Scott Appleby.”
Clearly implying that Weigel was trying to create this confusion, but the actual article said -
“Shortly before the Holy See announced that Pope Benedict had accepted Cardinal McCarrick’s retirement, R. Scott Appleby wrote in the Washington Post about three Catholics . . .”
What is confusing or deceptive about that?
There was no implication that he wrote the piece, and it takes no “lawyerly” reading of it to reach this conclusion.
His point was to show that there are some things - doctrine for instance - where there is no fifty yard line. You are either on the field or you are not.
on July 31st, 2006 at 10:59 am
Grant —
I understand what you’re saying, but you miss the point that Weigel’s disagreement with McCarrick is over the proper *pastoral* response to *doctrinal* disagreement. It’s not that anyone accuses McCarrick of being unsound himself on abortion. It’s that OTHER people do disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, and not only privately disagree, but do their best in public life to combat and thwart the Church’s position. And when the subject is how to react to such doctrinal disagreement, McCarrick apparently wants to be in the “middle” of the aisle, whatever that is supposed to mean. Once again, Weigel’s point is to ask whether bishops should adopt such a pastoral response (standing in the middle) when faced with all the other kinds of doctrinal disagreements that arise.
on July 31st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
“Truth at the Fifty Yard Line?” What could Weigel possibly think this means? The Fifty Yard Line is half way from the start on the way to the goal on an Americcan football field. It can be thought of as a middle qua half-way, but that is not the sort of a middle that people who lay claim to the middle ground are talking about. Aristotle thinks of virtue, not truth, as a mean between extremes. This is at least a useful concept for some virtues. It has no application to truth qua truth, much less truthfulness, and I serious doubt that anyone has every thought it did, except, significantly, Weigel.
on July 31st, 2006 at 2:42 pm
.>>It has no application to truth qua truth, much less truthfulness, and I serious doubt that anyone has every thought it did, except, significantly, Weigel.<<
And Scott Appleby?
Okay, I’m not being helpful. More seriously though: if the mindset Weigel pillories is not a serious intellectual and cultural force, then virtually all of Ratzinger’s writings over the last decade have been pointless.
Maybe the real debate we should be having is whether the mode of thinking Weigel talks about is or is not a present danger to Catholic spiritual and intellectual life today.
on July 31st, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Of course I meant no one you would take seriously. I am with Alasdair MacIntyre on who the relativists are. The only thing of Ratzinger I have read is his encyclical, and I did not find his analysis of eros and agape very useful, in fact I found it muddled. As for the idea that there is eros in God, courtesy of Paul’s pseudofriend, I found it odd except as metaphor, and even then…
on July 31st, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Grant Gallicho,
The Cardinal, after talking about the thorny issue of communion for politicians for who support abortion, states that he supports the church’s teaching but then goes one to say “There is nothing really black and white. Because we are dealing with human beings.” Yes, I think I know what he means or intends but in the final analysis we are left with his words, and they are at best a muddled statement. The Cardinal did not make a “some” claim but rather made an “all” claim (by using the word nothing). If he had said “some” or “many” things are not black and white his statement would have been unobjectionable. But since all moral matters pertain to “human beings” and there are “some” moral matters at least that are black and white, then the Cardinals statement must be false. Certainly one can see why Weigel (rightly or wrongly) who presumablly understands logic, draws his conclusion.
on August 1st, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Briefly, Melvin: I thought that might be the part of the interview that gave you pause. Since you say you know what he means, you won’t be surprised that I doubt he would disagree with your statement that some moral matters are black and white. It doesn’t take a particularly firm grasp of logic to understand that the context of the statement may contrubute to its imprecision–if you’ve ever been interviewed, you know how this goes.
Stuart: you’ve invented a theological category, and still seem unwilling to discuss the subject of innuendo, which is what Weigel’s column trades on.
on August 1st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Grant Gallicho,
“It doesn’t take a particularly firm grasp of logic to understand that the context of the statement may contrubute to its imprecision” Actually, the problem is that it takes a firm grasp of logic. The Cardinal, who posses a doctorate, should understand when he makes universal negative propositions and one that is false.
Would we cut Bush the same slack? Bush should know when the Microphone is on and the Cardinal should know what he is saying. Particularly since he was interviewed by what is effectively a national media outlet. I should not have to figure out what he intends, i.e. take his false statements and make them true.
Weigel, whether I like to admit or not, has a point. The Cardinal says contradictory things that lend themselves precisely to Weigel’s interpretation.
on August 1st, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Did Weigel quote the business about black-and-white? What does Bush have to do with this? (Actually, I think we should cut Bush some slack for that remark.) I don’t know what you mean when you say “the cardinal says contradictory things.” He contradicts himself? Or he says false things? What point does Weigel have? That the Clintons shouldn’t have gladhanded in the cathedral? That the pope prevailed against White House handlers? That truth isn’t at the fifty-yard line? That the people mentioned in Appleby’s review of Kaiser’s book are way out in left field? That these people share that position with the cardinal? What?
on August 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
“Stuart: you’ve invented a theological category . . ..”
Grant — I have no idea what you’re talking about. Can you spell out an argument?
on August 2nd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Pastoral approach + doctrinal disagreement seems be the equation you’re working with. Earlier, you claimed, “There’s some pretty clear Catholic doctrine on the morality of abortion, on the legislator’s duty to oppose it by any means possible, etc.” You never spelled out that “pretty clear Catholic doctrine.” There is doctrine on abortion. I’m not aware of doctrine, as such, on how Catholic politicians ought to behave with respect to the issue. So now I wonder about what understanding of doctrine you’re working with.
But this is really a distraction from my main problem with your line of thought here, which is that it appears to foreclose innuendo. I believe this is my third time asking you to address it.
on August 2nd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
I still don’t know what your point is. Is there any dispute that the recent controversy was about 1) how priests and bishops should pastorally respond to 2) doctrinal disagreement. How else would you describe it? You can call that a new “category,” but I don’t see how that affects our discussion of the Weigel piece one way or the other.
As for innuendo: In this case, I think innuendo is in the eye of the beholder.
Finally, you say: “I’m not aware of doctrine, as such, on how Catholic politicians ought to behave with respect to [abortion].”
That’s interesting. I’m not aware that there was any *dispute* as to the existence of “doctrine” on this point. See the Catechism, paragraph 2273:
“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation . . . The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”
Also, consult Evangelium Vitae, especially paragraphs 71-73. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
See also Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744. This says that as to laws permitting abortion, it is not permissible to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.”
on August 2nd, 2006 at 4:48 pm
The citations you offer do not encompass all that’s in play–for example, the challenge of voting for a law that more strongly restricts abortion but doesn’t go so far as abolishing it. Is a vote “for” a law that requires parental notification, for example, cast in the hope that it reduces abortion also impermissable? These are very real questions for Catholic politicians.
It’s clear that you’re not receiving my transmissions, and I’m tired of repeating myself. It’s obvious to many, save a few commenters in this thread, that the column in question trafficks in innuendo, apparent in the following paragraph:
“To stand in the center of the aisle and claim to be in communion of mind and heart with people who both affirm and deny that formula is to confess to severe intellectual confusion. Is a validly ordained priest necessary for the valid consecration of the Eucharist, or isn’t he? It’s hard to believe that Cardinal McCarrick would have wanted his archdiocesan vocation director to stand in the center of the aisle on that one.”
Why mention McCarrick last sentence if it’s so hard to believe such a thing? Why misrepresent in the first sentence what McCarrick actually said, which had nothing to do with any claim of “communion,” a theological term, with anyone. Why situate the Appleby piece in the context of McCarrick’s resignation? My point is and has been, one more time, that eliding the pastoral issue with the doctrinal one is intellectually specious and unfair to McCarrick. You have supplied the column with the connective tissue one would need to arrive at your conclusions, but the column remains seriously hobbled by its own incoherence.
You continue to ignore the question of what your earlier comments about how to read this column mean for the very possibilty of innuendo in writing.
on August 2nd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
“The citations you offer do not encompass all that’s in play–for example, the challenge of voting for a law that more strongly restricts abortion but doesn’t go so far as abolishing it. Is a vote “for” a law that requires parental notification, for example, cast in the hope that it reduces abortion also impermissable? These are very real questions for Catholic politicians.”
1. I take it that you concede that there is indeed some “doctrine” on this issue.
2. The questions that you pose are not “real” for those (many) Catholic politicians who oppose any restriction whatsoever on abortion, who push for government funding of abortion, who demonize anyone who is against abortion, etc.
3. In any event, your questions are not difficult. In fact, I already gave you the very citation that answers those questions: paragraph 73 of Evangelium Vitae:
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. . . . In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
4. It would be well worth the time to read the entirety of Evangelium Vitae.
5. I’ll concede that the paragraph that you cite could be misread. Weigel could have been more clear as to what he was talking about. At the same time, McCarrick himself could have been more clear as to what “standing in the middle” means — you claim that it doesn’t mean being in “communion” with the people on either side, but how do you know that?
on August 2nd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I wrote and read too quickly. My mistake. It’s the “duty to oppose it by any means necessary” that I was responding to as unsettled doctrine. I thought you overreached.
You would know the cardinal’s meaning from the context he provides in his anecdote–that of a pastor moving down an aisle between a divided faithful.
on August 3rd, 2006 at 9:37 am
Grant Gallicho,
“Did Weigel quote the business about black-and-white?” No, but Weigel’s point as he put it, “Then there are questions of doctrine.” Weigel does not directly accuse the Cardinal of heresy. I take his point to be that the Cardinal often makes statements which seem to be contradictory.
“What does Bush have to do with this? (Actually, I think we should cut Bush some slack for that remark.)” Perhaps, I should cut Bush some slack as well but I intended this only as an analogy which in this case was not persuasive since you think we should cut him some slack. Nevertheless, the point taht I am making is that public personages whose role is to represent the organizations to which they belong have an obligation to be as clear as possible. The Cardinal has not been entirely clear which is why there are as of now 47 posts on his comments and Weigels.
“I don’t know what you mean when you say “the cardinal says contradictory things.” He contradicts himself? Or he says false things?” What is I mean is simply a point of logic. The Cardinal says he supports church teaching ( I take him at his word on this) and he says there is no black and white. Again, I suppose I know what he intends but the fact remains is that strictly speaking these are contradictory. As to the falseness I am only speaking to the point that “There is nothing really black and white. Because we are dealing with human beings.” While I can certainly make this into a true statement by getting at what I think that the Cardinal intends. Still it is as a propositional statement false. “Some” things are black and white.
“What point does Weigel have? . . . ” I was only making this one point about doctrine. The Cardinal’s statements lend themselves to Weigel’s type of interpretation (whether I liek it or not) more easily than to other. We should expect public leaders to speak in a way that is clear about what they intend.
on August 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Melvin,
You quote the Cardinal as saying: “There is nothing really black and white. Because we are dealing with human beings.” Actually the first proposition “There is nothing really black and white” is a truism. Think about it. The next piece is a sentence fragment. If the Cardinal had been writing he might have said no human being is either black of white, morally speaking, or something to that effect. In interpreting what someone says off the cuff it is always appropriate to use the principle of charity. I suppose there is some good in everyone. Probably the Cardinal thinks so. I don’t see any church teaching that clearly condemns such a view. No doubt you will come up with one,
on August 3rd, 2006 at 3:49 pm
“In interpreting what someone says off the cuff it is always appropriate to use the principle of charity. ”
First, where have I ever said that I did not take the Cardinal’s words in the most charitable sense? I have said repeatedly that I took the Cardinal to mean something good. So I actually never violated this principle.
Second, after reminding me of this principle you go on to state, “No doubt you will come up with one,” Are you imputing bad motives to me? Are you suggesting that I will find fault with the Cardinal’s statements no matter what? (I, of course, assume that you intend to make a rhetorical point since to do otherwise would be to violate your own principle. But the point remains I do not really know your intention (as with the Cardinal) I just presume it.) So I actually only know what you have written.
Third, are you really asserting that these statements are “off the cuff.” If the Cardinal had been accosted on the street by some obnoxious reporter, certainly “off the cuff” would be appropriate. Are you really suggesting that answering questions in a prearranged interview with a national media outlet as a public representative of the church (and one with a doctorate, so he is accustomed to making important distinctions), the Cardinal is in a situation which qualifies as speaking “off the cuff.”
“Actually the first proposition “There is nothing really black and white” is a truism. Think about it”
Actually I already thought about it and it is not a truism (which is the whole point). As the proposition stands, it is false since there are some things that are black and white. Moreover most people do not accept that there is “nothing” really black and white. The only way one can make it a truism is to modify what the Cardinal actually said just as you did (As I have said I think I know what the Cardinal intends).
Finally, my only point is that one cannot simply pretend as if the Cardinal’s statements do not lend themselves to Weigel’s accusation. Whatever the intentions of the Cardinal may have been his statements remain.
on August 5th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Melvin,
Nothing you or anyone else has said has refuted my earlier judgment that Weigel’s column as published is at best a composite of two stories that do not cohere and at worst attempts to insinuate in the mind of the innocent reader that what he has written has some underlying integrity.
on August 5th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Joseph F. Gannon,
You write, “Nothing you or anyone else has said has refuted my earlier judgment that Weigel’s column as published is at best a composite of two stories that do not cohere.”
I never tried in any of my posts to persuade you that you were wrong about this. In fact this judgment you make of the story seems perfectly sound to me. So why are you writing this to me?
You write “and at worst attempts to insinuate in the mind of the innocent reader that what he has written has some underlying integrity.”
I do not know what you mean by “integrity.”
I do not know if he was trying to insinuate. Since to insinuate means that he is suggesting or hinting something. But since as I read Weigel he is merely asking questions. And since we are to give the most charitable reading to Weigel’s text as we are to the Cardinal’s (I have said in my posts I assume the Cardinal meant something good), I assume his questions are questions and not insinuations. I know you can not be suggesting that Weigel lacks “integrity” for this would read the man in an uncharitable way. If you wish to say his assertions are false (which Weigel was careful enough to avoid) I am on board.
The only point I have made is that one can see why Weigel would say this generally. I did not say I ever agreed with Weigel (Weigel has been careful enough not to actually really make a judgement). But intellectually it is dishonest to say that the Cardinal’s statement that I quote (notice I do not cite the ones Weigel cites) as they stand are at best ambiguous and actually are logically contradictory.