September 4, 2003
POSTMODERN AUGUSTINIAN THOMISM (via Brian Hoffman):
The Word from Rome: The pope’s too liberal; down on American culture; champion of ‘dynamic orthodoxy’; Disowning ‘primacy of conscience’; hubbub in Holland; hot, hot, hot; some brief notes (JOHN L. ALLEN JR., 8/22/03, National Catholic Reporter)
Although the movement has largely flown under media radar, John Paul faces a growing conservative opposition to this embrace of liberalism, understood in the classic sense.“I wish the Pope were right,” said Catholic thinker Robert Kraynak of Colgate University, “but I don’t think it’s working out the way he expected. Human rights are not being used to serve the whole truth about God and man, despite the Pope’s continuous reminders.”
Who are these critics? In addition to Kraynak, they include influential Anglo-Saxon Catholic intellectuals such as Alasdair MacIntyre, David Schindler, and Tracey Rowland, whose works are fast becoming required reading in conservative Catholic circles, even if they represent, for now, a minority view. Most Anglo-Saxon Catholics, as creatures of Western culture, tend to take its compatibility with their religious beliefs for granted. [...]
Kraynak, in his 2001 book Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, lists five reasons why Christianity should be resistant to the ideology of human rights:
--Duties to God and neighbor come before one’s own rights.
--Pronouncements of a hierarchically structured church grounded in divine revelation take precedence over individual conscience.
--Original sin implies distrust of weak and fallible human beings.
--The common good must come before individuals.
--Charity and sacrificial love are higher goods than the potentially selfish assertion of rights.
Some of these thinkers believe the concept of human rights can be “redeemed” by giving it a Christian content, which is John Paul’s project. Others, such as Kraynak and MacIntyre, believe it would be better to abandon the language of “rights” altogether. [...]
I reached Kraynak by telephone at Colgate to discuss this negative judgment about Western, especially American, culture.
“I share that to a large degree,” Kraynak said. “The whole Enlightenment underlay is the problem.”
Kraynak argued, in fact, that the sexual abuse scandals in the American Church have their roots here.
“I trace the scandals to the corrosive effect of American culture on the Church,” Kraynak said. “It started with the sexual revolution, plus the
unwillingness of the hierarchy to assert its authority in the proper way. They more or less concluded that we share with liberalism a concern for social justice, so sexual ethics aren’t so important.” [...]I asked Kraynak which figures in the American hierarchy he felt were most sympathetic to his concerns. He named Cardinals Francis George and Avery Dulles, along with Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska.
“They are keenly aware of the tensions between Catholicism and American culture, but they are in a minority, as far as I can tell.”
Obviously many Catholics would have reservations about the way Kraynak sizes things up, but he represents an important current of opinion, raising serious questions about the spiritual and moral dangers of consumer culture. This is a familiar discourse from the left; what is intriguing about this movement is that its energy and center of gravity is on the right, seeking to combine doctrinal orthodoxy with a strong counter-cultural
impulse.
Opponents of conservatism are fond of the sophistic argument that a true conservatism would have to accept things as they are, rather than try to change them. But, as Flannery O'Connor said: "You have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you." It does not suffice to stem the corrosive tide of the current permissive culture; we have to start rolling it back and these thinkers are offering the most compelling critique of modern culture that we've seen. With its emphasis on one's responsibilities to God and to one's fellow men we could almost call it an originalist communitarianism--a communitarianism that takes its ideas to their logical conclusion, rather than backing off when it comes time to apply them.
MORE:
CARDINAL DIONIGI TETTAMANZI:
-ESSAY: Anthropological and Ethical Thoughts on Whether Domestic Partnerships Should Have Same Legal Status as the Family (Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, September 30, 1998, L'Osservatore Romano)
-ESSAY: Ten Rules on Resisting Satan (Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi)
-ESSAY: Cardinal damned for reviving Satan: Frontrunner for Pope writes 10 rules to resist temptation (Rory Carroll, March 5, 2001, The Guardian )
-PROFILE: Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi (Daily Catholic, 12/22/99)
-ESSAY: Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi poised to be the next Pope (Finbarr Slatery,
August 08, 2002 , The Kingdom)
-ESSAY: 21st Century Pope: Papal succession is a hot - but whispered - topic among Catholics of all ranks. Here's a tip sheet on the strongest candidates (JEFF ISRAELY, 12/16/02, TIME Europe)
-ESSAY: Betting on the Next Pope (Peter Gould, 12/05/02, BBC)
CARDINAL AVERY DULLES:
-Avery Cardinal Dulles: Laurence J. McGinley Professor of Religion and Society (Fordham University)
-Avery Dulles, S.J. (Reflections in Jesuit Ministry)
-Cardinal Avery Dulles Online (Christopher Blosser)
-EXCERPT: Models of the Church (Avery Dulles)
-ESSAY: The Papacy for a Global Church (Avery Dulles, S.J., July 15, 2000, AMERICA)
-ESSAY: Two Languages of Salvation: The Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration (Avery Dulles, December 1999, First Things)
-ESSAY: True and False Reform (Avery Cardinal Dulles, August/September 2003, First Things)
-ESSAY: The Population of Hell (Avery Cardinal Dulles, May 2003, First Things)
-ESSAY: Religious Freedom: Innovation and Development (Avery Cardinal Dulles, December 2001, First Things)
-ESSAY: Enjoying and Making Use of a Responsible Freedom (Rev. Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., Sep/Oct 2001, Religion & Liberty)
-ESSAY: Catholicism & Capital Punishment (Avery Cardinal Dulles, April 2001, First Things)
-ESSAY: Can Philosophy Be Christian? (Avery Dulles, April 2000, First Things)
-ESSAY: Are We Speaking the Same Language?: What Catholics really believeabout justification?and why defining our terms makes all the difference. (Donald Bloesch and Father Avery Dulles, 11/01/99, Christianity Today)
-ESSAY: Should the Church Repent? (Avery Dulles, December 1998, First Things)
-ESSAY: The Ways We Worship (Avery Dulles, March 1998, First Things)
-ESSAY: Evangelizing Theology (Avery Dulles, March 1996, First Things)
-ESSAY: John Paul II and the Truth about Freedom (Avery Dulles, August/September 1995, First Things)
-ESSAY: The Challenge of the Catechism (Avery Dulles, January 1995, First Things)
-REVIEW: of Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II. By George Weigel (Avery Dulles, First Things)
-REVIEW: of The Reform of the Papacy: The Costly Call to Christian Unity. By John R. Quinn (Avery Dulles, First Things)
-REVIEW: of After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. By Miroslav Volf (Avery Dulles, First Things)
-REVIEW: of Mother Church: Ecclesiology and Ecumenism. By Carl E.
Braaten (Avery Dulles, First Things)
-REVIEW: of Passionate Uncertainty: Inside the American Jesuits. By Peter McDonough and Eugene C. Bianchi (Avery Dulles, First Things)
-INTERVIEW: God's Gift of Freedom Must Be Used to Choose the Good (Religion & Liberty, May/June 1999)
-INTERVIEW: Reason, Faith, and Theology: An Interview with Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J. (James Martin, S.J., Mar. 5, 2001, America)
-PROFILE: Avery Dulles’s Long Road to Rome (Robert Royal, July/August 2001, Crisis)
-ARTICLE: ALL DRESSED IN SCARLET : Avery Dulles goes to college (Joseph A. Komonchak, Feb 23, 2001, Commonweal)
-ARCHIVES: "avery dulles" (Find Articles)
-REVIEW: of The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II by Avery Dulles (Michel Therrian, Religion & Liberty)
-REVIEW: of The Assurance of Things Hoped For: A Theology of Christian Faith. By Avery Dulles, S.J. (David F. Wells, First Things)
-REVIEW: of 'The Holocaust, Never To Be Forgotten', Avery Dulles SJ, Rabbi Leon Klenicki (Anthony Cappello, AD2000)
CARDINAL FRANCIS GEORGE:
-HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL FRANCIS EUGENE GEORGE, O.M.I. ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO
-LECTURE: Globalisation: Who's in Control? (Text of Cardinal Francis George’s Caritas Helder Camara Lecture, May 2000)
-ESSAY: One Lord and One Church For One World (Cardinal Francis George, February 8, 2001, Catholic News Service)
-ARCHIVES: The Cardinal's Colum (Catholic New World)
BISHOP FABIAN BRUSKEWITZ:
-Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz (Diocese of Lincoln, NE)
-ESSAY: Homosexuality & Catholic Doctrine: FRIENDSHIP WITH GOD IS ULTIMATELY WHAT IT'S ABOUT (Fabian Bruskewitz, March 2001, New Oxford Review)
-ESSAY: Unspeakable Abomination (Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, April 18, 2002, The Wanderer)
-STATEMENT: Statement of Bishop Bruskewitz Excommunicating Certain Groups (Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, March 22, 1996, Southern Nebraska Register)
-INTERVIEW: An Interview With Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz (Paul Likoudis, April 18, 1996, The Wanderer)
ALASDAIR MACINTYRE:
-Alasdair MacIntyre (Senior Research Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame)
-Alasdair MacIntyre Site (Thomas McCasland)
-A Bibliography of the Works of Alasdair MacIntyre (William Hughes, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Guelph)
-ESSAY: The Achievement of Alasdair MacIntyre (Edward T. Oakes, August/September 1996, First Things)
-ESSAY: Philosopher of the Month: Alasdair MacIntyre (Matthew Ray, October 2002, The Philosophers' Magazine)
-STUDY GUIDE: After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntryre (Notes by Dr. Ronald C. Arnett)
-ARCHIVES: Alasdair MacIntyre (NY Review of Books)
-ARCHIVES: "Alasdair MacIntyre" (FIND ARTICLES)
-REVIEW: of Whose Justice? Which Rationality? by Alasdair MacIntyre (Al-Islam.org)
-REVIEW: of Alasdair MacIntyre: Critic of Modernity by P. McMylor (Martyn Hammersley, Theory and Method)
TRACEY ROWLAND:
-Tracey Rowland (John Paul II Institute, Archdiocese of Melbourne)
-ARCHIVES: Tracey Rowland (To Know Worship & Love)
-ESSAY: De Lubac's writings in English translations (Tracey Rowland, December 2001 - January 2002, AD2000)
-LECTURE: READING ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS WITH JOHN PAUL II (Notes of a lunchtime talk given at the City Branch on October 3, 2001 by Dr Tracey Rowland, Dean, John Paul II Institute, Archdiocese of Melbourne)
-REVIEW: of CULTURE AND THE THOMIST TRADITION: After Vatican II by Tracey Rowland (Fr Peter Joseph STD, AD2000)
GENERAL:
-Communio: International Catholic Review
I have a real question whether personal rights, properly understood, would conflict with "duties to neighbors." (I, of course, am indifferent to duties to god, although if you want to recast that as duty to be moral, I find the same question -- how can these conflict?)
Among the more obvious human rights -- so obvious it is never mentioned, except sometimes by darwinians -- is membership in a community. The extreme statement of this, which I pretty much subscribe to, is that solipsism is impossible, that there is no such thing, speaking naturally, as an individual human any more than it makes sense to speak of an individual ant or termite.
If I have this right:
My neighbor's rights come before my own. Not equal, but before. Which, to my neighbor, means my rights come before his. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Duties to God. According to whom?
The human leader of an earthly bureaucracy is able to unerringly understand divine revelation.
Oh, and one other thing. Corrosive American culture affects all religions equally, yet it is the Catholics who seem to be soaking up all the ink with respect to raping children.
Maybe, just maybe, a celibate priesthood and the immoral exclusion of women from its ranks has something to do with it.
This guy is an insult to religiosity.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 4, 2003 10:13 PMHarry:
What interest can my genes have in the survival of yours?
Posted by: oj at September 4, 2003 10:28 PMJeff:
Duties, not rights. If your neighbor's house is burning down you have a right not to help, but a duty to do so. As a non-believer you choose rights over duties and that determines the kind of society you'll end up.
Posted by: oj at September 4, 2003 10:30 PMJeff:
Recall too that you believe those gay priests have a right to engage in homosexual conduct, while it is we who believe they owe a duty first to their victims. The soaking up ink part is just Catholic-bashing.
Posted by: oj at September 4, 2003 11:58 PMOJ:
I misread the first one--thanks for setting me straight.
As for the second point, you make no sense at all. Defending someone's right to hetero or homosexual conduct does not in any way justify that conduct regardless of context. Homosexuality is no more intrinsically evil for the existence of raped children than heterosexuality. The act is evil regardless of the biological details.
The Catholic Church has been soaking up ink on this subject due to both grotesque moral failures, and the characteristics of the priesthood. Enforcing a dogma that is guaranteed to filter out sexually normal men, and compounding that by excluding women's moderation seems fundamental to the problem. Blaming it on American culture--which affects all religions equally--is specious.
It only counts as Catholic bashing if other religions have the same problem, but get a by from the press.
Posted by: Regards, Jeff Guinn at September 5, 2003 7:05 AMJeff:
There you go, that's what I mean by hate speech. Your assertion that the priesthood is made up of abnormal men is despicable. The church has a homosexuality problem, not a celibacy problem.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 8:07 AMThere is a wide range of sexual appetite among men. Some men are sex addicts. Other men have no problem with celibacy. Most of us are in the middle, but still in a range where some men's libidos are higher or lower than others.
If celibacy causes sexual perversion and molestation, why don't celibate Buddhist monks rape children? Why don't Greek Orthodox bishops (who are celibate and umarried unlike Orthodox priests) do so as well? I don't see evidence of correlation, much less causation.
There is a problem within the Catholic Church, but I find it odd that critics outside the Church itself (as opposed to reformers within the faith) immediately seize this issue to attack the notion of celibacy.
If celibacy causes men's sex drive to be unfulfilled, won't most pursue attachment to women? Do we really believe that somehow they won't seek that but immediately become depraved child molesters?
Many of these same critics also believe that homosexuality is purely determined by genetics and not caused by anything else. Yet they immediately latch onto the notion that being celibate causes men to become child molesters. Maybe, like gays then, they're simply born that way? We don't know.
What is apparent though is that such critics don't want to investigate this issue, but immediately attack the Church and its positions. That is bigotry.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at September 5, 2003 1:02 PMChris:
That's especially true of Jeff who believes it's genetic (heck, who believes everything's genetic). Excellent points.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 2:14 PMOrrin, my genes don't have a mind of their own, but it is to my advantagee to see that my relations do well, because they will help my children to survive.
The extension of this, which from a darwinian viewpoint is merely practical, to all of humankind is a property of emergent moral sense, and may, in many cases, work against inclusive fitness, which is all darwinism measures.
I would say that fulfilling any duties you may think I have to Moslems is suicidal for me and mine, and therefore, whatever the logical argument may be, is something I should never do.
As for priest-rapists, the other religions do it, too, and they do get a pass from the press. We could mention the Rev. Billy James Hargis, for example.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 5, 2003 4:49 PMHarry:
And school teachers, Scout leaders, etc.--any job with access to kids will attract them.
Those are some smart genes you have that can tell whether the burning house belongs to a Muslim and whether to risk your life.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 6:25 PM"That's especially true of Jeff who believes it's genetic "
Wrong. Dead wrong. I have said clearly, many times, that homosexuality is almost certainly due to ontological processes (remember, for mammals, the female phenotype is the template). Homosexuality is no more genetic than cleft palate or spina bifida.
My assertion that celibacy filters out sexually normal men is not hate speech, it is clear fact. If one takes the meaning of the word normal in a statistical sense, then celibacy is going to represent a significant barrier to most men. Those who are asexual are not normal in a statistical sense, and won't find the same barrier. Therefore, celibacy will act as more of a barrier to entry to most men then it will to a few men, because of differences in opportunity cost.
Hence my conclusion. I might add that I read it (can't remember the source) in an editorial written by a practicing Catholic.
Because celibacy preferentially excludes the middle, then the extremes will be overrepresented.
Of course, it would be possible to boot all the homosexual priests. But without them, and the preferentially excluded middle, there will scarcely be enough priests left to turn out the lights.
That's a heck of a price to pay for a dogma that can trace its roots to worries about losing Church property to inheritance.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 5, 2003 11:15 PMSomething I neglected to add last night.
Do a thought experiment. Assume the Catholic priesthood was limited to married men.
It would filter out homo- and asexuals. That is not hate speech, simply an obvious conclusion.
And the rate of molested boys would go way down. But the rate of molested girls would go up.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 6, 2003 9:28 AM