Sectarian Catholicism
T he clouds roll with thunder, the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth, and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak—‘We are the only Christians!’” So wrote St. Augustine about the Donatists, a perfectionist North African sect that attempted to keep the church free of contamination by having no truck with Roman officialdom. In the United States today, self-appointed watchdogs of orthodoxy, like Randall Terry and the Cardinal Newman Society, push mightily for a pure church quite unlike the mixed community of saints and sinners—the Catholic Church—that Augustine championed. Like the Circumcellions of old, they thrive on slash-and-burn tactics; and they refuse to allow the church to be contaminated by contact with certain politicians.
For today’s sectarians, it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program. They scorn Augustine’s inclusive, forgiving, big-church Catholics, who will not know which of them belongs to the City of God until God himself separates the tares from the wheat. Their tactics, and their attitudes, threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States, the effectiveness of its mission and the credibility of its pro-life activities.
The sectarians’ targets are frequently Catholic universities and Catholic intellectuals who defend the richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition. Their most recent target has been the University of Notre Dame and its president, John Jenkins, C.S.C., who has invited President Barack Obama to offer the commencement address and receive an honorary degree at this year’s graduation. Pope Benedict XVI has modeled a different attitude toward higher education. In 2008, the pope himself was prevented from speaking at Rome’s La Sapienza University by the intense opposition of some doctrinaire scientists. The Vatican later released his speech, in which he argued that “freedom from ecclesiastical and political authorities” is essential to the university’s “special role” in society. He asked, “What does the pope have to do or say to a university?” And he answered, “He certainly should not try to impose in an authoritarian manner his faith on others.”
The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern. That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.
Pope Benedict XVI has also modeled a different stance toward independent-minded politicians. He has twice reached out to President Obama and offered to build on the common ground of shared values. Even after the partially bungled visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Pope Benedict, Vatican officials worked quickly to repair communication with her. Furthermore, in participating in the international honors accorded New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson in Rome last month for outlawing the death penalty (See Signs of the Times, 5/4), Pope Benedict did not flinch at appearing with a politician who does not agree fully with the church’s policy positions. When challenged about the governor’s imperfect pro-life credentials, Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe responded on point, “We were able to help him understand our position on the death penalty.... One thing at a time.” Finally, last March the pro-choice French president Nicolas Sarkozy was made an honorary canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the pope’s own cathedral.
Four steps are necessary for the U.S. church to escape the strengthening riptide of sectarian conflict and re-establish trust between universities and the hierarchy. First, the bishops’ discipline about speakers and awards at Catholic institutions should be narrowed to exclude from platforms and awards only those Catholics who explicitly oppose formal Catholic teaching. Second, in politics we must reaffirm the distinction between the authoritative teaching of moral principles and legitimate prudential differences in applying principles to public life. Third, all sides should return to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI that in politics there are usually several ways to attain the same goals. Finally, church leaders must promote the primacy of charity among Catholics who advocate different political options. For as the council declared, “The bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything which divides them” (“Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” No. 92).
| Reader's Comments (114) | |
| 1. | Sorry but this editorial smells of tolerance for abortion on demand. Why not simply let the President speak at the commencement without giving him an honorary degree? |
| By Luna on May 1, 2009 at 1:37 PM | |
| 2. | Thank you for you comments on the rise of the sectarians vis-a-vis the abortion issue and Notre Dame. Part of the problem lies with the bishops' conflation of doctrine (abortion is evil) and a public policy choice (opposition to Roe v. Wade) Ultimates abortions happen when a person decides to procure one and another person agrees to perfom one. This reality is deeply part of the human cultural experience throughout the world and throughout human history. It predates Roe v. Wade, which suggests a multiplicity of approaches to oppose this evil are advisable -- opposition to Roe v. Wade is not the only way. A closer ethical analysis of the issues of women's reproductive health than has happened in the Catholic discussion so far may result in a more credible presentation of when and how abortion in evil than has been the case to this point. |
| By Ted Snyder on May 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM | |
| 3. | Your desire to limit exclusion from Catholic forums only those who dissent from "formal Catholic teaching" is the continuation of the dissenter's response to Humanae Vitae: it is not infallible. Give me a break. Hence,because there is not an ex cathedra statement that abortion is murder this can be safely ignored when facilitated by Catholic pols or in choosing speakers for Catholic colleges?Morever,this is not an issue of Catholic teaching alone, because protecting innocent human life is a precept of natural law and the first duty of government. You also make the legitimate-prudential-difference argument. What would be the legitimate prudential differences in applying the teaching against killing unborn children in the womb and public life? When President Obama or Congressman X votes/decides to facilitate abortion, how is that in any way a prudential decision about applying the teaching against abortion??? How is inviting such a person to speak at a Catholic college a prudential judgment in such application? I seriously doubt that you would be so glib in defense of institutions like ND choosing pro-abort speakers, and worried about Catholic sectarianism if the issue were a pol who defended the superiority of whites in IQ over blacks or was a proponent of segregation!! It's time to jettison the PC. |
| By Lucius on May 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM | |
| 4. | What is the 'subtly nuanced' view of abortion? --or--sure glad I'm not an intellectual! |
| By j kiernan on May 1, 2009 at 2:12 PM | |
| 5. | It is a common political ploy to set up your opposition as a straw man - "self-appointed watchdogs of orthodoxy, like Randall Terry and the Cardinal Newman Society" - and then attack them. Perhaps it would have been wiser for you to examine the crux of the issue, by addressing some of the comments of the 55 (and counting) Cardinals and Bishops who have objected to Fr. Jenkins decision to put "prestige ahead of truth", as Bishop D'Arcy said. Perhaps you can also dissect Archbishop Chaput's comment, "Notre Dame didn't need to do this to show its openness to 'dialogue.’ And candidly, very few Notre Dame faculty members would accept from their students the kind of creative reasoning now being used to defend the invitation." As a 20 year subscriber to America, these nonsense defenses are getting tiring. |
| By tom faranda on May 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM | |
| 6. | I am so pleased to read an editorial like this. As a Catholic who has struggled to find a political identity because of his Catholicism, it is nice and important to be reminded that Catholicism is not a political party and one does not have to be a Republican (or Democratic for that matter) because they are Catholic. |
| By Tony on May 1, 2009 at 2:33 PM | |
| 7. | I think people might take the arguments of Lucius more seriously if he didn't post the exact same objection every friday afternoon to every America editorial. |
| By Jake Powers on May 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM | |
| 8. | Since the Church is the body of Christ, I believe holding Catholic politicians and organizations to a standard that is in keeping with living the faith as saints on earth is completely appropriate and should be expected. Christ came to save sinners, to call them to repent from their sins and live a life worthy of salvation. Paul states that the former life of sin is left behind, and as such we seek the fullness of life in the grace of God. Your suggestion that Augustine would embrace the lukewarm faith and beliefs of many Catholics and Catholic institutions is a stark departure from Augustine's own defense of the faith against the heretical threats of his day. The Church as a refuge for all does not imply that one can ignore the narrow road of faith in the world. You seem to want to place the social mission of the Church in primacy to everything else. |
| By Joe Paul on May 1, 2009 at 2:53 PM | |
| 9. | When I did a little research to see who the Circumcellions were, I almost fell off my chair from laughter! What an apt parallel! I hope you send this editorial and Fr. Langan's article to the NCCB's secretary, suggesting they put them on the agenda for discussion at their next meeting. Perhaps an exercise: Are we the new Circumcellions? Discuss. There's an interesting, parallel discussion beginning in Republican political circles. See Peggy Noonan's column in http://www.opinionjournal.com regarding the "shrink to win" strategy. With faith questions, it's crucial to witness to the truth rather than to be in the majority, but the general point about how to evangelize bears reflection. Do the bishops really believe they'll be able to influence the culture more effectively if they and their followers are increasingly seen as holier-than-thou people who shun dialogue? (See Bishop Finn's speech to the 2009 Gospel of Life Convention in Overland Park, KS: "The more dangerous 'human enemies' in our battle are those who in this age of pluralism and politicial propriety seek ways to convince us of their sincerity and good will. With malice or with ignorance, or perhaps with an intention of advancing some other personal goal, they are willing to undermine and push aside the values and the institutions that stand in their way." A revealing way to describe people who might be reaching out to find common ground! |
| By Steve Schewe on May 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM | |
| 10. | Thank God for the Jesuits! Let's hope you can inject some sense in that curious insular country of yours. |
| By M. Zavala on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM | |
| 11. | The issue of the day is not whether we should talk to opponents, but whether we should award them honorary degrees for their unwavering jurisprudence in favor of laws which are inimical to the natural law and the faith. The tactics chosen by a few doesn't change the fact that many Catholics are outraged, unless you are prepared to include the large numbers of bishops and Mary Ann Glendon among "sectarians". Regarding the four steps needed to be taken, how about another one: Catholic colleges and universities should foster a culture on campus that advocates life in all its policies and activities. In defense of St. Augustine and Pope Benedict, I do not believe they mean what you say. Sectarians (e.g. the Docetists) are properly those who adhere to the part, not the whole. In the current context, this would analogously be Catholics who, while insisting on their adherence to Church teaching, generally act contrary to it - on life, marriage, sexuality and other issues. Political comity with objective evils is quite different than making allowance for different prudential judgments about how to achieve a social policy. Health care is a social policy. Life is not a social policy, it is the most fundamental right. So, yes, sectarians are those who divide, but who really is that, those who are trying, even if badly, to defend the truth, or those who act contrary to it? You sound very much like those who label the faithful as divisive when they complain about liturgical abuses, rather than those who detach the part from the whole by their abuses. Finally, leaving out what preceded Pope Benedict's comments at La Sapienza makes it sound like ND, Georgetown, and other Catholic colleges and universities are incarnations of the Pope's model of a university. Here is what preceded your quote: "Today, however, it is a secular university with that autonomy which, in keeping with the vision inspiring their foundation, has always been part of the nature of universities, WHICH MUST BE TIED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE TRUTH." Even while granting the autonomy of university faculties, that autonomy is not a kind of antinomianism, but to follow the methods of the various disciplines to the truth. I fail to see how truth defends permitting the Vagina Monologues, or, the granting of honors to a president in the very area where he offends against it. While these are Notre Dame's peculiar accommodations to the truth, many other Catholic colleges and universities have similar. By such logic, history departments should host Holocaust denial conferences. That they do not, shows that they at least understand the principle. Now if they would only apply it to other evils. |
| By Colin Donovan on May 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM | |
| 12. | You guys at America are the biggest schismatic Modernist heretics around. You are the biggest bunch of frauds. |
| By Ted on May 1, 2009 at 3:36 PM | |
| 13. | Thanks to America for a splendid editorial that speaks truth to (and about) some powerful pressure groups who will, I have no doubt, raise their voices in opposition to this truth. "Their tactics, and their attitudes, threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States, the effectiveness of its mission and the credibility of its pro-life activities." That's absolutely true. And it ought greatly to concern anyone interested in seeing the pro-life viewpoint of Catholicism represented in the public square. It strikes me as strange--and appalling--that many of those who claim to be the church's most ardent pro-life representatives seem oblivious to to the damage they are doing through their strident, divisive, and blindly partisan tactics and attitudes today. |
| By William Lindsey on May 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM | |
| 14. | Barack Obama supports the murder of unborn infants in any circumstance that pleases the mother, in direct contravention of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Surely we must all agree to disagree on occasion, but that doesn't mean we are obligated to reward behavior one feels strongly is morally wrong. Many feel the Church is betraying their trust by rewarding a cultural enemy with honors and kudos that might be misinterpreted as support for the opposite view.Certainly you should love him as a brother, pray for him to see the light and attempt to anlighten him in ways many and various, but don't reward behavior or attitudes that compromise your most deeply held beliefs. This is not a political issue, but a moral situation involving the sanctity of Life. Politicizing the issue just blurs the edges-your argument is specious, at best. |
| By Tobye Pierce on May 1, 2009 at 4:03 PM | |
| 15. | You said in your editorial that "IN POLITICS we must reaffirm the distinction between the authoritative teaching of moral principles and legitimate prudential differences in applying principles to public life." [emphasis added] This appears to be the essence of your editorial. An analogy would be prosecutorial discretion, something necessary for civil justice. And justice with a capital J is one thing that Catholicism is about. Yet the misapplication of discretion can hurt the Church. It offends Justice. We saw that with the sexual abuse scandals. Lately, it offends some that liberation theologists who teach contrarily are excommunicated while Catholic politicians seem to be able to do the same with impunity. More on point, Catholic school teachers are fired on the spot when they marry a divorcee, yet university educators are untouched when they are disobedient. (I did not say wrong.) You are advocating, and apparently the bishops agree with you, for a separate obedience for the political class or anything connected with them. Where is the equity in that? Political - teach or do as you please. Disobedient but not political - you're outta here! |
| By Clifton Carl on May 1, 2009 at 4:05 PM | |
| 16. | That American Catholics are rather active in the political arena and seriously divided on the issue of abortion is a well known fact. Fr. Jenkins, precisely because he is an intellectual, should have been able to exercise a better judgment. In effect, he failed to take into consideration the data, the already given, and by so doing, provoked an unecessary scandal. It is never legitimate to scandalize so many for that amounts to lack of charity. And in this particular situation, the lack of charity was directed towards fellow Catholics who, polarized or not, subtle or not so subtle, love their Church and try the best they can to follow her teachings. Surely you would not label Mrs. Glendon a 'sectarian' on account of her prudential judgment to refuse the medal of honor in the wake of the scandal thus displaying public solidarity with the bishops and many faithful. I personally doubt the uproar would have grown to such magnitude if President Obama would have been invited only for the commencement speech without being granted an honorary degree, which by all accounts, is a powerfully symbolical action. Besides, objectivelly speaking, is it not a little premature for the newly elected president to have 'earned' a degree from a Catholic insitution, especially one in matters of law? |
| By Joanna Ionescu on May 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM | |
| 17. | Thanks for a well chosen and mature editorial!The role of any Christian church, including the Catholic church, is surely to witness and teach the love and mercy of our God, as revealed in Jesus Christ. Why ,oh why do some catholics, including lay, cleric and bishop get into a tizzy over the emotional and not so simple issues around what has come to be known as "abortion". No, it is anything but a simple and straight -forward matter of "pro life" and "anti abortion". I know many people who claim to be vehemently "anti abortion", who are very definitely not pro life. I equally know many people of all faiths, who are anti abortion and are at the same time pro life and "pro choice". To name but one, President Obama is, I believe more pro -life than many many supposedly "anti abortionists" and "pro-lifers". Let us all remember that the moral teaching of Jesus and the Christian Churches (including Catholic Church) is a broad and beautiful tapestry of truth, love, mercy and freedom; not are you "pro" or "anti" abortion or life or whatever emotional and political issue of the day. Get real! The TRUTH will set you free. There are many Christan truths, not just one! |
| By Francis on May 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM | |
| 18. | I agree with the editors. The Catholic Church in the US is fast becoming a fundamentalist Christian sect which allows only very narrowly prescribed views even with repect to politics/public policy. Naturally, the Vatican is concerned, which I'm sure is why they kicked the abrasive and divisive Archbishop Burke upstairs some time ago. Ever since Barry Goldwater in 1964, the doctrinaire purists in the Republican party have wanted to purge the party of all liberals and moderates. They have finally succeeded with the result that the GOP now constitutes a mere 21% of the electorate, concentrated in the most socially and educationally backward parts of the country. Now, in 2009, the Catholic right wants to purge the Church of all liberals and moderates in the name of a narrow fundmentalist orthodoxy -- and at least 30 bishops seem to agree. It will have the same result -- the maginalization of the American Catholic Church into a small fundamentalist sect. And Cardinal George and most of the bishopos seem to be oblivious, perhaps too busy closing schools and parishes and expecting some kind of miracle to restore priestly vocations. It is a tragedy of stupidity and lack of leadership. |
| By Peter Martial on May 1, 2009 at 10:09 PM | |
| 19. | This is not about allowing Obama to speak - let him speak! - this is about awarding him an honorary degree in law when he is actively using the law to promote a culture of death. Shame on your semantics! This is not about speech - it is about honoring the lies and killing of the empire of Cesar (or Obama)... |
| By Brett on May 1, 2009 at 10:25 PM | |
| 20. | Right now I am doing a paper on the Donatists for a grad class on the City of God. So... I know a Donatist when I see one and those of us who support Mary Ann Glendon and the 50 plus bishops etc. ... well, we are not burning churches and throwing lye in the eye of presbyters. Try another analogy. |
| By Mary McGrath on May 1, 2009 at 11:26 PM | |
| 21. | The problem of the so called Catholic prolifers is that that not many of them commit 100% to profile issues. The Catholic Church as I understand it teaches total and 100% commitment to life issues. If a majority of prolifers were to commit to 100% to life from womb to tomb, abortion may be eradicated in the not too distant future. |
| By Obi Obiekwe on May 2, 2009 at 12:00 AM | |
| 22. | It is clear (and not surprising) from a number of the comments already posted on this excellent and courageous editorial that many of those who most need to hear and ponder your words will not do so. Despite the powerful declaration of the Council with which you conclude, the new schism in the church is already far advanced. So I will set aside the temptation to attempt further supports of your important arguments, or to make rebuttals of rebuttals. Rather, let me just express my prayer that the Holy Spirit will in whatever way continue to strengthen the often tenuous bond of charity among us (which is THE sign of Christian unity) that we might somehow continue to acknowledge one another as sisters and brothers in Christ, trying hard -- but from strongly divergent points of view -- to point God's people towards LIFE. |
| By William Clark, SJ on May 2, 2009 at 12:47 AM | |
| 23. | Dear America, Friday, May 01, 2009 We are faced with some very basic truths that must be addressed. This is a culture war between secular relativists (aka academic freedom) and those who believe in God the creator of the universe. The critical issue is marriage, pure and simple. The rest are side issues for distraction. Now we can argue about abortion and same sex marriage but the end point, the target is marriage. Paul VI was absolutely prophetic in Humane Vitae, and what he said is true. It took great courage to overrule the experts, but with the aid of the Holy Spirit he did the right thing. History has proven him to be right, but “the experts” continue to vilify him. Is slaughter of innocents or same sex marriage morally acceptable behavior? If the academics really believe this, and continue to promote these ideas, then all is lost. The decline and fall of western culture is in free fall. Where are you guys? |
| By Frank Gianattasio on May 2, 2009 at 1:47 AM | |
| 24. | A clear article which summarizes the America Editorial board's view on Catholicism in the USA. Sadly, the rot runs deep at America Magazine and the negative side of the "Americanism" heresy spoken of in Leo XIII's encyclical is in full bloom. But its comforting to know that Jesus is the real Head of the Jesuit Order no matter what they think. May God rebuke whomsoever should be rebuked and bless those upon whomsoever His favor rests. Christ is risen! |
| By Billie R on May 2, 2009 at 2:48 AM | |
| 25. | Thanks for a thoughtful editorial. Perhaps Notre Dame and other Catholic Universities should split the difference when it comes to speakers and the awarding of honorary degrees. Ask whomever they wish to speak, since this country was founded on the principle of free speech. But only award honorary degrees to those who have actually done something to make this country more Christlike--by that I mean people who have made specific humanitarian contributions or advanced the cause of human rights. The jury is still out on whether President Obama's economic and foreign policies will promote peace and economic parity. It is equally uncertain whether his pledge to support women experiencing crisis pregnancies will make any difference in the number of elective abortions. We should wait and see before declaring Obama an enemy of the faith. |
| By Lori Amann-Chetcuti on May 2, 2009 at 6:24 AM | |
| 26. | To the Editors of America: Thank you for your couragious editorial. You undoubtedly knew you would be deluged with mail accusing you of tolerance and heresy; probably a few cancelled subscriptions along the way and, perhaps, being taken to the woodshed by the 55 (and counting) cardinals and bishops. Sadly, the Notre Dame uproar has come to represent what Catholicism in the U.S. is all about -- harsh, rude condemnations and shout-downs, single-issue litmus tests, and a melding of faith and politics that extends beyond my personal prayerful reflections to public exhortations of what everyone else must believe. I am now as embarrassed to publicly stand up and say "I am a Catholic" as I am afraid to stand up at church and ask "what about Christ's message of love and all of the other things in life that we need to consider?". Perhaps my fellow Catholics need to go back and read the bible to see which one was Christ and which ones were the tongue-wagging pharisees. |
| By Steve Wilson on May 2, 2009 at 10:16 AM | |
| 27. | The problem with generalized statements ("That THEY never demonstrate the same high dudgeon etc")is that such statements are rarely accurate. When one bases his argument on an inaccurate statement, the entire argument is suspect, the essay essentially worthless. I suppose the counter argument would be that THEY (supporters of the Democratic Party platform and its leadership) do not take kindly to criticism, which is what the Notre Dame protest is all about. I strongly believe that to say nothing about the President's speech at Notre Dame would send the absolutely wrong message to those who formulate policy for the current administration - Catholics aren't that concerned about the abortion issue. |
| By Paul Louisell on May 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM | |
| 28. | It seems to me that the Catholics to whom you refer do not, to paraphrase, go after Republicans as vociferously as they do Democrats for one simple reason. The Democrats, on the whole, support proposals that are intrinsically evil, e.g. abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage. Issues that Republicans support such as the death penalty and the war in Iraq, while troublesome for Catholics, are NOT intrinsically evil. Many bishops have noted that while the Church most certainly looks down upon the death penalty it can, in certain circumstances, be morally legitimate. And one can use one's own moral judgment and disagree with the Church on when this is the case. On the other hand, one cannot disagree with the Church's position on, say, abortion because it is, always and everywhere, a grave evil. It should be noted that many Catholics, including the bishops, have taken Republicans who support abortion or embryonic stem cell research to task. You should read Bishop Tobin's column in reference to an invite he got to a fundraiser for Mayor Giuliani, a Republican, during the last primary season. And in regard to other issues such as health care, it seems to me that Republicans want the same outcome as Democrats; however, they want to get to that result via a vastly different pathway. In the end I think your caricature of orthodox Catholics as stooges of the Republican party is grossly inaccurate. |
| By Doug Mersman on May 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM | |
| 29. | You guys must have really stretched yourselves on this one.Why is it that everytime a writer in this magazine wants to indirectly attack the bishops of America he always quotes Pope Benedict?What are we supposed to believe, that the Holy Father was on the phone to Cardinal George and giving him hell for being so sensitive on this issue?If a University invited Bishop Williamson or somebody else with views contarary to the mind of the Church and decided to honour him would this magazine go out of its way to hear his side? |
| By David Power on May 2, 2009 at 12:05 PM | |
| 30. | The great Catholic philosopher and religious writer Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, in one of his greatest works, The Charitable Anathema, tells of a particular occasion when the Archbishop of Salzburg asked him to make peace with a mutual acquaintance with whom he had a dispute, for the sake of "Catholic Unity". Dr. von Hildebrand, in answer to the Archbishop replied,” One cannot make peace at the cost of truth, and especially not at the cost of Divine Truth. This would imply an offence to God." I believe Dr. von Hildebrand's observation applies perfectly here. This issue goes far beyond politics or sectarianism and relates directly to the defense of objective values. (By the way, shame on you for using and referencing St. Augustine's teachings in regard to these "un-compromiseable" issues, as they clearly DO NOT apply!) There can be no comprise with error, especially when it involves such issues as apostate pro-choice "Catholic?" (Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius) or not (Obama) polititians who take particular pride in defying Church teaching. And who said the Vatican "partially bungled" Pelosi's visit. I thought it went quite well indeed! Not only that, but, what I get from Archbishop Sheehan's comments, is that although Pope Benedict "did not flinch" publicly at appearing with Bill Richardson, the Holy Father's position was made known to Richardson privately. As for Sarkozy, well...maybe somebody ought to rethink that embarrassment. Regarding your reference to all sides returning to the "teaching of Vatican II”; we all must remember that none of it, documents, the iconoclastic destruction of our Churches, the Novus Ordo Missae, etc., was ever defined "ex-cathedra" and is therefore not binding. And regarding Pope Paul, as Dr. Alice von Hildebrand once said, "God alone is the judge of Paul VI. But it cannot be denied that his pontificate was a very complex and tragic one". None of us would be discussing this topic had Pope Paul not started all this trouble when he signed off on Gaudeum et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) and Dignitatus Humanae (The Declaration on Religious Liberty). |
| By FRANK LLOYD on May 2, 2009 at 2:43 PM | |
| 31. | It is curious that less than 20% of the bishops are involved in the episcopal piling on or part of the lynch mob. This gives me hope that this vocal minority does not represent the hierarchy just as those who leveled threats against Catholics who voted for Obama did not. Maybe they understand like the rest of us that Obama is pro-choice not pro-abortion, that he is against torture and preemptive war, and that he is competent to address the needs of the common good. I hope this is the case. |
| By Georgio on May 2, 2009 at 3:50 PM | |
| 32. | I, too, find that the "sectarian Catholics" go to far, but when one bestows an honorary Legum Doctor, they are proclaiming him as a teacher of laws. Honoring a pro-abortion politician, i.e. a politician who ignores the natural law: the source for all just laws, is lying and betraying our faith. |
| By Mike M on May 2, 2009 at 5:40 PM | |
| 33. | Pace M. Zavala who wrote above that "health care is a social policy." In their 1993 letter, "A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform: Protecting Human Life, Promoting Human Dignity, Pursuing the Common Good” (http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/comphealth.shtml), the U.S. bishops wrote, "Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God.' Health care is more than a commodity; it is a basic human right, and essential safeguard of human life and dignity." With all due respect, I think the Catholic Church in the U.S. and its Lord would be better served if we stopped condemning and judging and began to love each other, our enemies, and the strangers in our midst. How the world might change if those of us not so engaged would turn our attention and energy toward ensuring access to affordable quality health care for the growing number of U.S. citizens who must live without it or lobbying for more extensive medical benefits (physical and psychological) for Iraqi veterans and support for their families before, during and after deployment; or building houses with Habitat for Humanity or stocking food pantries, tutoring children in after school programs, spend time helping someone apply for benefits through the social welfare system, taking some of those "secular humanist" or "secular relativist" courses at Catholic colleges and universities or at least initiating conversation with the men and women who teach them; advocating for the rights of Palestinians and other oppressed silenced people; volunteering at hospices or shelters for battered women, confronting hate speech, visiting prisoners and working for prison reform. . .the list is endless. Thank you for this editorial and for John Kavanaugh's column in the last issue. |
| By K Nash on May 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM | |
| 34. | Thank you. |
| By JK on May 2, 2009 at 6:23 PM | |
| 35. | I laud this editorial. Isn't being Catholic being so in the full, rich boldness of our Catholicity? Isn't that the point of incarnation, being alive and engaged with the world? Doesn't our Catholic Christian identity come out of a place of hope rather than a narrow place of fear and exclusion? And when such behavior is trumped us as orthodoxy, doesn't that redefine the very boundaries of our faith? I am ever reminded of the full force of the imperative of Jesus to encounter Zaccheus in Luke 19 - "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house." If our mission is to be transformed and to transform the world, how can we do that if we are only with the like-minded? I think it means more meals with Zaccheus and all the messy business that entails. All of which is why I am a Catholic and saddened greatly by the narrowing and the exclusion. |
| By Fran Rossi Szpylczyn on May 2, 2009 at 9:47 PM | |
| 36. | Thank you for bringing charity and common sense to this issue. The "watch dogs of orthodoxy" do not acknowledge all the Catholic Social Justice principles Obama's policies promote, the fact that there are many roads to the same destination, and that people can legitimately disagree on methods while being in agreement on an end. The Obama Family provides a wonderful image of family life - another thing not acknowledged by the extreme Christian right. All life needs to be valued, not only the unborn but again I do not see the "watchdogs" complaining about the death penalty, war, etc. What happened to the seemless garment approach to life issues? |
| By Dorothy A. Goigel on May 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM | |
| 37. | Scott Appleby, a Notre Dame history professor, has it right. He is reported to have said that now the bishops are imposing a new litmus test for orthodoxy. Not on whether abortion should be legal but over how to fight it. When will these bishops start consulting the laity on such matters? They cannot claim to be omniscient on everything and surely should leave the political agenda to lay people or at the least consult us. |
| By Daniel on May 2, 2009 at 11:48 PM | |
| 38. | I had been thinking about subscribing to America. Now I am not sure I will ever return to your website. You have attempted to assign the cause of the problem to the messengers. I expect more from editors. |
| By Tom Coffey on May 3, 2009 at 8:09 AM | |
| 39. | Thirty or forty years ago "sectarian" laypeople like Mary Ann Glendon, Bill Donohue and the Cardinal Newman society used to be called "faithful Catholics" with the "courage of their convictions". They didn't have to be vocal, and yes, sometimes over the top, because bishops and theologians had not yet lost the courage of THEIR convictions, and had not yet stopped catechizing the faithful to recognize a horrendous moral evil when they saw it. No, it was better to "dialogue and reason" with evil, honorary degree included at no extra charge. So, in the spirit of Vatican II, the laity has stepped forward to speak truth to power. Some of the bishops are beginning to regain their nerve and add their voices. No doubt the intelligentsia will be the last. If Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Al Gore and Jesse Jackson had been ENCOURAGED in their pro life stances in the 1970's, we would not be in the mess we are in now, would we? |
| By JPR on May 3, 2009 at 9:56 AM | |
| 40. | Thank you Georgio! You just pointed out the Pareto Principal (i.e. 80/20 Rule). The 80/20 Rule says that 20 percent of something always are responsible for 80 percent of the results. |
| By Billie R on May 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM | |
| 41. | The negative comments on this editorial - they will certainly come - will focus on intrinsic evil, Democrats, and moral rot at America magazine. The comments will be angry and corrosive. By and large, these comments will go to demonstrate the accuracy of the editors' perceptions, values, and writing. Me? I think the editorial superb. Keep on. |
| By Joe Tetlow, S.J. on May 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM | |
| 42. | There is a reality that theologians, pundits, and bloggers miss in this discussion. Quite frankly most Catholics are seeking anchors to reaffirm their loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church, especially at this time when our core beliefs are challenged by a cynical and at times hostile media, by a secularist culture which is moving to sanction same sex marriages, by a president who is ambivalent on human life (pro-choice is said to be not pro-abortion?), by Catholic politicians who support abortion, and by Catholic intellectuals who attack bishops. Most Catholics I know do not live in Manhattan nor do they populate theology departments. Their lives are a daily struggle to meet family needs, and defend their faith against the onslaught of secularism and materialism. They know not of Donatists and Circumcellions, but their children and grandchildren will surely enrich the Church with intellectuals, priests, nuns, bishops, cardinals, and even Jesuits. They are offended when leaders of Notre Dame and Georgetown are insensitive to their faith by treating Mary Ann Glendon shabbily or by hiding the cross for a presidential speech, and they applaud Boston College's choice to display the cross. America is a fine forum for dialogue on matters of faith, ethics, public policy, and foreign affairs. Please help Catholics defend their faith in these difficult times. |
| By gabriel marcella on May 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM | |
| 43. | I hurried home from Mass this morning at my Jesuit parish (Bellarmine at Xavier University) to check your Web site. Word was spreading that America had done a brilliant job of putting the current Obama/ND brohaha in perspective. I have now read your editorial--and I am not disappointed. Thank you for saying so well what needs to be said. I will share your commentary with my e-mail list. |
| By Karen Hurley on May 3, 2009 at 2:14 PM | |
| 44. | Allow me as a Catholic from Norway: Is this Notre Dame quarrel the most important thing for Catholics in the world today (Poverty, wars etc)? ----------------------------------------------- Jørgen H. Jensenius. |
| By George on May 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM | |
| 45. | Thank you America Magazine for this editorial. Please continue to have the courage to speak and print the truth. It has been very upsetting to watch the Church I love taken over and used by hard line sectarian fundamentalists. As a child of Italian immigrants, I am pretty sure my family has been Catholic since the 1st century. I went to Catholic schools from first grade through college and was taught by Sisters of St. Joseph, Franciscans and Jesuits. I attend Mass at least weekly and sometimes more often - I just do not recognize my Church anymore and am beginning to feel unwelcome. A confession: Due to financial worries, I let my subscription to your magazine lapse - tomorrow I plan to renew it to show my support! May the Holy Spirit continue to Bless your work. |
| By Gail on May 3, 2009 at 4:14 PM | |
| 46. | Bravo! Very insightful and persuasive. There is too much hostility on the part of the "defenders" of orthodoxy. The current Pres is in tune with many of the Church's socil justice stances. He should get our (we are the Church)our support in those areas instead of zeroing in on differences. |
| By TR Haney on May 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM | |
| 47. | It's clear that much of the opposition to the Notre Dame event is based on partisan politics. As an observer of New York politics, I've often seen cases in which Catholic opponents of legalized abortion provided a forum to pro-choice politicians. As far as I know, no one in the pro-life movement thought less of Cardinal John O'Connor for writing a book jointly with Mayor Ed Koch. No one questioned Bill Donohue's pro-life credentials when he held news conferences jointly with Mayor Rudy Giuliani. No one has questioned the New York State bishops' frequent expressions of thanks to Assemblyman Vito Lopez for sponsoring legislation that would avert a bill allowing retroactive lawsuits over clergy sexual abuse. Bishops have held news conferences with Lopez, who is rated pro-choice by NARAL, and the bishops have frequently criticized the sponsor of the legislation they oppose, Marge Markey, who is rated by NARAL as "anti-choice." Bishops have heaped plenty of praise on Lopez in the process. No one-issue politics there - nor should there be. It's clear that O'Connor, Donohue, the New York bishops and the University of Notre Dame hold the Catholic Church's position on abortion, even when they share the stage with politicians who are pro-choice. |
| By Paul Moses on May 3, 2009 at 9:02 PM | |
| 48. | Perhaps Notre Dame could invite Bishop William Richardson to speak and give him an honoary degree. When the expected complaaints start rolling in I'll look to America to champion his right to recieve it. Or not. |
| By Leonard Nugent on May 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM | |
| 49. | I'm amazed that such a moderate and sensible editorial on on the matter of Obama's speech and honorary degree would inspire such vitriol. Notre Dame is, after all, a university, a place for the exploration of ideas, a place for asking questions and never being afraid to ask any question. What a pinched and narrow definition of a seat of learning, Catholic or not, seems to arise from certain of the comments. How sad. |
| By June on May 3, 2009 at 11:28 PM | |
| 50. | I've noticed a couple of themes running throughout the posts that are critical of the editorial: first, that "elites" are the sole supporters of President Obama's ND visit and, second. that the U.S. is a scary place where, in Gabriel Marcella's words, Catholics must defend their faith "against the onslaught of secularism and materialism." A majority of American Catholics cast their vote for Obama last November--the altar of our churches and our parish councils may be filled with these "isolationists" but I think most Catholics engage in the complexities of the modern world with a sense of openness and intellectual maturity in the spirit of Vatican II. |
| By Killoran on May 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM | |
| 51. | Someone in the hierarchy has to stop the insanity. I will not raise my son in this poisonous environment. It's been two years and I still hope right wing chest thumping will abate into something more charitable, but it doesn't. As a moderate, I'm not sure there's a place for me (or us)in the current Church. He has not been baptized, and for me, now, I think that that's better. As politicians have a way of saying, "I didn't leave the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church left me." |
| By Chris on May 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM | |
| 52. | Chris (no. 51), You're not alone, but it would be very sad to allow a loud minority to drive you and your child away from your faith. My advice is stop reading blogs and continue to live your faith. Peace |
| By JPM1977 on May 4, 2009 at 2:51 PM | |
| 53. | Chris at 51: I only get that feeling when I come online and get into too many comboxes. Have your child baptized, all this, too, shall pass. |
| By Rebecca on May 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM | |
| 54. | It shot up into the sky like the eruption of a volcano, pouring lava down the mountain sides and spewing black ashes wherever the wind would carry them. "Notre Dame University is not a Catholic University" was the initial eruption. The cause? Notre Dame University had given an invitation to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, to give the commencement address this May and to receive an honorary degree of law. The President accepted. Notre Dame, a Catholic university, would be giving a public honor to "the most pro-abortion President in our nation's history." Anyone who lives in volcano country knows that the initial eruption is followed by other eruptions, usually smaller but still spewing lava and ashes. So with this event. Other eruptions kept coming. The winds of outrage came from many directions and from many people to scatter black ashes on Notre Dam's famous Golden Dome. The local bishop of that section of Indiana protested. He did so by right because he is the official local teacher of the Catholic people in that region. Notre Dame had neither consulted nor notified him of the invitation to President Obama before it was extended. The bishop was justified to be disturbed, especially because it should have been known by the university that there could be a negative reaction by many people. The reaction reached the point that some would say that Notre Dame was not true to the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion. There is every basis to know that Notre Dame is true to Catholic teaching. The extreme reaction was, I am sure a surprise. But the fact is that there are some organizations, even a few Catholic colleges and individuals that jump on that type of opportunity to discredit Notre Dame's Catholicism. Another eruption cam from those who cited a document from the Catholic Bishops of the United States (USCCB), published in 2004: "Catholics in Political Life," which states that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." It should be pointed out that such documents produced by the bishops through the USCCB do not have the force of law. In fact the USCCB has no canonical jurisdiction over any diocese or local bishop unless its positions have been approved and authorized by the Holy See. A bishops' statement is a judgment call, one that is promulgated only if two-thirds of the bishops agree. That percentage shows the strength of the judgment but does not transform it into a mandate. There is another powerful section in the same bishops' statement that gives an additional consideration, one that also pertains to "life." "Who has a place at the table of life?, the Bishops write. "Where is a place at the table for a million of our nation's children who are destroyed every year before they are born...? A table is a place where important decisions are made in our communities, nations and world. How can the poorest ...those who are vulnerable ...have a real place at the table where policies and priorities are set?" As I see it, that is the challenge that Notre Dame puts to President Obama. In my opinion this quotation is the more apt one for Notre Dame. As a university it is well suited to set a table of life and to make a real contribution at any table, and especially government tables where policies and priorities are set. It is because of that setting that I support Notre Dame in its decision to ask him to give the commencement address. The honorary degree is a statement of respect for the Office of the Presidency as well as the President. Neither honor is seen as the University supporting his decisions. Over 50 bishops are reported to be on public record as critical of Notre Dame, to the extent of some apparently going so far as to declare Notre Dame off limits for their students. One additional factor. It |
| By Archbishop Francis T. Hurley on May 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM | |
| 55. | With all the furor from some of the bishops over President Obama's upcoming visit to Notre Dame, they are acting more like the Republican Catholic Bishops than the Roman Catholic Bishops! |
| By Paul on May 4, 2009 at 8:48 PM | |
| 56. | Opposition to abortion as birth control of last resort is different than hurling invectives at those who see recognize that in other circumstances, it may be entirely appropriate for the woman to make a different decision (see nuance, Merriam-Webster Unabridged). To those who argue otherwise, please read the _breadth_ of pastoral responses in practice, to assisting victims of rape and incest. To those who argue the seamless cloth, please read the origins of the 'just war' -- gee that evolved soon after Christianity became a part of the Roman Empire. Seems that we can accommodate our most fundamental principles when the MEN in power decide it's appropriate to do so. All the sound and fury recalls: "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments." Those barking loudest now would do us all a favor by using their tefillin as a muzzle. |
| By Bruce Pitman on May 6, 2009 at 10:19 AM | |
| 57. | My comment has three parts; hopefully the third part will be a bit humorous. First, there is something fundamentally strange about a major world religion getting itself tied up around abortion and same-sex marriage. These are significant topics, but they are not the centerpiece of a religion that seriously believes that God is three, and that God died to extend eternal salvation to all people (that is a whole lot of salvation). I believe abortion is wrong, but I also believe that many American Catholics (including many Catholic bishops) have made a fundamental mistake in tying themselves to changing a Supreme Court decision. It is almost laughable, but it is really sad, to have bishops and priests telling Joe Biden to stay away from Communion; when has Joe Biden ever had an abortion? This group of Catholics do not mention those who have (or perform) abortions, but rather go after male politicians. It is easier to go after male politicians. And, in the process these Catholics (and the bishops among them) have turned themselves into an arm of one political party in the US, not a good long-term idea. Which leads to the second part of my response: Notre Dame had George Bush, the Republican president, at its commencement. Who seriously objected? Sorry, but it is just not good form now to object to a Democratic president being invited. And don't trot out words about "intrinsic evil," as if there is some evil that is OK. Lots of people think that President Bush did some evil things; life does get sticky sometimes, especially in politics. It is remarkably unconvincing to separate out abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research and put them in a special category. That smacks of self-serving legalisms. And,finally, a word about honorary degrees. Some America editors knew Jeroslav Pelikan at Yale. Pelikan received many many honoroary degrees (I think that once I saw a number in the low 90s, but that might be inaccurate). But Pelikan himself used to say: "Honorary degrees are for honorary brains." He accepted those honorary degrees, but he also held them in a place where they belonged: a place of honor but not a place necessarily of serious academic achievement. Mother Teresa received many honorary degrees, and so she should have. That does not mean to say that she was an academic giant, but rather a woman to be honored, in the way that academic institutions know how to bestow honor. Every May and June individuals who have been generous to a particular college or university receive the sincere gift of an honorary degree. If Notre Dame gives an honorary doctor of laws degree to Barak Obama this year (or George Bush a few years back), it is because they honor the office of President of the United States. As well they should. Too many commenters take honorary degrees too seriously. |
| By Bill Finan on May 6, 2009 at 11:39 AM | |
| 58. | Just when my faith in the bishops was flagging, Archbishop Hurley renewed it. Thank you, archbishop, for your reasoned response and respectful comment. |
| By Deacon John Paul Kelly on May 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM | |
| 59. | "Morally pro-life" and "legally pro-choice" are not mutually exclusive opinions. One can espouse both positions fervently. |
| By James Dotzler on May 7, 2009 at 6:24 AM | |
| 60. | Thank you, and may God bless and keep you. |
| By Kevin on May 7, 2009 at 8:27 AM | |
| 61. | Those bishops who are condemning Obama are either politically partisan or they are subconsciously so defensive and autocratic that they seek a world of their weak making rather than engage with the real world. |
| By James O'Connell on May 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM | |
| 62. | Catholic conservatives move so obviously in procession with the Republican Party that I believe they would have the Pope carried through St. Peter's Square on the back of an elephant. Their fear-based poltico-theology is, apparently, the only path "true" American Catholics can take in the day to day trek to salvation. However, when political expediency requires, they can be expansively forgiving. Thus, when President George W. Bush, who in campaigning had appeared at strongly anti-Catholic Bob Jones University, was invited to Notre Dame, I heard no cries of outrage from the holier-than-anyone Catholic right. As a Catholic and Notre Dame graduate, I applaud Father Jenkins for inviting President Obama. Let us listen to his message instead of slamming the door in his face. And watch out for the elephant manure. |
| By Séamas Ó Flannagáin on May 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM | |
| 63. | I pray among fellow Catholics who historically vote Republican. They can be raised to applause during the liturgy of the Mass with a few partisan words from the pastor of condemnation of the President or of exclusion of other Christians from the truth of Catholicism. In acting so, I am afraid that they make Christ dance on behalf of their sectarianism in a way the Romans could not achieve at the crucifixion. Notre Dame should not be enticed to join this calvary cabal. |
| By Bill Keller on May 7, 2009 at 12:12 PM | |
| 64. | Jesuits=why I remain a Catholic. Thank you. |
| By carol on May 7, 2009 at 12:47 PM | |
| 65. | We have 5 catholics on the supreme court ( a majority), soon to be 6. Why is Roe v Wade still a "constitutional right"? Quit bashing Obama for upholding the law ( who isn't catholic). |
| By \JB on May 7, 2009 at 12:56 PM | |
| 66. | Although not a Catholic, I value my college education at the Jesuit college in Maryland, Loyola. Whether or not I agree with your editorial is immaterial - it certainly has stimulated response, if not necessarily discussion. The basic issue that it raises, however, is not unique to the Catholic Church in any of its varieties, and as you point out, has existed from very early in the history of the Church (and almost certainly from early in the history of religious thought itself). Why is it that 3 people of the same religious faith cannot spend a day in a room together without giving rise to a schism, 4 sects, a couple of heresies and a holy war or two? What is it in us that makes it so common a thing to pronounce that there is only One True Faith, and that it is defined by a single element of religious understanding to the exclusion of everything else? Protestant and Catholic alike seem so often to invoke the name of the Christ while seemingly ignoring the teachings of Jesus. It would do us all good to set aside some time each day to read from the New Testament as well as the Old. |
| By John Robinson on May 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM | |
| 67. | Thank you for this article. I am glad that at least some consider the concept of "Big Tent" Catholicism as alive and well. Every man, woman, and child in this country is a sheperd for eachother, our communities, and our planet. It is our responsibility to try and improve the conditions of the world we live in today as well as ensure the very best for people tomorrow. The US two party political system offers us some advantages over the parlementary states of other nations, but it does not do so without considerable limitations. It is unlikely that either party accomidates every belief or opinion of any given individual, nor do the parties keep all their ideological promises. But at the present time to support a third party is most likely to lose one's voice in matters of policy. For all of our countries faults, we must never forget how blessed we are to be Americans. We live in a nation of freedom, and should never act in such a way as to take freedom from others. Our political choices should should take into account all of our values, be they respect for life, peace, social justice, of anything else. Where we disagree, we should not act out in anger or divisiveness, but instead live our lives to suit our personal values and act to improve our community for the benifit of all people. |
| By Craig on May 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM | |
| 68. | Regarding the "approvers" including an Archbishop of what the editorial "Sectarian Catholicism" tries to sell, let me add my two cents to the 64 comments already posted. The editorial has certainly touched a sore spot. Unlike Jesus who died after only three hours on His Cross, sometimes the crucified could hang for days, during which bodily functions like bowel movements continued. St.Peter chose upsidedown crucifixion and no one knows how long he stayed alive on his cross. But if it were days, just think of what might have happened to the Head of the Church! How messy it must have been! By reason of sins, crimes, scandals and bad judgements, the People of God for the past 2,000 years have defecated all over the Institutional Church a current example is Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama to address its 2009 Graduating Class. It does seem, however, that God often uses enigmas, riddles and mysteries, to accomplish His purposes. Not even murder,or adultery, as in the cases of Moses and David prevented delivery and glory. To this may be added homocidal crimes against the unborn, as well as Infanticide. Isn't this what President Obama endorses along with his "approvers" in some way? It's a mystery to me how any red blooded Catholic can approve of what Fr. Jenkins has done and which the editorial applauds. On second thought however, it's not too surprising that the President of Notre Dame would do what he did, as Notre Dame is no longer a truly Catholic University. And this drift away from the Church is not recent, according to a Judge, a graduate of ND's Law School, recently speaking on TV. He said some years ago he went to Mass at the University and was shocked to see the priest "celebrating" Mass using a piece of cake, not a host! He walked out scandalized. Such being the case, what can one expect "Our Mother" to do! She's been hijacked! |
| By Bruce Snowden on May 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM | |
| 69. | I am not in favor of the Broad Tent version of Catholicism. I think the Church would grow again if the hard line sectarians (my guess is they constitute about 20 of the US Church) became evangelicals or whatever. They claim to be papists and the like, but they find themselves at odds with the Vatican on a multitude of issues. |
| By An Average Catholic on May 7, 2009 at 4:13 PM | |
| 70. | Jesus=reason I am still a catholic. |
| By David Power on May 7, 2009 at 4:17 PM | |
| 71. | Your suburb editorial gave me hope that common sense can prevail. After over 35 years of bitter struggle, surely we can see that success has not come through angry denunciations or accusations of heresy. Self righteous indignation may feel good, but it educates no one about the sanctity of life. Nor will the attacks on Notre Dame help a single person understand WHY human life should be protected. Don't we have a responsibility to be persuasive rather than punitive? Apparently the Vatican thinks so, at least this month. |
| By Sharon D on May 7, 2009 at 4:32 PM | |
| 72. | Thanks for an excellent and thoughtful article. Any thoughts on whether certain bishops realize they are being "played" by conservative politicians? |
| By harry on May 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM | |
| 73. | The May 11th article, "Sectarian Catholicism" is quite timely and states truths about the tactics of those in the Church who would call themselves "Orthodox." Also, the Church actually prior to the initial beginning of the "Right to Life Movement" had a broader perspective on some of the life issues, especially approving of the "principle of the double effect" in cases where it would be necessary to operate on a pregnant woman to remove a cancerous growth n her womb in spite of the fact that the fetus might now survive--that is just one of the issues some how The Right To Life Movement has ridden roughshod over developing Catholic thought. Somehow the "Right To Life Movement" has taken on a movement all of its own and instead of the Catholic Church making policy on doctrine regarding life issues, the Right To Life Movement seems to have stepped in and usurped that role. I wonder if that has occurred to any of our Catholic and Jesuit Scholars. Because of my age and being educated by Carmelite Theologians before Vatican II - I do recall also a Fr. Anselm Burke teaching at a Catholic College in NY in 1957 stating that the Church had debated since the time of Augustine as to when the soul was actually infused into a fetus. Of course that was before science caught up a bit and surpassed religion. However, The Right To Life Movement contains "one issue people" people who are simple and undereducated. There are Life Issues out there that have to be properly examined and dealt with by Catholic Theologians but at the same time, is war not a "life issue", is disease, aka HIV not a "life issue?" and so forth... We need our Catholic Scholars and our Catholic Universities to be able to freely examine "all the so-called life issues" and at the same time stop putting constraints and issuing "litmus" tests on our people, especially Catholics who serve in higher office where they have to consider "all the people they serve" not just Roman Catholics. Amen and God Bless and try if you can to "Keep the Faith. |
| By Betty Dawson on May 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM | |
| 74. | My mother has been a Catholic her entire life. Her faith has given her a lot of comfort over the years. In the last election, several times when she got out of church and went back to her car she found leaflets under her windshield claiming that anybody that voted for Obama wasn't a real Catholic and would burn in hell for voting for him. That's not the Catholic church she's lived the first 60 years of her life with. Something is broken with your church. At least here in America. |
| By dlw on May 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM | |
| 75. | Let's be clear, the "self-appointed watchdogs of orthodoxy" you have in your sights are not just the Cardinal Newman Society and Randall Terry. You are aimed head on against the bishops who have spoken out in criticism of Notre Dame. And you are identifying them with heretics and murderers of the early Church. How exactly is this consistent with the recent Jesuit profession of effective and affective loyalty and obedience renewed at GC 35? Pedro Arrupe, in the midst of the Humanae Vitae controversy insisted the mission of the Society of Jesus is "to make the teaching of the Church loved"- even the hard ones. Do you think maybe this admonition might be able to be heard today at America Magazine? I hope so. |
| By Chris on May 7, 2009 at 5:55 PM | |
| 76. | I write (and read a lot) for a living -- and I'm a practicing Catholic -- and my head is spinning with all this. Valid statements are being made on all sides, it seems to me. Where do I stand? I think abortion is a moral evil. I also think President Obama has much to recommend him. I've heard that noted ND theologian and author Richard P. McBrien is "pro-choice..." Does this mean he thinks pro-choice Catholic politicians shouldn't be barred from receiving the Eucharist, or that he personally thinks abortion is morally justifiable under routine conditions? I think a Catholic university like Georgetown shouldn't accede to the administration's request to cover a cross on its campus if President Obama is speaking there. I also think a Catholic university like Georgetown should -- as it does -- have ministries for Jewish students, Muslim students, and other non-Catholics. The word "Catholic" of course means "universal." But I am having a great deal of trouble discerning at what point of opinion, practice, and faith one ceases to be truly a member of the Catholic Church. In terms of inclusiveness, I like the "big tent" concept, but I also think we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to "this is OK and that's not OK." Anybody, capiche? |
| By Jinny Wallerstedt on May 7, 2009 at 6:01 PM | |
| 77. | Today's extreme right-wing American Catholics would do well to study the history of Germany's Roman Catholic Church hierarchy during the 1930's. During graduate school I studied the documents and photographic evidence in the archives -- Too many of Germany's Catholic bishops (along with some Protestant clergy) entusiastically supported Hitler and helped enable his rise to power. Why? Because of his promise to re-criminalize abortion and destroy the "homosexual agenda" of the Weimar Republic. Once it appeared to them that the new Chancellor of the Third Reich would honor certain ecclesiastical rights of the hierarchy, the deal was clinched. [It should be noted that not ALL German bishops cheered the new Chancellor, just enough, however, to cause profound shame and profound scandal in the light of the ensuing Holocaust.] Hitler's Catholic allies cheered their new Fuehrer because of his "familly values." Doesn't that sound familiar enough to give single-issue Catholics pause, at all? Does the "right" stance on a single issue excuse all else? |
| By Kate Webb on May 7, 2009 at 6:04 PM | |
| 78. | Hm. How many of you "devout" Catholics said word one when pro-death penalty Republicans spoke at Catholic Universities? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Church officially condemns the death penalty, no? Would it be too much to point out that the Pope personally begged George Bush not to invade Iraq, yet Bush spoke at Notre Dame, no? Making the Catholic Church a wing of the Republican party is something that will be the undoing of both the Republican Party as well as the Catholic Church. |
| By Pete on May 7, 2009 at 6:43 PM | |
| 79. | Sectarianism it is NOT exclusively the flavour or brand for just those whose “adhere to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy and/or those who “adhere to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program.” Sectarianism is also the flavour or brand for those who fiercely reject the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy and go the extra mile to promote abortion while oppose to any other political program and pledge fierce opposition to any proposal of that particular program.” So, it is not by an eloquent demonizing of the other what help to gain credibility, but the engaging in true dialogue for it is possible to have and uphold radically different point of views and attain agreement without betraying the deep Truth of the issue or trying to cover it up for the sake of a quiet tolerance or the infantile stand we know best. In a true dialogue, each part must find a way to engage in relationship with the other's world view without neutralizing, softening or making their own view seem illegitimate. This is what truly offers hope to those who witness such perfect and true engagement to Truth in debate. The best and most exemplar model for us Catholics of course is Pope Benedict XVI whom with a lifetime of thoughtful work, disciplined study and unique life-experience has taken every opportunity to offer his patient energy and reason as the useful tools for any potentially explosive dialogue and in so gracefully doing he fill us with hope. |
| By Rose Marie Loria on May 7, 2009 at 7:15 PM | |
| 80. | Bravo! The way these people have treated the trustees and others at Notre Dame is just shameful - nothing Catholic about it. Thanks for standing up to them and calling them (and their agenda) out for what they are - political partisans. |
| By Louise on May 7, 2009 at 10:06 PM | |
| 81. | I wonder what St. Paul would say about this? |
| By Earl Robicheaux on May 8, 2009 at 12:46 AM | |
| 82. | There is nothing open minded ,subjective or progressive about being an accomplice to premeditated murder. Have Obama explain the genocide of 17 million aborted black infants from Reverand Wrights pulpit not the sacred soil of Our Blessed Mothers University. P.S. Wasn't it the Jesuits that covered up "IHS" for Obama ? "Before the cock crows thrice you will deny me" R.T.Fanning, Jr. N.D. '73 |
| By Robert T.Fanning , Jr. on May 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM | |
| 83. | I am sorry, there is nothing nuanced about later term abortion, a policy that President Obama supports. But I guess this is a triviality that the Holy Sees is willing to overlook because of the Presidents position on income redistribution. However, I fail to see how the position of American Magazine reconciles with the Holy Fathers criticism of the US Catholic church and its increasing secularism...How many times will we deny Christ?.....There is nothing charitable about this editorial, if anything it speaks with more vitriol than with those the writer disagrees with, not an unusual trait of those on the left. |
| By Earl Robicheaux on May 8, 2009 at 7:39 AM | |
| 84. | The Donatists, by the way, were a schismatic group that was condemned for political dissension in a religious council led by the otherwise secular Emperor of Rome, who then proceeded to send Roman troops to attack them in North Africa in an effort to enforce the decisions of the council. So I guess the current corollary is that President Obama should be recognized as a religious leader, as well as a secular one, and that if he is able to convince enough other religious leaders in the country that those who oppose his visit to Notre Dame are wrong, then he would be justified in having our position condemned in council and having us arrested in our homes by the US military? The Donatist schism, while critical of Roman government, was primarily a dispute within the Church. And it was a dispute where the established Church hierarchy, as represented by Bishop Augustine of Hippo, carried the day by referencing established Church doctrine. It is Notre Dame who has taken a position contrary to the teaching of the USCCB and the Church hierarchy in general by embracing an opponent of fundamental Church teaching. It is Notre Dame, who in this analogy, occupies the position of the Donatists. Abortion is then, in this modern analogy, the equivalent of the Donatist position that some sacraments ought to be voided based on the standing of the officials who celebrated them. And it is the Bishops and the other opponents of Notre Dame and the President who represent St. Augustine and the established Church on the side of the argument in favor of quelling the schism. Why is it that this article does not condemn Augustine for limiting the size of the tent by challenging the beliefs of the Donatists? As schismatics, were they not excluded from participating in the main body of the Church? If the dominant and governing principle is a big tent, then why not just let the Donatists be, instead of going to the trouble to challenge their position? We can agree, I am sure, that we wish the tent to be as big as possible. But the tent can not be so big that to be a resident within it has no meaning. The tent must be associated with a set of truths that are seen as eternal. Otherwise, it has no purpose. |
| By Timothy Short on May 8, 2009 at 11:20 AM | |
| 85. | The church espouses a consistent pro-life position from conception to death. Many pro-life advocates conveniently overlook the other parts of the church's pro-life teachings: economic justice, helping the poor, not fighting unjust wars, and finally, abolishing the death penalty, in favor of a single portion of that teaching, abortion. It seems to me that those who object to the President's visit to Notre Dame might well spend a little time plucking the beam from their own eye before they rant about removing the mote from their brother's. I'm surprised we didn't hear from this same group about George W. Bush's appearance at Notre Dame. After all, the man was extremely proud of the fact that as Governor of Texas he had overseen the execution of more people than any other governor. This is pro-life how? |
| By Sue Brown on May 8, 2009 at 1:33 PM | |
| 86. | When context is dismissed out of hand, one can turn anything into one's own. I wrote to Fr. John Jenkins, CSC, and simply stated, in my email to him, that I was against awarding President Barack Obama, with an honorary law degree. That I thought was the prudent thing to do. |
| By Patrick McGrath on May 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM | |
| 87. | Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. All of our sectarian brethren could stand to spend some quiet time with Matthew chap. 7. Leave my splinter be for a moment while you tend to your plank. |
| By Scott M on May 8, 2009 at 2:52 PM | |
| 88. | It is obvious that the American Catholics who wish to humiliate the elected president of the United States do not believe in the transforming power of love. Furthermore,they are not bothered by the disastrous effects of their actions in the name of orthodoxy. Do they wish to revive the patronizing arrogance of the 'good old times'when Pope Nicholas V, on June 18th, 1452, issued the bull DUM DIVERSAS authorizing Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce, to mention but one example, any "Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers" to perpetual slavery? |
| By Francis Pimentel-Pinto on May 9, 2009 at 9:42 PM | |
| 89. | Instead of comparing apples to oranges or citing unrelated historical figures' individual actions, why don't we let the Catechism (which we all agree on, right?) decide the gravity and magnitude of abortion? See paras. 2270-2275, which include a statement that "the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the [unborn] child's rights." Obama, who, in his inaugural speech, included equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration of Independence but excluded its reference to the "right to life," votes and acts 100% pro-abortion. In bestowing honors on him and giving him an unchallenged forum, Notre Dame and the supporters of its decision are on quicksand and are leading other Catholics astray. I wouldn’t have been able to explain such a position to Jesus while He was on the Cross, which I find a pretty helpful test. |
| By Beth Egbers on May 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM | |
| 90. | Perhaps America and the Fr Jenkins' of the world will use some Augustinian Big Tentism toward those of us who refuse to recognize the orthodoxy of their ilk: 1) the infallibility of the Land of Lakes Statement 2) the God given Manifest Destiny of the United States to evangelize the gospel of abortion and fund abortion and contraception both at home and abroad. 3) the singing of Hosanna to the new Messiah, President of the US Barack Obama, despite the fact that he is not only mildly pro-Choice ala President Carter, but has consistently appointed the most rabid pro-abortionist personnel available, moved immediately to disassemble the minimal protections the unborn have and plans to strip conscience protections from those who oppose his agenda. By the way, 70 bishops, part of the REAL Magisterium of the Church, not just "self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy" have pointed out the incongruence of Notre Dame's actions. Just what would and American President have to do for you to ask Notre Dame to refrain from their "tradition"? Would a pro-slavery President be given an honorary law degree? How about one who wanted to repeal spousal rape laws? Providence College refused to allow Tancredo to speak because they felt he did not meet Catholic doctrine on a much more open question how to handle illegal immigration? Are the good folks at Providence College also Circumcellions destroying the Church by sectarianism and slash and burn theology? When will America quit finding every excuse to shill for the Democratic Party and then accuse those who are pro-Life of being political, sectarian and divisive? |
| By Rev. Peter M. Calabrese, CRSP on May 10, 2009 at 12:19 PM | |
| 91. | I'm proud of America for its editorial on those who are so sure of what it means to be a Catholic and so certain of what is intrinsically evil. "For today’s sectarians, it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program." I think this a particularly insightful sentence. The 35th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus encourages its members to go to the frontiers, the more challenging issues facing us. America has done this. Could I humbly suggest that the Catholic Church envision structures and sub-structures that will make dialogue among liberals and conservatives, bishops, priests, religious orders of women and men, laity of different political stances, the Pope himself, easier, more rational and more loving? There seem to be many voices in the Catholic Church today, but where are the ears? |
| By Fr. Benjamin J. Urmston, S.J. on May 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM | |
| 92. | This is a followup to the first responder on the long list of comments. I have read 68 letters of the Bishops who spoke out on the Notre Dame invitation. They spoke with moral clarity on the abortion issue. The President's position may be evolving with his suggestion of compromise. As an Episcopalian surgeon, I should not have a vote. But my suggestion is that the respectful and gracious solution would be to welcome President Obama and his commencement address next Sunday. But the Doctorate of Laws could be kept in reserve until the Freedom Of Choice Act is as dead as the Holy Innocents that were slated for termination Would have been! Dominus vobiscum, Edwin Cooper, MD |
| By Edwin Cooper, MD on May 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM | |
| 93. | How disappointed I was to read America’s editorial calling for the bishops of the Church in the U.S. to narrow their policy regarding speakers and awards at Catholic institutions (“Sectarian Catholicism,” 5/11). Indeed, at least in my part of the world, the decision of the University of Notre Dame to grant an honorary degree to President Barack Obama has been seen by some persons as evidence that the Church is en route to a substantial dilution of its commitment to the constant struggle against intrinsic evil which, in turn, alters the moral judgment of those persons. For the University to generate such an effect is scandal. Thus, I pray that the bishops hold strong to their stated policy. (Rev.) James E. Connell Sheboygan, Wis. |
| By Rev. James E. Connell on May 11, 2009 at 7:47 AM | |
| 94. | HOORAY!!!THANK YOU!!!I'm glad someone remembers the docs of Vatican II - and even wants us to USE them - talk about far-out idea! Constitution = who we are. The cold-hearted missing of marks has finally been called by its right name.I have been a professional lay minister in the Church for 30 years or so & have a quotation from Pope John XXIII( my greatly loved saint)displayed prominently. I don't remember any context for it, but it says it all to me,"To see everything.To turn a blind eye on much of it.To correct a little."I also applaud Archbishop Sheehan(apparently a good Irish boy)on his encouragement of patience, understanding and communication. God created us free and attempts at coercion are not in line with the Gospel. Thank you for wonderful weekly reading which has helped me for many years. Marybelle Hardin |
| By marybelle hardin on May 11, 2009 at 4:42 PM | |
| 95. | Thanks you, reasonable and brave editors. |
| By Margaret Caldwell on May 11, 2009 at 7:23 PM | |
| 96. | Dear Editor, The editorial titled “Sectarian Catholicism” in the May 11, 2009 edition of America was most intriguing. The basic premise of the piece is that “self appointed watchdogs of orthodoxy” have defined orthodoxy not as “adherence to the Church’s doctrine” but as “adherence to a particular political program” and that, in so doing, these “sectarians” “threaten the unity of the Catholic Church” by ignoring the “broad-tent,” “big-church” Catholic tradition. In fact, the Church’s tent embraces people of different intellectual and political persuasions but is also precisely defined to exclude the possibility of denying fundamental truths of faith, including the sanctity of human life. The particular event cited to exemplify the editorial’s argument is the opposition by Catholic laity and clergy to the invitation of President Obama by the University of Notre Dame to be the 2009 commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary degree. Nearly 60 U. S. bishops, tens of thousands of concerned ND alumni and other Catholic laity, and prominent Catholic American figures have all united in opposition to ND president Father John Jenkins’ invitation of President Obama. Such a unified voice can hardly be called sectarian. This action by ND’s president and board clearly violates the agreement between Catholic university presidents and the USCCB, which states that no Catholic university may give a platform to or honor a person who holds positions contrary to the teaching of the Church. The opposition of the bishops and laity to President Obama addressing ND’s graduates is not political or sectarian at all; rather, it is grounded in the truth of the sanctity of human life and the duty of Catholic institutions to be authentic and uphold the truth revealed by God. Defending orthodox faith is not political or sectarian. It is the mark of fidelity to Christ. The editorial calls abortion “evil” while at the same time defending ND’s decision to honor a man whose policies are definitively pro-abortion, an intellectual gymnastic feat similar to ND’s original plan to invite both President Obama and the pro-life devout Catholic Mary Ann Glendon in the hopes of appearing broad-minded. Such positions are not broad but duplicitous and disrespectful toward persons of authentic faith. One cannot help but wonder if ND and America Magazine have pitched a tent that is not big enough to include respect for human life. Catholic institutions are not political organizations and ought not participate in political maneuvering or agendas. Instead, as Pope Benedict said at Catholic University in April 2008, “…every Catholic educational institution is a place to encounter the living God who in Jesus Christ reveals his transforming love and truth.” Catholic universities are called to preach the truth, whole and entire, in season and out of season, in all aspects of their mission. That means giving voice to and honoring only those who support the truth, especially the dignity of life. The congratulatory message of the Holy Father to a head of state should not be construed as support for President Obama’s policies. The Church clearly opposes the consistent anti-life agenda of this presidency, revealed in its policies allowing research on human persons in the embryonic stage and promoting abortion abroad with taxpayer dollars. While the president may in some limited way be able to improve life for Americans, he is a failure on the most fundamental life issues. What is at stake today is not the loss of a so-called broad vision of the faith but the lives of thousands of unborn children. What the Church in the United States desperately needs is strong episcopal leadership and unity among the laity around the fundamental truth of the sanctity of human life. This requires a resounding “yes” to the fullness of the truth revealed in Jesus Christ. Father Matthew J. Albright |
| By Father Matthew J. Albright on May 11, 2009 at 10:33 PM | |
| 97. | Reality check: If you are not being permitted to come to the table of the Lord, then all what has been written above are just words. Who has the right to deny anyone admission the Banquet of the Lord? Christ said: "There will come a time when they will say, blessed are the wombs that never bore and the breast that never nursed." He was not being political, just stating a fact. Abortion is evil, just stating a fact. It kills the thoughts of God Himself. |
| By taad on May 12, 2009 at 7:29 AM | |
| 98. | The PREFECT OF THE SUPREME TRIBUNAL OF THE APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA, THE MOST REVEREND RAYMOND LEO BURKE, D.D., J.C.D., has commented about these issues confronting the Catholic Church in America. The text speaks for itself. Would you still adhere to your positions that is no longer aligned with that of the Church? |
| By Ricky Vines on May 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM | |
| 99. | As a registered democrat who voted democratic in every election since 1960 except for the last one a social worker whose career spanned 5 decades (Catholic Charities and child protective services) and mother of mentally disabled children, I offer the following comments. After WWII, a philosopher characterized the behaviour of the German clergy as a "capitulation to the milieu"-a process of yielding to the social environment that led to the holocaust. Is this an apt description of many of our Catholic leaders in politics, academia, journalism and the church? When over 40 million unborn babies are destroyed, this is a holocaust. This is evil. To be Catholic one believes in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. This belief is not open to compromise or negotiation. As slavery is an evil and cannot be compromised, so too, are the life issues of abortion and euthanasia. We could not morally negotiate slavery with free staes and slave states and maintain a government of human equality, so too we cannot negotiate which child, which disabled person, which frail elderly person will be allowed to live or die, and maintain a moral country. To be Catholic is to be pro-life AND to actively promote the elimination of poverty and discrimination. Following the example of Christ, we serve all of our sisters and brothers, especially the most vulnerable. Tobe Catholic is to be both pro-life AND anti-racist. The fact that 37% of abortions in the U.S. are performed on African-American women is to my mind, a holocaust. Those Catholics who present the moral value of pro-life as being in conflict with other moral values are presenting a false either/or argument. There is no reason, in a country like ours with an abundance of wealth and resources that we cannot pursue pro-life policies along with policies aimed at eliminating poverty and discrimination. That would be Catholic Social Doctrine in action. As American Catholics, we are obliged to bring our moral values to bear on issues of morality in the public sphere , regardless of political affiliation. Each one of us will someday stand before God in judgment of our actions in regard to "the least of my brethren". We live in an era of widespread narcissism and nihilism which offers inducements of power, prestige, money and acceptance. How will we and our leaders justify to God our capitulation to our milieu? |
| By Janice Johnson on May 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM | |
| 100. | Reference the editorial, "Sectarian Catholicism": Quite simply-this is the best editorial you've ever published. Period. |
| By Chuck Specht on May 14, 2009 at 7:07 PM | |
| 101. | As someone who is best described as a feminist and agnostic, I think Janice Johnson has just said what I wanted to say on this issue. Even though I am not religious, I totally agree with her message. You shouldn't need religion to know that abortion is wrong. It just is. |
| By Ann on May 15, 2009 at 5:31 AM | |
| 102. | Thank you, Janice Johnson. Your eloquent defense of life deserves to be heard at the Notre Dame commencement. |
| By gabriel marcella on May 16, 2009 at 11:17 AM | |
| 103. | Thank you for this fine article. I hope the efforts of all who are devoted to protecting life will be as strenuous in their efforts to protest war and killing of innocent human beings in any form. Without a complete devotion to all life, protests appear ive and politically motivated in many cases. I refer to the powerful statement in Evangelium vitae which directs us to protect all life for God's sake, not a personal reason: "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 51 The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action".52 As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being "there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ?poorest of the poor' on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal". |
| By Jim Gelvin on May 16, 2009 at 6:34 PM | |
| 104. | I fail to see why the Notre Dame invitation is even an issue. As long as Notre Dame accepts federal student funding, Pell grants, gov't subsidized loans, research money from the NEH and NS, as long as Notre Dame accepts non-Catholic students, Jewish students, Muslim students, atheists, etc., as long as Notre Dame doesn't discriminate when they hire faculty, then of course Notre Dame is not going to be an institution with a body of people who are totally in agreement with Catholic principles. The university itself can be as solidly Catholic as it intends, but how does it organize education among a group of students/faculty who may or may not be in agreement with the Catholic church? That's the fundamental question. Notre Dame is a Catholic educational institution situated among the best universities America has to offer. If the bishops want to make it a totally private religious university ala Bob Jones University, then you can stop accepting students and faculty who don't ascribe to Catholic teachings, stop accepting gov't money as well. You can give up accreditation too. But you can't be both 100% Catholic AND a school that does not insist on total agreement with Catholic teaching among faculty and students. Consider: the Bishops are saying ND should not honor someone who acts against Catholicism. What if a Physics student acts against, do they deserve to receive a Science medal? Or another student a poetry award? Will ND then not honor its own students and faculty who are not Catholic? Some might argue that the commencement speech is very different from an academic award, but since when can Catholics pick and choose the moment when to apply principles? If you can't honor ANYONE who acts against Catholic teaching, then you can't honor students and faculty as well. I daresay that many of the critics who inveigh against ND would also not be eligible for these honors, particularly a person at InsideCatholic.com. |
| By Dan Asta on May 17, 2009 at 11:16 AM | |
| 105. | Should the University of Notre Dame refuse to issue a degree - the "real" kind -to a graduating student who is pro-choice, used a condemn or the pill, or does not otherwise adhere to the doctrines of the church? |
| By Peter on May 19, 2009 at 12:38 PM | |
| 106. | I hear what is being said here. To support the pro-life cause in America and not ally one's self with the Republican Party is very difficult. I know that rational dialogue is supposed to be what moves peoples forward, keeps us loving one another. It's just hard to be rational when children are being killed. So pardon me while I vote for someone like Ron Paul (pro-life, anti-war, small government) and give money to Catholic Relief Services, an organization that I trust to provide aid to those in need. I might be irrational. I might be a little partisan. I might be paying taxes for things I find morally reprehensible. Fine. I'll write my letters, protesting war and violence and pray that the next Republican president doesn't make me look like a fool. I'd keep going, but I'm not sure anyone is listening. I'm getting irrational and I can't see too well with the tears in my eyes. |
| By John on May 21, 2009 at 8:15 AM | |
| 107. | Dear editors: An editorial in America (May 11) calls for Catholic universities and intellectuals to "defend the richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition." Indeed, I agree that the Church must be catholic, or universal. The editor also decries the "political partisanship" of pro-lifers who denounce Democrats but never criticize Republicans. I agree that we must never fall into the trap of Catholicism = Republicanism. Nevertheless, the editor leaves out a little "detail": abortion is solidly in the very platform of the Democratic party. A few pro-life Democrats try to buck a huge pro-abortion machine. THAT is why faithful Catholics find little hope from the Democrats; politicians who make war against the unborn child will not usher in peace or prosperity. Furthermore, abortion is neither "subtle" nor "nuanced;" it is barbaric and, I believe, one day will be unthinkable in a civilized society. I believe the day is coming when our major political parties must undergo huge transformation, or when other, new parties will emerge. One such third party is the American Revolution Party. Its platform is the Just Third Way, totally compatible with the univeresal social justice of the Catholic Church. Bonnie Sabin |
| By Bonnie Sabin on May 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM | |
| 108. | I just received a subscription postcard from America yesterday. This morning I hesitated a minute before putting it in the garbage, since St Ignatius is one of my heroes. But reading this editorial, I think he would have liked me to put it in the garbage too. |
| By jorge imperial on May 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM | |
| 109. | The citation from Gaudium et Spes at the end of this article is taken way out of context. "Anything which divides" the faithful is not meant to be read as including "political opinions", as this article puts it. Guadium et Spes no. 92, from which the editors take this citation, indicates that the dialogue allowed by the Church is "to unify under one Spirit all men of whatever NATION, RACE, OR CULTURE"... not those of whatever "political opinion". Furthermore, it is disingenuous to frame disagreement on abortion as a mere "political opinion". Gaudium et Spes itself identifies abortion as an "unspeakable crime" (51), listing it along with murder and genocide as being "opposed to life itself" (27). Such language about abortion far distances it so as to regard support or opposition of abortion as mere "political opinion". Guadium et Spes does aim to settle how dialogue is to take place. And it does so by distinguishing the individual from what notions that individual holds. Charity IS always to motivate dialogue, but charity is to be directed toward the individual, never to be confused with complicit acceptance or condoning of whatever erroneous positions the individual holds. Gaudium et Spes speaks of this charity in article no. 28: "This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions." |
| By Richard on May 21, 2009 at 6:48 PM | |
| 110. | Dear America, As the human embryo is created at conception in the Image of God, does abortion amount to a miniature crucifixion? I have googled the keywords more than a couple times since before the Election and cannot find a discussion or article on the topic. Thank you |
| By EdwinCooperMD on May 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM | |
| 111. | Once Notre Dame is stripped of its Catholic moniker, I hope America Magazine is next. Perhaps it was providential that a magazine like this would end up with a name like America, a place that has replaced true religion for liberalism and the god of mammon and spineless, faux compassion and dialogue. |
| By Patrick on May 22, 2009 at 2:45 PM | |
| 112. | I wish there was a share button on the articles so the url could be sent to twitter |
| By Beverly on May 24, 2009 at 8:36 PM | |
| 113. | Thank you, Janice Johnson. Your eloquent defense of life is in total accord with my catholic and natural law beliefs. Social and human justice are not the property of any political party. ND has taken a public scandalous action which confounds all Catholics who are for the sanctity of life. I have met one evangelical christian who is convinced the CHURCH is pro-abortion based on its public actions. I myself wonder where the CHURCH is? Do Jesuits have a different view of public scandal than I was led to believe. |
| By Robert Tobin on June 15, 2009 at 6:47 PM | |
| 114. | I am a pro-life Democrat so in Massachusetts I usually have to blank the ballot. However the editors of "America" sound to me like a shrill for the Democratic Party |
| By joan sheridan on September 6, 2009 at 6:32 PM | |
Post a Comment
You need to log in order to post a comment to this artcile.
Pleaese click here to log in.
