Be sure to catch both parts of M. Cathleen Kaveny, professor of theology and law at Notre Dame, explaining Catholic morality, the role of the bishops and the development of the lay theologian, on "The Daily Show" last night. (Part II can be found here.) It was noteable for being a calm and lucid discussion of several hot topics. Stewart seemed particularly interested in what Ms. Kaveny had to say. Kaveny is also a blogger for DotCommonweal a frequent writer for America. A list of her recent articles is here.
M. Cathleen Kaveny on 'The Daily Show'
The latest from america
This week, a music festival returns to the Chiquitos missions in Bolivia, which the Jesuits established between 1691 and 1760. The story of the Jesuit "reductions" was made popular by the 1986 film ‘The Mission.’
The world can change for the better only when people are out in the world, “not lying on the couch,” Pope Francis told some 6,000 Italian schoolchildren.
Our theology of relics tells us something beautiful and profound not only about God but about what we believe about materiality itself.
"3 Body Problem" is an imaginative Netflix adaptation of Cixin Liu's trilogy of sci-fi novels—and yet is mostly true to the books.
Richard Rohr says that the insights of "most church doctrines are invariably profound and correct, but they are still expressed in mechanical and literal language that everybody either adores, stumbles over, denies, or fights... "
I think that we need more teachers like Cathleen Kaveny to help us creatively learn the language in which we can resonate with the truth that our Church holds for us.
Teachers like Cathleen Kaveny help us learn the language we need to creatively resonate Catholic truth.
I found this to be a very thoughtful discussion and hopefully one that took the temperature down a few notches. I think at the end, however, her argument was a little weaker because she cast it in terms of religious liberty for individuals or groups (such as churches and employers). In other words, it sound to me as though these discussions of religious liberty took place in the context of the free and equal interaction between individuals and groups. Such an analysis overlooks the fact that individuals and groups (e.g. employees and employers) do not have equal power in their relationships, and that everyone, groups and individuals, have very assymmetric relations with the government. This does not invalidate her points, but it does suggest that a broader and more careful analysis is needed: to what extent can the government enforce principles upheld by a majority at the expense of the religious liberty of others?
Three instances from our history suggest that this is complicated. In the 19th century the Supreme Court upheld laws against polygamy, effectively preventing Mormons from practicing a central tenet of their faith. In 1941, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force students to say the pledge of allegience, despite overwhelmingly popular support for mandatory pledges. And finally, in the 1960s, the Civil Rights Act forced religious institutions (such as hospitals) to desegregate, even if the faith organization that ran them believed that segregation was scriptural. This third case is perhaps the most apropo, since it involves the government forcing a religious institution to do something (provide insurance coverage for contraception/desgregate a public institution) that is against the religious beliefs of the organization. While I am strongly suspicious of the HHS mandate, I have yet to see a convincing argument that allows me to separate these two cases. In other words: on what principle can we object to the HHS mandate while supporting the desegration of religiously affiliated hospitals, etc. in the deep South?
Social justice is great if it is truly practiced but that is not what I was taught about being a Catholic. I was taught that Christ left a Church to help with the salvation of people and hopefully, no one on earth would fall through the cracks. But it was not about making life here on earth as comfortable for everyone as possible or excusing any action that is not currently politically popular or accepting actions that are contrary to the objective of salvation just because they are popular. Too often we never pursue all the ramifications of the actions or policies that seem on the surface reasonable and desirable but which may have unintended consequence for the salvation of souls or even a comfortable life here on earth.
Of course if everyone is saved automatically as some here say or no one is punished then who cares who does what to whom or for themselves. It makes no difference. That is not what I believe because it is basically a nilihistic philosophy that leads to a hell on earth. But just what are the standards we have to live up to and who imposes the standards. I was taught what they were in my Catholic education. Are they still doing so? Are we still standing up for them? I think the answer to the last two questions are not much and that is one reason why nobody sees any particular reason to be a Catholic.
The contraception issue is a red herring introduced for political reasons only. There is no need to include it in any health insurance plan and if someone wants to work at another place where it is covered, then they are welcome to do so. People choose their place of work for various reasons and this could be one of them. Supplementary insurance is available to anyone. People on medicare get gap insurance all the time and the extent of it varies depending on what they are willing to pay.
And though I feel free to explore other religious traditions, there is nothing quite like Catholicism for me. Sometimes I am frustrated with the structure and hierarchy of the Catholic Church, but I got over being hung up on the "rules" back when I was 18 years old when I realized that Catholicism was so much bigger than that. Catholicism is not a club with membership rules, it is a way of living the profoundly Christian insight of the Incarnation.
Pedro Arrupe SJ says that Christian justice is part of Christian love. To give and love like Christ means we just don’t give what we have, but we give what we are. We give ourselves. Arrupe believed that love compels us give more than we can afford by limiting and even renouncing our own needs and interests in order to give to others. This is self-emptying love. This is Christ-centered love. And it is through this kind of love that hope shines through the darkness of the world and lights a way for justice to prevail.
This is the standard that my Catholic education asks me to live up to. What are your standards?
I was also impressed with Jon Stewart, whom I have always considered rather a mediocre comedian. He gave a good interview, let her make her points, seemed to understand what she said, followed up well.
Outstanding.
Splendid meditation. Thanks for sharing.
Sounds like Matthew 25:36-41. Unless you are a selective Catholic.
Professor Kaveny, you did a fine job - even if a bit painfully intense at times. I think you accomplished a difficult dance and got in key talking points about social justice that transcend some of the particulars of this discussion. Hope you'd do it again!