Posted by Christopher at 1:59 AM
Mark from Minute Particulars offers a thoughtful response to my previous post on Catholic disagreement w/ the Vatican over Iraq and further reflections on the semantics of "dissent" and "disagreement". In the latter part of his post Mark expresses his deep concern at the words and actions of various as yet unidentified "Catholic pundits", online or in print:
- I get the impression that Catholics are being encouraged to look for loopholes, to walk within the letter but perhaps not the spirit of Church Teaching, to wiggle and squirm so they can comfortably dismiss the clear statements of concern about current events from the USCCB and the pope. I don't mean genuine, faithful dissent that may be heroic, objectively correct, and noble. I don't mean a humble, reverent shaking of one's head in disapproval. . . . I mean the dissent of Catholics who boldly proclaim the bishops are wrong, the Vatican is wrong, the pope is wrong on an issue of utmost moral significance.
I don't understand the loud and booming dismissals of official statements by USCCB and the pope that many have offered for public consumption. I don't quite see how these Catholic pundits can be so confident; from my vantage point they only seem to be offering a simplistic notion of the difference between doctrinal statements and prudential judgments, a shallow reading of the Tradition, and subtle but definite resistance to letting the Lumen Gentium shine without filters or obstruction through the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
But more importantly I'm troubled by the following fact: most of this resistance is coming from faithful, good-willed, intelligent Catholics. Sure there are some frothing fringe folks, but many of these opinions are coming from those who, judging from what they've said in the past and on many issues, are wiser, smarter, and older than I am. It's as if the cap is stuck on the St. Blog's toothpaste tube and the current crisis is giving it a good, hardy squeeze; the toothpaste is squirting out in places I would have never suspected. And this is disturbing because it makes it clear that the consensus on many issues of earlier times was a little more brittle than I thought.
Mark: Thank you, for offering your thoughts on this matter. If there is anything in this blog such that would give you this kind of impression -- mea culpa. While I stand by what I've said in my previous post, disputing this war should not be a matter of "looking for loopholes" or cause for "loud and booming dismissals" of the Pope and the statements of our bishops (single or collective); in that I am certainly in complete agreement with you.
I do not have much time to write right now, given the hour. But I understand and am most sympathetic to your concerns. (My recent posts were certainly not the last word on this topic, but rather a brief response and correction).
Lastly, on this note: I have devoted some of my time this past week to putting together a new website on the just war debate. It is actually modeled after my plodding exploration of the Church's encounter with classical liberalism and, while very much a "work in progress", will hopefully compile a substantial amount of sources from both sides of the debate so as to provide a resource for further research and ground for civilized and respectful discussion by interested parties. *
* Note to readers: one can only google for so long, and those better acquainted with various criticisms of the Iraq war on specifically "just war principles" are invited to submit their recommendations (books as well, please). I would sincerely appreciate it.
Attention, Class . . .
Posted by Christopher at 1:48 AM
I. Shawn McElhinney is blogging this week on An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History, with reference to the work of Cardinal Dulles and other online sources. Good stuff!
Posted by Christopher at 1:50 AM
Chicago's Cardinal Francis George told the Register that "A mandatum is a public reality, like getting a degree from a university. It's a fact that a bishop has given a particular faculty member a mandatum that they are teaching in communion with the Church. That is a public matter. Whether to publicize it or not is a private matter."
"It's a personal act," he added, "but personal acts are sometimes public, like receiving a sacrament."
While the U.S. bishops' guidelines don't explicitly address the question of whether mandatums should be known to the public or not, they are unequivocal about one thing: Every Catholic theology professor has to have one.
"All Catholics who teach theological disciplines in a Catholic university are required to have a mandatum," it continues.
Canon 812 uses similar language, without specifying Catholics: "It is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority."
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1990 instruction "The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian" explains the reason for the mandatum when it says that one who has become a Catholic theologian has "freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church" (No. 38).
The National Catholic Register features it's six-part ongoing investigation of whether Catholic colleges & universities are complying with the Church's instruction regarding proper qualification of those who teach theology. Several of the 'big-name' schools (Georgetown, Loyola, Notre Dame) are less than willing to disclose whether members of their theology department have obtained the mandatum, claiming it is a "private matter" between the professor and the bishop, or that to even obligate religion teachers to do so would violate their "academic freedom."
Needless to say, this secrecy fails to instill a feeling of confidence to Catholic parents concerned that their children receive the "Catholic education" they deserve. (As one parent put it, "I disagree that this is a private issue, . . . [it] is not consistent with an active laity in the Church. If parents are paying $10,000 or $20,000 a year to send [their children] to a Catholic school, they have a right to know what they are paying for.") Unfortunately, some parents have learned the hard way. But rather than take the chance, the Register reveals, many parents are opting for the security of Catholic institutions who publicly disclose the credentials of their faculty and unhesitantly affirm their devotion to the Magisterium.
Posted by Christopher at 1:05 AM
Chris Sullivan responds to my last post:
- For a web site dedicated to Cardinal Ratzinger, I am disappointed that you give such weight to the pro-war views of certain US Catholics and such little weight or attention to the views of Cardinal Ratzinger himself, who always resolutely opposed the invasion of Iraq. Let alone the views of the Holy Father or the many Catholic Bishop's conferences throughout the world who all opposed this war.
There is little point in looking to towards Rome or to Cardinal Ratzinger if you don't listen carefully to what they say and try to follow their lead.
It should be clear by now that I do not share the opinion of those who believe disagreement with the Pope and Ratzinger over this war constitutes unfaithfulness to the Church. I certainly do not think one could apply the label of 'dissenter' to Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel, Hudson, et al. or to any Catholic who with consideration and humility offered their respectful disagreement with the Vatican on this matter.
I did not expect (nor would I have preferred) that the Pope baptize this war as a new crusade. The Holy Father has done what Catholics should desire and trust him to do in a time of international crisis: to urge that the option of war be adopted as a last resort, that all possible peaceful means be exhausted, and that if it comes to such, that the principles of waging a just war (noncombatant immunity; proportionality; right intention) be carefully administered throughout.
Likewise, while Cardinal Ratzinger did oppose the war, he did so based on his opinion as to whether the principles of CJWT were suitably applied and concerns about what might happen as a consequence of the war (further political destabilization in the Middle East, the inflammation of radical Islamic hatred towards Christianity.) 1 Other scholars who have made the Church's Just War tradition and matters of U.S. foreign policy the focus of their studies have respectfully disagreed, offering their own reasons (which I find after consideration to be credible).
But unlike the questionable and misleading statements of some members of the clergy, neither the Pope nor Ratzinger have explicitly and definitely ruled that the war is immoral, or -- carrying out what I would imagine might be the logical action of such ruling -- placed those who engage in this war under penalty of sin. I believe the reason they have declined to do so -- in spite of the likely wishes of the press or the anti-war movement -- is that they recognize it is not their prerogative to do so.
To "follow [the Pope & Ratzinger's] lead" certainly obligates us to consider what they and the rest of the bishops have to say, but it does not prohibit faithful Catholics from disagreeing in matters where the Catechism specifically reserves ultimate judgement on moral legitimacy of military action not to the clergy, but to those "who have responsibility for the common good," -- and furthermore permits Catholic laity to engage in prudential judgements on such matters as well. As to the nature of such decisions, Russel Shaw explains:
- Given the limits of human knowledge, even prudential judgments by prudent people can be mistaken. In the present instance, the pope and Catholics who differed with him — conscientious and informed people like Novak, Weigel and Hudson — based their stands on an assessment of likely consequences of different courses of action. Since the assessments of what was more or less likely to happen in the future were different, so were the conclusions about what course of action to take.
To disagree with the pope in this manner is not dissent. It's not as if Pope John Paul II had taught a definitive moral principle (e.g., direct attacks on noncombatants are ruled out) which the disagreeing Catholics rejected. They agreed with the principle. They disagreed about something contingent and by no means certain: what the future outcome of complex, competing scenarios was likely to be.
2
In short, as the CDF notes in its document on the participation of Catholics in political life, the "Church’s magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions," -- from everything that I have read and understand, the matter of U.S. policy in Iraq remains just that). 3
Please forgive the cursory response -- it's getting late, and I realize there is much to talk about. I would be open to discuss this further, having previously set aside a section of the RFC's forum for this purpose. I can promise you that if you would present further your argument as to why the war was unjust, I would certainly take the time to respond in more depth.
Further resources or related reading:
- Honestly there wasn't a great deal I could find by the Cardinal in the way of specific quotes with regards to the war; if you could please direct me to some (besides this I would appreciate it.
- Iraq, Weigel and the Pope, by Russel Shaw. Catholic Exchange March 13, 2003.
- Quote from the CDF document borrowed from Deal Hudson's "Making Our Own Decisions", on why prudential decisions about the legitimacy of this war differ from, say, a decision whether to proceed with an abortion. Crisis Magazine March 1, 2003.
Posted by Christopher at 11:19 PM
- OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta . . .
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. [. . .]
So says Stephen S. Hays in the article "Case Closed", Weekly Standard (11/14/03).
The Drudge Report posted a link to the article, leading to the collapse of the Weekly Standard's servers due to the overwhelming number of hits. Fortunately the blog Little Green Footballs and Fox News mirrored the article on their websites in the meantime, and the New York Post picked up the story on Saturday.
However, as noted by Lane Core and Catholic Light's Eric Johnson, the rest of the mainstream media appears to be rather hesitant to address the matter. I've personally searched some websites, and thus far have failed to see mention of it by CNN or MSNBC, much less a significant publication like the New York Times.
One would think that the existence of such a memo would deserve major attention by the rest of the media -- after all, it does appear to be a significant document in justifying U.S. action in Iraq, certainly a matter of public interest at this point in time.
In addition, Hays describes it as a "'Cliff's Notes' version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive":
- . . . both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.
Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.
UPDATE [11/17/03] - InstaPundit posts some additional links of reactions to the memo (and the DOD's qualified response) from the blogging community.
* * *
The details of Hays' article appear to vindicate the position of Dan Darling, who made his case earlier this week on the justifiability of the war in relation to Catholic Just War doctrine. Of the three point argument for the necessity of the war offered by the Bush Administration -- WMD's; human rights abuses, and ties to Al Qaeda -- Darling finds the latter "the the key justification for any attempt to fit the war in Iraq into the Just War model."
Meanwhile, Mark Windsor of Vociferous Yawpings offers his reflections on using the Catechism as a critique of U.S. policy in Iraq:
- The idea of brotherly love was woven into the fabric of just war doctrine . . . it’s easy to sit back and check-off the bullet points in the Catechism and say; “meets it here” or “misses it there” and draw a conclusion based on the hits or misses. But to do so is to look at only the outermost layer of DJW. To look at it in this way robs the Doctrine of its heart, and it’s not too much of a stretch to say that it robs the Doctrine of Christ.
and makes his own case as to why the U.S. action is justifiable. For Windsor, the matter of finding WMD's was incidental, the documented record of Saddam Hussein's extensive human rights abuses primary:
- When considered with the background that spawned the Doctrine in the first place, we see a greater potential sin in our years of inaction and support for Saddam than in our decision to overthrow him last spring. If we read the checklist of DJW criteria without the interwoven idea of love, then we can come to a very different conclusion.
Much of the debate between Catholics over this war and CJWD focuses on reconciliation of U.S. policy with the first point ("the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain"); but I agree with Mark Windsor's post: non-intervention in the face of Iraq's outstanding crimes against humanity would have been morally reprehensible. 1 In retrospect, it was the moral obligation of the U.S. to assist in stopping Saddam's reign of terror which influenced my support of the war. The discovery of numerous mass graves indicating that possibly as many as 300,000 Iraqis were killed make me wonder why we didn't take action sooner.
* * *
Meanwhile, Sandro Magister recently interviewed Louis Sako, bishop of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Kirkuk on the current state of affairs in Iraq. While skeptical about the U.S.'s humanitarian claims for invading Iraq ("They have their interests, and they came to Iraq for those, not to liberate the Iraqis. But, in fact, freedom was the result"), he says that the reaction of the Iraqi populace is overwhelmingly positive and is optimistic about the nation's future.
Bishop Sakso also comments on the ongoing collaberation between Muslims and Christians to secure religious interests, ("we formed a mixed group of Christians and Muslims to defend the churches and mosques before and during the war. We furthermore promised conferences to explain Christianity and islam; many friendships were born, and some of the Muslims have welcomed our appeal for national unity"), the critical need to further dialogue between the two faiths, and calls for ecumenical assistance in rebuilding the nation of Iraq:
- There are 700,000 Christians in Iraq, and in a year, when the emphasis on Iraq is gone, who will remember them? . . . I make this appeal to all the religious congregations: come to Iraq to lend a hand, especially in education, and not only for the Christians. Here in Iraq, man himself must be reconstructed, and we can’t do it alone.
- I hold the same opinion of the Clinton Administration's refusal to prevent the genocide of nearly a million Tutsis in Rwanda, documented by Nat Hentoff in a three part series (March 2; March 9; March 16) and by Philip Gourevitch in the book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families (September, 1999).
Posted by Christopher at 1:47 AM
Q: Which Vatican II periti said the following:
- If we Christians, when faced with a moral decision, really realized that the world is under the Cross on which God himself hung nailed and pierced, that obedience to God's law can also entail man's death, that we may not do evil in order that good may come of it, that it is an error and heresy of this eudemonic modern age to hold that the morally right thing can never lead to a tragic situation from which in this world there is no way out; if we really realized that as Christians we must expect almost to take for granted that at some time in our life our Christianity will involve us in a situation in which we must either sacrifice everything or lose our soul, that we cannot expect always to avoid a "heroic" situation, then there would indeed be fewer Christians who think that their situation requires a special ruling which is not so harsh as the laws proclaimed as God's laws by the Church, then there would be fewer confessors and spiritualt advisors who, for fear of telling their penitent how strict is God's law, fail in their duty and tell him instead to follow his conscience, as if he had not asked, and done right to ask, which among all the many voices clamoring within him was the true voice of God, as if it were not for God's Church to try and distinguish it in accordance with his law, as if the true conscience could speak even when it had not been informed by God and the faith which comes from hearing.
A man who has learnt -- by the grace of God -- to beware of man because he is a liar (omnis homo mendax) and so beware of himself because he is a man, will no longer able to say so lightly: "I will make this right with my conscience; what the priests say is just red tape." Must we make the thing right "with our conscience" or in fact -- putting it more exactly and more honestly -- with God? And doesn't God speak more clearly -- precisely in complicated and difficult cases -- by his own word through the mouth of His Church? -- so we can only be certain that we are really hearing the voice of our conscience and not the voice of our own sinful inclinations when this voice agrees with the Church's teaching. The priests are not erecting red tape when they abide by the teaching of the Church, but they are telling us the word of God. Is it really extraordinary that this word (which is God's) is so "unrealistic" and so "unsuited to the times," when "reality" is against God and the times are evil and the Christian must be prepared to take his stand for God against "reality" and the "times" even unto death?
Answer (posted 11/13/03):
This is an excerpt from an essay by Karl Rahner, "[on] The Appeal to Conscience", Nature & Grace: Dillemas In The Modern Church (Sheed & Ward, 1964), in which he criticizes the "situation ethic" (in which "the norm for the individual conscience is no longer the objective nature of the act concerned, the moral law and the commandments of God, but in a sense, the conscience itself [as] the lawgiver") as well as those engrossed by a "mystique of sin" (proposing that one can go on sinning, trusting in the mercy of God -- "that God writes straight with crooked lines gives the creature no right to draw crooked lines in his book of life").
Perhaps it's because I have read very little Rahner to begin with and am largely ignorant of his works, but given the tendency of his critics to portray him as 'modernist theologian' extraordinaire (or in the words of Bishop Williamson of the SSPX, the "prime delinquent" of Vatican II), and also for the praise given him by 'progressive' Catholics along with Kung, Congar, et al., I was struck by the rather traditional tone of this essay, so explicitly critical of moral attitudes commonly attributed to dissenting post Vatican-II Catholics today.
Posted by Christopher at 10:21 PM
Prominent Catholic philosophers and theologians are currently involved in an ongoing debate over the compatibility of Catholicism with modern liberalism. 1 A prominent figure in this debate is the Marxist-turned-Thomist philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre. MacIntyre's two prominent works are After Virtue and Whose Justice, Which Rationality, which from what I understand examine how Western moral discourse has since the Enlightenment become disconnected from its rootedness in Aristotelian teleology, culminating in the fragmentation of clashing and incompatible traditions and the prevailing attitudes of emotivism and relativism. I've only read bits and pieces of MacIntyre's books back in college, so I'll refrain from attempting further explication -- Edward T. Oakes, a scholar of Hans Urs Von Balthasar, has written an article on "Achievement of Alasdair MacIntyre" for First Things (August/September 1996).
It was just recently Cardinal James Francis Stafford, president of Pontifical Council for the Laity, recommended MacIntyre in an interview with the Zenit news service:
-
Q: Growing conflicts between contemporary culture and faith seem to be keeping many Catholics from accepting the teachings of the Church on moral issues. How can that gap between the magisterium and contemporary culture be healed?
Cardinal Stafford: I think the lay people have much to teach us in this. I am thinking of such lay persons as Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, David Schindler, Tracey Rowland in Australia -- a great woman theologian -- some lay theologians in Great Britain. They are indicating to us that we have to better our understanding of the theology of culture. I understand them to say that the Vatican Council was too optimistic in its assessment -- "Gaudium et Spes" especially -- of the compatibility between postmodern culture and the Catholic faith. I am in full agreement with that judgment.
2
Yesterday I came across two articles on the Internet that made use of Alasdair MacIntyre which came from disparate sources, but are actually connected at a deeper level. The first is an article by Thaddeus J. Kozinski, making use of MacIntyre's critique of liberalism to address the "blind spot" inherent in Jacques Maritain's "democratic faith," arguing as a solution the establishment of the temporal Kingship of Christ. 3.
The "social kingship" of Christ -- that is to say the temporal unification of Church and State -- is espoused by some Catholic traditionalist circles, such as The Remnant and the Society of Saint Pius X. They hold this to be an essential teaching of the Catholic Church neglected and contradicated by Vatican II in a victory of John Courtney Murray and the forces of modernism. Michael Davies makes the case in The Remnant for the traditionalist position in "The Reign of Christ The King" in The Remnant; Cardinal Avery Dulles examines the evolution of the Church's teaching on such matters in Religious Freedom: Innovation and Development (First Things 118, December 2001).
It was in researching the web for a blog on the first article that I came across the second -- a review of Whose Justice? Which Rationality? by Dr. Legenhausen, for an Iranian scholarly journal. 4 What immediately struck me upon reading the first several pages was the way in which Dr. Legenhausen and his colleagues were clearly involved in a similar debate on the compatibility of Islam with Western liberal tradition and culture:
-
One of the most important issues in Islamic social and political thought since the nineteenth century has been the confrontation of traditional Muslim societies with European modernism, and one of the most important facets of modernism about which Muslim thinkers are concerned is that of political liberalism. Muslims who argue that liberal ideals and institutions are compatible with Islam are usually classified as modernists. At the other extreme are those who would claim that liberal and Islamic thought agree on nothing. The vast majority of Muslim intellectuals and scholars, however, fall somewhere between these extremes. The interesting discussion in contemporary Muslim social thought is not over whether modernists or conservatives hold a more defensible position, but what aspects of liberal thought may be accommodated and what aspects must be rejected. . . .
Muslim liberals who await a repetition of the European Enlightenment in Islamic culture would also be well advised to read MacIntyre, who has declared the Enlightenment project to be a failure and ultimately incoherent. Perhaps if Muslim modernists would read MacIntyre they would become more critical of the claims made on behalf of liberalism, and would come to recognize the need to examine the intellectual history of their own traditions, as well as those of the West, to find the way forward. Perhaps MacIntyre's books can serve as a kind of vaccination against the infatuation with Western culture which Persians call gharbzadigi.
The concern of Dr. Legenhausen and other Muslim scholars regarding the corrupting effects of modern liberalism and Western culture mirrors the arguments made by Christian scholars like Dr. Schindler, Stanley Hauerwas, Tracey Rowland, et al. While most Catholics will probably refrain from proposing the marriage of Church and State as a solution to the present moral crisis, we can recognize that these concerns are mutually held by Catholics and Muslims and are a potential source for dialogue between our two faiths. This possibility was mentioned by Cardinal Ratzinger in an interview with Zenit.org last year, when the question was raised of the "superiority" of Judeo-Christian culture to Islam post 9/11:
-
Q: The confrontation with Islam is a burning issue. In your opinion, can one speak of the superiority of the Judeo-Christian culture?
Cardinal Ratzinger: It is a minefield, but I don´t want to avoid the question. When we speak of culture, we must distinguish the values of its historic realizations. The truth of the Christian faith appears to us in all its depth, but we mustn´t forget that, sadly, it has been darkened many times by the concrete behavior of those who called themselves Christians. Islam has also had moments of great splendor and decadence in the course of its history.
Q: Hence, one cannot speak of the superiority of one culture over another?
Cardinal Ratzinger: Naturally, we can and must say, for example, that the values of monogamous marriage, of the dignity of woman, etc., undoubtedly demonstrate a cultural superiority.
It is true that the Muslim world is not totally mistaken when it reproaches the West of Christian tradition of moral decadence and the manipulation of human life. ... This imposes on us a serious examination of conscience. What is important is to go to the roots of the values proclaimed by the different religions. It is here where a real interreligious dialogue can begin.
I was curious as to how a Muslim like Dr. Legenhausen would develop an interest in a philosopher like Alasdair MacIntyre. Turns out that he was educated at a Catholic high school in Queens, New York. A number of his articles are published in the Al Tawhid journal, including the study of Islamic philosophy, the relationship between philosophy and theology, and the confrontation of Islam with religious pluralism (with particular attention to John Hick), with which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is currently occupied.
- See John Allen Jr.'s overview "Is John Paul II Too Liberal?" (National Catholic Reporter August 22, 2003. I have devoted a separate website and blog to coverage of this specific issue.
- Cardinal Stafford on the Church Crisis. Interview w/ EWTN. August 24, 2003.
- Jacques Maritain’s "Democratic Faith": Heretical or Orthodox?, by Thaddeus J. Kozinski. Catholic University of America. As I also discovered, Kozinski briefly tangled with Fr. Neuhaus on this topic in the pages of First Things. Fr. Neuhaus's responds to Kozinski on "the distinction between the ideal and what is prudentially judged to be possible or desirable."
- Whose Justice, Which Rationality?, reviewed by Dr. Muhammad Legenhausen al Tawhid Islamic Journal, vol. 14 No. 2 Qum, The Islamic Republic of Iran.
- "Ratzinger Highlights Christian Challenge Following September 11". Interview with Zenit.Org. March 3, 2002.
Posted by Christopher at 3:09 AM
The Southern Cross, the Catholic weekly of South Africa, has published the online Vatican II recollections of Archbishop Denis E Hurley, among which comes this amusing anecdote:
- Archbishop Heenan of Westminster was [not in a good mood] . . . He thought the text [of Gaudium Et Spes] was a disaster, and in voicing his criticism took the opportunity of denouncing globetrotting religious periti (council experts) who were disturbing the faith of simple Catholic people. Many understood that his main target was Fr Bernard Häring, the prominent moral theologian who had been lecturing in England.
The Benedictine abbot of Beuron, Germany, in his intervention said he seemed to remember a group of globetrotting religious who ended up in England and settled in Canterbury.
The saying got around that Archbishop Heenan had been suffering from peritinitis from overindulgence in herring and that the remedy prescribed was Benedictine.
Posted by Christopher at 3:00 AM
Bill Cork posted recently on "Ecumenical Jihad" 1, referring to a book by Peter Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston U. and Catholic apologist. The title of the book is apt to send some religious factions into hysterics (radtrads at the word "ecumenical", liberals at the word "jihad"), but if you glance beyond the cover the proposition is interesting: a united moral front of Christians and Muslims against the oncoming tide of godless secularists"who acknowledge no law above human desire and all the religions of the world." (Incidentally, Mark Shea invoked Kreeft back in January 2003 in a plea for anti-Catholics and radtrads to cease "niggling about niceties of some point of doctrine" and come together over what counts).
Bill is somewhat dismissive of Kreeft's proposal, on grounds that "Christianity is more than moralism; we have a message to preach which is not simply a legislative program." I think this is an unfair representation of Kreeft's thought, simply because anybody perusing Kreeft's extensive body of writings in Christian apologetics will see he would be the last one to reduce Christianity to a "legislative program."
And yet, if Kreeft does make a case for religions joining ranks in moral affairs, this is not a bad place to start. Christians, Muslims and Jews disagree immensely over theological issues, but if there is any place where they can surely find common ground it is in morality. Kreeft is basically reiterating the call of Vatican II for Catholics to engage in "dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, [to] preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men." (Nostra Aetate).
Of course, Kreeft did write the book back in 1996 -- and engaged as we are in a post 9/11 "war on Terrorism," in which the enemy coincidentally happens to be an adherent to fundamentalist Islam, his vision of moral unity between Christians and Muslims has met with unanticipated obstacles. In defense of Kreeft, I don't think he counted as part of his proposal an alliance with the Taliban or Islamic fundamentalism. Nevertheless, threatened as we are by an increasingly transparent culture of death, I believe that Kreeft's proposal for joint action on the part of Muslims, Jews and Christians is just as worthy of consideration now as it was then.
* * *
Perhaps in reaction to recent events, I've noticed a number of bloggers taking more vocal positions on Islam. Some assume an increasingly critical or overtly hostile stance, questioning the portrayal of Islam as a "religion of peace" and vehemently denouncing the "islamofacists" responsible for persecution under Sharia law. Some have gone so far as to propogate visions of a modern Europe overrun by the Crescent, churches and museums leveled and replaced by mosques, the backs of the enslaved populace bent in forced prostration to Allah. 1 It was only today that I came across two blogs -- DhimmiWatch and JihadWatch, exclusively devoted to presenting the negative and most deplorable face of Islam.
Others, perhaps seeking to counter what they feel is an unjust and one-sided portrayal of Islam, blog on what they contend are credible and worthwhile features of Islam: the various similarities between Islam and Christianity in doctrine and practice; the religious devotion and admirable discipline found in Islamic religious observance, or the spiritual/mystical aspects within Islamic tradition. Needless to say, such bloggers are usually perceived by the former as hopelessly naive, foolishly optimistic, blind to the "real face" of Islam. 2
This dual tendency in blogging on Islam is something I have observed over the course of the past year, reading the blogs by members of what we call St. Blog's Parish. I actually understand where both sides are coming from, and I believe both are justified (to a certain degree) in what they say. For instance, I agree with the reasons Mark Shea has for criticizing Islam:
- I regard it as diseased because it has a tendency to produce despotisms, it's borders are continually bloody, it tends to create people who fly planes into skyscrapers and lots of other people who cheer for that, and it tends to create backward cultures who blame their backwardness on the Jews because the repressive regimes they live under deflect their anger that way (and at us) rather than allow it to be directed at themselves.
These "tendencies" of which Mr. Shea speaks are clearly present within Islam, and he has every right to condemn them. But I am also prompted to ask: is this all there is to it? Certainly not. For the religion of Islam that Mr. Shea speaks of is also the religion about which our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, offers these words of respect and praise. Was he naive, deluded, wrong in saying so? -- I expect Mr. Shea would join me in saying no. Our approach to Islam would be greatly deprived if we didn't heed the words of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Francis Arinze as well.
Likewise, for many of us living in the United States, Islam may very well be the religious heritage of our own friends and neighbors. Some of us have, like Mr. Cork and his son (or the Pope himself), stepped foot inside a mosque and witnessed Muslims in prayer, or perhaps even the pleasure of joining them in the breaking of the Ramadan fast. I consider it a blessing to have had the opportunity to do both -- for it is in such encounters and occasions for dialogue, these face to face meetings with the other, that I believe we truly gain an understanding and appreciation of Islam.
Consequently -- at the risk of stating the perfectly obvious -- perhaps both sides in this dispute should strive not to emphasize one "face" of Islam at the neglect and exclusion of the other. Realistic criticism of the tendencies towards despotism and fundamentalism within Islam is indeed necessary, but left at that it can easily give fuel to prejudice and hatred -- if not countered by a willingness to learn and recognize that which is also good and worthy of our respect. To that end I agree with Mr. Cork's recommendation that we should approach Islam in the spirit and example of St. Francis.
* * *
Finally, earlier this year, partly in reaction to the hostile tone of many posts I had read on this subject, I began putting together another webpage, an online compilation of articles and links on Christian-Muslim relations: history, dialogue, and our perceptions of each other. Those who are interested in this subject may find this of use. Pleaes feel free to recommend any that I have missed, as it is still very much a "work in progress."
- Bill Cork really should get a comment box for his blog, as much of his writing provokes me to further reflection and comment. ;-) Until he rectifies this matter I suppose my own blog will suffice.
- Concerns expressed in a reader's email posted by Mark Shea to his blog on 10/27/03, along with the usual chorus from the comment box, with particular attention to Crisis magazine columnist Sandra Meisel's fears: "Why the Church is so eager to "welcome" the hordes that will eliminate her in Europe puzzles me greatly. . . . I can look forward to being dead before churches become mosques, museums and all visual art are destroyed, music and games forbidden, etc etc under a Wahabi-style Islam. Remember, the Middle East was once a Christian region, but once Islam takes hold, Christianity is destroyed. And just wait till they start evangelizing South America." It was nearly a year ago that Ms. Meisel ridiculed those who suggested a Zionist conspiracy to destroy Christianity and take over the world . . .
- Thus Bill Cork objects to Mark Shea's reference to Islam as a "diseased spirituality", and is subsequently criticized by residents of Shea's comment box (Mr. Shea, to his credit, repudiates Bill's detractors).
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
