The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionWill Benedict keep open new space for reason
Eyes on meeting between president and pope July 10
Jul. 07, 2009
Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI (CNS photo)
Analysis
The University of Notre Dame’s decision to award President Obama an honorary degree pried open much-needed space in the American public square for a more robust view of Catholic reason.
Looking to Obama’s July 10 meeting with Pope Benedict at the Vatican, the key question is: “Will the pope keep open this new space or will he shut it down, returning the church to its dominant closed ecclesial reason of the last decades?
By “reason” I refer to the processes by which we arrive at what is true. At issue are two processes by which we arrive through reason at truth. The dispute at Notre Dame witnessed a very public clash of these two differing Catholic conceptions of reason and for the first time in many years in the United States, the recently reigning view of reason within the Catholic hierarchy fared badly in a big public battle.
At issue, of course, were abortion and the ethics of awarding an honorary degree to the president. But these were signs of a deeper problem: The engine driving the affair was a disagreement within the church about how Catholic reason best works in a modern democracy. Seeing the dispute in this light helps explain why Catholic neocon Michael Novak decried Obama’s speech at Notre Dame for inviting “capitulat[ion] to the new reasonableness, which is actually reason gone mad.”
For the last decades, the objective-universalist view of reason, highlighted and maintained by John Paul II, held great sway in American Catholicism. The complexities of the reasoning human person – like emotions, prudence, and context – certainly mattered to him. But what really mattered, in terms of reason attaining truth, was the recognition by reason of the truth of the objective, universal moral order. Moreover, for John Paul, even though this moral order was in principle accessible to all persons, it was nevertheless an order into which he, as pope on behalf of the church, claimed a special charism of insight.
This view of reason, John Paul thought, was an antidote to a powerful drift toward relativism in Western democracies. The issue of legalized abortion brought this conflict between reason and relativism into full view. As the late pope and his current episcopal sympathizers see it, the existence of the legal right to abortion in the United States is both effect and cause of a relativism understood as a refusal to acknowledge that there is moral truth at all. Abortion is legally permitted because Americans are afflicted with an attitude that at best claims, “I have my morality. You have yours. There’s no objective way to judge who’s right between us.” Moreover, in this view, the legal right to abortion abets this attitude: The permission granted by the law stirs a like-minded moral permissiveness.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section:Deacons.Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
This view of reason has the merit of affirming an objective basis for morality. But it has the demerit, among others, of a my-way-or-the-highway approach in which episcopal edicts on morality are assumed to resolve all sorts of difficult, practical problems.
And so we heard outcry of bishop after bishop. However, Notre Dame held its ground, and in the process, American Catholics were offered a glimpse of an alternative yet deeply faithful way of bringing Catholic reason into the public square.
Two things stood out about the reassertion of this view of reason. First, it was a view of reason oriented to persons seeking truth in different spheres of life. Thus there is a role for the reasoning by which the Catholic hierarchy establishes the truth about the morality of abortion. There is also a role for the reasoning by which the academic community evaluates the arguments advanced by the hierarchy. And there is a role, too, for the Catholic politician in using political prudence to determine the practical truth of complex matters like the use of the state’s coercive power in the enforcement of laws that may restrict abortion. All of these spheres are finally integrated in the order of reality. Even so, I think that the recovery of a more differentiated, contextual kind of Catholic thinking was one of the key points that Notre Dame President John Jenkins had in mind when he called in his commencement remarks for attention to “the full potential of human reason.”
The second thing that stood out about the emerging view of reason was its connection to lived experience. This connection was evident in the remarks at the commencement by distinguished moral theologian John Noonan, who spoke of the rational process by which the clarity of moral vision is achieved – a process marked by “experience, by suffering, by strenuous debate.” The commencement also connected reason to the experience of love – to active love, in sacred and secular space, within the church and among our fellow American citizens. Here President Obama’s now-familiar admonition – repeated in his Notre Dame speech – to listen carefully to those with whom we disagree takes on special significance.
Yes: Treating others in this way is a requirement of citizenship and of love. But, more than that, treating others in this way may reveal a truth that we could not see otherwise. As Obama put it, “When we open up hearts and minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe – that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.” Or, as Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner put it, “In the heart of knowledge stands love, from which knowledge itself lives.”
Pope Benedict has said that the church’s tradition of reason should be a “bridge” for the dialogue of cultures that plays a crucial role in the creation of the common good. But it is difficult to see how the closed, ecclesial reason of Obama’s Notre Dame opponents could provide such a crossing. To the contrary, the Catholic reason that triumphed at Notre Dame – in its differentiated and lived quality – provides an opening for this dialogue. May American Catholics keep moving into that fruitful and emerging space, whatever the outcome of this week’s Benedict-Obama meeting.
David DeCosse is director of Campus Ethics Programs, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.
Actually, Notre Dame doesn't
Actually, Notre Dame doesn't mean much to me even though being Catholic does. All I think of when I hear the name is football and that tragic humpback. Having read about this businessman from Purdue that showe his christianity in such a wonderful way I'm trying to think of something special about Notre Dame. Zero. One of my sons spent a year in Purdue getting his master's degree and had me reading all kinds of terrific Catholic books. He must have met a priest there that impressed him, he certainly came away very Catholic.
Other things about Obama distress me but I voted for him even though many fellow parishioners told me I was voting for abortion. I considered them stupid and really Catholic only in rattling of "beads". Why does Obama kiss the ground the rulers of Saudi Arabia inhabit and we must hate Chavez. I haven't seen a flogging, hand chopping off or such in Nicaragua. Both are run by tyrants and have oil but, of course, "Saudi Arabia" is not socialist.
Oh well. Benedict doesn't have John Paul's shallow charisma or cute looks but he is trying to be a good Pope, I find it easy to pray for him.
Quick geography lesson for
Quick geography lesson for you: Chavez is the president of Venezuela, not Nicaragua (that would be Daniel Ortega). And while you considered other Catholics "stupid" for saying a vote for Obama is a vote for abortion, you might want to look at just where his focus has been since he took office (hint: it hasn't been the economy).
One thing we can both agree upon is that Benedict is a good Pope (I would say "Great"). I wish him 100 years and think he has done far more work to restore the church than his predecessor. Kissing babies and mugging for the camera looks good on a postcard but doesn't really do much as far as the liturgy is concerned.
Bravo, David! Great piece...
Bravo, David! Great piece...
Will, or rather should, the
Will, or rather should, the pope by asked to “keep open new space for reason“ taking perhaps advice from a much younger - as charismaticas he is - political leader, just because of the Notre Dame brouhaha that the world’s non-American Catholics hardly understood or paid any attention to?
One is indeed reminded of John L. Allen’s words about “the chronic Achilles’ heel of American Catholicism: we presume that our issues are the world’s issues, often leaving Catholics elsewhere scratching their heads about what they perceive as our insularity“.
My many interactions with
My many interactions with Catholics from Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, Ireland, and England strongly support John Allen's comment cited by Solus Vistor, “the chronic Achilles’ heel of American Catholicism: we presume that our issues are the world’s issues, often leaving Catholics elsewhere scratching their heads about what they perceive as our insularity“.
Regarding the Notre Dame affair, very few people abroad, aside from academics, know much about that institution, not even "football" since the rest of the world doesn't follow that sport at all, nor do the colleges and universities have any idea what "varsity" sports are. So, generally, this specific situation with our president is a complete non-issue for non-American Catholics. If they took the time to learn more about it, under no circumstances would they put this event in a category remotely similar to or the magnitude of the meeting between the American president and the Pope. This meeting is historic, monumental, far, far reaching beyond any national boundaries. It seems that some American Catholics don't understand its significance.
Regarding abortion: Do Catholic Europeans, for example, think that abortion is wrong? Of course, but it would depend upon how well they have been taught by the Church. Having priests and bishops say, no matter how vigorously or loudly, that this act is a "mortal sin" or leads to "excommunication" does little to help in the decision-making process. Do they think it is the government's responsibility to prevent women from getting abortions by making it a crime? In my conversations the most prevalent and strongest opinion is that the issue is between the woman and God. Unfortunately, few Catholics get much help from the Church in establishing a real relationship between themselves and God that enables them to make spirit-led decisions. This is true, of course, not only abroad, but in America as well. Remember, "God doesn't love us because we are good. We are good because God loves us." (I can't recall my source for this powerful truth, but it is not my own.)
Aldus
Qualis Rex rolls his
Qualis Rex rolls his eyes...
"the recently reigning view of reason within the Catholic hierarchy fared badly in a big public battle." Only if by "fared badly" you mean got abortion supporters nervous. Maybe I'm naive, but does the NCR only publish articles which promote an anti-Catholic agenda? Why so many smarmy arm-chair commentators with an axe to grind against the magesterium?
Qualis Rex, I am not in the
Qualis Rex, I am not in the US and I am not Roman Catholic; and I have no particular axe to grind. I do not find the NCR writers anti-magisterium nor anti-Pope.
The Church and her members have nothing to fear from open discussion and honest reflection both on ancient and current history - transparency enables the seeing of truth from every aspect.
We can of course choose to have others decide for us and put the responsibility for our lives and what we think onto them; or we can have open discussion and listen and measure our own responses against what we have been told and against the wisdom of church leaders, and then take responsibility for living as best we can the path of Christ - and we will and do fall short, and we will [and that includes the magisterium as a body and as individuals, as any student of ecclesiatical history knows] make huge errors of judgement ... it seems to me that the mercy of God and the forgiven-ness that He has established in Christ, the reality of being Beloved of God, is our only appropriate starting point. I have been reading most of the articles in NCR and it seems to me that most of their writers are starting from this point.
Laying down the Law non longer 'works' [if it ever did, other than to break and control people] and I don't see Jesus doing that; indeed he challenged the interpretations of the Law fairly rigorously.
In praying for the Pope and the Church and for one another, we do not have to stop thinking for ourselves.
As for the abortion issue: it is indeed a very painful one for all of us who believe in the Giver of life and the importance of Human. However compassion and prayer for those who do not hold life as sacred or who perhaps are blinded by their own desperation does not come amiss... and it must be said that this became Law only in reaction to the abuse and misuse women have felt for generations. This might not be a 'good' feeling but it is real; and it might not be a 'good' response and yet we know that violence begets violence and many women feel violated. Yes, it is true that abortion is now being used as a 'contraception' by many women; but it seems to me that gentleness and compassion opens the heart to hear the truth. Being 'right' doesn't... for anyone. We are not called to be 'right' we are called to be compassionate and forgiving [even to the unrepentant] as Jesus is.
People's hearts and minds do change... and there will be a turning away from this practice as we pray for these women, their physicians and their unborn infants; and as we show real concern for them as people beloved of God.
pax
There is a uniquely American
There is a uniquely American element to all of this. Because of a civil government that encourages individual participation in governance and the instilling of a sense of one opinion being as good as the next, there is a strong resistance to the idea of received truth and obedience to authority received from above and not from the consent of the governed. To say "The engine driving the affair was a disagreement within the church about how Catholic reason best works in a modern democracy," implies that this divinely instituted and eternal church has some duty to conform or compromise with a nation young in comparison and transient in nature. Engagement with popular culture is a necessary part of the church's functioning, but it is not engaging with an equal. Where an eternal God and a temporary Obama disagree, the choice of which deserves greater fealty seems like a gimme.
I wonder how Jesus would talk
I wonder how Jesus would talk to Obama?
Would He even consider holding a conversation with the man who knows it all?
I wonder what he would do? Would he hold a little child in his arms at the time that Obama came in to see HIM? Even though it was not his own, do you think that it would matter much to the President of the United States?
Now I don't know if you would even care what Jesus would say to Mr. Obama, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a little caught off guard as was Mrs. Pelosi during her visit.
The Fifth Commandment does NOT change. When God said, "THOU shalt NOT kill!", I think that he meant just that. Any human being, is LOVED by God the Almighty! GOD loves Everybody, just like Jesus did. If I were the Pope I would ask Mr. Obama how he would feel being put into that sack at the end of his mothers abortion. I somehow think that he would completely change his mind.
I wonder how Jesus would talk
I wonder how Jesus would talk to Obama?
Would He even consider holding a conversation with the man who knows it all?
He talked to the Roman soldier and healed his daughter, didn't He? It is almost certain that this soldier abused and most likely killed innocent Jews because that's what he would have been trained to do. I think that Ms. Callahan doesn't get it. Jesus was a revolutionary who engaged everyone he could tell them about God's compassion-- which doesn't depend on our beliefs or deeds.
Aldus
I may be mistaken but Jesus
I may be mistaken but Jesus healed those who had faith and he talked with anyone who would listen but only those willing to repent received his forgiveness and grace. Those unwilling to repent, he let go. He walked away, shook the dust off and left them to their sins. In the case of those in the Gospel of John who refused to believe in HIS teaching on the Eucharist, Jesus let them walk away. He did nothing, I repeat, nothing to bring them back or convince them to stay.
"a more differentiated, contextual kind of Catholic thinking" What a bunch of hooey. I love it when liberals use big words that actually reveal how narrow minded they are. This entire article is just another attempt by the intelligentsia of the Catholic left to explain to the supposed ignorant faithful on the right how if only we were sophisticated and intelligent enough to handle complex thinking, we would come up with a different version of the "truth". It really is time, to admit what the truth is and that all the "complex" thinking and word smithing isn't going to change it.
National Catholic Reporter is sadly like many in the Catholic Church, of the cafeteria variety and perhaps in name only.
Jesus had the most trouble
Jesus had the most trouble with the Pharisees! You can take it from there.
"I wonder how Jesus would
"I wonder how Jesus would talk to Obama?
Would He even consider holding a conversation with the man who knows it all?"
Very patronizing.
"I wonder how Jesus would
"I wonder how Jesus would talk to Obama?
Would He even consider holding a conversation with the man who knows it all?"
Some writers here have all of the answers.
Remember one thing Nesta:
Remember one thing Nesta: Jesus is a Jew and Judaism allows abortion in cases of rape and to save a mother's life endangered by a pregnancy. Furthermore, abortion is only mentioned in Exodus and is never equated with murder.
So, your question -- as well as your anticipated answer -- is not as clear-cut as you may think.
This has to be the worst
This has to be the worst example of faulty logic I have seen on this website (and that is saying a lot).
What an insulting and
What an insulting and prideful statement. How would you presume to know the heart and mind of another person, as you do in the case of Obama? How do you know what his faith is? I hear a lot more politics in your "questions" than I hear faith. Let's hear it for those who care for the born as well as the unborn. I am so sick of the single emphasis, which I truly believe has far more to do with party affiliation than it does Catholicism. You, apparently, enjoy the lip service of those who claim that they will end abortion, then do nothing about it for 30 years. Absurd.
At issue is not the church's
At issue is not the church's right to assert reason, morality, etc., but in how it goes about doing so. Pope John Paul II certainly evidenced the milieu in which he came of age and certainly governed the church with an unavoidably totalitarian flavor - the tools he had. These tools, in my view, will never succeed in persuading in the long term, regardless of the truth one is advancing.
Moral power can not succeed by coercion. The means will undermine the ends. Ours must be a stance of witness, dialogue and invitation. Truth will have its own persuasive power when its outcomes-in-practice are manifested in our own house, using the same means with each other that will persuade the other. We have much to do if we want company over for the feast.
I greatly enjoyed your
I greatly enjoyed your comments. They gave me a perspective I did not otherwise have on this controversy. I am hopeful that the dialogue on this matter and other matters in the public sphere will take on a more reasonable tone, and that we on all sides of the various topics will listen to those with whom we might disagree.
The article entirely misses
The article entirely misses the point: the issue is not moral relativism but religious supremicism.
Do we as Catholics want to impose the hierarchy's view of abortion on others, even other Christians whose creeds take a different view of the issue? Furthermore, what about Catholics such as me -- and many of my family -- who do not want abortion made either illegal or unaccessible?
If we try to impose "the Catholic view" on others, it in turn, can be done to us.
Your argument would hold if
Your argument would hold if Church leaders wanted everyone in the US to abstain from eating meat on Fridays. It does not hold when Church leaders would simply like everyone to follow natural and universal principles such as not murdering innocent life. It is funny that one never hears liberal Catholics make the "forcing my faith on others" argument when someone speaks up against unjust war, the death penalty, protection of immigrants, etc.
Post new comment