Archive for national catholic reporter

« Older Entries

Hans Küng on Pope Francis and Saint Francis

Posted in Pope Francis, The Papal Watcher, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 21, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Hans KüngIt is exciting to see Hans Küng, the great Catholic theologian and well-known papal cynic (for lack of a better description, seem so enthused by the decisions and actions of Pope Francis so far. In a National Catholic Reporter piece, titled “The Paradox of Pope Francis,” which shares a similar thesis to my earlier America essay, “What’s in a Name? The Significance and Challenge of St. Francis for Pope Francis,” Küng offers a personal reflection on how he sees the promise and challenge of the intention Pope Francis has seemingly laid out in his decision to take the name after the famous Saint of Assisi: “It is above all about the three basic concerns of the Franciscan ideal that have to be taken seriously today: It is about poverty, humility and simplicity.” He goes on to suggest why it hasn’t happened before: “This probably explains why no previous pope has dared to take the name of Francis: The expectations seem to be too high.”

Aside from the fact that I have pointed out that the some of the discussions about Francis of Assisi in light of the new Bishop of Rome have, as Küng does and admits to some degree, simplified and idealized the thirteenth-century saint and neglected the deeper and most significant dimensions of his life and legacy, Küng offers a unique contribution to the discussion at hand.

His essay centers on four questions about what lies ahead, structured around the basic premise that the institutional structures of the Roman Curia form an oppositional force to legitimate change and progress in the church’s constant need to return to the fundamentals, or what Küng calls “the early Christian concerns.”

He places Francis in opposition to his contemporary, Pope Innocent III in a way that is not entirely accurate. For example, Innocent III not only was a brilliant canon lawyer (something Küng notes) and theologian, but was an organizational genius. Nevertheless, his vision for the church was one of structure and order according to his time, while Francis, according to Küng, was not at all interested in these things because of his desire simply to attend to his so-called “early Christian concerns.” What is somewhat complicated about this, which gets overlooked, is that Innocent III provided the very condition of the possibility of the Franciscan Movement by granting the oral probation for its licit establishment in 1209 and, perhaps more importantly, Francis of Assisi sought this institutional approval that eventually culminated in the Regula Bullata of 1223.

Nevertheless, as I point out in my America essay, Francis was not a blind follower of Innocent or any other ecclesiastical leader. At various points in his life and ministry, Francis exercised what I anachronistically call “ecclesiastical disobedience” (akin to “civil disobedience”). Francis’s relationship to exercises of ecclesiastical power and structures of power, such as the curial interventions in his evangelical movement, are more complex than a narrative such as the one Küng tells — in genuine good will, I presuppose — can express.

The greatest take away from Küng’s piece is the final sections of the essay in which the German theologian gets to the main point: there will be resistance from those who exercise power to maintain the status quo. How that is overcome remains to be seen. I agree that as the whole church, that is the Body of Christ, we need to reform ourselves and our institutions of power. However, his last paragraph is one that comes across as a bit confrontational in a way that I’m not sure will be helpful. Küng writes:

We should then in no way fall into resignation; instead, faced with a lack of impulse toward reform from the top down, from the hierarchy, we must take the offensive, pushing for reform from the bottom up. If Pope Francis tackles reforms, he will find he has the wide approval of people far beyond the Catholic church. However, if he just lets things continue as they are, without clearing the logjam of reforms as now in the case of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, then the call of “Time for outrage! Indignez-vous!” will ring out more and more in the Catholic church, provoking reforms from the bottom up that will be implemented without the approval of the hierarchy and frequently even in spite of the hierarchy’s attempts at circumvention. In the worst case — as I already wrote before this papal election — the Catholic church will experience a new ice age instead of a spring and run the risk of dwindling into a barely relevant large sect.

Ironically, this confrontational approach “from the bottom up,” at least as Küng seems to present it, actually contradicts his desire to point to Francis of Assisi as a model for reform. Francis did not provoke “reforms from the bottom up that will be implemented without the approval of the hierarchy.” On the contrary, he sought approval from the pope and his curia from the beginning (in fact, his entire lifestyle shift began with the approval of his local bishop, Guido of Assisi around 1206).

I agree that change is needed. Big change!  I agree that Francis of Assisi is a powerful model for what that could look like and mean.  However, I’m not sure that Küng’s well-meaning proverbial call to arms is the answer. It appears to be just a reiteration of his earlier calls for similar action. I think that a serious look at Francis of Assisi’s negotiation of these relational structures of power between his movement and the church’s leadership, between his desire to follow in the footprints of Christ and his solidarity with the marginalized, between his expressed loyalty to the church and his willingness to act out of conscience — this is more nuanced, subtle, and effective than rallying something of a quasi-democratic grass-roots movement.

Perhaps it is time we all really take Francis of Assisi seriously.

Photo: File

7 Comments »

When Style Trumps Spirit: Ministry and Clothing

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on January 27, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

cassocksThere is a very interesting and lengthy piece of commentary recently published in the National Catholic Reporter by the well-known theologian Thomas O’Meara, OP, a dominican friar and emeritus professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. His piece “calls out” some ecclesiastical leaders of the church who appear more interested in Baroque finery of centuries past than the contemporary concerns of pastoral ministry. His almost-humorous (it would be funny if it weren’t so true) lambaste of younger clerics and religious is, in my opinion, spot-on. Here’s an excerpt:

New religious groups in the United States, along with some young members of older orders seem eager to wear a religious habit in public, not just on the grounds around a school but at airports or on the subway. What does a monastic habit or a cassock in public say to Americans at the beginning of the 21st century? It is not at all evident that the general public knows who this strangely dressed person is or even connects the clothes to religion. The symbolism is not clear and a message is not evident. The person does stand out, but as a kind of public oddity. Eccentric clothes instill separation. While some argue that odd clothes attract people, the fact is that more often than not they repel. Normal people are not attracted by the antique or bizarre costume, and ordinary Christians are not drawn to those whose special costume implies that others are inferior. Sometimes wearing clothes seems to be a substitute for real ministry.

It is not clear how men wearing dresses and capes proclaim God’s transcendence or the Gospel’s love. A man’s identity is something complex; the search for it lasts a lifetime. A celibate cleric gives up things that form male identity, like being a husband and a father. One cannot overlook possible links between unusual clothes and celibacy. Does the celibate male have a neutral or third sexuality that can put on unusual clothes? Are special clothes a protection of celibacy? Or are they a neutralization of maleness? Why would a man want to wear a long dress or a cape in public? Are spiritual reasons the true motivation?

I have often had conversations around this precise subject with a variety of people about my own clothing — when I will or won’t wear my Franciscan habit; when I will or won’t wear a roman collar; when I will or won’t wear ordinary and appropriate clothes of our age.

6a00e551f8c13088330148c73568c4970cOne of the things that O’Meara points out well is that, although not necessarily causal, there is a correlative relationship between those whose ministerial/personal identities are more likely to emphasize distinctness, cultic clericalism, and an over-against relationship and those who are more likely to wear a full cassock to Trader Joe’s to pick up some groceries. 

This is a continuing debate among members of religious orders of all stripes. I believe, as O’Meara — a fellow friar, although a Dominican not a Franciscan — seems to suggest, that there are indeed times when wearing one’s religious habit is appropriate, even necessary or expected.

For example, engaging in active pastoral ministry or presiding over the Eucharistic liturgy are times when one might expect a Franciscan or Benedictine or Dominican to wear his habit. This was the case when I taught at Siena College in the department of religious studies. When I was in the classroom, the environment of my day-to-day pastoral ministry, I — along with the other friars on campus in similar contexts — wore my habit. However, when I was not scheduled to teach or attend a public campus event, such as during my office hours or when I was researching and writing in the library or grading papers at a campus cafe, I would wear normal clothes. I did not, nor do I now, feel that I need to wear my habit to feel distinct or different, a frequent consequence (or desired effect by some) of such apparel in odd contexts.

I remind people, including other friars, that the origin of our habit was Francis’s effort to be in solidarity with the poor and “working-class” of his day. The son of a medieval cloth merchant, Francis knew a lot about high fashion and clothing in his time. The rough un-dyed wool and practical cord (in contrast to the relatively luxurious leather belts of other religious orders) was a deliberate statement against looking different, of being set apart, of pretentious self-identity. If Francis were born in the late 1900s and started his Order in our time, chances are it would consist of friars wearing T-Shirts and bluejeans.

There is a valuable corporate identity that is presented when the brothers are in habit together, and an institutional memory and association with our eight-hundred-year history continues. However, women and men in religious life or diocesan priesthood and formation for such should really ask themselves the questions O’Meara raises in his article: are you dressing this way to be close to people, to relate and serve them? or, are you dressing this way for yourself, to feel special, distinct, different, and important?

It’s very important to remember: Habitus non facit friar!

To read the full-text of O’Meara’s piece, go to: “What’s the Message on the Runway for Baroque Fasions?“

Photo: Wire

13 Comments »

Insightful NCR Interview with James Martin, SJ

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on October 18, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Over at the National Catholic Reporter, Sr. Camille D’Arienzo’s regular contribution features an interview this week with Jesuit priest and author James Martin, SJ. It’s a nice glimpse into the faith life and professional work of Fr. Jim. If you’re a fan of his writing or his presence as the official “Colbert Report Chaplain,” check this out.

Sr. Camille: Let’s begin with an ordinary question. What was your childhood like and where did you spend it?

Martin: Well, I had both an ordinary childhood and a happy one. I grew up in Plymouth Meeting, a small suburb outside of Philadelphia. These days, when I look back on my childhood, it seems almost magical, or at least something from “The Brady Bunch.” My parents provided a stable, happy home for my younger sister and me, and we had lots of friends in our neighborhood. I walked or rode my bike to elementary school and played in the woods near our house. And I loved school — all the way from kindergarten to high school. Looking back, I can see so many blessings from those days.

A few days ago, in fact, a friend sent me via Facebook a color snapshot of my friends and me playing during recess. There were five or six of us fifth-graders building a human pyramid, and I had a huge smile on my face. What an amazing thing to see! It reminded me once again of the way God blesses us all throughout our lives and how easy it is to forget these blessings. And, by the way, for those who condemn Facebook, that’s an example of how it led to a real grace in my life.

Did you have role models?

At that time, not really. I respected and loved my parents, but I didn’t have any sports heroes or fictional heroes I wanted to emulate. I had a Tom Seaver scrapbook but I never figured that I’d play for the Mets. And since I was living in Philly — and not New York — if I had wanted to, I wouldn’t have admitted it.

What were your career goals?

As a boy, I wanted to be an architect. I used to spend hours drawing houses and buildings. For a while, I drew for our junior high newspaper, and later for my college humor magazine. I laughed when I found out that Thomas Merton — who was my role model later on — had done the same.

What led you to the Jesuits?

Good question! In the end, I decided to study business at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business and took a job at General Electric in New York City after graduation. I thought that going to Wharton would land me a good job, and it did. The problem was that the business world was a terrible fit for me, and I ended up being pretty miserable.

One night, in my fourth year at GE, I caught the tail-end of a TV documentary called “Merton: A Film Biography.” That hit me like a lightning bolt — here was something that I wanted to do. Of course I knew zero about religious life or the priesthood, but Merton’s way of life seemed a lot more attractive than what I was doing.

At the time I was living in Stamford, Conn. So I asked my parish priest about vocations and he said, “You should talk to the diocesan seminary, and you might as well contact the Jesuits up the road at Fairfield University.” Of course, I had no clue what a Jesuit was. But once I met the Jesuits, they just seemed “right” for me.

What lessons beyond academics enriched your formation?

There are, I think, two levels of formation. There is the visible level: the studies, the work one does in our ministries and apostolates, the communities in which one lives. Then there’s the invisible level, where God is forming you as through prayer and experience into the person God wants you to be. And I think I learned as much on the invisible level as the visible level.

Many of us can recognize some life-changing encounter or experience. Are there any that stand out in your experience?

The most important experience in my Jesuit life, besides the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, was the time I spent working in East Africa. After philosophy studies and before theology, Jesuits work full-time in a Jesuit ministry. My superiors sent me to work with the Jesuit Refugee Service in Nairobi, Kenya, where I spent two years with East African refugees, helping them start small businesses. It was the certainly best job I’ve ever had, and by far the most enjoyable. Interestingly, it put to use all those business skills I thought I’d left behind in Wharton and GE. God writes straight with crooked lines, as they say.

Essentially, we offered start-up grants to all sorts of refugee businesses. And these were people from all over East Africa: Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia. We had lots of women, for example, with a small sewing “business,” which usually consisted of their working over a Singer sewing machine in their shacks in the slums. And we sponsored men carving sculptures; other refugee groups ran a chicken farm, a bakery, a restaurant, a bookbindery, even a dairy farm. In time, we opened up a shop on the edge of slum in Nairobi that marketed their wares. I just loved that work. And I wrote about it in my very first book, This Our Exile. As a result, by the way, I know more than most Jesuits about sewing machines and chickens.

I often think that when I get to heaven and God asks me what I did, I won’t say, “I wrote this book or that book”; I’ll say, “I worked in Kenya.”

A few months ago, your column in America eulogizing the late Jesuit Fr. Vincent T. O’Keefe recalled with fondness his friendship with Pedro Arrupe, a former superior general of the order. What attracted you to these outstanding Jesuits?

Vinnie was someone I knew mainly as the superior of my community in New York. And I admired him not just for his storied past in the Society of Jesus (as the No. 2 man to the superior general), but for something simpler: his hospitality to guests and strangers. He was probably the most hospitable man I ever knew.

As for Father Arrupe, he’s one of my great heroes. Often he’s called the “Second Founder” of the Jesuits, since he guided the Society of Jesus during the period following the Second Vatican Council and, among other achievements, turned us more toward work with the poor. A great man — a saint really.

In the far distant future, what would you like your legacy to be?

My legacy? If after my death, people say, “He was a kind person and a good Christian,” I’ll be happy. If they read some of my books, I’ll be happy, too. But I hope I won’t be too worried about that in heaven!

When did you realize that your writing was both a gift and ministry?

Early on in Nairobi, I interviewed a remarkable Somali refugee who turned out to be a philosophy professor, which upended my narrow stereotypes about refugees. So I sent to America a straightforward interview, with no context, and they, not surprisingly, rejected it. Then I wrote back, “What’s wrong with it?” One editor politely told me what was wrong: It was too flat, simply the transcript of an interview. So I gave it more context and sent it back. It was rejected; I asked again; and they answered again. Finally, I paired the story of the Somali refugee with a visit I made to a refugee camp in Kenya (that is, two journeys: his and mine, in tandem) and it was accepted. When it was published, I was happy to have been able to share both stories. It was a wonderful moment, and started me thinking about writing more.

Who first encouraged you in this area?

After I returned from Kenya, Jesuit Fr. George Hunt, the editor of America at the time, offered me (through my provincial, of course) a job. He was a very kind and generous editor.

Would you share some of what assures you that your work helps others?

I’m lucky that during speeches and retreats, people will come up and express their thanks to me. But when you’re writing, you’re never 100 percent sure it will help others or if it’s just something that’s of interest only to you.

But I hope that if it does help others, it’s because I’m honest about my struggles in life and about my reliance on God. The authors I like best — Merton, Henri Nouwen, Kathleen Norris –are honest about their own faith journeys, and so I try to be as well. I also try to leaven things with some humor. There’s no reason for spirituality to be deadly serious.

With so many thousands purchasing your books and attending your lectures, what keeps you anchored in reasonable humility?

That’s easy: life! It also doesn’t take much effort to be humble when you live in a religious community and work in an office. In the first venue, I’m a Jesuit like anyone else, and I live with a great many impressive individuals — former university presidents, former provincials, editors, writers, teachers, theologians and high school presidents, so my work isn’t seen as more or less important than anyone else’s in the community, and that’s true. Community is the great equalizer. Plus, not everyone in my community follows the particular kind of work I do. So, for example, if I’m on “The Colbert Report,” they may not see it at all. All of that keeps you humble — like it or not.

In the second venue — work — I participate in meetings and so on and pitch in, so that keeps one humble. Plus, I’m a human being, so I’m well aware of my own faults, limitations and plain old sinfulness. And I have a body so I get sick from time to time; I have a mind so I worry; and I have feelings so they get hurt. So humility is not that hard.

To read the rest visit: “Despite popularity, Jesuit Priest, Author Puts Religious Life First.“

Photo: File

3 Comments »

Capuchin Franciscan Responds to Bishop Blair, LCWR Accusations, Women’s Ordination

Posted in LCWR, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on July 25, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

The current online edition of The National Catholic Reporter features a public response of Fr. Michael H. Crosby, OFM Cap., to his naming by Bishop Blair of Toledo, OH (who is a guest on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross today) in a video and in written fora supporting the CDF’s “doctrinal assessment” of the LCWR. For reasons that are immediately apparent in the first few paragraphs of Crosby’s published response, Blair actively blocked the Capuchin’s attempt to respond to the critiques. Crosby offers much to consider here and provides some insightful context. The following is the full text:

In early June, Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, posted a video on the Toledo diocesan website quoting me. He also wrote virtually the same comments in his June 8 Bishop’s Corner column in theCatholic Chronicle, the diocesan newspaper. The video went viral and his print comments were reported in diocesan papers throughout the country, including my own Archdiocese of Milwaukee. However, after extended reflection, given the widespread but unilateral way his references have been disseminated, I came to believe I needed to respond.

I tried going to the Catholic Chronicle with my response. However, Bishop Blair informed the editor of the Catholic Chronicle it could not be published, arguing that it was too long and “unsolicited.” Instead, I was told by the editor that I could submit a letter to the editor of 250 words. I warned her that any letter would include a link to my website so readers could access my full response. She agreed, saying this would be understandable.

A week after receiving my letter and after the newspaper consulted with the bishop, I was told the letter would not be published because of the website reference. Having tried to practice what I preach by going to the one with whom I was conflicted (see Mt. 18:15), I see no reason now why I should not have my side of the story made clear. Thus my response to Bishop Blair for the National Catholic Reporter.

The thrust of Bishop Blair’s overall comments involved his efforts to influence the recent decree by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious that it reform its ways.

As part of his rationale for pursuing the purging of LCWR, he questioned the theology of three Catholic speakers who had given input at previous LCWR annual assemblies: Dominican Sr. Laurie Brink, Immaculate Heart of Mary Sr. Sandra Schneiders, and me. Although he was technically wrong in saying I had given a keynote address — I actually gave a workshop that was repeated twice to a joint assembly of LCWR and its parallel group of men, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men — he quoted me as saying: “Fr. Michael H. Crosby, OFMCap, a keynote speaker at the joint LCWR-CMSM assembly in 2004, lamented the fact that ‘we still have to worship a God that the Vatican says ‘wills that women not be ordained.’ That god is literally ‘unbelievable.’ It is a false god; it cannot be worshiped. And the prophet must speak truth to that power and be willing to accept the consequence of calling for justice, stopping the violence and bringing about the reign of God.”

Often, when someone quotes another to justify why one is right and the other is wrong, the latter might be tempted to argue, “But my quote has been taken out of context.” On the contrary, not only did Bishop Blair quote me correctly, but I believe a deeper, unbiased investigation of my full remarks at that assembly actually provides even greater theological and biblical support for the quotation he took from my talk.

Before discussing this fuller context, however, I think it is important to address Bishop Blair’s selective interpretation of my remarks. Anyone reading my whole talk will realize the bishop approached it from what communicators call “confirmation bias”: He failed to mention another part of my talk where I actually supported a key element of his concern and that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the LCWR. This refers to my fraternal challenge to the assembly participants that they become more visibly active in opposing abortion, one of the four reasons the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith offered as justification for its clampdown on LCWR.

Read more »

3 Comments »

Race, Poverty and the Voice of Power: A Response to “March for Life”

Posted in Social Justice, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on January 24, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

This reflection is now available in Daniel P. Horan, OFM’s book Franciscan Spirituality for the 21st Century: Selected Reflections from the Dating God Blog and Other Essays, Volume One (Koinonia Press, 2013).

23 Comments »

Whose Religious Liberty? The USCCB and its ‘New Issue’

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on November 17, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Perhaps the most anticipated discussion, and subsequently the most reported, of the annual fall meeting of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was the presentation on the theme of “religious liberty” to the assembly of bishops by Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn.  Additionally, a committee of the USCCB tasked with addressing the issue of “religious liberty” was announced (for information see this USCCB press release). The National Catholic Reporter covered this matter in a November 15 article with a rather telling headline, “Bishop Says Religious Freedom Under Attack in America.” The basic thrust of Lori’s presentation focused on what he (and some other bishops) have observed as a “threat to religious freedom” present in the legislative and executive actions of the United States government. The NCR article reports:

“There is no religious liberty if we are not free to express our faith in the public square and if we are not free to act on that faith through works of education, health care and charity,” Lori said in his first address to the bishops as chairman of the newly formed Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In sum, this statement is not at all problematic. Lori is correct in the assertion that, by virtue of the protected rights guaranteed in the US by the Constitution’s First Amendment, women and men of any faith tradition ought to be able to express her or his faith in public without fear of reprisal. And if that was really what this matter was about, then I don’t think there would be such incredulity among those — including myself — who have been following this particular discussion.

There are a host of contradictions and ill-fitting arguments that accompany the announcement of this new issue taken up by the USCCB with the founding of an Ad Hoc committee to respond to this seeming threat.

First among them is the ostensible misnomer of the entire enterprise. What is being billed as a response to “the attack on religious liberty” in the United States (which is, of course, a serious and constitutional accusation) is really a repackaging of a particular anti-abortion/anti-contraception (commonly referred to as “Pro-Life” in the narrow sense) agenda. I’m not about to say that the Church in the US must kowtow to positions it sees as systemically sinful or evil, but I do think we should name things accordingly and be forthright about real issues.

The would-be impetus for these new discussions, as Lori and others claim, is the explicit violation of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Yet, in reality what is presented resembles something more like a nebulous infringement on First-Amendment rights of US Catholics — particularly Catholic employees in NGOs and health-care organizations — rooted primarily in matters related to contraception and abortion. The truth is that one will find it very difficult to adjudicate the issues in favor of Lori’s committee and others who claim that, according to the law, the Church’s right to restrict other constitutional rights guaranteed to others by virtue of Catholics’ right to religious freedom, in this case access to the full range of modern health care procedures, medications and consultations.

Religious liberty is not a theme that is appropriately invoked to justify denial of other rights, which is what the USCCB argument under the guise of “religious liberty” is all about. Church leaders should, then, focus their attention on public education and moral formation in order to explain why individual moral agents (people themselves) should not use contraception or seek abortion and so on. But what I see this committee eventually doing is trying to again approach the legislative process with yet another plan of attack to overturn Roe v. Wade and perhaps go farther to criminalize currently legal practices and health-care options (think of the recently overturned legislation in Mississippi). Like the Mississippi legislation, this religious-liberty business will also not work, because it is in no way judicially tenable.

The Church leaders here are fixated on legislating morality instead of working to both address the more systemic issue of injustice in our society and help the faithful develop a well-informed conscience. The way that the United States political and legislative system works (and nowhere in the founding documents or principles of this nation is there the faintest claim that it is or should be a “Christian nation”), the Catholic tradition’s emphasis on the freedom of conscience can play freely in a constructive and helpful way. I am not the most qualified to talk about political theory and religious expression, someone like my friend David Golemboski — former employee of NETWORK, the Catholic social justice lobby, and a current doctoral student at Georgetown studying political theory and Catholic social teaching — is better suited to respond to the technical issues present in the bishops’ latest discussion, but my sense is that there is an inherently flawed notion of what the relationship between the Church and the US government, specifically, and the Church and any government, more generally, really should be.

I’m not at all convinced that religious liberty is really at stake here. If it were, I would expect to see other matters playing more prominently in the USCCB’s discourse, issues like violence, war, economic injustice, prophetic preaching, and other issues that explicitly relate to our faith, our expression of that faith and the actions of the government. Yet, it is abortion and contraception that is the single focus of this matter of “religious liberty.” Where is the cry on the bishops part that Catholics should not serve in the military? Where is the reaction to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the increasing gap between wealthy and poor?  Where are our foreign-policy concerns from a Catholic perspective?

Another problem with this particular iteration of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception campaign is that the government is in no way overstepping its bounds to interfere with the individual exercise of a religious institution’s right to practice (or not practice) what it believes, as Lori and others claim. What is really at stake is money. As I understand it, all the Catholic hospitals in the country can refuse to offer certain procedures that do not reflect the mission of the institution, but that refusal to provide constitutionally protected rights for others will result in the end of government funding. The institution is entirely free to continue operating and offering service, but must do so with private funds — just as in the case with individual churches and places of worship, the government will not support the confessional or religiously partisan institutions (that is a matter of the establishment clause!).

If religious liberty was truly at stake, the funding concern wouldn’t be privative as it is in this instance, but instead be made manifest in overt efforts to interfere or suppress the institutions proper.

Another matter, this one of logical contradiction, is the claim that Loris makes that secularism should be seen as system of belief. NCR reports: “‘Let us make no mistake. Aggressive secularism is also a system of belief,’ he commented.” Lori’s point is that the US government seems to be promoting (“establishing”) so-called “aggressive secularism” as a particular faith tradition in the public sphere. I’m not sure that I buy this argument, to begin with, but one should follow the trajectory Lori outlines to its logical conclusion. If what he’s saying is true, that “aggressive secularism” is a belief system, then it has just as much right to exist and for its practitioners to live according to its principles (whatever those might be) as do the Catholics in this country. That is, Lori is arguing for the infringement on the constitutional rights of the practitioners of “aggressive secularism,” just as he claims the Catholics’ rights are infringed.

In other words, the argument used to help bolster the USCCB’s claims that religious liberties are under attack in the US actually highlights the way in which the USCCB wishes to curb the religious liberties of others. You see the problems here.

Instead of masquerading a narrowly defined “pro-life” agenda as a “new issue” — religious liberty concerns — the USCCB should be much more forthcoming about its goals and intentions. It seems that something has to change. If the US Church leadership wants to claim religious liberties are under attack by the same government that guarantees them, then there has to be more than what is presented to justify that position. Where has the government established laws to prevent the practice of Catholicism, the right to erect places of worship, the ability for religious communities to minister to others? (which, by the way, makes the immigration issue in Alabama and elsewhere much more about religious liberty than the healthcare matters).

The other option is to forego the ruse of this constitutional threat in order to focus more forthrightly on matters that Catholics see as important, and seek to educate the faithful and broader public about why these are matters we should all care about. But, as far as a threat on religious liberty is concerned, I’m not buying it. Bishop Lori and his new committee has a lot of work to do in order to make their position sensible and salient.

Photo: Stock

54 Comments »

A Document on Religious Brothers: It’s About Time!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on October 20, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Religious Sisters are often the first group of people that most Catholics and others think of when they think of “official Church ministers” who are not ordained. Yet, Religious Brothers also play a significant role in the ministry and life of the Church. The Franciscans, for example, were not founded by an ordained person — St. Francis, contrary to popular misunderstanding, was not an ordained minister (certainly not a presbyter, and recent scholarship shows rather conclusively that he was also not a deacon, but rather one who might have been admitted by the Holy See to some minor order or the tonsured, clerical state by some form of exception). There is a long tradition of Religious Brothers living out their vocation in the Church as public ministers and men committed to a life of community and prayer as consecrated members of religious orders.

There has been a noticeable absence in any official (and really, any unofficial) theological reflection on this way of living the vita evangelica. Word on the street is that a document, long in the works, on the Religious Brothers is on its way to promulgation from the Vatican, according to a National Catholic Reporter article published yesterday. Here is an excerpt of that article:

Way back in 1985, the Congregation for Religious held a plenary assembly, meaning a full meeting of its members, dedicated to the topic of the brotherhood. At the time, the thinking was that the brotherhood was ripe for a new theological analysis, particularly since 1985 marked the 20th anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

Under Slovenian Cardinal Franc Rodé, who served as the congregation’s prefect from 2005 to early 2011, there was a push to revive the topic. Tobin said a document went through several drafts, but none was fully satisfactory, and so it was sent back for revision. At this point, he said, it’s impossible to predict when it might be finished.

Whenever it appears, Tobin said the document will not offer an empirical study of the brotherhood, but rather a theological reflection on the nature of the vocation.

Despite the delay, Tobin said the subject of the brotherhood remains of vital interest.

“It is a glimpse of male religious life in its ‘pure’ form,” Tobin said, “untainted by clericalism or eclipsed by the demands of ordained ministry.”

Furthermore, Tobin said, the first male religious were “brothers,” in the sense of not being ordained priests. He suggested that a reflection on the brotherhood helps male religious get back to their roots.

According to official Vatican statistics, there are roughly 55,000 religious brothers in the world today, including just under 10,000 in the United States, Canada, and Central America. In the United States, the Religious Brothers Conference (www.todaysbrother.com), headquartered in Chicago and founded in the wake of Vatican II, acts as an advocate for the identity and vocation to the brotherhood.

As a member of the Franciscan Order, particularly one who is very interested in contemporary theological reflection and currently serves on the committee for vocations of the largest province of Franciscan friars in North America, I eagerly await the release of this text. We’ll see what happens. Hopefully this text advances a sense of religious life that is not so dependent on implicit dichotomies and the tradition of systemic ecclesiastical injustice of clericalism as is so often the case in such ecclesiological explications. The nearly two-millennia-old tradition of religious brotherhood deserves so much more than that.

Photo: File, Washington Post

Leave A Comment »

James A. Coriden Receives CTSA’s Highest Honor

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on June 13, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

My Canon Law professor, Catholic Priest, Washington Theological Union faculty member Fr. James A. Coriden, received the John Courtney Murray Award from the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) this weekend at the annual conference. I cannot begin to express my delight in this honor, Jim Coriden is an absolutely wonderful man, whose brilliance in the field of Canon Law is only overshadowed by his pastoral sensitivity in the practice of Law. Where most people see Canon Law as an oppressive or stifling set of rules or procedures that harm more than help, Coriden has always sought to use Canon Law to build up the Body of Christ, noting as he does that Canon Law is not simply a matter of jurisprudence but is ultimately an expression of theology.

Congratulations, Jim!  Here is the story as told by National Catholic Reporter this morning:

*     *     *     *     *

James A. Coriden receives John Courtney Murray Award

By: Thomas C. Fox

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Fr. James A. Coriden, canon lawyer and a professor at the Washington Theological Union, is the recipient of the 2011 Catholic Theology Society of America’s John Courtney Murray Award, the highest honor bestowed by the society on a theologian. It is named after John Courtney Murray, the great American theologian known for his work on religious liberty.

The award was announced at a CTSA banquet here June 11. Read the CTSA Courtney Murray Award citation. He is a popular figure among the theologians. At an informal gathering following the award ceremony he was greeted with a rousing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.”

Coriden was ordained a Presbyter of the Diocese of Gary Indiana in 1957. He joined the faculty of the Washington Theological Union in 1975 and currently teaches canon law. Prior to joining the Washington Theological Union, he served on the tribunal and in the chancery in Gary and then taught canon law at Catholic University of America.

Coriden has published many articles in various journals, including Jurist, Studia Canonica, Theological Studies and New Theology Review. He was one of the editors and authors of The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (1985) and of the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (2000). Recently, Coriden has been exploring the question of the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried Catholics.

He is the author of several books on canon law, church history and parish life. His latest book, published in 2007, “The Rights of Catholics in the Church,” attempts to lay out for Catholics their basic rights in the church.

Photo: CNS

Leave A Comment »

The USCCB on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s Book: Some Initial Comments

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on March 30, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

In a report signed 24 March 2001, but published today (30 March 2011), the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) identified the “misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors” that it found in Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ’s book, Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God (Continuum, 2007). The committee, chaired by Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, organized its 21-page report into seven problematic areas relating to what the committee found to be “theological and methodological inadequacies,” as stated in Wuerl’s March 30th cover letter.

The full report begins with (a) an explanation for the publication of the statement and (b) an overview of the proceeding critique. The reason for the report is described as: “Because this book by a prominent Catholic theologian is written not for specialists in theology but for ‘a broad audience’ [2], the Committee on Doctrine felt obliged, as part of its pastoral ministry, to note these misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors” (USCCB 1).

It is because Johnson’s book is seen as a potential text for undergraduate classroom adoption that it was subjected to such analysis, the bishops say. Yet, I wonder if the phrase “a broad audience” was not included in Johnson’s own introduction and the text was aimed at her theologian peers, would the bishops have just not responded? I somehow doubt it.

Here is how the headings of each section of the full report breaks down and therefore provides us with a brief glimpse at the critique that follows each heading:

  1. “A False Alternative: “Modern Theism” or Radical Reconstruction of the Idea of God”
  2. “A False Presumption: All Names for God are Metaphors”
  3. “A God who Suffers”
  4. “New Names for the Unknown God”
  5. “The Presence of God in All the Religions”
  6. “Creator Spirit in the Evolving World”
  7. “Trinity: The Living God of Love”

I want to only make a few preliminary comments about each of the sections, perhaps the need or opportunity will arise for additional analysis at a later time. What follows might be at times technical and certainly boring. It reflects my initial reading of the report in light of my own reading of Johnson’s book back in 2007 when it first came out. If you have no interest in this response, you can stop reading here and scroll down to the conclusion.

1. “A False Alternative: ‘Modern Theism’ or Radical Reconstruction of the Idea of God”

Concerning the first section, the report claims that Johnson is playing something of a “sleight of hand” to equate what she terms “modern theism” with what the report claims to be “integral and essential elements of [the Christian] tradition” (USCCB 4).

However, I don’t get that impression from my reading of the text in question. Instead, what I see is the perhaps inadvertent grouping-together of inadequate or incomplete — yet, immensely popular — conceptualizations of God. Modern Theism, as it is described here, is oftentimes the “doctrine of God” that most Christians appropriate, something that any pastoral minister can recognize in any given week of pastoral ministry among the faithful. In identifying that popular and problematic understanding of God, Johnson, it would seem, is simply establishing a starting point from which she might engage in a constructive theology.

However, what follows in this section is the beginning of an at-times latent and at-times more explicit concern with what I would classify as an anti-univocal-concept-of-being agenda that appears throughout the report. Take this line for example:

“Within traditional Christian theology, God is indeed the supreme being, but that means that he [sic] actually exists in a manner that is uniquely his [sic] own and so his [sic] manner of existence radically differs in kind from all else that exists. Existing in such a manner does not make God remote” (USCCB 5)

I don’t know about that. First of all, use of the term “supreme being” actually seems to work in a manner contrary to the rest of the argument, suggesting God is a ‘being’ of the ‘supreme’ — i.e., biggest, best, highest — proportions makes God out to be of same kind, different only in degree.

It doesn’t seem to me that the committee intended to say that, nor do I get the impression that Johnson means exactly what the report suggests that she said either. I do agree with the report, in general, that there is a crisis (perhaps a pastoral/catechetical one??) in how many understand God. It is theological efforts such as the book in question that serves to address such concerns.

2. “A False Presupposition: All Names for God are Metaphors”

As I tell all my students working on papers, I note in observation of this report: “use adjectives sparingly. Each adjective increases the statement’s vagueness and weakens an argument.” For example, the opening sentence of this section includes the phrase: “…her radical revision of the traditional Christian understanding of God…” (USCCB 6). What do the report’s authors mean by “radical?” That said, I can understand, at least in part, the concerns raised in this section as they relate to humanity’s ability to know God.

Read more »

21 Comments »

National Catholic Reporter 2010 Person of Year

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on January 6, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

On New Year’s Eve the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) announced its “2010 Person of the Year,” an honor not previously bestowed on anyone and one that may or may not continue. The format of the announcement follows the now annual TIME Magazine “Person of the Year.”

The editors of the magazine reflected on the significant events of this past year and considered a variety of people that have shaped the ecclesial and social landscape of the United States. The editors of NCR explain that they “felt the need to single out one American Catholic who showed extraordinary leadership and courage this last year.”

The editors go on to describe why Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), was given this honor.

In the spring of 2010, as the national debate on health care reform seemed deadlocked, Sr. Carol Keehan, the Daughter of Charity who is president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, led her organization to endorse the legislation and thus helped pass it through Congress. The move put health care coverage within the reach of an additional 32 million Americans.

In a video message delivered to the Catholic Health Association convention in June, President Obama praised Keehan: “Your work, your passion, your commitment helped make the difference, and you did so in a way that protects your long-standing beliefs and the beliefs of so many others across the country.”

The NCR editors continue to note that in light of the recent controversy surrounding Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix and his withdrawal of the designation “catholic” from their title, the leadership of Keehan has been nothing less than praiseworthy.

At times like these, moments when both the public square and the ecclesial sanctuary are often environments hostile to disagreement and serious debate (even faithful and respectful debate), the courage of a religious leader like Keehan is worth acknowledging. Keehan and the CHA supported the Arizona hospital despite the fact that so few others, whether individually or corporately, demonstrated the courage to do likewise.

While there has been much misinformation circulating among certain political and ecclesial circles about the incompatibility of the 2010 healthcare legislation and Catholic teaching, it is important to realize that such claims are patently false. The unequivocal endorsement of the CHA, which has on staff and in consultative positions some of the most outstanding moral theologians (including my franciscan confrere from the Sacred Heart Province Tom Nairn, OFM), of the healthcare legislation is just one example that counters the misinformation by speaking the truth to those who would perpetuate an alternative perspective.

Keehan’s CV and background is too extensive to rehearse here in its entirety (you can read more about her here), but among her many honors are counted an award given by Pope Benedict XVI and an honorary doctorate from the Catholic University of America — certainly not radical leftist sources. Her professional accomplishments are indeed noteworthy and her leadership is laudable.

I’m delighted to share this encouraging news with the readers of Dating God and wish to extend my own congratulations to Sr. Carol and all of those who work at CHA! Peace and all Good!

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers

%d bloggers like this: