A Void In Leadership

Saint Augustine, Bishop and
Theologian

Well the election is behind us.  As of the time I am writing the results have not yet begun to come in—that will be several  hours from now but until then I want to move away from Church and State issues and look at some other aspects of our Catholic life from a historical perspective.  In fact I am making myself (and my readers) a promise that I will go for a week without dealing with politics unless, of course, an issue arises that merits instantaneous comment.  Like that charming little girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrthOPLAKM “I’m tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney.”  
So let’s go on to another topic.   How about this one: bishops confusing themselves for theologians.  This is a very significant shift in our Catholic ecclesiology over the last fifteen years or so as American bishops have increasingly taken it upon themselves to evaluate the work of such distinguished theologians as Father Charles Curran, Professor Elizabeth Johnson, Sister Sandra Schneiders, and others who have earned distinction in the academic community.  The view of these pretentious prelates (yes, I know that seems to be redundant these days) is that they, the bishops, are the theologians of the Church and the scholars task is to stand awed before their inspired episcopal intellects before they, the theologians, undertake their humble task of explaining to more popular audiences the profound and august theological insights of the mitered dons.  Boy do they have it wrong.  Bishops are meant to be teachers not theologians.  In that sense they need to rely on the serious academic work of qualified and academically proven scholars just as Sister Sophrinus had to read up on American history before she taught it to us in the seventh grade. 
Well, they protest—look at the great bishops who were doctors of the Church—Augustine, Ambrose, Leo, Chrysostom, Gregory—and one can plainly see that Episcopal ordination confers by grace of the Sacrament Theological competency.  What they have overlooked are the tens of thousands of mitered idiots who were (and are) complete theological nincompoops.  Augustine and company were not theologians by virtue of the fact that they were bishops—they had been elected bishops because they were great theologians. 
Would that bishops today, at least our American bishops, were men chosen for their knowledge of our Catholic Theological heritage, their intelligence and their insight.  Frankly, we have a sorry lot of leaders.  There are exceptions of course—not theologians of proven stature but some intelligent and articulate men.  I remember hearing when I lived in Rome a professor opine:

In Germany the bishops are chosen from among the scholars

In Italy from among the shepherds of souls
And in England from among the gentlemen.
But in America there are no scholars, shepherds of souls, or gentlemen and so they get businessmen.  

Alas, but that seems an all too true insight.

Thoughts on Osama Bin Ladin and John Paul II

The faith of the Church is not static but continues to deepen in its understanding of the Revelation that it has received through its faith in the Risen Lord.   Wait, that is not a historical statement, but a theological one and I am determined to avoid theology—it’s far too dangerous as the History of the Church will demonstrate with its burnings at the stake of theologians ranging from Jan Hus to Charles Curran.  Curran wasn’t burned at the stake?  Are you sure?  They wanted to.   In Rome they’re convinced of it.  Where did he go?  Southern Methodist University?  OMG, that in Dallas!!!  The stake would have been more merciful!   So lest such a fate befall me, let me restate that from a historical point of view.  If you look at the History of the Church in different periods you will see that at different periods of the History of the Church, doctrines are articulated not only in different words, but with significantly different—and even contradictory—formulations.  There was a time when the Church endorsed—even practiced—the death penalty.  Ask Beatrice Cenci, the sixteenth century young woman who had been sexually abused by her father and murdered him to prevent her siblings from being abused in the same way.  For her crime, Ms. Cenci and her mother were beheaded within site of the Pope’s window, but only after she saw her brother having his head smashed with a hammer and his body being ripped to pieces by the papal executioners.  Oh, yes, and then there was Jan Hus; we talked about him a few days ago.  And if not Charles Curran, then Marguerite Porete, Giordano Bruno,  Joan of Arc (later repented of), Thomas Cranmer, and lots of others.  No problem with the death penalty—well that is, no problem until Evangelium Vitae of John Paul II.  Today we can see a different doctrinal formulation—far more restrictive about judicial murder.  By John Paul’s standards Hus would have Curran’s job teaching at Southern Methodist; Porete a feminist theologian at Fordham; Bruno would have a red hat in old age; and Cranmer would still be Archbishop of Canterbury—welcoming the Pope to his Cathedral there when he came on an ecumenical visit.  Joan of Arc would be under censure, of course for her GLBT tendencies of wearing male clothing and Curran would probably be a pile of ashes being swept into the Anacostia River for his subversive ideas.  But (snap) things change, Kundun.      

Similarly with the Just War theology.  There was a time when the Church did not scruple to go to war.  Julius II in his papal helmet surmounted by three concentric tiaras climbing over the walls of Bologna!  And the Crusades—all of them—not just the ones in the Holy Land but the crusades in the Balkans and in the Baltic, against the Turks and against the Albigensians.  What is the problem?  Well today we scruple a bit about war.  People get hurt.  It isn’t nice.  And so we find a more restricted theory on what makes a war “just.”

So what are we to think of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. 

Let’s look first at Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 55:

This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State". Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

It would seem from Evangelium Vitae that the assassination of Osama Bin Laden is, according to Catholic teaching, one of the few legitimate instances of a direct taking of human life.  This warrant for the killing of Obama is not the same as the death penalty which the Church sees as almost never a moral option and which has been specifically condemned by both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI for how it is used in the United States, a situation in which non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety.  What makes the assassination of Bin Ladin  different from the death penalty is that it is not an execution after a judicial process, but an extra-judicial decision to take a life in order to protect the lives of others.  Let’s hope it works. 

And then there is article 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

I think we can concur that the assassination of Osama Bin Laden is a morally justified act.  That does not mean we should rejoice over it.  That is a profoundly un-Christian sentiment.  Ezekiel 33:11 says Answer them: As I live, says the Lord GOD, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man's conversion, that he may live.

In fact, Ezekiel writes:  Answer them: As I live, says the Lord GOD, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man's conversion, that he may live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! Why should you die, O house of Israel?  In other words, this is a time for us all, not only our “enemies,”  but those of us who think we have the moral right, to look and ask ourselves what we must do to turn from evil ways.   Instead of turning to violence, prejudice, and war it is time to see what the Lord calls us to.  How can we build peace with those who believe differently than we rather than how we can crush them.   The times have changed.  A Church that once supported the violence of the Crusade has embraced the Gospel of Reconciliation.  It is time for us to do so also. 

Origins of Radical Catholicism X: A Catholic University

The next scheme the liberal party came up with was the founding of a Catholic University in Washington DC.  John Lancaster Spalding, Bishop of Peoria, won the endorsement of the majority of bishops at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884 for this idea.  This should not be surprising as Spalding had already presented the plan to Leo XIII for his approval—which was given—and he also had persuaded a wealthy New York Heiress Mary Gwendolyn Caldwell for a burse of three hundred thousand dollars (worth approx 6.7 million today) to realize the initial phase of the university.  Caldwell Hall, the principal residence for priests professors is named after Ms. Caldwell.   (We might do an adults-only blog on the Spalding/Caldwell ties.)   Not everyone was in favor of this projected university; there was, one should not be surprised, an agenda.  The primary function of the University was to be a  seminarium principale for the American Church—a place where dioceses could send their men to study and earn pontifical degrees without having to go to Europe.  Up until this time, if a priest wished to earn a church-recognized degree (which was required for seminary professors) he had to go to one of the European universities such as Leuven in Belgium or Innsbruck in Austria or one of the Roman Universities.  (There were other options, notably in Spain, but most Americans went to one of the three named; and in fact most went to Rome.) The liberals, in their project to stamp the Church in the United States with a distinctly American identity, wanted to avoid exposing future generations of clergy as much as possible to European thought and customs.  Given the strong monarchial and integrist tenor of late nineteenth century Europe this is understandable.  As the Americanist agenda became more clear, the more conservative bishops—German and American alike—began to back off their support.  Corrigan led the way.  Of course, Corrigan had an agenda too—he wanted Fordham, the Jesuit University in his archdiocese, to be the official Catholic University for the United States.  Milwaukee Archbishop Michael Heiss, the leading German bishop in the United States and an implacable foe of the liberal party, was a member of the committee to choose a rector, and his abrupt resignation alerted Rome that something more than what appeared was going on.  The Jesuits—jealous to protect Georgetown from a second church affiliated university in Washington and anxious to make their university at Fordham the Catholic University, worked with Corrigan.  In the end, it was Gibbons (who ironically was not a supporter of the idea) who used his friendship with Leo XIII to bring the project to fruition.  The University opened in 1889—the centenary year for the establishment of a Catholic hierarchy in the United States—with John Joseph Keane as Rector.  (Keane, you may remember from earlier posts, was a leading liberal).  The university would be the scene of many a battle between liberals and conservatives over the course of the twentieth century, not least of which was the Henry Poels debacle in 1908, the John Courtney Murray archdebacle in the 1950’s, and the case of Father Charles Curran after the Humanae Vitae Encyclical in 1968 with Act II of this tragic farce from 1986-89.   These are blips, however, on a fairly consistent track record of arbitrary authority triumphing over sound scholarship.   At some future time when I do a blog or two on the John Courtney Murray debacle I will justify the words "arbitrary" and "sound," but until then we move on—the next blog will be on the Apostolic Delegation.  Remember that while blogs are posted most days, there will be gaps as i do have a (not terribly demanding) day job.  The image today is McMahon Hall on the campus of The Catholic University of America, Washington DC