This Week in Catholic News

Pro-Life News:

1)   In The American Conservative, Rod Dreher speaks of the rise of women sharing their stories about their abortions in a “guilt-free” way, and about how these stories are discomfiting even for those who consider themselves “pro-choice.”  Such tales of “guilt-free abortions” have made at least one reader wonder if pro-lifers are “right about the overall effect [of abortion] on our humanity.”

2)   The Atlantic observes that, despite the fact that abortions are at a historical low in this country, they are actually on the rise among African-Americans and Latinas.  Part of the reason may be the fear among these women of “the way society treats people who get pregnant young or unintended, especially if they’re of color" - which suggests that pro-life people may want to think of ways to combat the stigma such women face.
 
The Vatican:

1)   Pope Francis appoints five women to the International Theological Commission, which advises the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).  Women now comprise 16% of the Commission’s members.

2)    Pope Francis has also chosen a successor to Chicago’s Cardinal George, naming Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane to the position.  Some observers see this as a “clear signal that the church is changing under this pope,” as “George’s rigid approach to upholding church doctrine” is contrasted with Cupich’s “more conciliatory mode.”

Culture:

In The National Catholic Reporter, Eddie Siebert, S.J., examines the recent spate of films with religious and/or spiritual content, such as “Noah” and “Heaven is For Real.”  He argues that these films reflect an “evangelical Protestant” understanding of the Christian tradition, leaving little room for a Catholic viewpoint, which is “seen as too conservative by mainstream. . . companies” but “too liberal or Catholic by faith-based companies.”  However, he sees hope in the fact that many television shows are engaging deeper spiritual, theological, and religious questions that may bring a more thoughtful engagement with religion back into popular culture.

Miscellaneous:

1)  The Atlantic responds to Cal State's decision to de-recognize the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship as an official campus organization, saying that such a decision not only hurts students of faith and threatens their religious freedom, but also undermines the university's ability to "create space for competing ideas" in a pluralistic environment.

 
1)   Crux tells the story of Sr. Joan Dawber, who runs a safe house for survivors of human trafficking.

2)   Experiencing anxiety?  In The Catholic Exchange, Fr. Joseph Esper has lessons for us from the saints.

This Week in Catholic News

In Pro-Life Thought:

(1)  In First Things, Nora Calhoun writes about how her experiences as a midwife and as a caretaker for the elderly have shaped her convictions about the value of human life.  She speaks to the importance of human embodiment, writing that “there are things that can be learned – can be said – only in the language of bodies.”  The bodies of babies reveals that “it doesn’t matter how early the human heart beats. . .Being of human descent is enough,” and the bodies of women in labor teach that women “don’t need to be protected from the children conceived within their bodies.”  She urges pro-life Christians not to “confine [themselves] to ideas” and to engage in actual “corporal works of mercy” – acts of mercy based not on theoreticals but on the act of caring for physical bodies.  Otherwise, she says, we risk “los[ing] the riches vocabulary of human dignity, one better expressed in embraces and diaper changes than in words.”

(2)  It is a commonplace concept in modern Western culture to suppose that birth control is a necessary concomitant to economic development and environmental protection.  We are told that the world is “overpopulated” and that this is wreaking havoc on the economic growth of third-world countries and on the natural world.  This assumption has trickled down into our personal lives, as many couples forego having large families for the sake of “financial security.”  But in Ethika Politika, Artur Rosman writes of the dangers of this assumption, arguing that as a culture we have replaced a concept of fertility as the reproduction of children with a concept of fertility as “an endless multiplication of stuff."  Such a culture, he warns, “will not prove. . . to be kind to each other, the rest of the world, and the environment.”  He argues that Catholicism can be a sign of contradiction against this cultural trend, “reconfigur[ing] the parish as a site of fertile resistance to capitalist (in-)fertility.”

In Politics:

 Last week, a major conference met to discuss the persecution of Christians in the Middle East.  In attendance were many Christian leaders from around the region, as well as Senator Ted Cruz.  In First Things, Mark Movesian argues Cruz made a major – and offensive – faux pas by using the platform to speak not about Christians but about Israel, and then declaring to the disappointed crowd – many of whom had experienced persecution themselves – that if “you will not stand with Israel. . .then I will not stand with you.”  Mark Shea speaks of the Christian community's frustration that Cruz could not seem to transcend politics in order to support Christians facing persecution, and that his remarks took the focus off of Christians in distress.  

On the Liturgy:

The New York Times reports that “houses of worship” are becoming increasingly informal: “More and more Americans worship in congregations where drums are played, words or images are projected on screens, and praise is expressed via upstretched hands.”  On the one hand, some such as Fr. Thomas Reese argue that the Catholic Church should get on board with these changes, “revis[ing] liturgical practices to allow people to celebrate their Christian faith in ways that better fit contemporary culture.”  On the other, however, some like Rod Dreher in The American Conservative argue that liturgy is about transcendence of (not capitulation to) culture, and that liturgical reform should not be based on a desire to empower the community to express not its own culture but rather its conception of “the transcendent and eternal.” 

In Philosophy/Theology:

In The Week, Damon Linker takes on popular scientific atheist Sam Harris’ new book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion for rejecting the Western philosophical and theological tradition in his search for spirituality, turning instead to a modified form of Eastern spiritual practices.  Linker specifically questions Harris’ rejection of the concept of a soul, which Linker feels is a key component of Western philosophy’s attempts to answer questions about the meaning of life and “lasting fulfillment.” 

Opinion:
As evidenced by the news, as in any big family, Catholics disagree and even argue all the time.  Have you ever found yourself frustrated by fellow Catholics?  Fr. Dwight Longnecker has some advice.

The Bronze Serpent

Exaltation of the Cross

The readings today are challenging.  The Israelites complain against God for bringing them into the apparent "death" of the desert, where they are facing starvation and exposure.  God punishes them by sending snakes among them.

Are we not supposed to rail against suffering?  Cry out to God for its elimination?  Why does God plague the Israelites in their distress, instead of sending them relief?  Yet when the Israelites complain, God punishes them.

There is a deep irony in God's method of punishment, and in the mode of their relief from punishment.  The snakes that bit the Israelites must have recalled the snake in Eden, the source of human pride and rebellion against God.  Yet God chooses the snake - the very symbol of sin and death - to be the means of the Israelites' restoration to life: Whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.  

For Christians this irony foretells the irony of the cross.  The cross: a symbol of oppression and humiliation, of illegitimacy and death, becomes the source of our life and hope.  Jesus Himself made the parallel between Himself and the serpent clear.  

How does this irony help us understand why God punished the Israelites for crying out against their suffering?  Because the Israelites needed to learn the irony of God's justice: that it is through suffering that we are saved.  Sending the serpents to plague the Israelites was not just a punishment; it was a lesson.  God wanted to teach us that we cannot overcome suffering by running away from it.  We can only defeat suffering by facing it head-on.  Just as the Israelites could only be saved from the serpents by confronting the bronze serpent, so too are we saved from suffering only by confronting it.

This is the message of the Cross: to defeat death, Christ had to die.  The Israelites had lost sight of the meaning of suffering.  They had lost their hope, their faith that beyond the suffering lay their triumph.  God's discipline forced them to remember that, through and beyond their suffering in the desert, their salvation awaited them.

This is not a comfortable message.  But it is a hopeful one.  It means that we do not need to be afraid of suffering.  Our response to injustice and pain need not be one of fear, of running away, of avoidance.  Our response to suffering is based on our knowledge that we, in Christ, are stronger than suffering; that we can face it, confront it, endure it, and defeat it. 

The Israelites had lived a life of fear in Egypt.  They allowed their fear to condition their response to their trials in the desert.  God had to teach them that they, with Him on their side, were stronger than the serpents, were stronger than the hunger, were more powerful than all the forces of the desert arrayed against them.

We too live our lives in fear of suffering.  We are tempted to prefer comfort to freedom.  We give this "comfort" all kinds of fancy names: autonomy, mercy, even justice.  We dress up our fear to try to hide from ourselves the fact that we are afraid of pain.  We arm ourselves with our comfortable accoutrements - our technologies, our nationalities, our race, our political ideologies, our academic philosophies - and convince ourselves that we are strong.  But this kind of comfort is not strength.  It is cowardice.  We are afraid to face the world as the naked, suffering creatures that we are.

God asks us to set aside our weapons and let Him gird us.  He asks us to set aside our fear and let Him be our strength.  In all of His interactions with humans throughout our history He has tried to teach us this: that in Him, and Him alone, are we strong enough to face our real fears, to confront suffering and death and emerge victorious.

Are you suffering today?  God asks you to believe that you are stronger than your suffering, because He is at your side.  In Him you can endure all.  You are braver than you think, because it is not only your courage that lives in you - but the courage of God.

This week in Catholic news. . .

(1)   In The Week, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry debunks the idea that Christianity will change its ideas on same-sex marriage.  The usual argument is that Christianity's teachings have changed on many biblical proscriptions (such as the laws concerning the stoning of witches or the eating of pork) - so why is the teaching on homosexuality any different?  But sexuality, Gobry maintains, belongs in a different category of moral teaching, and the ethics governing it have remained “surprisingly consistent” over the last 2,000 years – to such an extent that the Christian understanding of sexuality is fundamentally connected to Christian identity.

(2)  The American Conservative reports on the decision of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York City to allow gay groups to march in the 2015 parade, and on the decision of Cardinal Timothy Dolan to retain his position as grand marshal for the parade.  He raised the ire of some when he said of the decision to let gay groups march: “I have no trouble with the decision at all.  I think the decision is a wise one.”

(3)  The National Catholic Register reports that the cause for the canonization of Fulton J. Sheen has been suspended indefinitely, to the chagrin of Sheen’s most ardent devotees. 

(4)   Reuters News Service reports that the ruling Socialist Party of Venezuela has changed the words of the Lord’s Prayer into an “ode to its beloved late leader Hugo Chavez.”  The change has been condemned as idolatrous by Venezuelan Catholic leaders.

(5)  The Atlantic reports that The Boston Globe is launching a new website specifically devoted to coverage of the Catholic Church.

(6)  Richard Dawkins caused a firestorm last week when he suggested in a Tweet to a pregnant woman that it would be immoral not to abort a baby if the mother knew it had Down’s Syndrome.  Many people with Down’s Syndrome and their parents condemned his remarks, but Dawkins dismissed their criticisms by calling their viewpoint “an emotional one, not a logical one.”

(7)  For the historically and theologically inclined, this piece from the York Aquinas Reading Group in the U.K. provides a nice explanation of Thomas Aquinas’ method in his writing of the Summa Theologica.  Of particular interest is the observation that the medieval scholastics displayed a high level of “intellectual honesty” in that they were “obliged to justify [their arguments]  in the light of the strongest possible objections.”  In other words, they were required to make the best possible case against their own position, and then argue against it – forcing them to treat their intellectual opponents with a great deal of respect.  Perhaps in today’s contentious political and cultural climate we could learn from their example!

This Week in Catholic News: Women in the Church

Last month, in the wake of increasing Vatican scrutiny, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) gathered in Nashville, Tennessee, for its annual assembly.  During her keynote address, Sr. Nancy Schreck, in responding to Vatican criticism, stated that “we have been so changed that we are no longer at home in the culture and church in which we find ourselves.”  Sr. Elizabeth Johnson (a Fordham theologian whose books have been sharply critiqued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but who was honored at the assembly with an Outstanding Leadership Award) urged her sisters to continue to resist the “patriarchal structure” of the church’s institutions, arguing that the Vatican’s criticisms of her work and the work of the LCWR are “careless” and “vague.”  Many observers in the media have taken up the LCWR’s line, claiming that the nuns are being “abused” by the male hierarchy, which is apparently engaged in a “Nunquisition.” 

On the flip side, however, those who defend the Vatican and the CDF accuse the sisters of a “defiance against ecclesiastical authority” that may justify revoking the LCWR’s status as a Catholic organization.  Others, such as Ann Carey of the Catholic World Report, point to the fact at the LCWR does not represent all women religious in the U.S., and that even the leadership of the LCWR does not reflect the viewpoints of its own members.  Some argue that the LCWR’s increasing irrelevance is demonstrated by the decreasing number of young women who are joining their orders.   The decrease in numbers among LCWR congregations is, reportedly, in contrast to the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR), which split with the LCWR in the 1992 and whose congregations are supposedly more youthful and vibrant than those in the LCWR. (CMSWR communities include, among others, the Little Sisters of the Poor, who recently butted heads with the Obama administration over the requirement to provide birth control to their employees.)

The arguments on both sides are very emotionally wrought.  A sociological study on women religious conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate attempted to bring some objective balance to the debate – although, of course, statistics are tricky things.  The study found, among other things, that, in terms of pure numbers, vocations to LCWR and CMSWR congregations are about the same (and both regrettably low), and that one reason for the apparent “youthfulness” of CMSWR congregations is that LCWR accepts older members.  Even more interestingly, however, the study also examined reasons why Catholic women do not choose religious life.  Among the top eighteen reasons Catholic women give for not considering religious life, only a few (such as “disagreement with some Church teachings,” “vow of obedience,” or “stigma of clergy sex abuse”) relate directly to issues of patriarchy within the Church.  The top reasons are the desire to marry and become a mother, the desire to choose one’s own lifestyle and career, and the sense that God is “not calling.”  Perhaps if women religious congregations are seeking to increase their numbers, they would do well to examine these issues, and explore how they themselves might better respond to the deepest desires of young women in the modern world.   

Despite all this mudslinging and number crunching, however, what I find missing in the various arguments is any meaningful discussion of precisely what the CDF has criticized about the LCWR.  Smokescreen words like “patriarchy” and “feminism” make the struggle between the Vatican and the LCWR seem like a battle for power, rather than a dialogue aimed at theological and ecclesiological truth.  (Indeed, Eugene Cullen Kennedy in the National Catholic Reporter has explicitly argued that the Vatican’s complaints against the LCWR are based on “trivialities” and that the main issue concerns not theology but authority.)  But if any critique of the LCWR is going to be written off as “patriarchy,” and if any response on the part of the LCWR is going to be condemned as “defiance,” any serious theological inquiry is automatically forestalled.

The role of women religious in the Church is an important piece of a broader issue – namely, the role of women in the Church as a whole.  Where and how should women be allowed to utilize their intellectual and spiritual gifts in the life of the Church?  One particularly contentious issue is the sacramental role of women.  As several Catholic news services have reported, the new bishop of Rochester, NY, is in the process of ending his predecessor’s custom of allowing lay people (among them lay women) to preach at Mass.  Sr. Christine Schenk, former director of the reform group FutureChurch, opines that the move towards “silencing” lay (women) preachers is not justified by canon law, since their preaching was “in dialogue” with the priest and provided “reflections” rather than “homilies.”  A strict interpretation of canon law, however, such as that provided by Redemptionis Sacramentum, seems to preclude lay preaching at any point in the Mass (para. 65-66).    

Though women are canonically prohibited from preaching at Mass and from being invested with the sacramental authority that can only come with priesthood, the question does remain: how can the Church best include and utilize its increasingly well-educated and empowered female population?  The sense among Catholic women that they have more gifts to offer the Church than they are being permitted to share is an important issue for Church leaders to address, and we should not expect solutions to present themselves quickly.  Yet in spite of claims that the Church’s hierarchy is intent on silencing women, the prefect for the CDF, Cardinal Muller (the same person who criticized the LCWR’s decision to honor Sr.Johnson), has just announced that he will increase the number of women represented on the international theological commission that advises the Vatican.  Currently, two women serve on the 30-person commission; the CDF wants to see that number increased to “five or six.”  This is, admittedly, a small step towards greater inclusion of women in the theological life of the Church, but one that we should welcome as the Church strives to achieve its divine mission in a fallen, contentious world.