« Astonishing | Main | Belleville News »
May 05, 2005
Dis-honor?
New Orleans Archbishop has his say
The archbishop of New Orleans on Thursday rebuked Loyola University over an honor for the family of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and her brother, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, obliquely criticizing them for supporting abortion rights.
Loyola announced Wednesday it would award a collective honorary doctorate to the Landrieus for their public service - that of former Mayor Moon Landrieu, his wife and their nine children, including the senator and lieutenant governor.
Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes said he had told Loyola's president Rev. Kevin Wildes of his disappointment over the honor, and indirectly criticized the abortion stance of the senator and her brother.
"Not all members of the family have been faithful to the church's teaching regarding public policy," Hughes said in a statement. He added that he would boycott commencement exercises because he didn't want to "confuse the faithful" by giving the "impression that it is appropriate to include in an honor anyone who dissents publicly from Church teaching."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I wonder if there is any significance to the approved list consisting only of priests and bishops, save Prof. Glendon? That just stood out to me. I'm not saying that Newman is slanted one way or another, but I think I should be making some connection in my head about this?
Posted by: Ambrose at May 5, 2005 11:35:46 PM
I'm sorry, but I have difficulty taking seriously the efforts of an organization that thinks Catholic colleges and universities should not honor Peter and Peggy Steinfels. The inclusion of Cokie Roberts and Elizabeth Johnson was also ill-advised.
Posted by: Peter Nixon at May 6, 2005 12:14:16 AM
University Commencement speakers wanted: Catholics need not apply
Posted by: Unapologetic Catholic at May 6, 2005 12:39:38 AM
Peter: Why? Should a person's stature and distinction in the secular world or among dissenters outweigh agitation against essential Church teaching? Women's ordination, abortion, and contraception are very serious issues, all with especial importance these days. People who publicly espouse those views ought not to be honored by any Catholic institution. It really sends the wrong message.
Posted by: Tom Harmon at May 6, 2005 1:49:31 AM
This is all part of the continued effort to conflate the importance of dogma with that of doctrine. It's like these people never read a history of Catholic teaching. Elizabeth Johnson?! Because she refers to God as "She Who Is?"! The brilliant minds at the CNS should go have a look at Scripture, which has no shortage of motherly images of God. As Johnson has herself made clear countless times, both male and female imagery for God is appropriate--because God is neither male nor female. This is intellectual bankruptcy. Likewise, the church's teaching on women's ordination now seems to be thought dogmatic, when in fact it is not. Are we really making lists? What is this, the spiritual cold war? I hope no one at the CNS has any stains on their records...
Posted by: N. T. Kostner at May 6, 2005 7:41:37 AM
I am a faculty member at Loyola College who has protested in writing my college's choice of a commencement speaker. But I tend to agree with Peter Nixon that the Cardinal Newman Society casts the net of unaccpetable dissent awfully wide. To fail to distinguish between Rudolph Guilianin and the Steinfelds or Coakie Roberts is, in my book, unacceptable. For one thing, it is a failure to distinguish between a journalist voicing an opinion and a public official implementing policy. I may not particularly like Elizabeth Johnson's theology, but I sure as hell wish we were honoring her rather than Giuliani.
Posted by: F. C. Bauerschmidt at May 6, 2005 7:50:23 AM
Oops. That should be "Steinfels."
Posted by: F. C. Bauerschmidt at May 6, 2005 7:51:41 AM
... both male and female imagery for God is appropriate--because God is neither male nor female. This is intellectual bankruptcy. Likewise, the church's teaching on women's ordination now seems to be thought dogmatic, when in fact it is not.
In my experience, gender-neutral or forced feminine images of God are usually offered in service of a fairly "pelvic progressive" agenda. Scott Hahn notwithstanding, I know of no one who uses that language who doesn't have a series of axes to grind.
Second, the CDF held that JPII's teaching on ordination was infallible. It 'ain't dogma, but it's not up for debate. Moreover, "non-dogmatic" doesn't mean "negotiable". Abortion isn't a dogmatic teaching either; is that on the table too?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at May 6, 2005 8:01:14 AM
Let's not be naive. The people cited on the Newman list are lauded at "Catholic" colleges precisely because they are dissenters from orthodox Catholic teaching, especially on issues of sexual morality. Many faculty at "Catholic" colleges in this country have a deep and abiding contempt for much of Catholic doctrine and these awards are a way of poking a stick in the eye of the Orthodox.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at May 6, 2005 8:13:05 AM
N.T. et al,
Actually, hasn't the CDF issued an apostolic letter with the approval of JPII to the effect that the doctrine that the Church is without power to ordain women as priests is to be definitively held? Doesn't that pretty much make it dogma? Perhaps I'm mistaken. If so, please explain. Thanks.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at May 6, 2005 8:15:30 AM
Fortunately, standing against the She Who Is folks like Horatio at the bridge, is Jesus, who exclusively referred to God as Father.
All the historical-critical wand-waving in the world can't get past that fact.
[Thanks to John Cort's Commonweal review of the neutered ICEL psalter for the Horatio reference.]
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n20_v122/ai_17611460
Posted by: Dale Price at May 6, 2005 8:56:24 AM
Rich - you often make sense but I must disagree with you on this one: just because some of the "pelvic progressive" Catholics use male and female imagery doesn't mean it isn't true and appropriate imagery.
Anyway, it seems that when God is "male" only (and yes Jesus was!) then the "church on the ground" starts giving Mary divinity unofficially - lots of evidence of that in medieval popular devotions.
Posted by: mb at May 6, 2005 8:56:57 AM
I believe that the controversy over who may be considered appropriate to honor at Catholic universities is quite healthy, and I'm thankful to the membership of the Cardinal Newman Society. The bishop's seem to be getting the message.
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at May 6, 2005 9:02:10 AM
Re: women priests, "Wherefore in order that all doubt be removed..." here are some excerpts
Pope John Paul II
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS,
May 22, 1994
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
From the Vatican, on 22 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.
Joannes Paulus Pp. II
-----------------------------------------------
Responsum ad Dubium October 28, 1995
Concerning the Teaching Contained in
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect
Posted by: tcreek at May 6, 2005 9:04:39 AM
Thanks, treek.
Sadly, that will not prevent some (N.T.?) from saying it still isn't dogma.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at May 6, 2005 9:11:27 AM
"But I tend to agree with Peter Nixon that the Cardinal Newman Society casts the net of unaccpetable dissent awfully wide."
Megadittoes. Perhaps they should change their name to the "Mgsr. George Talbot Society."
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at May 6, 2005 9:17:19 AM
"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium"
This is confusing, and not clearly stated (using the big words and all). Who gave these guys the authority to make such pronouncements? I'm not sure that Cokie would agree, and I want to know if anyone checked with her before seemingly going out on a limb on this subject.
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at May 6, 2005 9:18:20 AM
Note to anyone who's tempted to stereotype posters on this board: please notice the differences in opinion on this thread regarding the speakers critiqued by CNS - and I agree with F.C. Bauerschmidt's comment most of all. The first one.
Posted by: amy at May 6, 2005 9:22:29 AM
Yes, the list is a mixed bag. It would stretch truth past the breaking point to call the Cokie Roberts complaints "thin."
The most amazing one to me is the Wisconsin appeals judge, Paul Higginbotham. The first quote is, if accurate, a borderline judicial ethics violation--it suggests he's predisposed to strike down forthcoming abortion legislation.
The best argument for honoring Johnson is that it is mostly harmless. She represents an ebbing theological tide and isn't exactly the head of a growing movement of youthful, on-fire disciples. Denying her an award might actually help her sell books.
Posted by: Dale Price at May 6, 2005 9:36:42 AM
I agree with Amy and Professor Bauerschmidt: it's important to draw relevant distinctions between journalists and policy makers, but I would still be disappointed with a Catholic college that invited someone to speak who was pro-choice, no matter what their profession. Chris Matthews is another example in addition to Cokie Roberts. Their failure to support protection for life within the womb should render them ineligible for an honor at a Catholic institution, and CNS provides a valuable service in this regard.
However, to label people like the Steinfels "dissenters" because of their opinion on woman's ordination does go too far, it seems to me. They are very thoughtful and serious Catholics--yes, of the "left-wing" of the American Church--but they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. They see this as a justice issue, and rightly so. I myself am sympathetic to woman's ordination, and I see nothing in John Paul's statement quoted above that changes my mind. It's always the same argument: "Jesus chose only men....," blah, blah, blah. Well, Jesus also chose only Jews, only Jews from Palastine, and only Jews from Palastine who lived in the first century A.D. Why is it even logical to limit the priesthood to only one category, that of gender? Why does the Church arbitrarly exclude categories of religion, geography, and time? The Church insists that gender is of overriding importance, but conveniently excludes other categories that were part how Jesus chose the apostles. The Church's position is simply fallacious, it seems to me.
Furthermore, the point is always made by those opposing women's ordination that the priest is an "alter Christus" and so therefore must be male for the Mass to be symbolically relevant. To this I say: if we believe that God is both transcendent and immanent, then we know that God, and God as Jesus, is present within all of us, both male and female. Therefore gender should not be an impediment to offering the Mass, because Christ is indeed present with the woman presiding over it. And her presence at the altar, would, I am certain, be pleasing to God.
Posted by: Frank Banecker at May 6, 2005 10:59:13 AM
Amy,
Does that mean you disagree with Prof. Bauerschmidt's second post where he corrected his misspelling of Steinfels...:-)
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Here is something else to ponder. The Newman Society argued that its actions were an effort to support enforcement of the bishops' statement on Catholics in public life. But the Bishops invited Ms. Steinfels a couple of years back to address them at the height of the clerical sexual abuse crisis. It would therefore be something of a stretch to conclude that their statement should be interpreted in such a way as to prevent her from receiving an honorary degree from a Catholic institution.
Posted by: Peter Nixon at May 6, 2005 11:17:24 AM
Aside from any real faults there may be in its method, I think that we all owe the Newman Club our gratitude for being just about the only force on many of our "Catholic" campuses. So there list is "too broad" for some tastes, at least they have one to publish! I don't see the USCCB doing anything to uphold the honor of the truth in these dark places.
Posted by: john hearn at May 6, 2005 11:51:47 AM
...force for good...
Posted by: john hearn at May 6, 2005 11:52:36 AM
Personally, if I were the president of a Catholic college, I would not give the Steinfelses an honorary degree. (My own alma mater, which is more conservative than Jesuit schools, but more liberal than Steubenville or Christendom, did give Mrs. Steinfels an honorary degree when I was a junior. A friend of mine wrote an op-ed for the college paper criticizing the choice, but in vain. I was in attendance for the ceremony, and she gave possibly the worst, most boring speech I had ever heard.) However, I don't think that they can be placed in the same class as pro-abortion politicians. If an honorary degree recipient must agree with all of church teaching, as the CNS implies, then a Catholic college could never give an honorary degree to a Protestant. I suppose they could say we have to hold our own to higher standards than outsiders, but still...
Posted by: James Kabala at May 6, 2005 12:22:52 PM
Chris Matthews is another example
Loyola had him too a few years back. I went because I had no idea who he was (cave-dweller that I am). What a bag of wind. It was mad worse by the fact that I was sitting on a stage facing the audience, and so could not indulge fully in the gagging motions that I felt like doing.
As far as I can tell, we'll invite anybody who is famous. We don't really care what they believe.
Posted by: F. C. Bauerschmidt at May 6, 2005 12:59:48 PM
Steinfelds...a new Catholic sit-com about nothing.
Posted by: Ambrose at May 6, 2005 1:20:29 PM
Sorry--been holding that one in all morning. Couldn't resist (And before you jump over me, I don't have a problem with the Steinfels.)
Posted by: Ambrose at May 6, 2005 1:21:29 PM
Ambrose, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: mb at May 6, 2005 1:25:49 PM
Frank,
So if I believe that the Immaculate Conception is a fiction I am not a dissenter as long as (i) I am unpersuaded by "Ineffabilus Deus" and (ii) I am thoughtful and serious?
Sorry, don't think so.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at May 6, 2005 3:34:45 PM
CNS casting the net awfully wide? Where in the CNS press release does CNS say that their faults are all the same, or of the same magnitude? Nowhere.
Posted by: Tom Harmon at May 6, 2005 4:01:31 PM
"But the Bishops invited Ms. Steinfels a couple of years back to address them at the height of the clerical sexual abuse crisis."
Yeah, and the one brave bishop of the bunch said he had better things to do than listen to a "Catholic journalist" who supports 'artifical birth prevention' (Bp. Bruskewitz).
Sheesh. Just because the Bishops invited her to "address" (lecture?) them three years ago doesn't mean she deserves this "honorary degree."
As if the same bishops who invited her have no problem enforcing the mendatum and Ex Corde Ecclesiae?
RIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT.
Posted by: Burt at May 6, 2005 4:18:40 PM
Mary and Mitch Landrieu's only "sins" are that they refuse to criminalize abortion. They are both opposed to abortion and consider it immoral. As an example of a Catholic family, the Landrieus are by far much more exemplary than 95% of the other Catholic families that I know.
Furthermore, I think any speaker at a Catholic University commencement who supports capital punishment and the Iraq war should be just as roundly condemned by local Archbishops as are those who refuse to criminalize abortion or who support artificial contraception.
Yet, we never hear Archbishops feel the need, like Hughes of New Orleans apparently feels regarding the Landrieus, to make a public and openly political statement in protest of pro-war and pro-death penalty Commencement Speakers or Honorary Degree recipients at Catholic Colleges and Universities. No, the outrage and the public snubs from Catholic reactionaries are only reserved for those lawmakers on SELECT defense-of-life issues.
It is sad that the entire measure of one of Louisiana's most important, influential, and exemplary Catholic families boils down to one narrow issue.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at May 6, 2005 5:17:05 PM
Mary and Mitch Landrieu “are both opposed to abortion and consider it immoral”
Jimmy, why are the Landrieus "opposed to abortion and consider it immoral?"
Isn’t it because abortion destroys the life of an unborn child?
Shouldn’t this be illegal?
Posted by: tcreek at May 6, 2005 7:13:31 PM
Frank,
Something else to consider regarding women's ordination: scripture refers to the Church as "the bride of Christ" and Christ as "the bridgegroom." It's difficult to see a woman in the place of the "bridegroom" since the priest acts "in persona Christi." I also don't think we can easily dismiss the fact that the incarnate God was male.
Posted by: Nerina at May 6, 2005 7:42:11 PM
Jimmy,
What does it say about someone who thinks the issue of murdering helpless children in their mothers' wombs is "narrow?"
Posted by: Tom Harmon at May 6, 2005 9:38:46 PM
"What does it say about someone who thinks the issue of murdering helpless children in their mothers' wombs is 'narrow?'"
Before I answer that question, why don't you and your morally righteous self tell me what it says to you? I mean, it obviously tells you something about me, right? Where's your courage? Say what you mean and don't hide behind ad-hominem innuendo. Piece of good Christian advice: best leave your judgment of me up to God, my friend.
But to answer your question, I guess it says about the same thing that it would say regarding those who support the deaths of thousands of innocents in wars that our Church has condemned as a "narrow" life issue. I guess it says about the same thing that it would say regarding those who claim to be absolutist "pro-lifers" but still find a "narrow" justification for their support of the anti-life barbarism of capital punishment, which our Church has effectively declared immoral.
I think it also says volumes about those who think of abortion as the ONLY evil thing to protest which causes the murder of innocent children in their mothers' wombs.
Read this written by Fr. Daniel C. Maguire for another pro-life Catholic perspective on the murder NOT ONLY of innocent children in their mothers' wombs but of innocent children outside of the their mothers' wombs.
My fundamental point is that being a good Catholic is much, much more than one's position on the criminalization of abortion. Judging the full measure of an entire family's (how sweeping a condemnation is that!?!) place and work in the Catholic Church and Faith simply on the basis of the single issue of abortion IS narrow. And humane, rational Catholics ought to (and do) know this.
The honor being bestowed on the Landrieu family is being undertaken by Loyola University for all the good that the family has done in promoting causes that we Catholics embrace IN SPITE OF the abortion issue. What's the harm in the Catholic Church's recognizing and celebrating that?
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at May 6, 2005 10:45:29 PM
Random obervations:
1. Landrieu is not quite in Barbara Boxer territory on abortion if you're into making fine distinctions. NARAL gives her a mixed rating.
She did vote to override Clinton's partial birth abortion ban. On the other hand, she has come out consistently opposing any overturn of Roe v. Wade. She favors abortions at overseas military bases, expanding embryonic stem cell research, approval of the morning after pill, voted against amendments demanding China halt forced abortions, and is endorsed by the pro-abortion PAC Emily's List.
If they - the Landrieus - are morally opposed to the taking of unborn life, they have a funny way of showing it, by and large. What this suggests to me is that that they do not have the courage of their convictions.
I say good on Archbishop Hughes for taking a stand.
2. As for Elizabeth Johnson, I take Dale's comments, as always, on baord - though I have to wonder about a Catholic institution that would make a point of asking Johnson to speak at a commencement, given her track track record of dissent and dubious Christology (the greatest wonder of which is that Roger Haight has been disciplined but that she has not). It might be another story if she were invited to some panel discussion.
3. I'm sorry, but I have difficulty taking seriously the efforts of an organization that thinks Catholic colleges and universities should not honor Peter and Peggy Steinfels. The inclusion of Cokie Roberts and Elizabeth Johnson was also ill-advised.
The Steinfels can be thoughtful in ways that, say, Richard McBrien or or Andrew Sullivan are not. I suppose the question comes down to what is within the range of tolerable dissent and what is not.
They certainly are not the most offensive suspects on the CNS's list (Giuliani would be worse, I admit). As with Johnson, if I were a Catholic institution that took itself seriously I might entertain having them speak at a panel discussion, but not something like a commencement address.
4. It seems to me that the question of women's ordination is taking this thread off track. But then that's for Amy to decide. Not my blog.
Posted by: Richard at May 7, 2005 4:57:52 AM
"I say good on Archbishop Hughes for taking a stand."
I would respect his stand more if he were to follow the lead of our Popes and also take such a public stand against Catholic legislators on the war issue and on the issue of capital punishment. Singling out an entire family on the one single issue of abortion, and refusing to recognize a remarkable lifetime of achievement in many other areas consistent with Catholic values is pure political grandstanding. Hughes could (and should) criticize the Landrieus for their positions on abortion, but publicly snubbing the entire family in this way is not only wrong, but is also un-Christian, if you ask me.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at May 7, 2005 9:35:53 AM
I am surprised that so far no commentator has mentioned something that came out during the sourse of Senator Landrieu's senate campaign: that she is not a Catholic, that she has left the Catholic Church and become an Episcopalian. This was written up during the campaign, and when she was asked about the story, she refused to comment, saying that it was a "private matter." But is anyone surprised that Loyola would honor someone who is an apostate Catholic, as well as a pro-abortionist? (If the story is not true, I apologize for the error.)
Posted by: William Tighe at May 7, 2005 12:53:12 PM
It's still amazing that no one owned up to the fact that being pro-war\pro-military isn't pro-life, but yet everyone carps on those who choose abortion or support those who do.
Between both Presidents Bush, how many people do you think they are responsable for having died? How Many people are maimed? How many Iraqis? How many Iraqi innocents?
Don't give me crap about how much good we've done - give me a guess. It's easy enough to trott out the sins of those who go for abortions, but I dare you to tally the cost of the gulf war(s) + afganistan upon humanity.
Any guesses?
How many of these pro-war folks have been condemned by the Newman Society? Not a damned one!
Posted by: pw at May 8, 2005 12:03:23 AM
To compare the execution of condemned criminals and the killing of enemy combatants in war with the taking of the life of a child in the womb is morally absurd. Abortion is intrinsically evil, and a just war and the death penalty justly applied are not. Those seeking to make the comparison are simply seeking to give political cover to their political allies who favor open season on the unborn. This is not a Catholic position, and this verbal sleight of hand is a tactic that will not work.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at May 8, 2005 7:21:05 AM
"To compare the execution of condemned criminals and the killing of enemy combatants in war with the taking of the life of a child in the womb is morally absurd."
Mr. Donald R. McClarey - Take off the blinders. Capital Punishment is roundly condemned by our church. Why are you not so "orthodox" on this point? As I am sure you know but refuse to accept, many times the execution of "condemned criminals" turns out to be the state-sanctioned murder of falsely-charged and unjustly-condemned innocents. Secondly, those cluster bombs don't discriminate between "enemy combatants" and innocent (and sometimes pregnant) women and children. And the soldiers who drop them on towns, and the military authorities that order them dropped, certainly know that civilians will be killed. But that is beside the point. Both PJPII and Benedict XVI have spoken out against the war in Iraq. Where is your orthodox adherence to your beloved Church here? Why are you such a fickle "pro-lifer" -- willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents under some circumstances?
Here's a popular saying that you might want to reflect upon: When Jesus told us we should love our enemies, I'm pretty sure that meant we shouldn't kill them. If you think that killing your enemies is somehow an expression of love for them, I shudder to think about what you might justify as acceptable ways for you to "love" your friends.
"Those seeking to make the comparison are simply seeking to give political cover to their political allies who favor open season on the unborn. This is not a Catholic position, and this verbal sleight of hand is a tactic that will not work."
You are the one making this "verbal sleight of hand" by drawing ephemeral lines in the proverbial sands of morality to justify the taking of life in some circumstances but allowing the taking of life in other circumstances. All your nuances aside, the simple fact remains that one cannot claim to be truly "pro"-life and at the same time support the willful and premeditated taking of life through war and capital punishment.
There are some here who take the defense of life issue seriously and are opposed to abortion, fetal stem cell research, war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and any other human-initiated process that extinguishes the lives of others.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at May 8, 2005 10:47:00 AM
Jimmy Huck your pro-life credentials might be more believable if you didn't keep citing a pro-abort shill like Daniel Maguire.
As for capital punishment, I am of course against executing innocent condemned criminals. The only large number of people in this country in favor of putting innocents to death are pro-aborts like Senator Landrieu. You are of course mistaken that the Church has condemned capital punishment.
As for the war in Iraq I believe it is a just one. True, innocents die in just wars as well as in unjust wars and that is a tragedy. However, as we commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the conclusion of World War II, I think it good to remember that some wars must be fought, even though innocents will invariably die in them.
Your attempt to draw parallels between abortion and capital punishment and the death penalty is as wrong-headed as it is transparent. Here is what Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, said about such analogies:
"Cardinal Ratzinger made this point recently in connection with abortion and euthanasia on the one hand and capital punishment and war on the other. In his letter, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” he set out general principles regarding reception of the Eucharist by those who support abortion rights and euthanasia. Ratzinger wrote, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage way, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”"
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at May 8, 2005 1:19:58 PM
Jimmy Huck here is a copy of an interview done with Daniel Maguire in 2002.
"Abortion Priest
Men are Killers; They're Dangerous
By Allyson Smith
Pro-abortion ex-priest Daniel Maguire, now a professor of moral theology and ethics at Jesuit-run Marquette University in Milwaukee, was the keynote speaker at Planned Parenthood's annual awards dinner May 14 at the Town and Country Hotel.
Maguire's keynote address plugged his latest book, Sacred Choices: The Right to Contraception and Abortion in Ten World Religions. Since the book's publication in July of 2001, Maguire has been giving speeches at Planned Parenthood facilities and universities.
Maguire left the priesthood over 30 years ago to marry Marjorie Reiley. According to Pro-Life News of Victoria, Australia, "As a young nun in the 1960s [Marjorie] was studying at the University of America when she fell in love with Father Daniel Maguire. He was laicised and they married in 1971. Both worked hard for pro-abortion causes. In 1983 she wrote a booklet entitled 'Abortion; A Guide to Making Ethical Choices.'
"In 1991 [Dan] told Marjorie he was ending their 20-year marriage so he could marry his -- nose doctor. During their bitter divorce, her eyes were opened when the Catholics for a Free Choice supported Dan rather than her. She told the Catholic newspaper, the Wanderer, that CFFC stood by Dan because he was important to the group as its only Catholic theologian with a Catholic address."
Marjorie expressed additional bitterness over her divorce and subsequent abandonment by feminists in in the Winter 1996 edition of the Human Life Review.
In a May 16 breakfast interview, Maguire spoke with News Notes reporter Allyson Smith.
Smith: I understand that you are a former priest and that you are now a professor of ethics.
Maguire: I am a professor of moral theology at Marquette University. I've been there 30 years. During those 30 years, I also taught for a year at the University of Notre Dame as a visiting professor, and I'm president of a group called the Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics. So that's my story. And I was a priest; I left the priesthood 30 years ago, married and had two sons.
Smith: What order did you study with or were you a diocesan priest?
Maguire: It was with the Philadelphia archdiocese.
Smith: What have you been doing since then in your career over [the last] 30 years? How did you go from being a priest, to then getting married and subsequently divorced, to the point of the positions and views that you hold, to write books like this?
Maguire: When I came home from Rome, I would have agreed with Pope John Paul II on the issues of this book: contraception and abortion. I was instructed by the experience of lay people in the parish, and I discovered that the teaching was unrealistic. And on top of that, my continued studies showed that the anti-contraception thing, for example, did not come from Christianity at all; it came from Stoic philosophy.... Then I discovered a long history of justification of even abortion throughout Christian and Catholic history, too. The strongest thing I discovered was that the early embryo fetus was not considered to be a person.
Smith: So, ensoulment had not taken place?
Maguire: Right. It had not taken place. Augustine said the early embryo has the moral status of a plant or a vegetable. As it develops more, it has more the moral status of an animal, and somewhere around three or four months is when it's sufficiently formed to be taking on-and they didn't have embryology to take on human status -- so it's human tissue, but it's not human until later on in the pregnancy, and that's been around from the beginning.
Smith: Would you say that Catholic theology has evolved? If that was the previous position of prior theologians and saints, have things evolved to the point where today we have a different and a better and a deeper understanding of what constitutes the human person?
Maguire: Yes, I think we do. Thanks to science, it takes place even later.
Smith: Why do you think that?
Maguire: Because the brain is not capable of sensation until six or seven months into the pregnancy.
Smith: What about the fact that pro-lifers say that brain waves are detectable X number of days after conception, that the heart begins beating, that all the basic foundations of the major organ systems are there? How you reconcile that?
Maguire: The electrical current that they are noticing ignores the fact that there are electrical charges from all cells. So they could pluck cells out of you right now or out of my skin, and they would get electrical charges. You don't have a brain. They have concluded -- the so-called pro-lifers, whom I don't call them pro-lifers because they're very truculent and very great warriors and always in favor of military budgets and police....
Smith: I looked up your name on an Internet search engine last night, and I came up with a lot of Planned Parenthood websites.
Maguire: Right. Since this book came out, I've done 20 or 25 [speaking engagements or appearances].
Smith: When did the book come out?
Maguire: July [2001].
Smith: I noticed in your book, I think you said in a couple of different places, that the Pope and a lot of the bishops are not trained theologians. What constitutes a trained theologian?
Maguire: You should have a doctorate in the field, and you should be keeping up to date. If I stayed back where it was when I got my doctorate, I would not be qualified to teach because there are developments going on all the time. The bishops are administrators; they're pastors. They don't have the time. If they keep up with theology, they're not doing their job. So they are just not trained theologians. The Pope was never trained as a theologian; he was trained as a philosopher. And what he does is tend to only listen to those theologians who agree with his view.
Smith: Are you referring to Cardinal Ratzinger, for example?
Maguire: Yes. I have met Cardinal Ratzinger. I took his picture with my son one time, and he didn't know who I was at the moment, but I introduced myself.
Smith: Was he warm and friendly?
Maguire: No, he was [imitating a surprised Cardinal Ratzinger] "You are Daniel Maguire?" I said, "Yeah." And my son said, "Why is he so surprised?" (laughter).
Smith: Why do you get that reaction, Professor?
Maguire: From Cardinal Ratzinger? Cardinal Ratzinger was once a liberal, and he turned very conservative and very oppressive, going after theologians who disagree with him and so on. And that's okay; that's one reading of the tradition, but it's not the only one. And even he would not call the position of anti-abortion-saying that all abortions are wrong -- he would not call infallible, nor did the Pope ever do that. And the opposite of infallible is fallible, so it's an open, debatable issue.
Smith: Here is a quote from the Pro-Life Encyclopedia: "Catholic Theologian Visits an Abortion Clinic" that talks about how Daniel Maguire "described how terribly frightening and violent abortion protesters were, how lovely and caring all abortion clinic workers are, and how the dismembered baby he held in his hands was-not a person or a candidate for baptism.' Every woman who gets an abortion is liberated by the act, and there is no such thing as a dead baby."
Maguire: That's not me.
Smith: That's not you?
Maguire: No, they're characterizing what I said. You can find it. It was probably one of the most published or republished things I ever wrote. It was in National Catholic Reporter, and it's still available. I am sure it is available. But what you have there is characterizations by a zealot.
Smith: The reason I bring it up is because in the Protestant chapter [of Sacred Choices], you talk about the "odd couple" of "the Catholic hierarchy and right-wing Protestants. Together they have created an atmosphere that spawns fanaticism and even terrorism." Are pro-lifers terrorists?
Maguire: Some of them are, certainly. They've killed seven doctors who perform abortions. They have caused doctors to have to wear bulletproof vests, so obviously a certain crazy fringe group is very, very violent and been very successful. It is a form of terrorism which has been very, very successful at closing clinics.
Smith: The pro-life side would say that we encounter terrorism all the time when we are out protesting. We get all kinds of things thrown at us, people try to run us over, not to mention the profanity and the vulgarities that are displayed to us.
Maguire: Um-hmm. That's all terrible stuff.
Smith: But I don't see that being equated with terrorism. We feel terrified in exercising our First Amendment rights. Would you agree with that.
Maguire: Oh, yeah. You should have every right to do that. My sister and her husband until he became sick were always out picketing clinics.
Smith: Back to Planned Parenthood. You say in your book, and I've also read another article by your ex-wife Marjorie, that abortion is a serious [matter]; it should be done only for very serious reasons. Can I say that both of you share that philosophy?
Maguire: I don't know what she holds now, but it's what she held then.
Smith: If abortion should only be done for serious reasons, why do we see so many, [for example] with Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties being the largest abortion provider?
Maguire: One of the things I told them the other night is that Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than all the pickets and anti-choice terrorists in the country, and the way they prevent abortions is they give women a sense of taking care of their sexuality and not just leaving it up to the young male's impulses. They give them contraceptive information. They even give them free contraceptives.... We don't have very good sex education, and there is a lot of ignorance. People are still ashamed.... We'd do much better at preventing abortions by a certain healthier attitude toward sex and more honesty about that. You probably read me writing about the surprised virgin syndrome.
Smith: Yes, in fact I wanted to ask you about the hostile inseminator, but please expound on the surprised virgin.
Maguire: The surprised virgin was some of these girls in counseling. They're sitting there, they're pregnant, and the counselor goes, "Well, you know, how did this all happen?" and [the girls answer] "I don't know; it just happened." Where there's more candor, they'd say, "Whoops, this is getting very serious; I ought to decide whether I want across this barrier or not." And the hostile inseminator is the young men who don't care, and they just don't realize how serious it is. As the way I put it, when you enter a woman's body sexually, you may be entering the next several generations.
Smith: Does the hostile inseminator play into that kind of mentality?
Maguire: Yes, men are a very, very dangerous bunch. Not just that. They're violent....
Smith: Are you being facetious or serious?
Maguire: Oh no, I've said that all the time. I said that the other night to Planned Parenthood. They're very violent. I said to Planned Parenthood, "When was the last time you were walking down a dark street at night and you realized there were two young people close behind you, and you turned around and said, "Thank God, it's two guys! I was so terrified that it might be two girls." You never said that. When they blew up the government building in Oklahoma, I don't know anyone who said, "I hope they get the women who did it." Men are killers. They're dangerous; they're hostile; they're violent. You put them in charge of a government, they will spend $30 million an hour on military, $9000 a second. They're into war, and they can let bridges deteriorate and schools deteriorate and teachers be underpaid, but military? Huge budgets.
Smith: Does that also apply to personal situations, such as your own, for example, as far as being divorced and then remarrying, to leave your wife for another woman?
Maguire: Now you're getting personal, and you're inaccurate, and that part of the interview is over. But I notice you people from the right always have to get into personal life, but you don't know what you're talking about, you don't know my story.
Smith: That's why I'm asking.
Maguire: And it's none of your business. So, things that are your business are in that book ...
Smith: So you're looking at larger justice issues ...
Maguire: Larger justice issues which I'm most concerned about, yes.
Smith: ... that could end up justifying abortion and contraception, in your view?
Maguire: Yes, abortion is reasonable and it's required for serious reasons.
Smith: How do you determine what is a serious reason? Is that up to each individual?
Maguire: Individuals guided by common sense and that's why this book is valuable. It shows that all the world religions came to that certain conclusion. Pregnancy is such a commitment, and some people are not ready for it for physical reasons, for financial reasons.
Smith: What about convenience reasons? Are those serious reasons, what the pro-life side terms "convenience," such as, "It's going to mess up my education?"
Maguire: That might be a serious reason if you're pregnant.
Smith: It seems to me there are a lot of trivial abortions that go on.
Maguire: Well, then, if they're that frivolous, you wouldn't want them to be raising kids anyhow. You'll end up paying for those kids.
Smith: But you never know how life is going to turn out. You can't presume that things are going to go badly or go well, because life is full of surprises.
Maguire: So you can't impose solutions on everybody, especially when most people don't agree with the no-choice position. The question is, do you want to impose? I spoke at Gonzaga University on this recently. That's kind of interesting (laughter). That's a Jesuit university, and I'd say the vast majority of the students -- which is what I find at Marquette -- are pro-choice within certain limits. I spoke to a crowd at Little Auditorium, and most would appear to be on that side.
Smith: Isn't the president up there a pretty hard-line right-winger, Spitzer?
Maguire: Oh, yeah, he's gotten very, very tough.
Smith: He hasn't wanted Planned Parenthood to come talk on his campus.
Maguire: But he had me on. I think the reason is, the reason precisely is he's looking for a million dollars or more from the state to build a stadium for the basketball team, and he's been criticized, they've been criticizing him because he banned the Vagina Monologues and banned some other stuff, but he's asking for big bucks. So the press was hitting on him, saying, "Hey but you're not a university because you don't have academic freedom." So at that moment, the faculty realized that I was coming to town to talk to Planned Parenthood, and they said, "We're quite sure Father Spitzer will look the other way because he's not in a very good position right now to be banning another speaker."
Smith: Do you envision a common ground somewhere in the middle where people could come together?
Maguire: I think we're as close as you can get to a common ground because we're saying both views are respectable. The so-called pro-life view is a thoroughly respectable viewpoint. I held it myself for a long time."
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at May 8, 2005 1:34:11 PM
Donald - While I would never claim in a million years to be orthodox, I never the less find it amusing that you consider yourself orthodox, when PJPII condemned both Gulf Wars as unjust, and yet you hold them to be legit. You're welcome to try on the hat of situational moral relativism, but before doing so, it's always good to let the audience in on the joke.
Posted by: pw at May 8, 2005 10:01:23 PM
