CSpanish

If anyone saw Fr. Neuhaus on C-Span yesterday or last night (or whenever - you can watch it through a link found here, post. There are a couple of comments scattered below on it, but discuss here, if you like. I haven't seen it yet. Three hours is a long time for me to sit still at this point in my life. Although, I admit, I sat still for two hours on Saturday night re-watching the last 2 episodes of last season's Six Feet Under.

So shoot me.

Comments

[al]

I only heard about the last hour and a half. I wish Fr. Neuhaus had been more straightforward.

For example, on Iraq, somebody asked him for his position, given that the Popes were against it. He obfuscated the Pope's reaction--that the Pope generally objects to war, rather than acknowledging that John Paul II, and especially Benedict XVI advanced specific reasons why the particular cause was at odds with Just War Doctrine.

He also said given what we know now/knew then. . . . blah blah blah. . . that its better that we not fail. Of course its better that we not fail. But their were plenty around observing THEN that we didn't know what we knew THEN, and on top of that, what we knew THEN didn't suffice for JWD anyway.

I was also disappointed in his answer to the caller who quoted Maritain's Integral Humanism--I thought he could have elaborated better on the subject.

He was good on the Crisis in the Church though--pointedly remarking its about homosexuality, not pedophilia.

[Daniel Crandall]

I did sit down and watch all 3 hours and greatly enjoyed Fr. Neuhaus. I do have a criticism: Fr. Neuhaus is a 'soft-talker', which must have driven the sound-techs crazy. I had to crank up the volume to hear what he was saying.

I greatly appreciated Fr. Neuhaus' reflections on his journey from Lutheranism to Catholicism, especially as I contemplate the possibility of setting out from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Fr. Neuhaus noted that he 'became the Catholic he always was' because he realized that the Lutherans were not, at heart, interested in healing the 16th century rift. As I listen to many Orthodox respond to JPII and now Benedict XVI's reaching out to Eastern Christians, I realized that the Orthodox have no interest in healing that schism as well.

[al]

Oh, and the other thing that bugged me was his trotting out of the argument that the faith in Europe is dying because they didn't follow the American Way of doing things which results in much more vigorous religiosity--ie. no state support of religion.

This argument is incoherent for a number of reasons. First, when people really in tune with Vatican II (as the Father frequently upbraids Buchanan types for not being), they usually posit European theological models/updates as the wave of the future/where its at. From Phenomenology to Resourcement. . . . these models of piety are all from the Europe that is supposedly imploding over the period, and incapable of resisting the perversions of Nazism and Communism.

The other thing, though, is that the fully dissidentized faith in the US Catholic Church is presented as Vibrant, whereas the Eurotrash, Don't-even-bother-to-fake-it at Church on sunday are called out as pagans.

The reality just doesn't support this analysis.

[DOROTHY]

I did sit through the three hours of the interview. Although, I would have preferred to have seen Brian Lamb navigate the subject, I did enjoy the interview as it took place.
I was fastened to my chair while watching attentively, so the interview was apparently of interest.
I think Fr. Neuhaus expressed himself as best he could in the limited amount of time.
I was happy to learn that Fr.Neuhaus has been a friend of Ratzinger for 20 years. I do hope this friendship may lead to a promotion for the Father.

[Henry Patrick]

Ratzinger promote an apologist for a war that the Cardinal held to be unjust?

I have trouble understanding how an opponent of abortion could accept in advance the deaths of so many innocent people on the basis of the dubious justifications given; Neuhaus deferring to the prudential judgement of Bush. What's the matter then with the prudential judgement of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade?

If RJN should be called to a B16 banquet he should take the lowest seat and get comfortable in it.

[Wisconsinkathy]

Watched the second two hours as soon as I returned from Mass yesterday. I thought his remarks were excellent; from what I've read and observed over the past few years, I agree with him on most issues--especially on Iraq (I mean, geez we're there--no way can we get out of it without making the mess worse) and the malaise in western Europe (sorry, Al). He did skirt the question about whether a Catholic who is pro-choice is a Catholic. Whether the person is vocal or not about his/her prochoice position, unless the person is *officially* excommunicated or officially joins another religion, the person remains a Catholic--but one who'd better make a sincere Confession before receiving Communion. I think this is accurate and I wish Father Neuhaus had been more direct.

He also was the victim of one of those coughing spells that tend to broadside a person at the very worst moment (like at Mass or during a concert). He came out of it well; good thing they had a mug of water at hand!

Not that he's got any extra time, but more TV interviews or even a show would be something I'd go out of my way to watch.

[Tom]

I knew I would miss the noontime telecast, so I'm dragging a little at work after catching the midnight to 3am rerun. I was glad that I watched; I have long appreciated Fr. Neuhaus's writing in FT. His book "Death on a Friday Afternoon" I find so very rich I have not even worked my way completely through it yet. I found him on this program to be extremely thoughtful and gracious and lucid. He humbly offered that he can sometimes be arrogant. Some of the questions as verbalized (like "can someone who supports abortion be a Catholic?") surely deserved the more deliberate answers he gave. Very early on in the program the interviewer -- who I thought asked very Brian Lamb-like questions but probably did not challenge RJN as much as some would like -- asked him, "what was Vatican II?" I suppose the interviewer could have pressed him, following up the discussion about his advising President Bush on how one could frame questions of morality in the political arena, with a question about whether RJN had advised the President on the Iraq war. He demurred when mention was made of a Time Magazine(?) piece describing his "under-the radar influence" in the White House.

I think he makes an excellent point that JPII's single greatest legacy, over the very long term of history, may well be that he established the "hermeneutic, the interpretive keys" as RJN puts it, for the Second Vatican Council. His discussion of the crisis and scandals in the Church in America since 2002 was an echo of his extensive FT commentary. I was glad to hear someone say on tv that essentially we are still getting through the end of the "silly season" in the Catholic Church, but that it is effectively over.

I also found it interesting that he "takes a scotch" every evening! The three hours went by quickly for me.

[Tom Kelty]

It seems that Neuhaus is struggling to read the signs of the times. I did not see the show at all. But the impression in this thread is not one created by a man of pure and simple faith. The hot medium of TV sometimes serves us best when it allows a person like this to bomb in his own words. Tell me again how he spun the clergy sex abuse crisis into a pedophilia problem. He obviously has no use for facts and maybe very little interest in the truth. Are we so hard up for entertainment or inspiration that we would waste time watching him?

[David Kubiak]

Even if one disagrees with certain of Fr. Neuhaus' opinions, it is hard not to appreciate an American Catholic priest who projects such evident intelligence. Three of my students have been editorial assistants for him now, and I have had the chance to spend a little time with him myself. There are sides of him you wouldn't suspect -- he is for example a very big fan of Mother Angelica, both of her personally and of her network, where you might expect a former Lutheran to find this style of Catholicism way over the top. It is odd to me that he and Cardinal O'Connor were such pals, since it is hard to imagine two churchmen with more different personalities. Like Newman, he has suffered a lot, I think, from being thought a 'fancy convert' by his more ordinary priest colleagues. His interest in public policy tends to distract from the chief impression I had of him, which is of a profoundly Godly man, completely devoted to the Church. I was privileged once to be at a Mass he celebrated at 8:00 a.m. for a group of somewhat crapulous students he had held spellbound for several hours the night before. One conversion already after that evening, and another on the way.

He is a very impressive man.

[Richard]

I have trouble understanding how an opponent of abortion could accept in advance the deaths of so many innocent people on the basis of the dubious justifications given; Neuhaus deferring to the prudential judgement of Bush. What's the matter then with the prudential judgement of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade?

The dificulty here is that abortion is not open to prudential judgment the way decisions of war and peace are.

Perhaps Bush's particular judgment can't pass that test; but the fact remains that some war decisions, at least, fall under that category. Abortion never does.

It is always intrinsically evil.

[Mike Petrik]

Henry,
The Supreme Court's opinion in Roe was supposed to be entirely a legal analysis, not a prudential one. It was, sadly, a dishonest and incoherent legal analysis.
In contrast, a prudential analysis always requires an assessment of facts based on evidence. Like members of a jury, members of a body politic and their leaders can disagree, sometimes vigorously, about the meaning of and weight appropriately accorded to evidence, and therefore disagree quite honestly as to the facts to which the governing principles must be applied.

[Richard]

Hello Al,

Oh, and the other thing that bugged me was his trotting out of the argument that the faith in Europe is dying because they didn't follow the American Way of doing things which results in much more vigorous religiosity--ie. no state support of religion.

It should be noted that Ratzinger himself has made comments recently suggesting that the Church must consider reconciling itself to something closer to the American model.

In Salt of the Earth he noted:

"As long as there us a consensus in society that the basic values of Christianity are also givens for legislation, it's possible to keep state, Church, and society relatively closely interwoven in a meaningful way that isn't opposed to the freedom of religion. But when convictions no longer stand behind it, too much institutional integration can obviously become dangerous. For this reason, I am not opposed to stronger models of separation where this is relevant."

Which is not suggest that Ratzinger/Benedict's position is perfectly synonymous with Neuhaus's. It's not.

The other thing, though, is that the fully dissidentized faith in the US Catholic Church is presented as Vibrant, whereas the Eurotrash, Don't-even-bother-to-fake-it at Church on sunday are called out as pagans.

Even with the dominance of dissident AmChurch culture within the Church, I do think that it is possible to say we are more "vibrant" than most European churches - but mainly, I think, because of the general religiosity of American society, from which American Catholicism is scarcely distinguishable any longer - the few scattered islands of orthodox renewal notwithstanding.

[Matthew]

I think Amy's right about these threads overheating more often these days.

Tom- According to al, Neuhaus didn't "spin the sexual abuse crisis into a pedophilia problem." Instead, he (rightly) argued that it was significantly about homosexuality. As someone willing to throw around accusations about not having a "use for facts" and little "interest in the truth", please take care to accurately portray what people are in fact saying.

Henry Patrick: To compare deference to secular authorities on the Iraq war and abortion is highly misleading and inflammatory. Obviously, there is no question of prudential judgement with regards to abortion. It is an intrinsic evil, and the Church teaches that. Even if you think war to be an intrinsic evil, recognize that the Church does not teach that; you may think Neuhaus wrong in his analysis of Just War criteria, wrong to defer to the prudential judgement of the White House. But be charitable, for goodness sake!

[Steve]

Tom Kelty (a.k.a. “the Seer”):

Have pity on us poor souls that are “so hard up for entertainment or inspiration” that we actually watched the aforementioned program. I suppose it is a sign of my dull-wittedness that I must actually partake before I can opine. I have not the nigh miraculous ability, evinced by yourself, to judge what I haven’t seen, but I would love to acquire such a skill—can you teach me? From my vantage point it appears that simply reading a few comment boxes can give one enough insight to scrutinize a man’s faith, “use for facts”, and “interest in the truth”, but I’m sure there’s more to it than that. Does such clairvoyance work, not just for TV shows, but for books as well? I could make a huge dent in my reading list if I could form a judgment without all that tedious reading! I’m dying to learn more about the Tom Kelty school of analysis: When will your next C-Span appearance be? What books have you written? Which ones do you recommend?

P.S. I have not yet seen “Cinderella Man” but am considering it; if you haven’t seen it either, could you, before I shell out $16 for me and my gal (and if it’s not too frivolous a use of your powers), tell me if it’s good or bad? Thanks bunches.

[SiliconValleySteve]

Hi Amy,

I think the problem you might be having is the veg-out model of looking at TV. I have it. I think and am alert when I'm reading or even when I'm listening to the radio but TV is meant for the relaxed state. Also, how often do I sit and read a book for 3 hours straight? Answer: Not very often since I was much younger.

The DVR really helps this. I was able to watch the Neuhaus program in segments and always able to pick up where I left off.

[John Farrell]

Steve,
LOL, a very hearty high five, man!

[tcreek]

The statement below is from Time Magazine's article listing the 25 leading Evangelicals in the U.S. Note that the statement strangely includes "... not a fellow Evangelical."

When asked about this during the interview Fr. Neuhaus said that his influence on President Bush was overstated in the article.
------
When Bush met with journalists from religious publications last year, the living authority he cited most often was not a fellow Evangelical but a man he calls Father Richard, who, he explained, "helps me articulate these [religious] things." A senior Administration official confirms that Neuhaus "does have a fair amount of under-the-radar influence" on such policies as abortion, stem-cell research, cloning and the defense-of-marriage amendment.
------
"Evangelical" must be broadly defined to include Fr. Neuhaus. Maybe he was included in the list because of his efforts to bring a unity of sorts between Catholics and Evangelicals.

[tcreek]

Neuhaus vs. the Pope on Just War? Neither!

If the citizens of the United States should come under attact by terrorists, insurgents or nation states there is only one person who has the God given responsibility and authority to decide how best to provide protection to our citizens.

Our bishops, including the pope, have not been granted that authority nor do they have the competence to best decide the correct course of action.

Thank Heavens!

Some people will be debating Just War theory until the end of time.

Others will have to act.

[Lawrence King]

TCreek,

I have to partially disagree with you.

In a monarchy, the king is indeed the proper person to make the decision regarding war. If he does not try to make this decision morally to the best of his ability, he has to answer to God for this. If he makes the best moral decision he can -- even if his decision later, in hindsight, turns out to be wrong -- his conscience should be clean.

However, we do not live in a monarchy. The responsibility for war in the United States is divided in a very complex manner between the President (as commander-in-chief), the Congress (which has the power to declare war), and the People of the United States (who have the moral obligation to monitor the behavior of their elected officials).

Since the Pope is not an American citizen, he speaks as an outside observer. I agree that Bush has more authority to decide on the Iraq war than the Pope does. But so do I, and so do you (if you are a citizen).

[al]

Richard,
There is no disputing that more American Catholics go to Church than European Catholics. But there is a real question as to whether this is a good thing.

St. Paul himself informs us that to recieve the body and blood of the Lord unworthily, is to eat and drink one's own damnation. And judging by the short lines at confession on most saturday afternoons at parishes I've been to, and the regular reports that significant majorities of american catholics do not "agree" with the Church's teaching on contraception, divorce. . . . So apparently this american Catholic "phenomenon" includes an institutionalized mortal sin.

Second, however, I think most would agree that if american Catholics do go to Church more, its because americans go to Church more. Then, implicitly, to say that the American religious expression is a model, is to say that its good that everyone go to whatever church they attend, so long as they do. But this is to say that the measure of authentic "religious" expression is not what God wants, but rather what subjectively each person percieves they ought to give to God.

It is this very principle that has been condemned time and again in the Church's magisterium--that all religious expression is equally pleasing to God in virtue of the subjective disposition of the performer. Which is why Leo XIII felt compelled to observe " For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority."

[Colleen]

Hi Wisconsinkathy,
I saw the coughing fit as well and my heart went out to him - so embarrassing and always at the worst moment possible! AFAIK, Fr. Neuhuaus is a smoker unless he recently quit, but judging from the all to personally familiar fit of coughing, he probably still smokes.

I completely enjoyed the three hours. He describes himself as:
'culturaly conservative' - believing that our grandparents, in their circumstances, were as wise as we are and not caught up in the frenzies of the fascinations with 'me' and the 'new' -- new can be good but there are achievements that need to be cherished and held. Being comfortable with the past.

'politically liberal': classical liberalism, division of powers, human potential for tyranny that needs checks and balances, admires dr. martin luther king, accepting responsiblity for actions.

'economically pragmatic': to the degree that it serves human purposes... market economy, opportunity for economic growth, dignity of the human person.

'religiously orthodox' - not just making it up as we go along, basic form of the understanding of the christian story of the world is found in the gospels, given its tradition through the bible and in the first few centuries through the councils when the big questions were hashed out.

Great 'ecumenical' discussion here. Wish it were transcribed somewhere.

[chris K]

Tell me again how he spun the clergy sex abuse crisis into a pedophilia problem. He obviously has no use for facts and maybe very little interest in the truth. Are we so hard up for entertainment or inspiration that we would waste time watching him?

Tom, you really shouldn't be so obvious that your criticisms are purely personal rather than based on any true facts.

Watched the whole thing. If those of you tuned in only during the last hour, well, I think Fr. Neuhaus also thought 3 hours was a bit too long. He had had a coughing jag and kept looking at his watch during that last hour. His answers were shorter and not all encompassing as his earlier discussion. And, always, he seemed to be following his own idea of the Church "proposing" rather than imposing...which somehow seems to frustrate a lot of zealots. His discussion of the war was based on what seemed to be honestly presented as known at the time...and his new position seemed to deal with the "now" reality, in only hoping that somehow it will be guided to some accomplished end. I also thought his outline of the basis for so many priests leaving and the confused era we've all witnessed and suffered through was quite real (trying to express the hi-jacking by those with some wished for idea of some false "spirit" of VII)...as well as his being placed on the spot re: Islam. At least one non-Catholic caller, familiar with Fr. Beiting's work in Appalachia, expressed her thought of Fr. Neuhaus as being someone, unlike many clerics she's witnessed, reasonable and charitable and humble in his discussion of questions. Fr. Neuhaus was surprised and admitted to perhaps coming across often as a bit arrogant. Good man!

[Richard]

Hello Al,

I don't think Pope Benedict would disagree with any of what Leo XIII said. I certainly would not.

Nowhere does he (Ratzinger/Benedict)hold up the American model as ideal or preferred per se. He seems to be only suggesting that "institutional integration" may become dangerous - to the Church - where the societal Christian consensus has collapsed, as it clearly has in most of Western Europe. A greater separation becomes more desirable if only to keep the Church from becoming morally compromised. In other words, that the American Church may be better positioned for survival precisely because it is not tied closely to a state which aborts on demand and is considered same-sex marriage. A situational advantage, not an absolute preference.

With Neuhaus you get a stronger sense of idealization of the American model. No doubt due to his Protestant upbringing. There is clearly, I think, some daylight between Neuhaus's and Ratzinger's positions.

You are arguing that Western Europe's faith did not collapse because of excessive state-Church integration and I would agree. I have no idea if Neuhaus was arguing that per se. However, I would say - and this is what what the Pope seems to be saying - that however that collapse happened, the Church now finds itself in greater danger from closeer integration with increasingly secularized states.

Although I might add that I have also seen comments from Ratzinger suggesting that too often there has also been a kind of complacency which has infected some European churches because of the ample state support. But that may be part of a larger phenomenon.

[Lawrence King]

Al: That observation of Leo XIII contains many good points. However, in particular, the following statement:

... it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that.... it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced,

was non-infallible in the 1890's, and in 1965 was overruled by Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom.

[al]

"the Church now finds itself in greater danger from closer integration with increasingly secularized states."

We are in complete agreement.

Nevertheless, there's seems explicit in Fr. Neuhaus's critique an analysis of how these states came to be so secularized.

The traditional argument, is the French Revolution, and the revolutionary Enlightenment theories which produced it. Fr. Neuhaus seems concerned to segregate those elements (American Liberalism, as opposed to European Liberalism) he has an affinity for, and blame the "dirty Europeans" for the west.

Burke may have been the first to try this, but my point is that looking honestly at the current religious and moral experience on both sides of the pond makes this impossible, and to continue to assert this you have to distort the phenomenon.

I mean we all know that Europeans are all closeted anti-Semites eager to surrender to Germany as soon as possible so they can get back to eating their cheese and whatnot, but putting to the side for the moment those verities, which side of the pond first institutionalized contraception? abortion? no fault divorce?

Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, Veritatis Splendor. . . identify these watersheds as those which led to a wholly de-Deified public square.

Moreover, the notion that Americans are more authentically religious is taken as a given, and not explored at all, despite the Vatican II emphasis on a universal call to Holiness, and a call to a full and conscious participation in the liturgy.

What I'm saying there, is that the very sorts who would castigate the pre-Conciliar Church for being a wrote, ritualistic experience, where people simply went to Church because of Cultural inducements, are the very ones to point uncritically to American Church going practices as evidence of unalloyed religious vibrancy.

[Brian]

Lawrence said: ... it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that.... it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced,
was non-infallible in the 1890's, and in 1965 was overruled by Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom.

Lawrence, this could not be further from the truth. Dignitatis Humanae could not "overrule" what the continuous ordinary magisterial teaching taught universally for several pontificates. Dignitatis Humanae's "development" if we must call it that, merely reaffirmed what Leo XIII said in Libertas, which was that the Catholic understanding of "religious liberty" meant that the Church could not coerce people against their will to embrace the Catholic religion, if it violated their conscience. This does not at all rule out the ideal of the confessional state. It is also presumed in the late 1890s, that since this teaching which you cite by Leo XIII (and reiterated again forcefully by Pope Pius XI "On the Peace of Christ through the Kingdom of Christ") is indeed infallible teaching. In fact, DH itself, in one of the opening paragraphs, says "keeping the traditional teaching of the Church in tact," therefore one cannot say that DH overruled nor overturned what indeed may be infallible teaching. Fr. Brian Harrison and Fr. William Most have the best explanations of this in English.

[Henry Patrick]

Matthew et al.

Killing in unjust war is as intrinsically evil as abortion. JPII and B16 considered it unjust
and therefore immoral. A judgement on law or a casus belli is still a judgement.

[hieronymus]

Henry: No it isn't. If you believe that, go tell our soldiers that they're going to hell. I dare you.

The level of discourse would probably be much better if we didn't have to reinvent the catechism on every comment thread.

[Sandra Miesel]

"Who first legalized contraception, abortion, and no fault divorce?"
I don't know about no-fault divorce, but contraception has been practiced time out of mind by mankind. Condoms came into wide use in England and Europe in the 18th C. The Church's modern initiative against contraception was prompted by questions from France in the 1850s.
Sweden has had legal abortion since the 1920s. It's also been around a long time in other Scandanavian countries.

[Mike Petrik]

To add to Sandra's comment, while the US may have pioneered the unfortunate concept of "no-fault divorce," that is in part because in Europe the concept of marriage is so much more flexible, marital fidelity not being perceived as a requirement.

[al]

Mike,
So better that they get a no fault divorce? That's the kind of stinking thinking I'm complaining about.

Lawrence,
Maybe you skipped this part of DH "Therefore [Dignitatis Humanae] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

[john di]

From Fr. Neuhaus in First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0412/public.html#2): “…One readily admits that the United States is not a fit bearer of Christian culture in the world. No country or concert of countries is that. But then one must always ask: Compared to what? The European Union? Russia? Latin America? Africa? Or to stretch the point to absurdity, China? Strategic and tactical aspects of the war on terror aside, the argument can be made that American influence is generally on the side of the Church on the big questions: human freedom, democracy, the dignity of the human being at all points on life’s continuum, the indispensable centrality of family and marriage, the economic development of poor nations, and the practice of subsidiarity in civil society….”

If I understand Neuhaus’ critics correctly, their point is that it’s not proper to always ask “Compared to what?”. The problem is that this comparison could easily lead to laxity and an inappropriate level of comfort with one’s own sinfulness.

Folks like al might be right about this ( assuming I understand al’s point).

[Maureen]

Traditionally, Catholicism has not automatically viewed killing in war as equal to murder.

But even it is, it is surely less evil to shoot someone armed and unrelated than to chop up the helpless fruit of your very own womb (or your very own patient's womb).

Give the fetuses a little in-womb basic training and equip them with tiny little grenades and AK-47's, and I might feel differently.

[al]

And on legalization, the move to legalize came from America and Margaret Sanger as we all know--note it is the protestant countries, like American, and Britain which led the charge:

Abortion:

Britain (1967).
Canada (1969),
the United States (1973),
Sweden (1973)
Denmark (1973)
France (1975),
West Germany (1976),
New Zealand (1977),
Italy (1978)
the Netherlands (1980)
Belgium (1990)

Contraception:
1930: Lambeth Conference: permits contraception for Anglicans
US (1965)
France (1967)
Spain (1978)

[Mike Petrik]

al,
I never meant to suggest that no fault divorce was acceptable. My only point was that Europe's comparative reluctance to embrace this concept was probably grounded less in valuing marriage than it was in a more relaxed understanding of marriage. When functional polygamy and relaxed sexual mores are acceptable within marriage then divorce serves less purpose.

[Henry Patrick]

Hieronymous

Soldiers are defending themselves 'til they can get out of there.

[Victor Morton]

Mike P.:

Exactly. Serial monogamy is only a meaningful practice if monogamy is expected in the first place; if the Europeans don't expect monogamy within marriage, then yeah, of course, divorce will come later, since there's less "need" for it.

To name examples that come to mind quickly, Francois Mitterand had a second family by a mistress, and Marcello Mastroianni had a daughter by Catherine Deneuve (who was young enough herself to be MM's daughter). In both cases, the two "families" sat side-by-side at the funeral. The concept of the courtesan (like in Colette's GIGI or Ophuls' LOLA MONTES) is a concept tied to European royalty, as are such lovely practices as the Droit de Seigneur.

And we also have decades of Europeans snickering at the Puritan Americans' obsession with sex and their greater "sophistication" -- remember all the stories about Europeans not "getting" the Clinton-Lewinsky brouha or the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill charges (the aforementioned Mitterand said that if he couldn't have men who didn't do that sort of thing around him, "the only people in my Cabinet would be women and homosexuals"). So this notion that European sexual latitudinarianism is greater than American in spite of divorce law is not something Americano-papists are pulling out our butts.

Though I will say with as much weight as people's opinions of my expertise in this field might allow and for whatever the fact might be considered worth -- in every period of film history, French movies have been more sexually explicit and more tolerant toward sexual immorality in characters than the American movies of the same period.

[John Farrell]

Sandra,
The Church's modern initiative against contraception was prompted by questions from France in the 1850s.

Did you read John T. Noonan's book?

[Mary Mueller]

Does anyone know what process Richard John Neuhaus went through to become a priest? What Catholic seminary did he attend or due to his credentials did Cardinal O'Connor give him a special course of study?