« Preach it | Main | On the Cardinal »
March 23, 2007
Nope
The document Statement Concerning Two Pamphlets Published by Professor Daniel Maguire was developed by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was approved by the Administrative Committee of the USCCB at its March 2007 meeting as a statement of the Committee and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.
snip
On June 19, 2006, Professor Daniel Maguire of Marquette University sent two pamphlets to all of the Catholic Bishops in the United States, one entitled The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion and the other A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage. These pamphlets do not present Catholic teaching. His views about contraception, abortion, same sex "marriage", as well as the very nature of Church teaching and its authoritative character, cross the legitimate lines of theological reflection and simply enter into the area of false teaching. Such mistaken views should not be confused with the faith and moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Since it is apparent that considerable efforts have been made to give these views the widest possible distribution as if they were a valid alternative to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops considers it important to offer a public correction of the erroneous views proposed in these pamphlets. At the same time, the Committee on Doctrine calls attention to the Catechism of the Catholic Church where correct and authentic teaching can be found. This readily available source of the faith and moral teaching of the Catholic Church clearly demonstrates the mistaken character of the positions found in the two pamphlets and their unreliability as a guide for Catholics seeking to know and live their Catholic faith.
Church Teaching
The fundamental error in these pamphlets concerns the nature of Church teaching. In the first pamphlet Professor Maguire argues that there is "no one position on contraception and abortion" that can be called "Catholic," and thus that there is no authentic Church teaching that is binding on all the members of the Catholic Church.[1] He argues that there is the "extremely conservative view," held by conservative theologians and by the Pope and the bishops, a position that opposes contraception and abortion, as well as the "moderate and sensible view," held by other theologians, which endorses contraception and abortion, at least under certain circumstances.[2] He concludes that "the Roman Catholic position on abortion is pluralistic. It has a strong 'pro-choice' tradition and a conservative anti-choice tradition. Neither is official, and neither is more Catholic than the other."[3]
In the second pamphlet Professor Maguire argues that there is no one position that can be called "Catholic" concerning the morality of homosexual acts and same-sex "marriages." "In Catholicism" he writes, "there are three sources of truth, (or three 'magisteria'): the hierarchy, the theologians, and the wisdom and experience of the laity (called in Latin sensus fidelium)."[4] Because there is, according to Professor Maguire, no consensus at this time among these "three sources of truth," he concludes that "Catholic teaching is in transition on this subject and Catholics are free to let their consciences decide either for or against same sex marriages. Both views — for or against homosexual marriage — are at home in the Catholic world and neither one of them can be called more orthodox or more official or more Catholic than the other."[5]
snip
The Archbishop of Milwaukee, exercising his pastoral responsibilities as teacher and shepherd, has made public statements affirming that the views expressed by Professor Maguire in his two pamphlets are erroneous and incompatible with the Church's teaching.[24] We the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB concur that, despite his claims to authority as a Catholic theologian, the views of Professor Maguire on contraception, abortion, and same-sex "marriage" are not those of the Catholic Church and indeed are contrary to the Church's faith. We deplore as irresponsible his public advocacy of his views as authentic Catholic teaching. Lastly, we trust that this statement will clarify the Church's faith and teaching for all of the Catholic faithful throughout the United States.
Most Rev. William E. Lori, Chairman
Most Rev. Leonard P. Blair
Most Rev. Edward W. Clark
Most Rev. José H. Gomez
Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Most Rev. Arthur J. Serratelli
Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron
Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl
His Eminence Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, Consultant
His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, OMI, Consultant
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Now we'll see if the Bishops actually write a letter to legislators. Maguire sent this stuff up to the Hill.
The USCCB was totally unresponsive when informed about it. They would not address it, and said it was the provenance of several of their offices, which made it "hard to respond to".
Posted by: LegClerk at Mar 23, 2007 9:35:32 AM
...despite his claims to authority as a Catholic theologian.
Sorry, but being a theologian gives you zero claim to authority. That's reserved for the Magisterium - the real Magisterium, not the self-appointed one.
It's nice to see our US Bishops act in concert and decisively on this.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 23, 2007 9:43:00 AM
Good thing this Maguire guy isn't teaching moral theology at a Catholic University or anything...
Posted by: Colleen at Mar 23, 2007 10:10:23 AM
Sorry, but being a theologian gives you zero claim to authority.
But that's not how the secular world would see it. Someone with a PhD is an authority, especially if they support the media's angle on subjects like this.
Posted by: Mark Windsor at Mar 23, 2007 10:12:34 AM
Maguire's stand is right out of The Episcopal Radical's playbook. First claim that the teaching is actually unclear, that there are "many voices," or something of the kind. Then claim that your own position, which is actually radical and extreme, is the "centrist" or "moderate" position. Repeat this 10,000 times. Attempt to define orthodox believers and teachers as "extremists." Repeat another 10,000 times. Demand to be "listened" to. Repeat some more.
Posted by: captainyips at Mar 23, 2007 10:36:35 AM
This is not only a clear and authoritative clarification of Catholic Church teaching on these three issues-but also timely [within a relatively short period of time].
Notice that what came first was the 'statement' from the Archbishop of Milwaukee-the bishop of the Archdiocese within which Mr Maguire teaches. This is as it should be---if I may use a term, the bishops have all their ducks in a row and have done this well!!
As for the 'authority' of a-or any theologian within the Church....this actually is an important issue that needs a great deal of reflection.
Certainly, within the Catholic Church, as taught authoritatively in the Constitution on Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum] in the Second Vatican Council, God reveals Himself and His saving will through His Word [Second Person in trinity] first in and through Creation, then 'in many and various ways through the prophets' [Hebrews 1.1] but now fully in the Word become flesh, Jesus Christ.
In His Person, ministry, words and actions but most especially through His Paschal Mystery [death, resurrection and ascension], and His sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Church at Pentecost, Jesus Christ has fully revealed God and His saving will and has handed this on to the Apostolic Church
This Gospel or Apostolic Tradition then was passed on in the ministry, preaching, sacramental life of the Apostolic Church but most especially in oral and written form. The oral form is known as Tradition and the written form Sacred Scripture [New Testament]
This Gospel, Apostolic Tradition found in Scripture and Tradition is passed on to each new generation and authoritatively taught by the Magisterium [teaching office] of the Church [pope and bishops of the Church]
While all the baptized are anointed to participate in the prophetic office of Christ in the Church-of believing and passing on the Gospel, there are many different and varying levels of this ministry. Certainly parents passing on the faith to their children, priests preaching the gospel in their parish are participating in this 'ministry'. So are theologians who, according to their expertise, called to exercise a responsibility in and for the Church. Like all others involved in the 'ministry of the Word' Christ's own words must be theirs "My teaching is not mine, but His Who sent Me" [John 7.16]
However, none of those involved with passing on the Gospel, the Tradition, have the level of responsibility or the authority of teaching that the pope and bishops do [the Magisterium of the Church]. If any were to claim this they would be a 'noisy gong and a clanging cymbal' [1 Corinthians 13]
As related by certain theologians,such as Joseph Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict], Hans urs Von Balthasar and others, even during the Second Vatican Council, that delicate but real distinction between bishop and theologian was sometimes forgotten, and suddenly theologians were speaking with 'magisterial authority' even in the name of the Council
To fast forward a bit, during the ministry of Pope John Paul, a certain centralization took place in order to get things back on track and begin to stop the confusion in this important area. Certain such writings as the Ecclesial Vocation of the theologian [in a general sense] as Veritatis Splendor [giving real foundations to Catholic Moral teaching versus various other theories being set forth by theologians] were important moments in this regards.
Now with Pope Benedict, a less centralized ministry of 'presiding in charity' [Ignatius of Antioch to the Church in Rome 107 AD] is present. Here in America, the bishops have renewed this necessary ministry of overseeing in the States and have given authoritative teaching to the Faithful and broader American culture
Posted by: Father Elijah at Mar 23, 2007 11:25:56 AM
In this instance I must finally thank the USCCB for not letting these erroneous pamphlets have their approval.
For the most part, I look carefully at things from the USCCB and certainly have no blanket trust. The shenanigans with liturgy and in many other things leave no room for it.
Posted by: Ave Maria at Mar 23, 2007 11:50:00 AM
Does Maquire have a mandatum? If so why wasn't it publicly revoked yesterday? I know the usual hue & cry about academic freedom will erupt and everybody will fret & twitter at Marquette. Dan Maquire can say whatever he wants, but he can't call it "Roman Catholic teaching."
Posted by: Mark Andrews at Mar 23, 2007 11:52:58 AM
The little reading I have done of Dan McGuire always just makes me sad: to have reduced the faith to the region between the knees and the navel and to spend one's whole life throwing a temper tantrum about it. What a waste of a life. I keep hoping that in his old age he'll actually find something in the gospel to be joyful about rather than wasting his time being bitter toward the Church.
Posted by: F C Bauerschmidt at Mar 23, 2007 12:04:23 PM
" Someone with a PhD is an authority, especially if they support the media's angle on subjects like this."
Piled Higher and Deeper
Posted by: Elizabeth at Mar 23, 2007 12:26:57 PM
Were eight eight bishops and two cardinals trying to tell he something?
Actually, nine bishops. One of the cardinals is an archbishop, and Card. Dulles is a Jesuit, McGuire's former religious order.
Posted by: A. Nonnymouse at Mar 23, 2007 12:38:34 PM
I, too, am unclear about the mandatum situation with McGuire. I thought that the institution of the mandatum was precisely the way lay theologians could be brought under the censure of the church canonically. Sobrino, or Haight, or other priests can be censured under canon law by virtue of their orders, but laity can escape this, hence, the manadatum. Is the mandatum just a non-issue now, or does it still matter to the USCCB?
Posted by: geist at Mar 23, 2007 1:09:12 PM
Can they address this as well?
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/05/in_the_jesuit_t.html
Posted by: Fr. D at Mar 23, 2007 1:36:18 PM
The mandatum is implemented differently in different dioceses, but in general it is up to the individual theologian to apply for one and I would be shocked if McGuire had even applied. If a theologian does not apply, there is not much a bishop can do except, I suppose, issue some public denunciation. I imagine that if a university fired a theologian for not having a mandatum they would be sued in civil court before you could say laetae sententiae, particularly if the professor were tenured, and they would likely lose state funding. It might be possible to force someone out of the theology department into a different department (philosophy or sociology) but it would be very difficult to get rid of that person entirely. If the bishop really wanted to raise the stakes, he could threaten to sue the university to keep them from using the word "Catholic" in their description of themselves, but I doubt that would have much chance in the courts.
I'm not necessarily saying that this is how it should be (though some of the alternatives are even more loathsome) but that's at least my read of the current situation.
Posted by: F C Bauerschmidt at Mar 23, 2007 2:07:30 PM
Let me second Fritz Bauerschmidt's comment.
I regard Maguire as a sort of tragi-comic figure. He and Marjorie lost a young child at some point, as I recall, and this helped in some way to galvanize Maguire's spirit of dissent. Ironically, he was always accusing the Magisterium of being obsessed with "pelvic morality," but he saw it that way only because he himself was obsessed with this (and only this) part of Catholic teaching. And I believe that he is widely regarded by both friend and foe as an intellectual lightweight whose fame has come exclusively from the fact that he is a dissenter.
It's good that the bishops replied in a timely and appropriate manner, but this guy is more to be pitied than pilloried.
Posted by: Alfredo at Mar 23, 2007 2:10:47 PM
I'm glad to see the bishops take an action this clear. It's a sign of hope, to me.
That said, it must be Friday, because I read this line from Alfredo's post, "And I believe that he is widely regarded by both friend and foe as an intellectual lightweight whose fame has come exclusively from the fact that he is a dissenter..." to say, "...from the fact that he is a DISASTER..."
And, sadly, it made perfect sense. :)
Posted by: Red Cardigan at Mar 23, 2007 2:58:07 PM
I'm not a lawyer (though I do have a Ph.D.; how come I'm not an "authority" [pout]), so I'm open to correction on this one. But my understanding of U.S. law is that the courts accord great deference to religious institutions in their hiring decisions. I believe that in this respect, even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is trumped by the religious-protection clause of the First Amendment. There have been numerous cases in which faculty working at religious colleges and universities have changed their convictions so as to conflict with the school's mission; been dismissed; and failed to have the dismissal overturned in court. The judiciary has pretty uniformly taken the view that organised religious life becomes impossible if the government has authority to tell churches and faith-based organisations who to hire and fire.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel at Mar 23, 2007 3:13:41 PM
Blind Squirrel has a point, though I think the real issue is state funding. The state might not interfere with your right to hire and fire teachers of theology, but at least in Maryland I think it could well lose you state funds.
Posted by: F C Bauerschmidt at Mar 23, 2007 3:52:32 PM
I have neither a PhD, nor am I a lawyer, so forgive me for this question. Exactly who is Marquette University accountable to? I mean its a Jesuit university. Does that mean it is accountable to the Superior General? Is it accountable to the Provincial Superior? Is it accountable to anyone or is it just a private university with the pinache of claiming to be Catholic?
I note the local bishop has spoken against Maguire, but does he have the authority to tell Marquette that he shouldn't be teaching impressionable, young, probably badly catechized Catholic minds in the subjects of theology and ethics. If he doesn't who does?
Posted by: TerryC at Mar 23, 2007 9:39:47 PM
Exactly who is Marquette University accountable to?
They are accountable to their board of directors. Most Catholic colleges and universities put themselves under the control of board, made up primarily of lay people, in the late 60s and early 70s. In most cases, the founding religious orders have at best the power of moral suasion, but no juridical authority,
Posted by: F. C. Bauerschmidt at Mar 23, 2007 10:27:08 PM
I'd think that Marquette, like all Jesuit colleges and universities, is a private, non-profit, educational institution. Its likely incorporated as such in the State of Wisconsin. That the Society of Jesus has its provincial headquarters in Milwaukee is now happenstance; if the Jesuits in the U.S. start merging provinces as their numbers drop, the provincialate could just as well be in St. Louis, Milwaukee or Chicago, but I digress.
It reports to its own corporate board of directors. Neither the Society of Jesus or the local ordinary has any formal, final control over the university, though I'll defer to Marquette's articles of incorporation and its own policies and procedures manual. In the old days, before Vatican 2, many religious colleges and universities were owned, lock, stock & barrel, by the religious community that founded and/or ran them. That caused at least two problems:
1) the religious community was stuck paying the bills, and there was not always a clear distinction between where the religious community stopped and the college or university started. This led to...
2) a potential or actual problem when state and federal funding became involved. Remember the other golden rule - "He who has the gold makes the rules"? It gets a little weird when government attaches rules on who gets money and how the money is spent when that money goes to a school that is legally and organizationally inseparable from a religious organization?
This may lead to the question "Why was this not problem before the 60's?" I don't know that it wasn't a problem. But the cultural, legal and social world of the 10s, 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s is long gone and is not returning.
All this said, I echo Terry C's questions. Not so much who is Marquette accountable to but who are Catholic institutions of higher education accountable to - boards? Alumni? Students? Parents? Faculty? The local community? The local ordinary? The local diocese? Rome? The regional accreditation body? State and/or Federal departments of higher education? All, some or none of the above? I'm going to find a copy of Ex Corde Ecclesia and see what it says.
PS - that other golden rule is proving to be the ruin of Ave Maria University. Autocracy is rarely a good thing, no matter who the autocrat is. In AMU's case, its the pizza guy with all that gold.
Posted by: Mark Andrews at Mar 23, 2007 11:07:45 PM
