The Canonization of the Council

Tags

canonization, Catholic, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Marjorie Jeffrey, Pope Francis, Pope John Paul II, Pope John XXIII, Vatican II

(Photo credit: Public Catholic)

By Marjorie Jeffrey (@MarjorieJeffrey)

In case you missed it during what was, for some, a long weekend, on this past Friday Pope Francis released his very first Papal Encyclical, Lumen Fidei. The release came alongside the approval for canonization of Blessed Pope John Paul II. This announcement had been anxiously awaited, and was made public alongside the approval of the second miracle needed for his canonization.

What was wholly unexpected was the simultaneous announcement of the approval for canonization of Blessed Pope John XXIII. Why so unexpected? Because there has been no second miracle approved (or even considered) for John XXIII, and this is usually a requirement for canonization.

Vatican Radio reported on the explanation given by Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J., Vatican spokesperson:

This slightly unusual gesture was explained by Fr. Lombardi who told journalists that despite the absence of a second miracle it was the Pope’s will that the Sainthood of the great Pope of the Second Vatican Council be recognized.

Fr. Lombardi stated that a canonization without a second miracle is still valid, given that there is already the existing miracle that lead to the Roncalli Pope’s beatification. He also pointed to ongoing discussions among theologians and experts about whether it is necessary to have two distinct miracles for beatification and canonization. Certainly, he added the Pope has the power to dispense, in a Cause, with the second miracle.

While much of the media’s attention has been devoted to the canonization of Blessed Pope John Paul II, slightly less has been paid to the anomaly of the canonization of Blessed Pope John XXIII. For the mainstream media, the reason for this is obvious – “We remember JPII, but who is this other guy?” On the other hand, the majority of the Catholic blogosphere has been ecstatic about both upcoming canonizations.

It should be noted that it is not unprecedented for a Pope to waive the requirement for a second miracle – indeed, Pope John XXIII was himself the last Pope to do so. But John XXIII is a controversial figure in traditional Catholic circles. The dismissive explanation given by Fr. Lombardi was that “no one doubts his virtues.” That’s a noble line, but it isn’t entirely true.

Indeed, some could view this as a kind of slap in the face, both to traditional Catholics and those estranged from the Church because of Vatican II. Pope Benedict, for example, strove for reconciliation with the schismatic group, the Society of Pius X, throughout his pontificate. Pope Francis’ priorities seem to lie in a different direction: the canonization of Pope John XXIII, particularly in such an un-traditional manner, could be construed as simply “making a statement”. This is probably a harsh view, and one derided by some as that of right-wing ideologues. A more positive light on this dual canonization might be shed; by canonizing both John XXIII and John Paul II together, the message is intended to be one of reconciliation. While Pope John XXIII was responsible for instigating and convening the Second Vatican Council (which is still considered by many Catholics to have been disastrous, at least in its aftermath), Pope John Paul II went to great lengths in the course of his long pontificate to reestablish order in the Church. (Though not all conservative Catholics are uncritical of JPII.) Announcing these two canonizations at the same time is certainly meant to send a message, whatever message that may be. John Thavis’ explanation was as follows:

There are several likely reasons for waiving the second miracle requirement for the canonization of Pope John XXIII, and the first is timing. The Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, noted the ongoing 50th anniversary of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, convened by John XXIII. The spokesman added that John XXIII was much loved throughout the church, and that “none of us has any doubts about John XXIII’s virtues.”

It’s hard to believe that this decision does not reflect Pope Francis’ priorities, and his eagerness to revitalize the spirit of dialogue and interaction with the world that was characteristic of Vatican II and John XXIII.

What does it mean to be declared a saint? Well, as summarized by Leah Libresco:

I should pause to correct a common misconception about sainthood: the Vatican does not cause anyone to be a saint (which simply means a soul who is in Heaven).  Canonizations are meant as a public recognition that someone is a saint.  There are plenty of saints who are not known to be saints, but public acknowledgement is meant to be a special grace for the living, so we have a diverse set of people to pattern our lives on and seek out for solace.  The popes are or are not saints, regardless of where the canonization process on earth is. [Links added.]

It is generally held among theologians that the Pope is infallible on the question of canonization (though not beatification). The Church used to require four miracles for canonization, until Pope John Paul II reduced it to two in 1983. But sainthood is a weighty thing. Though someone may very well be a saint, the Church has always required proofs of sanctity for a reason. There may be thousands of unknown saints, but we canonize only the few whose sanctity and exercise of heroic virtue are indisputable. The original saints of the early Church were almost exclusively martyrs, and it was not until the 4^th century that Church hierarchy approved the honoring of non-martyrs, or “confessors”.

The rush to canonization of both Blessed John Paul II and Blessed Pope John XXIII may be entirely justified, but it discomfits this troglodyte. The Church is not about convenience or immediacy or sainthood on demand. The certainty of the Holy Father carries great weight, but the demand for “Santo Subito” reeks of the desire for immediacy so ingrained in modern life.

Regardless of my own misgivings about the rapidity of this development, what Pope Francis is trying to do may be a worthy goal: that is, to transform the meaning of the Council.

Blessed Pope John XXIII is honored by various Protestant communions, including the Episcopal Church and the extended Anglican communion, contributing to his reputation among traditionalists as a modernist.  John XXIII was responsible for convening the Second Vatican Council – this is so. However, he himself was a liturgical traditionalist, and did not sign any of the documents that emerged from Vatican II. One can assume from reports of his last days that he was quite dismayed with the manipulation of the Council by progressive forces, and by what many would later call “the spirit of Vatican II”. A long circulated rumor (of which I can find no proof or disproof) is that his last words upon his death bed were “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!”

My own interpretation of Pope Francis’ intent is this: perhaps in the vein of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, he is wedding Pope John XXIII’s original intent to the “reform of the reform” begun by Pope John Paul II. In other words, he is stating that John XXIII’s intent was one with that of John Paul II. To this extent, it is a transformative political move – but not necessarily a bad one.

Catholics, Evangelicals, Others Join Forces for Religious Liberty

Tags

abortion, Catholic, Christianity, Contraception, HHS Mandate, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Kristin Rudolph, religious freedom

(Credit: Diocese of Scranton)

Kristin Rudolph (@Kristin_Rudolph)

Yesterday (July 2) a group of inter-religious leaders released a letter responding to the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) final version of its contraceptive insurance coverage mandate. In a press conference at Washington D.C.’s National Press Club, four signatories gave statements explaining how the HHS contraceptive and abortifacient mandate violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.

Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Convention expressed frustration at Obama Administration’s response to religious liberty pleas, stating: “the government has given us word games and accounting tricks that amount to the same mandate, over and over again.”

“Our religious convictions inform the way we live,” Moore said. “We support freedom of conscience not only for ourselves, but for all,” he continued. Even those who do not profess religious belief “have an interest in the protection of these liberties … If the federal government can force organizations and businesses to pave over their own consciences … what will stop the government from imposing its will on your conscience next?”

Archbishop William Lori of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore pointed out the HHS mandate “divides our Church into three separate camp: houses of worship v. ‘accommodated’ religious institutions v. for-profit entities run by religious leaders.” He explained “the faith by which we worship on Sunday is the very same faith by which we act in the world the other six days of the week.” He noted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) “is still analyzing the specifics of the ‘accommodation’ … [but is] ‘very similar’ to its February 2013 proposal.”

Dr. Anne Hendershott, a self-described “pro-life Catholic” and sociologist at Franciscan University of Steubenville said she has “been happy to teach in schools where I would not be asked to contribute to causes that are contrary to what my Church teaches.” But now, the HHS mandate “will require me – as a faithful Catholic – to purchase insurance that my Church teaches is seriously immoral,” she explained.

“There are now over 60 total lawsuits against the mandate,” she said, and although lawsuits brought by religious non-profits like Franciscan University have been dismissed on grounds that they have not yet been injured by the mandate, Hendershott said “We have already been injured by this unjust mandate because our constitutional right to religious freedom has already been compromised … There is every indication that this will escalate.”

Dr. Yuri Mantilla, a professor of law at Liberty University School of Law emphasized the international recognition of religious freedom rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and promoted by the US around the world. “Violations of religious freedom in the United States and abroad are unacceptable. This is especially the case when they involve the protection of innocent human life … It is time to restore the great American tradition of respect for religious freedom as a fundamental civil right,” he stated.

“We think the issue here is the principle of conscience and free exercise of religion,” Moore stated in the Q&A time. He pointed out Americans already have broad freedom to use whatever contraception they choose, but it is an affront to religious liberty to expect those with moral objections to provide birth control, sterilization procedures, or abortifacients.

Archbishop Lori added that business and institutions have a particular “ethos” and prospective employees can turn down a job if they disagree with a potential employer’s view on contraceptives.

Moore said the next step is to “not back down,” continue petitioning the Obama Administration to reconsider, and “work with members of Congress toward a legislative solution.”

The letter’s signatories come from a wide variety of Christian denominations, including evangelical, mainline, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic traditions. IRD President Mark Tooley signed the letter and his account of the press conference can be found here.

The text of the letter is below.

Standing Together for Religious Freedom

We write as an informal and diverse group of religious leaders, theologians, lay practitioners and community servants. We believe the doctrines of our respective faiths require something of us beyond the walls of our churches, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship. Those faith convictions manifest themselves through our daily interactions among family, neighbors, strangers and institutions.

Further, we recognize the United States, at its best, is unique among the nations of the world when it defends the self-evident freedom of all people to exercise their faith according to the dictates of their consciences. This freedom contributes to the vibrancy of our nation. Unfortunately, this delicate liberty of conscience is under threat.

Through its contraceptive coverage mandate, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) continues to breach universal principles affirmed and protected by the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws. While the mandate is a specific offense, it represents a greater fundamental breach of conscience by the federal government. Very simply, HHS is forcing Citizen A, against his or her moral convictions, to purchase a product for Citizen B. The HHS policy is coercive and puts the administration in the position of defining–or casting aside–religious doctrine. This should trouble every American.

Many of the signatories on this letter do not hold doctrinal objections to the use of contraception. Yet we stand united in protest to this mandate, recognizing the encroachment on the conscience of our fellow citizens. Whether or not we agree with the particular conscientious objection is beside the point. HHS continues to deny many Americans the freedom to manifest their beliefs through practice and observance in their daily lives.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Free exercise includes the freedom to order one’s life, liberties and pursuits in accordance with his or her convictions. HHS breaches the free exercise clause and federal statutes (passed with broad bipartisan support) by selectively denying some Americans this constitutionally protected right.

Americans afford each other broad liberties with respect to lifestyle choices. However, the federal government has neither a compelling interest nor the appropriate authority to coerce one citizen to fund or facilitate specific lifestyle choices of another. If the federal government can force morally opposed individuals to purchase contraception or abortion-causing drugs and devices for a third party, what prevents this or future administrations from forcing other Americans to betray their deeply held convictions?

Therefore, we call upon HHS to, at a minimum, expand conscience protections under the mandate to cover any organization or individual that has religious or moral objections to covering, providing or enabling access to the mandated drugs and services. Further, because HHS claims to be acting on authority granted it by Congress, we ask Congress to consider how it might prevent such offenses from occurring in the future. Any policy that falls short of affirming full religious freedom protection for all Americans is unacceptable.

Signatories and the original letter can be found here.

Touring Mosby’s Confederacy & Dark Human Nature

Tags

Catholic, Civil War, John Mosby, Methodist, Truro Anglican Church

On Sunday after church I had the pleasure of touring “Mosby’s Confederacy” in bucolic northern Virginia outside suburbia, visiting some of Confederate partisan Colonel John Mosby’s safe houses. The rolling hills and quaint villages are now better known for wineries, country taverns, and posh estates. What irony that what’s now so charming and chic was filled with killing, ambush and horror several generations ago.

Mosby the “Grey Ghost” who operated stealthily behind federal lines, always evading death and permanent capture, is an almost mystical figure who has become a sort of regional icon. There was a television series about Mosby in the 1950s, and a Disney movie in the 1960s, which portrayed his most famous triumph, the nighttime capture of a surprised Federal general in his bedroom. The house of that scene now is part of Truro Anglican Church in Fairfax.

As a native Northern Virginian, I can’t think of a time when I did not know about Mosby, imagining his exploits when my own neighborhood during the Civil War had been still a rural enclave outside the federal capital. I did my first tour of Mosby sites about 20 years ago. An elderly Virgil Carrington, who had helped on the tv series, was there as one of Mosby’s first biographers who had actually interviewed Mosby’s last surviving ranger.

A school friend of mine was a descendant of Mosby’s best friend and fellow partisan, Fountain Beattie. I once met my friend’s great aunt, who could recall her grandfather the Civil War cavalryman. She was also acquainted with Mosby’s grandson, a retired admiral, who remembered her grandfather’s visits with his grandfather, when they typically talked politics.

Mosby was famously Republican after the war, one of the few ex-Confederates who were, partly due to the friendship he began when his former adversary Ulysses Grant became president. His politics earned him political appointments from Republican presidents but also enmity from many fellow ex Confederates. He quit living in his native Virginia after an apparent assassination attempt at the Warrenton train station, which is now a nice restaurant.

Reputedly Mosby was raised or at least baptized Methodist, which he omits in his memoir, never becoming a devout churchman. He married a pious Catholic woman, and his children were raised Catholic. Several of his closest associates, like Beattie, were Catholic, which was a little unusual among Confederates. After his wife’s death, Mosby occasionally attended Catholic churches and expressed hope about seeing his beloved wife again.

Mosby in public was typically steely if not cold. He didn’t romanticize the war, scoffed at claims by some southerners that it wasn’t fought in defense of slavery, credited Lincoln for freeing the slaves, and wanted to look forward. He was a modern man who drove a car, watched movies (a movie about him appeared in his lifetime), lived to see World War I, and commented on rising radio towers outside Washington, where he lived and died. Grant’s son appeared at the hospital during Mosby’s final illness to offer good wishes.

One house on Sunday’s tour is where Beattie met his future bride and where Mosby, while visiting his wife, was nearly captured by converging Federal troops, from whom he escaped by clambering out a window onto a tree limb. That limb is gone but the majestic tree still remains. A re-enactor there portrays Beattie, explaining that Beattie quit the area after the war, not wanting to live amid so many dark memories.

The verdant beauty of the Virginia horse country is hauntingly seductive. Reaching the final safe-house on the tour entailed a long drive down an ancient dirt road mostly unchanged since Mosby’s day. There are wild flowers, red barns, cattle filling the hills, a log cabin, and views of the Blue Ridge.

Picturing so much intrigue and blood letting amid the natural splendor is hard, no doubt harder still was it for Mosby and others on both sides who unrelentingly lived it. Mosby was severely wounded three times, including shots to his groin and abdomen. But Sunday’s tour was a reminder of humanity’s tragically fallen nature, which scenic wineries and country fine dining cannot disguise. God’s natural creation shines forth even as we who carry His image persist in rebellion against Him, until all creation is fully redeemed.

John Carr Responds to Marjorie Jeffrey’s Column

Tags

Catholic, John Carr, prudence

(John Carr served as Executive Director of the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development at the United States Catholic Bishops’ Conference for more than 20 years.)

Marjorie,

Sadly, you (in your column) seriously misunderstand or misrepresent the substance of my column on prudential judgment. Your readers might be interested in the following brief excerpts from the column which undermine the accusations and implications contained in your misleading post:

“They [advocates] emphasize the distinction between fundamental moral principles that have compelling moral claims (like the duty to protect innocent human life) and prudential judgments that are matters for debate (like how to overcome poverty).The distinction is valid, but neither stands alone. We have a duty both to reject policies that violate fundamental principles and to pursue positive actions to carry out moral obligations.”

“Prudential judgment can become a mistaken rationale for ignoring Catholic teaching that conflicts with our partisan or ideological preferences or to act on some principles and ignore others. Some resist racism or other denials of human rights but fail to protect the foundational rights to life and religious freedom. Others deeply committed to unborn human life resist the Catholic condemnation of torture or the church’s call to end use of the death penalty. Pope Francis is challenging us to embrace the fullness of the Gospel, to resist isolation and ideology to protect the lives and dignity of all.

“Catholic teaching is a coherent whole—not a menu of compelling moral absolutes, a set of fundamental ethical principles and a collection of optional positions. Bishops are not just another interest group, and their statements are not just another set of talking points. They deserve serious attention and action. But they are not the whole church. Lay women and men need to become more informed and engaged in their vocation to be ‘salt, light and leaven’ in public life.”

“The recognition that public choices require prudence is not a way of escaping ethical responsibility; it is a call to principled discernment and decision-making. It is a beginning of moral discussion, not the end.”

This is hardly an a column that “advocate(s) an end to the practice of prudential judgment,” in your words.

As for your charge regarding my alleged “history of preferring political activism over faithfulness to Church teaching,” you don’t know me, my faithfulness or my work over two decades of service to the Catholic bishops. I trust their judgment over your citation of discredited allegations on the web. You might want to be careful about making sweeping claims about other people’s faithfulness in the future.

Far from attempting “to silence rational discourse about the proper role of government and prudent courses of public policy in the name of Catholic teaching” [your words], I was trying to make a constructive contribution to the discussion. about the role of prudential judgment in public life. Sadly, your post in misrepresenting what I said doesn’t advance that discussion, but diminishes it.

I urge your readers to read the column in America and make their own assessment. It can be found at http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/dear-prudence.

John Carr

Religious Upset Over Drones

Tags

Catholic, Committee on International Justice and Peace, Drones, Mark Tooley, Methodist, President Obama

(Photo credit: Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson/ U.S. Air Force)

By Mark Tooley (@MarkDTooley)

The pacifist Religious Left is again denouncing drone strikes against terrorists without offering plausible alternatives. Meanwhile, a spokesman for the U.S. Catholic bishops offers a more rigorously thoughtful critique while also failing to address the serious threat from transnational terrorists beyond the reach of law enforcement by lawful regimes.

The April 16 letter to President Obama from United Methodist, United Church of Christ, Quaker, Brethren, and Christian Reformed officials expressed “great concern” about drone “targeted killings” of “alleged” al Qaeda militants.

“The use of these lethal weapons within the borders of other sovereign nations, at times without their permission, shrouded in secrecy and without clear legal authority, raises serious moral and ethical questions about the principles and the implications of this practice for U.S. foreign relations and the prospects for a more peaceful world,” the clerics and activists insist.

Predictably, the Religious Left plea wants to repeal the post 9-11 “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” and instead pursue “police actions” that “extend protections consistent with principles of human and civil rights pertaining to the pursuit and apprehension of a criminal suspect, including fair trial in a court of law.” They complain that drones “destroy trust and lead increasing numbers of people to turn to fear-based responses, which may include acts we often describe as ‘terrorism.’”

Note the quotes around “terrorism.”

Naturally, these religious activists are interested in the “root causes of conflicts,” which they surmise can be addressed by “restorative justice practices, and effective economic development programs.” Their suggestion has merit if Islamist terrorists have legitimate grievances that can be redressed by rational recompense. But what if their mollification entails accommodation to Islamist rule and practice, including the suppression of civil liberties, which the activists profess to champion, and the suppression of non-Islamists, which would includes groups like these liberal Protestants?

These activists also bemoan the supposed ease of “remote, technical warfare,” without admitting they, as literal or functional pacifists, oppose all warfare and force. Their appeal offers no reason for serious consideration. But it illustrates how some church officials, ignoring their own religious teachings about fallen humanity, want desperately to pretend that the world is intrinsically benign and just.

Offering more moral seriousness is the recent letter to the White House by the Catholic bishops’ chairman of their Committee on International Justice and Peace, which, unlike the liberal Protestants, affirms a “right to use force in self-defense” while urging restraint. It also tags al Qaeda as “uniquely dangerous.” And it recognizes the Administration’s “primary obligation to protect the lives and welfare of our citizens,” while stipulating “we do not underestimate the threat posed by terrorist organizations,” and granting the “necessity for operational secrecy in counter-terrorism.”

The Catholic letter asserts that counter-terrorism is “primarily a law enforcement activity,” that drone attacks occur outside war zones, and even in war, may violate just war principles on “discrimination, imminence of the threat, proportionality and probability of success.”

It suggests that a “proper understanding of proportionality in counter- terrorism would elevate the bar against the use of deadly force above its setting in war, and would call for a much wider range of economic, political and diplomatic responses in order to get at the root causes and injustices that terrorists exploit.”

The Catholic letter also wonders whether “targeted killing may contribute to terrorism by reinforcing a community’s sense of being subject to domination and injustice,” while exacerbating “anti-American sentiment, [encouraging] recruitment by extremists, and [undermining] the international collaboration necessary to combat terrorism.”

Drone strikes may indeed provoke enemies. But so too would conventional bombing, military abductions, or even apprehension by domestic law enforcement, if even possible, at the behest of the U.S. Is there any way to neutralize terrorists without inflaming their “community”? And doesn’t the absence of decisive action against them only further enhance their prestige within their “community” while communicating that Americans may be targeted with impunity?

As to whether drone strikes occur within war zones, it’s hard to see how places like remote Pakistan, Yemen, or Mali can be regarded otherwise. And what if host governments, although unable to say so publicly, effectively authorize U.S. drone strikes because they lack the military, police, or political capacity to eliminate terror targets? How would law enforcement substituting for warfare possibly function in such situations?

On just war teaching, the relative precision of drones seems better to approximate the standards regarding “discrimination, imminence of the threat, proportionality and probability of success” than all of the available, plausible alternatives.

The Catholic letter is more modest than the liberal Protestant plea, perhaps recognizing the limits of their expertise and vocation, unlike the liberal Protestants, who claim to speak ex cathedra on nearly every political issue while typically ambivalent theologically. But both letters seem to expect a level of perfection and power that not even the U.S. at its very best can possibly attain.

Technology and modern scruples have made war and law enforcement more precise than ever before. But churches attuned to the limits of human capacity must understand that states, when defending the innocent from the murderous, must act boldly, stealthily, dangerously, and without guarantee of absolute success. Winston Churchill reputedly said: “The maxim ‘Nothing but perfection’ may be spelled ‘Paralysis.’” High-minded theorists may demand moral precision, but no government this side of heaven can guarantee it.

This blog post originally appeared as an article on the American Spectator website.