On Sunday’s editorial page, the New York Times took up the confrontation between the city council of Washington, D.C., and the Catholic archbishop of Washington, Donald Cardinal Wuerl. Meanwhile, in the Washington Post, Wuerl himself addressed the question of whether the archdiocese and its agencies should be required to provide recognize same-sex marriage benefits to employees.
After ritually assuring us of same-sex marriage’s inevitable triumph as a civil right, and noting the predictable criticism of Wuerl’s stand from progressive Catholics, the editorial rightly points out that there is precedent for a legal compromise. For example, Georgetown University “has written eligibility for its staff and faculty benefits program broadly, so that employees can extend benefits to other eligible adults with whom they may or may not be romantically involved.” Lest, perhaps, some Catholics doubt the Catholicity of such a precedent, the New York Times duly cites the similar arrangement reached in San Francisco a dozen years ago.
What the editorial does not point out, however, is that the archbishop who proposed and saw through that compromise was none other than William J. Levada, now prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith—the number-two position in the Vatican, and the same position held by Ratzinger when the San Francisco compromise was reached. In a 1997 issue of First Things, Levada replied at length to criticism of his compromise from the Catholic right and the secular left; the same debate is now playing out in Washington, and it can perhaps be resolved in the same fashion.
This is hardly ideal, from the Church’s point of view, since a preference ought to be given to marriages to help preserve intact the culture of the family. But it is a compromise that Catholics can live with—if the ideologues on the other side are willing to allow the city council to adopt it.
And that, of course, remains to be seen.
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:25 pm
Just FYI, unless I am very much mistaken, Archbishop Wuerl is not a cardinal. Or was he named a cardinal recently and I just haven’t heard?
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:52 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DC Towing, Connor Petloe. Connor Petloe said: Compromise in DC?: On Sunday's editorial page, the New York Times took up the confrontation between the city counci… http://bit.ly/6FaUdD [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:10 pm
The link to Cardinal Levada’s article provided some degree of light in this dark time. Until this strange storm passes, Catholic agencies have a way to continue their necessary services – and while compromise is far from perfect, in this case it has a classic double effect of allowing good while not overtly giving in to evil.
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:23 pm
My sense of a light in the darkness (comment above)lasted for the minute of two required to link to Archbishop Wuerl’s Washington Post statement. It was painful to read that the law under consideration in Washington would require the Archdiocese “to recognize and protect same -sex marriage… in employment policies and adoption and foster care policies …”. In other words Catholics are to abandon imperatives of conscience or greatly diminish assistance to those in need. The concluding chapter of C. S. Lewis’ “The Last Battle” came to mind: Goodbye to Narnia.
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:55 pm
I was not previously aware of Archbishop Levada’s solution to his quagmire, but at least at first blush, I am wholly unconvinced by it.
My initial reaction was that the issue was being treated with a wink by subsuming the domestic partnership angle under a cloud of anonymity, but I think A. Levada successfully defended himself from that charge by arguing that the compromise stripped the proposal of its ideological content.
However, I think the archbishop misconstrued the actual intentions of the framers of the measure. I do not for a minute believe that the homosex lobby has any interest in elevating the form of gay cohabitation to the [sacred] status of marriage – as logically absurd as pressing blood from a stone, regardless. Rather, their goal is to debase marriage to the point where there is no longer understanding of the difference between spouses and “significant others.” A. Levada’s compromise seems to me to play right into this deceit by agreeing that “spousal benefits” do not require a spouse.
I’m not arguing that “spousal benefits,” or any other legally constructed elements, are actually components of marriage per se, but rather that the notion that a “spouse” is or can be a plastic idea in the hands of an individual – or community – is precisely where the actual battle line is drawn, and this compromise appears to surrender the flank.
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:58 pm
Stick to those imperatives of conscience, Ars. The same imperatives of conscience, no doubt, that allowed the Catholic Church to persecute people for witchcraft, being Jewish, being Protestant, or simply professing to believe things the Church said couldn’t be. The Catholic Church, like most churches, is a fundamentally immoral organization. It’s not moral, after all, to threaten to withdraw aid to the needy as a protest against same-sex protections. The Church bases this discrimination on the mistaken notion that homosexuality is a choice. Clearly, then, heterosexuality is also a choice, and yet I don’t recall deciding I liked girls. Add in the growing biological evidence regarding homosexuality, and one concludes that the Church is acting much like it acted when condemning Galileo for having the temerity to assert his science trumped Church dogma. Goodbye to Narnia, indeed. And good riddance.
November 23rd, 2009 | 7:24 pm
Catholics are flawed human beings just like everyone else. The faith “once received” to which I referred contains no provision for persecution. That is why the Church continually warns against sins (and has been criticized for thereby causing guilt!). She calls sinners to repentence and change. History demonstrates that Catholics have also acted in ways that honor the faith – feeding and clothing those in need, healing the sick, comforting the dying, providing educational opportunities in distressed areas. These imperatives of conscience – known to people of good will – are the ones to which I referred. There are many painful disorders that afflict human beings. Medical science has been able to alleviate or cure many of them. Same-sex attraction deserves no less attention than other disorders, particularly since it is associated with serious health risks (as is promiscuity for heterosexuals). The comment from Sean makes a good point. It is self-evidently natural for men and women to be attracted to one another. As male and female we are two parts of a life-giving whole. In any event, the Church does not and has never refused to help all suffering people. Homosexual persons seeking assistance will receive food, clothing, shelter. But the Church cannot be forced to refuse to see what is self-evident.
November 23rd, 2009 | 7:33 pm
I find it so sad that the church, be it Catholic, Protestant, etc., is turning its back on people that Christ has commissioned us to reach out to. By being so radically opposed to homosexuality and being so politically involved, we are disenfranchinsing millions of people who were created gay by our Creator and those who are heterosexual and realize it is not a choice. Our purpose is not to be a political machine. The Apostles Paul and Peter both implored the early Church to stay out of politics; to be a peaceful example. And now we see the Church calling for ‘civil disobedience’ and pouring millions into political campaigns where we ought not to be. Christ did not say, “They will know you are My disciples by your political power.” He said, “They will know you are My disciples by your love.” How sad we must make Him for rather than attracting people by the beauty of the gospel, we are pushing them away by the ugliness of politics.
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:38 pm
In my first post my reference to “Narnia” was intended more as a metaphor for a place where civility was valued; where discussions between people of good will who disagree would contain arguments rather than assertions. It was also for the former times when the self-evident difference between male and female was a matter of happiness and mutual cooperation in caring for the next generation. The blogger writes “good riddance to Narnia”. The possibility exists that what comes next will cause him to think otherwise. (The Galileo mistake was caused by the fact that church leaders had not yet understood that the Bible teaches theology not science. The list of serious historical mistakes includes those made by adherents of other faiths as well; scientists have also been in error. No Catholic who understands the faith considers him or herself free from human fallibility. Quite the contrary.) Within the faith one seeks understanding and humility.
November 24th, 2009 | 6:44 am
The post by Brad states that God created the disorder of homosexuality. The Church presents another point of view – that in the mind of God an idea exists of each person as he or she is meant to be; that all disorders and diseases are part of our temporary, unfinished state. We have every opportunity to strive with all our might toward respect and healing for ourselves and for others. People are born with many and diverse problems – physical and mental. Until now many in the human community struggled within the healing arts to find ways to cure or compensate for them while respecting each individual person’s intrinsic value. Within the Church a path was provided, encouragement for each person to fight the good fight toward true health and understanding. There is however no way to make this easy. As Michaelangelo saw a rough piece of marble; so should we see ourselves. Our unformed stone can be transformed into something beautiful and pure, but this change must be laboriously and painfully achieved. And we must never give in to despair which the Church has always considered a cardinal sin. Forgiveness and the possibility of change are offered to any and all sinners. There is no unforgivable sin if the perpetrator repents and seeks forgiveness and change. But the Church, while offering understanding and forgiveness, cannot teach error or abandon those sturggling with disorder. The present difficulty is not about the Church seeking to impose its will through force. It is about certain persons seeking to force the Church to conform itself “to the age”. The Church proposes a teaching; all are free to accept or reject it. There are those within and without who want this voice silenced.
November 24th, 2009 | 7:00 am
Often in political matters unusual alliances develop in support or against one cause or another. Christians for, say, abolition of slavery or against discrimination in civil rights were warmly welcomed as citizens, free to add their voices to those of others in political life. Within the civic affairs of smaller entities, state and local, Christian and Catholic contributions to the general welfare of others are expected and accepted. But when these same Christians support the rights of the unborn or the special status of marriage between a man and a woman, they are declared out of order; betrayers of their own principles; dishonorers of Christ himself. A virtual industry has grown up around the idea that Pope Pius XII – whose public opposition to the Nazi oppression is well-known – did not do enough. His power was apparently very great. When Pius VI and John Paul II spoke out in support of marriage and sexual fidelity, their statements were greeted with derision and indignation: “How dare they interfere!” What is the solution to this state of affairs?
November 24th, 2009 | 8:17 am
Ars, yes Catholics are flawed human beings. Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, whose complicity with the Nazi regime while Papal Nuncio to Germany and then silence as Pius XII during the holocaust, comes to mind very easily. The Church turns to civil law to enforce its moral doctrines when it has failed to enforce them through its moral teaching authority to its flock. Your condescending attitude towards others is embelmatic of the inability of the Church to understand that it is but one religious organization in a secular nation – not Catholic, not Jewish, not Protestant, not Muslim, not Hindu, not Parsi, not Mormon, not animist, not atheist.
Paul
November 24th, 2009 | 1:33 pm
Information disseminated about Pius XII is seriously flawed, uneven, or outright lies. Church teaching on abortion and marriage is based on natural law understandings not Church doctrine. There are other examples of this, for example, laws against murder, theft, slander. Church law and teaching of course applies only to freely committed Catholics. No one is imposed upon.
November 24th, 2009 | 2:11 pm
One final point: The Church is the entity under attack and in danger of being forced to act against fundamental beliefs. My comments are in response to that situation. If I sounded condescending, I apologize. This does not represent my true purpose. People often offer explanations of the things they hold sacred when those things are under attack.
November 24th, 2009 | 4:18 pm
As R.R. Reno points out (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/07/07/gays-non-discrimination-and-the-usccb/), the CDF has instructed the bishops that they are to oppose laws granting special rights to homosexuals even if those laws carve out exceptions for religious organizations. Archbishop Wuerl’s proposal doesn’t seem to comply with that CDF instruction. I wonder whether the new head of the CDF will convince his predecessor (now his boss) to change those guidelines.
November 26th, 2009 | 7:57 am
To Sean Boyd, Ars Artium, et al. A few serious scientific misconceptions need correcting with regard to Galileo’s treatment at the hands of the Sixteenth Century Church. That the Church did not understand that the Bible teaches theology and not science is far too strong a statement. The Church recognized four different and equally valid approaches to the interpretation of scripture, among them the analogical and the anagogical, neither of which edven recognizes the distinction.
Second, and more relevant here, Mr. Boyd, is that the Copernican theory advocated by Galileo was plain wrong! Galileo, like Copernicus, maintained that the orbit of the earth around the sun was spherical and not, as it happen to be, elliptical. That mistake leads to absolute inconsistency between the theory and observation, which was recognized by Church apologists at the time. Copernicus’ heliocentric theory (and hence Galileo’s) resorted to nearly as many epicycles as Ptolemy had in order to “save the phenomena” in his geocentric theory.
The choice between the two systems could not be adjudicated by observation because both systems posited circular orbits for metaphysical reasons, not scientific ones (e.g., Galileo, like Ptolemy, described the circle as the “most perfect” shape possible for anorbit and hence must have been the one that God selected in designing the world). Confronted with two theories, each of which introduced ad hoc epicyclic motion to match theory with observation, the Church decided to continue to support the ptolemaic system over the copernican. The matter is well discussed in Arthur Koestler’s 1973 book “The Sleepwalkers,” a popular work on early-modern researchers in the field such as Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, and Kepler. After Kepler’s seminal work appeared and, as importantly, after Newton gave a theoretical explanation of Kepler that demonstrated exactly how elliptical orbits eliminated the need for epicycles, the Church quickly abandoned its opposition to Copernicus and the heliocentric theory. In this, as I shall next attempt to show, they were mistaken!
Mister Boyd, as with so many ideologically driven partisans who are ignorant of physics, mistakenly believed that subsequent astronomical work has vindicated Galileo. Not at all. In 1916, Einstein published his monumental General Theory of Relativity. I hope that this will not come as too great a shock to the Boyds of this world, but the General Theory establishes the following scientific truth from which there is (at least at present) no appeal: ALL motion is relative. That includes so-called orbital motion. Most people, being infrmed of this, have enormous difficulty coming to grips with this strong form of relativity theory; yet, as a matter of physics, it is no more correct to say that the earth orbits the sun than it is to maintain that the sun orbits the earth. And vice versa! From a working physicists point of view (I happen to have been one), the choice of which frame of reference to adopt is dictated by the relative simplicity of, first, the calculations involved and, second, the conceptual apparatus needed to communicate the explanation of observations of planetary and solar motion. Here the heliocentric theory has the clear edge, which is why it is far preferable to a geocentric theory. But this pragmatic preference does not reach first principles. To insist that Galileo was correct, that the earth actually orbits the sun, and that the Church scientists of the time were wrong to insist that the earth actually is stationary, is scientific gibberish. When it comes to motion of any stripe – circular, elliptical, or what have you – there is NO “actually” that can be asserted with a straight face scientifically. Ironic, isn’t it, that Einstein retrospectively vindicated the Church beyond reach of cavil? But THAT is the essence of relativity theory that must be accepted. And I haven’t even gotten to the so-called virial theorem of theoretical cosmology which also establishes as scientific truth that there is no inconsistency or, indeed, incorrectness in taking ANY point in the universe, for example, the chair in which you sit as you read this, as the center of the entire visible universe. God certainly has a keen sense of humor.
It’s long past time (93 years, in fact) that the tired and ignorant condemnations of the Church and its treatment of Galileo, a great physicist, be put to pasture.
November 27th, 2009 | 9:02 am
Joe Sansonese offers an educated analysis of the Galileo question which is very helpful.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact