Georgetown/On Faith

Unorthodoxy

By Patrick J. Deneen

In a recent edition of Georgetown's student newspaper, the Hoya, a graduate student in my department voiced her shock and consternation that the university health plan does not cover birth control prescriptions. The online version of the article has generated heated commentary, with people on the respective sides - for or against Georgetown's policy, one that reflects respect toward the Catholic position on artificial birth control - largely (and typically) speaking past each other.

I want to express some sympathy with the article's author, although not for the expected reasons. She is right to be surprised, and perhaps even upset. But this is not because Georgetown is too Catholic, but because it is insufficiently Catholic, particularly inasmuch as it offers no public and ongoing justification of this policy. The policy is allowed to stand on its own, without explanation or justification in the daily life and activities of the university. Her complaint is not cause for revision of the policy, but for more effort on behalf of the university to advance the reasons for the policy as a part of its educational mission.

This Catholic's View

By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.

Octavio Gonzalez, a graduate of Georgetown University, would be picking corn and raising a few cattle in El Teul de Gonzalez, Mexico, if his father had not illegally trekked across the hills at the U.S.-Mexico border near San Ysidro, California, in 1969.

Mr. Gonzalez never planned to stay permanently in the U.S., but he wanted something better for his children after he married a woman who had also crossed into the U.S. illegally after being turned back by a border guard who refused to let her cross even though she had a valid visa.

"As much as they both wanted to stay with their families in Mexico, it was becoming clear to them that their aspirations for their children would not be possible living in Mexico," Octavio explained to a forum sponsored by the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University on Tuesday. "If they stayed to raise a family in Mexico, their children, like them, would go to school six months out of the year and work the fields on the ranch. We would certainly never get the opportunity to study through college."

FAITH IN ACTION

By Katherine Marshall

Political discourse these days seems more fitted to Halloween than All Saints Day. Angels and devils, witches and shamans. Rancid prose. We all wonder and worry at the nastiness that shows up in political campaign ads, the polarized news outlets, and beyond.

Yet much as we yearn for civil discourse, we need to recognize that this strain of vitriol is, and has been, very much part of the American scene. Commentator Bill Moyers recently observed: "I would say it's more deranged than delirious, and definitely not un-American. Those crackpots on the right praying for Obama to die and be sent to hell -- they're the warp and woof of home-grown nuttiness. So is the creature from the Second Amendment who showed up at the President's rally armed to the teeth. He's certainly one of us. Red, white, and blue kooks are as American as apple pie and conspiracy theories."

A kind of road rage seems to have taken over. Anyone with a differing opinion is demonized. But is there another way? Surely a more civil discourse and reasoned ethics is as deeply part of the American tradition.

JUST LAW AND RELIGION

Michael Kessler

150 years ago--in October 1859--John Brown led a raid on a U.S. armory in Harper's Ferry, Virginia. He hoped to gather arms and lead an army to fight slaveholders. Instead, he was quickly stopped and hanged for his lawless actions. Is he a hero, a martyr, or a criminal?

Or is he all three at once? Whatever you judge, his legacy of violent resistance to slavery still raises questions about when resistance to lawful authority is meritorious.

Brown was angry--angry that some of the people in his nation held slaves. He was also angry at the peaceful abolitionists who refused to advocate for forceful overthrow of the institution of slavery. Something must be done, and Brown was the man to do it. His actions helped set off a chain of events that ended in the Civil War.

UNORTHODOXY

By Patrick J. Deneen

Recent commentary on Pope Benedict XVI's invitation to Anglicans to enter the Catholic fold has predictably fallen into the well-worn rut of seeing his action through liberal/conservative lens. Our domestic battle lines have been so firmly drawn, with daily sorties probing for the opposition's weaknesses while heavy arms stand at ready for attack, that we are largely incapable of putting our heads above the ramparts to discern whether something else entirely might be going on.

One need only consult David Gibson's weekend article from the pages of the very host of this site, which asked the question: "Is Pope Benedict A Closet Liberal?" (to which "On Faith's" own Thomas Reese has here responded, "not enough"). Gibson finds evidence of the Pope's "liberalism" in his extraordinary activism. "Thus far, Benedict's papacy has been one of constant movement and change, the sort of dynamic that liberal Catholics -- or Protestants -- are usually criticized for pursuing." Gibson regards any form of "constant movement and change" to be a form of liberalism. While he acknowledges that this "liberalism" has been exerted by Benedict XVI toward a "conservative agenda," he concludes that the embrace of change opens the Church to orienting these "liberal means," eventually toward liberal ends.

This Catholic's View

By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.

Pope Benedict's latest initiative toward Anglicans who want to rejoin the Catholic Church has caused quite a stir.

Although Archbishop Rowan Williams and other Anglican leaders have said that it will not hurt Anglican-Catholic relations, more liberal voices in the Anglican Church, especially in the U.S. and Britain, have seen it as a crass attack on a weakened Anglican communion.

FAITH IN ACTION

By Katherine Marshall

As a development practitioner who also teaches about development, I have tended to take the term for granted. But it's far from simple to define. Universities, non-profit agencies, and churches call fund-raising people "development officers" and the word crops up with other meanings in virtually every discipline.

But there's a pretty specific international development community built around the term. The label "development" is attached to a vast array of institutions, including the World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), NEPAD (New Economic Partnership for African Development) and the non-profit I head (the World Faiths Development Dialogue, or WFDD). At its simplest, development can be understood as the path to a more prosperous life.

A visit to Cambodia last summer inspired me to rethink the term. The WFDD has embarked on a year-long exploration of development and faith in Cambodia, to paint as full a picture as we can of faith-inspired efforts to advance development. Two wonderful fellows from the Princeton in Asia Program (somewhat akin to the Peace Corps) are based in Phnom Penh to "map" what is happening and draw lessons from it. The purpose is to understand and build bridges among worlds that are separated by language and preconceptions, and thus achieve better development results.

JUST LAW AND RELIGION

By Michael Kessler

Columnists and bloggers toil to put words and thoughts in good order. We deliver our pieces (often late!) to anxious editors with our name and reputation on the line. And then we watch helplessly while anonymous commenters hijack threads and launch screed upon hateful screed in every direction.

ISLAM AND THE WEST

By Daniel Brumberg

President Hamid Karzai's last minute agreement to hold a second round of presidential elections on November 7 could be nothing more than a cynical ploy. The notion that the international community can work with domestic monitors to effectively prepare for such elections in the next 16 days, and that this run-off will produce a credible victor, is questionable.

Yet, even if motivated by a seemingly insatiable quest to remain in office, Karzai's decision represents a victory for the international community and for the United Nations in particular. I do not know of another more dramatic example of the U.N. intervening to reverse a fraudulent election. Yes, perhaps it took the resignation of Peter Galbaith. Yes, from the outset the U.N. was reluctant to act. But, in the end, it did the right thing.

UNORTHODOXY

by Patrick J. Deneen

Earlier this month, Georgetown's student newspaper, the Hoya, published an editorial excoriating The Catholic University of America for refusing to recognize CUAllies, that university's LGBTQ student group, as a student organization. The editorial stated that "Catholic identity must, understandably, be affirmed at a Catholic institution -- but it is also important to be sensitive to changing social dynamics." For this reason, the editors' called for CUA to follow Georgetown's lead in recognizing an LGBTQ group on campus.

While appearing to recognize and respect the legitimacy of the particular religious identity of CUA, in effect the editorial insists that the substantive beliefs of CUA - which do not include sanctioning homosexuality as a behavior - are trumped by the need to respect diversity. The editorial is explicit that CUA should conform to a new norm ("changing social dynamics") that is now sweeping our campuses, and thus that it should be indistinguishable from most other institutions of higher education. In effect, one claim to diversity (LGBTQ) is seeking to trump another claim (CUA). In the world of liberal toleration, some forms of diversity are more equal than others. The logic of liberal toleration is not to protect diversity, but to eviscerate it.

THIS CATHOLIC'S VIEW

By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.

The new Vatican structures for dealing with Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church may have significant and unforeseen consequences. They may in fact provide the Catholic Church with a steady supply of married priests.

Some critics see the new procedures as a blow to relations between Catholics and Anglicans, but leaders from both churches deny this. Cardinal William Levada said that the Catholic Church is still committed to ecumenical dialogue with the Anglican Communion leading to unity in future, but the Vatican felt it could not turn away the many Anglicans who want to be reunited with the church now.

Some would argue that if these Anglicans are going to leave the Anglican Communion anyway, it would be better to have them join the Catholic Church than be off on their own.