Ideological colonisation?

During his visit to the Philippines in January, Pope Francis warned against an "ideological colonisation" of the family - Pope says "ideological colonisation" threatens traditional family.

Pope Francis on Friday warned against an "ideological colonisation of the family," a reference to gay marriage around the world and to a heated debate in the Philippines about a government population control plan.

The Pope made his impromptu comments at rally for families in Manila on a day that began with an appeal to the government to tackle corruption and hear the cries of the poor suffering from "scandalous social inequalities" in Asia's most Catholic country.

It is interesting in this context to watch Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta's response to  US President Barack Obama's comments on gay rights, during a press conference. It can be found in the second embedded clip of the BBC News report: Kenya: Trials would aid fight against corruption - Obama. (There is a certain disingenuity in President Obama's reference to "love", the term "love" here being typically undefined).

More recently, President Obama urged world leaders to heed Pope Francis' call in Laudato Si for action on climate change: Obama calls for world leaders to heed Pope Francis’s message.

“We have a profound responsibility to protect our children, and our children’s children, from the damaging impacts of climate change.”

But Laudato Si, n.155, reads as follows (emphasis added):

Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will”. It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.

A reference from this paragraph refers to Pope Francis' General Audience catechesis of 15th April 2015, during which Pope Francis discussed the significance of the "alliance between man and woman":

God entrusted the earth to the alliance between man and woman: its failure deprives the earth of warmth and darkens the sky of hope. The signs are already worrisome, and we see them. I would like to indicate, among many others, two points that I believe call for urgent attention.

The first. There is no doubt that we must do far more to advance women, if we want to give more strength to the reciprocity between man and woman. In fact, it is necessary that woman not only be listened to more, but that her voice carry real weight, a recognized authority in society and in the Church. .....

A second reflection concerns the topic of man and woman created in the image of God. I wonder if the crisis of collective trust in God, which does us so much harm, and makes us pale with resignation, incredulity and cynicism, is not also connected to the crisis of the alliance between man and woman. In fact the biblical account, with the great symbolic fresco depicting the earthly paradise and original sin, tells us in fact that the communion with God is reflected in the communion of the human couple and the loss of trust in the heavenly Father generates division and conflict between man and woman.

Across all three - President Obama, President Kenyatta and Pope Francis - there is an intriguing similarity of themes, but also a striking difference.

President Kenyatta appears to have articulated a very competent resistance to the colonisation of the culture of his country by an issue that is not foremost in the minds of its citizens.

[Whilst decriminalisation of homosexual activity might well be a step that the Catholic Church would consider desirable, I think we should recognise that the agenda represented by President Obama's remarks goes further than that.]

Speaking from the same script?

Pope Benedict XVI, speaking in Westminster Hall, London, 17th September 2010 (italics are mine):

Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.

And at the airport as he arrived in Santiago de Compostela, on 6th November 2010 (again, the italics are mine):

...I too wish to encourage Spain and Europe to build their present and to project their future on the basis of the authentic truth about man, on the basis of the freedom which respects this truth and never harms it, and on the basis of justice for all, beginning with the poorest and the most defenceless. A Spain and a Europe concerned not only with people’s material needs but also with their moral and social, spiritual and religious needs, since all these are genuine requirements of our common humanity and only in this way can work be done effectively, integrally and fruitfully for man’s good.

Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking in China, 9th November 2010 (scroll down towards the end of the speech; the italics are mine):

The rise in economic freedom in China in recent years had been hugely beneficial to China and to the world. I hope in time this will lead to a greater political opening, because I'm convinced that the best guarantor of prosperity and stability is for economic and political progress to go in step together.

And President Obama, speaking in Indonesia on 9th November 2010:

"Prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty," Mr Obama said. "Because there are aspirations that human beings share - the liberty of knowing that your leader is accountable to you - and that you won't get locked up for disagreeing with them."

How far are the Prime Minister and the President speaking from the same script as Pope Benedict?

Abortion at the heart of wrangling over US health care legislation

Report here from the New York Times. I haven't been following this in detail, but it looks like an interesting development. I gather that the health care provisions - a key part of President Obama's electoral platform - have gone through the House of Representatives with a majority in single figures, and restrictions on federal funding of abortion being included in order to achieve that majority. How the legislation will fare in the Senate is still to be seen.

From the political point of view, if the New York Times report is giving a correct impression, it is interesting to see that it is pro-life Democrats - ie President Obama's own party - who were key in securing the inclusion of an amendment restricting federal funding of abortion.

Blog-by-the-Sea has a useful comment on this, and some links to further coverage.

What have I missed while posting about Therese?

Five new saints. I can't help but think that Fr Damien's commitment to the lepers can in some way be a model for the commitment of Christians to caring for those suffering from HIV/AIDS or, possibly, cancer and the various forms of dementia. These are the illnesses viewed today with fear or dread, and perceived as being in some way "incurable".

The Second Synod of the Bishops of Africa. A daily summary of the interventions at the Synod has been published, appearing on ZENIT's web pages. Unfortunately, they have not been assembled on one page. This particular day's summary includes interventions from Cardinal Tauran, Cardinal Arinze. Others have taken issue with an earlier contribution presenting President Obama's election as a "divine sign", though, I have a suspicion from the accounts of it that I have been able to find, that when the remark is placed in its full context it is not as outrageous as it appears in an isolated sound bite.

Someone was given a prize - this, perhaps, being the most pertinent observation to be made in response. In some ways it is churlish for international leaders or organisations not to congratulate the recipient of a Nobel prize, so one should not read into a statement of congratulation or welcome to that award, a statement that is of the form of a public courtesy, an approval for policies that is not intended. The statement of the Vatican spokesman was, for example, very restricted in what it felt gave justification for congratulation. That having been said, one might also expect some thought to be given to the dynamics of the media in response to such a statement - which might prompt a certain silence instead.

And, in the wake of the controversies over President Obama's visit to Notre Dame University and the funeral Mass of Senator Kennedy, in the wake of the spat between Lifesitenews and Fr Rosica, in the wake of Archbishop Burke's address, a question I have been pondering, with regard to the relative roles of the Bishop and the lay person:

If the lay person fails in his Christian task of "mediating" between Church and world, if he lives a political or social praxis that is at odds with the content of the Catholic faith (what Archbishop Burke described as "scandal" in a technical sense), can the action of the Bishop put that right? My answer: no. The Bishop simply cannot replace in some sense the office of the lay person with an action of his Episcopal Office. If you like, the damage is done, and it is done as a result of a failing of the lay office in the Church, and the exercise of another office in the Church is not going to be able to reverse that. [Doesn't mean the Bishop shouldn't do something - just that it won't be able to undo the scandal caused by the lay person.]

And, more provocatively, is it really the role of the Bishop, or of the Bishops' Conference, to develop and lead a political programme of opposition to, for example, the pro-abortion policy making of President Obama? Seen just in the context of a theological understanding of a difference in office between the Bishop and the lay person, it really isn't appropriate for a Bishop to impinge on the office (in the sphere of political activity) of the lay person. Surely, such political programming belongs as a duty of the lay person. The Bishop does have an office as a teacher of the truth - and that might well involve at some point discerning that it is not possible for a politician to support a particular piece of legislation without contradicting their faith and thereby placing themselves in a position of objective, public scandal. But, I would argue, there is nothing to be served by the Bishop taking on the programmatic political role proper to the lay person when the lay person fails. In the long run, that is going to be to the detriment of his Episcopal office.

In the recent controversies, have lay people at times expected Bishops to adopt political stances appropriate to those of the lay office? Have Bishops at times taken a programmatic political role rather than that of discernment? And, at heart, have the failings been in the realm of the lay office, prompting the thought that the essential answer is increased teaching and formation of lay people for the political aspects of their office in the Church?

Notre Dame: a matter of testimony of faith

Though there has been widespread comment on the decision of the authorities at Notre Dame University in America to award President Obama an honorary degree, and to have him deliver the commencement address, I have so far not posted anything on the topic.

The Notre Dame episode is not the first one in the last year or so in which the blogs, and Catholic blogs in particular, have engaged in what one might call "internet campaigning". One can perhaps consider the responses to Bishop O'Donoghue's "Fit for Mission" programme in the Diocese of Lancaster, and to his approach to equalities legislation and Catholic adoption agencies (where Catholic blogs have been very supportive: here, here and here and other places, too). And another example, where the blogs were more critical is that of Cherie Blair's invitation to speak at a conference at the Angelicum university in Rome: see here, here, here, here and elsewhere).

Both the positive campaigning and the critical campaigning can be problematical. Some months ago now I heard a comment, in the context of Summorum Pontificum and a diocese that was not Lancaster, but perhaps also applicable to "Fit for Mission" and Lancaster. The comment went roughly along the lines that perhaps 10 priests of the diocese were ecstatic about Summorum Pontificum, another 10 priests were horrifically opposed - but, for the vast majority, it was probably just another piece of paper going across their desks to which they were at best indifferent. It is quite possible that widespread conservative support (that might well be how people perceive it) for "Fit for Mission" from people outside the diocese might have adversely affected the response of what might be called the average priest in the diocese. I do not know, and would be pleased to learn the contrary from those who do know, but I would suggest a certain circumspection on the part of those outside the diocese might not go amiss in order to avoid an unnecessary difficulty. On a similar vein, politicians can very easily spot an orchestrated campaign of support (or criticism) which has a diluting effect on its value (or disvalue) to the recipient. The critical campaigning can become tantamount to cyberbullying, particularly where blog readers are deliberately encouraged to complain to an organisation in which they have no direct stake on a subject or about an event in which they have no direct engagement.

In responding, particularly in an electronic medium, to these sorts of situations a third problem also exists. This might be termed "co-option", and involves a situation where the expressions of support mean that a statement or position adopted by someone associates them with movements or opinions that they would not intend to support. This is an injustice towards the person involved, and the ease of its propagation in the electronic media makes the injustice worse. Commenters on blogs need to take some care about this.

These considerations represent the reasons why I have not posted on this question so far.

1. I do think that it is quite possible for Catholic institutions to invite speakers who are not supportive of Catholic teaching. This is legitimate, in my view, when: (a) the speaker has been invited to contribute an area of expertise, which may well not be related to the area of their opposition to the Church's teaching, but which it is valuable to consider for an issue of concern to the Church; and (b) a context, such as that of an academic conference or study day, exists that demonstrates an engagement in dialogue/debate and not of approbation. I would expect that there are ample precedents for this in the proceedings of Pontifical Academies such as that of the sciences and social sciences. I am aware, too, of speakers from the World Health Organisation taking part in conferences organised by the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral of Health.

2. There is a different situation when a speaker is invited for a prestige event, or is awarded an honour. In such a situation, an element of approbation of the views of the speaker is, at the very least implicit, though probably to a greater or lesser degree explicit. The creation of scandal then ensues, when a Catholic institution is seen as approving a point of view that is opposed to Catholic teaching.

It appears to me that the invitation from Notre Dame to President Obama falls into this latter category. I do not think that that invitation should have been given, and feel able to express that view here. Catholics in America, and those associated with Notre Dame university, have a responsibility to express their views on this matter, too. The most fundamental question for them, though, is less one of "protest" in the political/secular sense, though it will clearly have an aspect of this. It is, more fundamentally, one of witness, of giving a public testimony to their support of Catholic teaching. This seems to me, for example, to be the fundamental meaning of the statements of Catholic bishops in the United States in opposition to Notre Dame's invitation, though it too has political and disciplinary aspects.

In this sense, there are two particular witnesses that I think are worthy of mention.

There is the visit of Fr Frank Pavone to Notre Dame to coincide with the visit of President Obama, described in this video and this post. He will join a number of Notre Dame students who are not going to attend their graduation ceremony. NDresponse.com carries details of the student response at Notre Dame itself.

The second witness worthy of mention is Mary Ann Glendon's letter, in which she declines to accept the Laetare Medal at the same ceremony at which President Obama will speak. In my view, this letter, more than anything else, represents a witness of faithfulness to the Church, it is profoundly ecclesial in its spirit.

President Obama and funding for embryonic stem cell research

A guest from America's scientific community spoke on BBC Radio 4's PM programme this afternoon, welcoming President Obama's decision to rescind the ban on public funding of embryonic stem cell research.

It is interesting to read the presentation of this decision here on the White House website. I reproduce it below, as I am not expecting the link to be permanent.

“A debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates”
Moments ago President Obama marked a monumental moment for hope with an audience of Nobel Laureates, leaders of the faith community, and patient advocates.

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

The President acknowledged that there are those who strongly oppose this research, and insisted that even as he had come to a different conclusion those opinions deserved full respect. He explained that the American government has not only a role but a responsibility to keep the country at the forefront of medical science. But he also made clear that his decision was not made based on his belief in science alone: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease
human suffering."

The President said that a false choice has often been presented between science and faith, and that corrupting, shielding, or shying away from the facts science lays bare benefits nobody:

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals – to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

One of the President’s closing notes was to pay homage to those who dedicated so much of their time and energy, often in their last days when both were short, to the cause of allowing this research to see its full potential:

As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don’t know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting – even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause –
people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.

The text raises some interesting questions:

1. The claim is that politics has been removed from decision making about science. But, if we read the last paragraph of the release above, there is a clear acknowledgement of the political campaigning that has led up to this decision by President Obama. The decision itself is profoundly political. And, let's be clear, the promise to appoint scientific advisers on the basis of their scientific credentials and not their ideology is probably one sided .... anyone who is pro-life will be considered ideological/political and not be appointed, while those not on the side of the angels (as I would view it!) will be non-ideological and non-political and so be appointed.

2. It is also interesting to notice the interest in the aim that America might lead the world in the discoveries to which this research might lead. At the press conference, President Obama also referred to the potential for scientists to leave America to work in countries where the research was allowed. An interesting motivation, which does not seem to leave much room for properly ethical considerations.

3. In so far as any moral consideration comes into this decision, President Obama cites the possibility that the research might help in developing cures for certain illnesses, and that we have a duty to care. The line of argument is purely consequentialist, and leaves out any consideration of a moral value or disvalue intrinsic to the pursuit of the research itself.

4. But of greater significance is an unstated underlying principle. Decisions about science are to be made based on science. With little or no reference to objective moral considerations. The presentation above seems to portray a separation of scientific endeavour from moral endeavour. On BBC Radio 4's PM programme (the evening current affairs programme that partners the morning Today programme), for example, an American scientist welcomed President Obama's decision, saying that the decision had been made on the basis of science and not of ideology. There is a certain obfuscation in President Obama's talk that "a false choice has often been presented between science and faith"; radio coverage is quoting him as opposing a "false choice between sound science and moral values". This all seems to speak of an abandoning of a sense of the moral responsibility of the scientific enterprise, and of the idea that religious belief can contribute to the moral nature of this enterprise.

I must re-read C P Snow's article on "The Moral Un-neutrality of Science" ...

Thank you, President Bush

This post at Diakonia, itself a re-post, is an interesting balance to President Obama's inaugural speech.

I am particularly struck by its reference to the welcome that President Bush gave to Pope Benedict XVI when the Pope visited America. I posted on this at the time, and was able to see in it President Bush's study of Deus Caritas Est.

I also noted the following paragraph:

I should like to thank President Bush for his personal decency, manifest in his (unpublicized) personal attention to our wounded and to the families of the fallen; in his refusal to become bitter in the face of outrageous slander; and in his calm amidst tribulations that most of us can’t imagine.

This seems very true given the personal vehemence that could be seen in much anti-Bush protest. I think, for all the rhetoric, we have still to see anything of this courtesy in President Obama. Once we see through the oratory, his inaugural speech was not gentle in some of its implied criticism of President Bush.

From a parish newsletter: "Maybe we need an Obama to shake us out of our complacency"

The "we" referred to here is the Church. The comment is taken from a parish priest writing in a parish newsletter (not my own parish).

This week I listened intently to the inaugural speech of President Barak Obama. It was powerful oratory but it was also shot through with gospel content and it was challenging to say the least. I'm sure what he had to say did not appeal to a certain section of Americans especially when he said there must be "an end to petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for too long have strangled our politics". I couldn't help drawing a comparison with the church. Maybe we need an Obama to shake us out of our complacency.

Let's try to "read behind the lines" and to identify the "false promises" and "worn-out dogmas". Presumably they refer to the policies of the previous administration, now about to be reversed by the new one. But, of course, a politician of the previous administration could quite easily take exactly the same words and apply them to the policies of the new administration. The oratory is certainly powerful, but it is hiding what is nothing surprising or special - that President Obama is not President Bush and wishes to overturn some key aspects of his predecessors policies.

There is another point in the inauguration speech where one can do some "reading behind the lines". "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.....Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake". President Obama explicitly relates this to the Founding Fathers assertion of "the rule of law and the rights of man". I think we are intended to "read behind this" a reference to the detention centre at Guantanomo Bay which is widely seen, and with justification, as an abandoning of the normal rule of legal process to facilitate the imprisonment of those seen as a threat to the United States.

Compare this assertion of faithfulness to American ideals with: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." This is interesting because the political/ethical question about the balance between the role of the state and the role of the individual or family is put on one side, in the interests of an essentially pragmatic principle. Or, dare one say, in favour of a principle of expediency?

The final measure of President Obama will not be just the content of his inaugural speech, but of his actions. See here and here, for example, and the intention expressed by President Obama to work with the US Congress to restore American funding to the UN Population Fund, funding that was first removed in response to concern about that Fund's involvement with population control in China. President Obama's support for legalised abortion is very clear - and though he might decry the "politicisation" of abortion he nevertheless has a stance on the issue that is profoundly political. Independent Catholic News here reports the reaction from the Vatican to President Obama's first actions in office.

One can find passages in President Obama's inauguration speech that echo the values of the Gospel, perhaps particularly the suggestion that resistance to evil is as much a matter of a moral and spiritual resistance as it is a resistance based on the exercise of power.

But to suggest that we "need an Obama to shake the Church out of its complacency" ..... A bit naive to say the least ....