Solidarity & Accountability | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I wrote yesterday about the solidarity summit and will repost those remarks on the NCR page as a comment to these notes.
I wrote yesterday about the solidarity summit and will repost those remarks on the NCR page as a comment to these notes.
Couching solidarity in the New Evangelization is interesting, although it is not dissimilar to me including a chapter on Christian Humanism in my tome featuring Cooperativism, or more acurately cooperative socialism - which allows people to approach socialist thought without the fear of being damned for doing so. This also requires believers to approach some brand of socialist thought because NOT doing so risks damnation. What fun.
The Cardinal talks about certain trends, which Benedict worried too much about. Relativism may or may not assume a lack of objective truth - but it is correct in stating that this truth, which is God - is not present in Her pure form in our time - else we would be compelled to stop everything and worship. We only see shadows of the Holy Spirit in our lives (and Spirit is feminine). As far as the natural moral order, there isn't one. Its a logical device that allows sin an existence beyond the here and now - because sin cannot make a mark on God or diminish Her happiness, since She is happiness. That is why stating that homosexuality is disordered is a lie, because there is no order outside of actual human beings.
No Catholic prelate should ever complain about Secularism. There was a time when Papists where a despised minority - and not just the Irish or now the Latinos. Secularism means we can carve out our own space rather than beg the sufferance of an established national church. It also means that because we are the plurality religion today that we cannot force other faiths to conform to our doctrines - although some Evangelicals seem eager to do so on abortion, birth control and the defese of marriage. Not my kind of solidarity.
Materialism is linked to relativism. It essentially means that in the modern day, natural law arguments must rely on evidence, not either faith or authority. It also means that the march of history toward socialism is without God, which I do not believe. Indeed, the materialist impulse alienates more potential socialists than cooperation (cooperative socialism) as an expression of faith. As for personal material well being, its not a bad thing - what is bad is its unequal sharing, although consumption mutes those differences (we can all use the same double ply bathroom tissue unless we are very poor) and gives society a solidarity that workers would have more of if they labored without material reward.
Still, on arguments about birth control, the soul and abortion, and the death penalty, materialistic thinking must play a part. Danger as an argument must play more of a part than innocense, which is a moral criterion. Further, since neuroscience has killed the ghost in the machine theory of how the soul acts, we must look to what is present before and absent at death to determine how the soul manifests itself in life - not in the brain but in every cell - and then track back to when that spark started. Still, we can prove a materialistic life force. The eternal life force, or soul, is and always must be a matter of faith, which is not a bad thing.
Individualism is also akin to relativism - it means each person can make up their minds on spiritual, natural law and material matters. To some extent, this is good, as the alternative is the kind of regimented recreation found in bad science fiction novels. Still, it can go too far and is why we need both religion and cooperative systems (both governmental and individually socialistic) to moderate them.
The Cardinal lists a series of cultural idetities. Some would add religion to that list of things which must be put in perspective and either integrated or discarded. Of course, it is views, not people, who are to be discarded. Not the weak and not the heretics. Of course, its not the decline of these identites but their exploitation, sometimes with the cooperation of the Church, which has helped gut the union movement.
On the Cardinal's second point on the natural need for solidarity, which seemed to be about religion, the counter-factual is a hard one because religion has been an organizing part of society since the god-kings started raising temples to store food many thousands of years ago. Since then we had wars and we've had movements toward justice and peace, followed by more wars of religion. Natural Law can be source on purely secular grounds, even assuming a benevolent and humanistic God (a non-humanistic God, by the way, is not to be trusted - or his priests should not be). While we can certainly use solidarity to teach natural law, its ethics have to be an individual adventure at some point. Of course, religion is not about ethics, it is about common belief (which is belief because it cannot be proved by evidence) and celebration. That last part is why cooperative socialist communities should include a priest (gender not important - actually, it is important - not ordaining women is a blotch on Solidarity).
The third part about the Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching can be figured out without the Church, however the Church seems to have done a better job with this than those who would turn workers into factors of production rather than teammates or societies which consider Caste outsider untouchable or women to still be property. Even, and some would say, especially, the Catholic Church is behind the times in eliminating the otherness of women, which seems to be even more extreme among some Muslim sects (certainly not all). The parable of the Last Judgment (which I suspect occurs for each soul, not as some cosmic event) is enhaced with the story of Cain and Abel. In the final judgement, the ultimate recipient of Charity is Jesus. So if Jesus is the God in Cain and Abel, should not He recieve the first fruits rather than the leavings? Good shelter? Good education? Good wages?
The last part was on the role of CST. His sharing of not crossing picket lines in western PA was probably enough, but he went on to speak about ecology as the next great challenge, in preparation for the release of the new papal encyclical. I would have chosen changing workers into owners myself - not like Enron but with workers, through their unions, actually being in control and expanding solidarity in that way. While St. John Paul II called labor unions the mouthpiece of workers, I would add that they are also the heart and soul of the movement, including the movement to civil rights, in partnership with the Church.
When I found that the Archbishop of St. Paul was allowed to resign, suprisingly with one of his Auxilliaries, I was not at all displeased - not in the least bit. Not only did they protect their priests over their flock in the most obscene matters, but they covered it up. The Archbishop also took it upon himself to take the lead on opposing marriage equality without actually asking his flock what they thought about it - as if they have a responsibility to follow his lead, even when he is wrong - and he was very wrong. I will repeat what I always say on this issue - marriage requires only functionality, not fecundity - its why old couples can marry in the Church; the couple makes the marriage, not the celebrant - unless gays are lesser beings before God - they have the same right (first time I stated it that starkly, and not the last); and finally that the Church has itself to blame by denying the dignity of long time companions as spouses in times of extremis, often barring them from hospitals if the family so choses (and they have not right to chose if the couple is of one flesh spiritually).
Hopefully, these bishops will see the error of their ways and have the opportunity to repent and renounce their error.
What is more troubling, of course, was that in matters such as these, the resignation was not effective upon its tendering and that Rome had the final say, not the people of God in St. Paul. This has solidarity implicaitons as well, and shows that the bishops have a solidarity with Rome that they don't have with their own people (and frankly, this archbishop should have been posted where he is from, Detroit). Sadly, this is a tale of two churches, but its not Washington v. St. Paul. Its the hierarchy v. the people. At least this time the people won.
On Bill Donohue's opinion, he has even less solidarity with Catholics than the bishops. Not sure why his opinion bares reporting.
No comments:
Post a Comment