Well, my pastor put a note in the parish bulletin that he had talked to the archbishop and had read and signed the Manhattan Declaration - and that he received permission to invite us to sign it also. I printed off and read a copy today. It's a curious document which brings together various Evangelical and Catholic elements in a bold and rhetorically striking manner: Catholic language of social justice and a presuppostional appeal to natural law; an Evangelical use of the Bible as a self-evident guidebook for living along with a vague religiosity typical of the public use of Christianity in American history. I didn't see a particular Orthodox or Eastern Christian contribution to this cocktail, much as bitters are missing from many Manhattans. The strongest aspect of the Declaration is a deft summary of Christian moral history which strongly contradicts contemporary atheists who see Christianity as predominantly immoral.The Declaration is a call to a political, ethical, cultural unity among Christians in the form of a public congregation of individuals. The individual signers - in unmediated obedience to God - speak to their religious leaders and institutions. In short, it's an attempt to formally ratify the extension of American Protestant consensus to Catholics and the Orthodox. It's no wonder that my pastor framed his support in the complex way that he did.
As to the three points of Life, Marriage, and Conscience, these points are pretty well made - although I felt that the praise of marriage was a bit overmuch (not unlike Cardinal Newman's Protestant adversary). I'm not sure that marriage is the basis of human society - isn't it fatherhood, motherhood, the parent-child relationship? Isn't it fatherhood (from whom every family takes its name - Eph 3) which unites the two vocations of virginity and marriage? A subtle distinction perhaps, but one which could cause increasing misunderstandings over time.
A few questions arise from my reading:
- what is Christianity?
- what is charity?
- how is culture generated?
8 comments:
I can't really find any substantial disagreement with the MD. I mean, read "What we hold most dear" by C-L and see the difference. I really don't see any. It says, for example,
"We consider the recognition and defense of three self-evident truths regarding human beings the minimum commitment to the common good: the right to life from conception to natural death; the irreplaceable value of the family, founded on the marriage between a man and woman; and freedom of education."
Self-evident truths? And so on...
In the Christian context fatherhood and motherhood find their proper locus within marriage. In other words, for Christians marriage is the proper context for the exercise of sexuality and, hence, it comes prior to motherhood and fatherhood. The crumbling of this pre-supposition is one of the things that has to be resisted as the Declaration points out by citing the steep rise of children who are born out of wedlock.
Love the cocktail btw! I haven't had a Manhattan in years!
Fred,
As you know from my comments to David, I signed the MD for the reasons I outlined there as well as the reasons that Apolonio noted above.
I’d like to now briefly look at your final paragraph because I think it has both a great insight and an area that needs to be clarified.
You wrote: “I’m not sure that marriage is the basis of human society - isn’t it fatherhood, motherhood, the parent-child relationship? Isn’t it fatherhood (from whom every family takes its name - Eph 3) which unites the two vocations of virginity and marriage? A subtle distinction perhaps, but one which could cause increasing misunderstandings over time.”
I have found that the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is a great resource when reflecting on these types of issues/questions and so I highly recommend it. (BTW, it’s available for free on the Holy See website!)
Paragraph # 106 states: 106. All of social life is an expression of its unmistakable protagonist: the human person. The Church has many times and in many ways been the authoritative advocate of this understanding, recognizing and affirming the centrality of the human person in every sector and expression of society: “Human society is therefore the object of the social teaching of the Church since she is neither outside nor over and above socially united men, but exists exclusively in them and, therefore, for them”. This important awareness is expressed in the affirmation that “far from being the object or passive element of social life” the human person “is rather, and must always remain, its subject, foundation and goal”. The origin of social life is therefore found in the human person, and society cannot refuse to recognize its active and responsible subject; every expression of society must be directed towards the human person.
So, yes, I agree that it’s not solely marriage that’s the basis of human society because there’s “something that comes first.”
You then wrote: “Isn’t it fatherhood (from whom every family takes its name - Eph 3) which unites the two vocations of virginity and marriage? A subtle distinction perhaps, but one which could cause increasing misunderstandings over time.”
Here’s where I think you need to tighten up and/or clarify your phraseology. So, for example, I can imagine someone replying as follows: “Well since only men can be fathers, what are you trying to say? It sounds like you accept the nonsense written in the last part of Gospel of St. Thomas which says: “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.’ Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’ Moreover, since I believe you are alluding to Ephesians 3:14-15 which can be translated as: ‘For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth derives its name.’ I firmly state that you are taking a text out of context to make it say something that it doesn’t say.” Lastly, is it really “fatherhood” that unites the two vocations of virginity and marriage?
One way out of the dilemma would be to insert the word "God's" so it read "God's Fatherhood" but that only solves one half of the dilemma, which I allude to in my question above.
Just a few suggestions my friend.
Pax,
Henry
Dear friends - thank you for your charitable criticisms! Too often I write in an elliptical way and I have learned not to defend overmuch the various gaucheness of my first steps. On marriage, I will say that I'm not comfortable with the understanding of marriage presented in the document and that I propose a discussion of human fatherhood as a tool to get to the root of this discomfort....
My deeper objection to the Manhattan document is to its rhetoric, its style, its genre - and its understanding of dialogue among Christians. This discussion must wait until I can develop my analysis at some length.
I believe that the Declaration expresses an Evangelical ecclessiology, a rationalistic understanding of how culture is generated, and an incomplete understanding of charity. For these reasons, I do not sign it - but I bear no ill will toward those who do so. And yes, I do realize that these reasons need to be formally and carefully unpacked - something I'll work on this weekend.
I changed my post on fatherhood to draft status... I feel like the ideas are still too inchoate...
Fred,
I deeply thank you, David and Apolonio for starting this dialogue because it is really helping me to look at the MD and Natural Law in a new way and it is thus helping me clarify my thoughts about both those subjects in a deeper and richer way.
I also do not bear any ill will to those that choose not to sign the MD and I look forward to your "unpacking."
Thanks again.
Pax,
Henry
Post a Comment