Wednesday, November 15, 2006
On both sides of the wall
There's quite a ruckus at American Papist over this post from yesterday in which he criticizes Cardinal Martino for weighing in on the proposed U.S.-Mexico fence. Michael and Katrina from Evangelical Catholicism take AmP to task for his "inconsistency and conflagation of religion and politics". Their argument is that since Pope Benedict has appointed Cardinal Martino as the head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, he is within his "competence" to speak specifically about the merits of the U.S. wall. What Michael and Katrina don't seem to realize is that there is a difference between the Cardinal making a statement of principle, such as the need to be respecful of all those who have entered our country, legally or illegally, and making a value judgement about that which properly belongs to the prudential decisions of the government on how to deal with those immigrants. Michael and Katrina's posts can be read here and here.
Even the letter from the US Bishops, that Michael posts, shows that their opposition to the wall is a matter of opinion and not of absolute truth:
However, we are opposed to this legislation because we believe it could lead to the deaths of migrants attempting to enter the United States and increased smuggling-related violence along our border. We also believe it would send the wrong signal to our peaceful neighbor to the south, Mexico, as well as the international community. Finally, we do not believe it will solve the problem of illegal immigration faced by our nation. "
Thus, while the bishops "believe" that the erection of a wall on the Mexican border could lead to these offenses against the dignity of potential immigrants, and their concerns should be taken seriously, it is possible and permissible that some Catholics could view the wall in a different light.
Boethius' reply in the combox states it well:
It looks like I stumbled upon this fight too late, but I'll still make a brief defense of the American Papist.
The American Papist's criticism of Cardinal Martino should not be viewed in isolation. Cardinal Martino has shown himself to be one of the most outspoken of Vatican Curial officials and has regularly displayed an anti-American attitude. He also routinely jumps into political debates which involve the *application* of Catholic principles and where there is room for legitimate disagreement. Nevertheless, this point is usually lost on the media that reports on Cardinal Martino and the press routinely refers to Martino's political statements as though they are official Church moral teaching.
A few years ago, Martino made headlines after Hussein was captured when he defended Hussein in the media and declared that the American military appeared to be treating Hussein "like a cow." (I'm paraphrasing -- I don't remember the exact quote.)
Martino regularly offers praise for the United Nations and opposes American foreign policy. Again, there is nothing in Church social teaching that requires a sovereign nation such as the United States to defer to an international body such as the United Nations. Despite the U.N.'s political and moral corruption, Martino continues to speak out against America and in favor of the U.N. He has the right to his opinion, but it is not within his special competence (politics being the special province of the laity -- see Deus Caritas Est, para. 29) to make political decisions for all Catholics and we are certainly within our rights to publicly disagree with him.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, just last week, Cardinal Martino spoke out against the Saddam Hussein verdict of death by hanging. This time, Martino completely distorted the Catholic Church's position on the death penalty, basically stating that it is never acceptable to use the death penalty. This is NOT the Church teaching as promulgated by John Paul in Evangelium Vitae and adopted by the most recent edition of the Catechism.
I can understand why Catholics don't like to see Cardinals publicly criticized, but it is *you* (the critics of the critics) who are too quickly rushing to condemn such criticism without realizing the many reasons which exist in support of the criticism.
Also, please remember the difference between Catholic principles -- which all Catholics should adhere to -- and those issues which are political. When Cardinals and Bishops stray into the political arena, they should expect to have their ideas challenged. I would prefer not to have to publicly criticize them, but many members of the institutional Church continue in the mistaken belief that they should be directly engaged in politics. Pope Benedict explained in Deus Caritas Est that this role belongs to the laity and that the Church should instead focus on forming consciences. In my experience of his writings, the American Papist does not pick and choose Church teaching, but instead limits his criticisms and disagreements to those areas where disagreement is legitimate.
Even the letter from the US Bishops, that Michael posts, shows that their opposition to the wall is a matter of opinion and not of absolute truth:
However, we are opposed to this legislation because we believe it could lead to the deaths of migrants attempting to enter the United States and increased smuggling-related violence along our border. We also believe it would send the wrong signal to our peaceful neighbor to the south, Mexico, as well as the international community. Finally, we do not believe it will solve the problem of illegal immigration faced by our nation. "
Thus, while the bishops "believe" that the erection of a wall on the Mexican border could lead to these offenses against the dignity of potential immigrants, and their concerns should be taken seriously, it is possible and permissible that some Catholics could view the wall in a different light.
Boethius' reply in the combox states it well:
It looks like I stumbled upon this fight too late, but I'll still make a brief defense of the American Papist.
The American Papist's criticism of Cardinal Martino should not be viewed in isolation. Cardinal Martino has shown himself to be one of the most outspoken of Vatican Curial officials and has regularly displayed an anti-American attitude. He also routinely jumps into political debates which involve the *application* of Catholic principles and where there is room for legitimate disagreement. Nevertheless, this point is usually lost on the media that reports on Cardinal Martino and the press routinely refers to Martino's political statements as though they are official Church moral teaching.
A few years ago, Martino made headlines after Hussein was captured when he defended Hussein in the media and declared that the American military appeared to be treating Hussein "like a cow." (I'm paraphrasing -- I don't remember the exact quote.)
Martino regularly offers praise for the United Nations and opposes American foreign policy. Again, there is nothing in Church social teaching that requires a sovereign nation such as the United States to defer to an international body such as the United Nations. Despite the U.N.'s political and moral corruption, Martino continues to speak out against America and in favor of the U.N. He has the right to his opinion, but it is not within his special competence (politics being the special province of the laity -- see Deus Caritas Est, para. 29) to make political decisions for all Catholics and we are certainly within our rights to publicly disagree with him.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, just last week, Cardinal Martino spoke out against the Saddam Hussein verdict of death by hanging. This time, Martino completely distorted the Catholic Church's position on the death penalty, basically stating that it is never acceptable to use the death penalty. This is NOT the Church teaching as promulgated by John Paul in Evangelium Vitae and adopted by the most recent edition of the Catechism.
I can understand why Catholics don't like to see Cardinals publicly criticized, but it is *you* (the critics of the critics) who are too quickly rushing to condemn such criticism without realizing the many reasons which exist in support of the criticism.
Also, please remember the difference between Catholic principles -- which all Catholics should adhere to -- and those issues which are political. When Cardinals and Bishops stray into the political arena, they should expect to have their ideas challenged. I would prefer not to have to publicly criticize them, but many members of the institutional Church continue in the mistaken belief that they should be directly engaged in politics. Pope Benedict explained in Deus Caritas Est that this role belongs to the laity and that the Church should instead focus on forming consciences. In my experience of his writings, the American Papist does not pick and choose Church teaching, but instead limits his criticisms and disagreements to those areas where disagreement is legitimate.
The Documents in the Case:
<< Home
What Michael and Katrina don't seem to realize is that there is a difference between the Cardinal making a statement of principle, such as the need to be respecful of all those who have entered our country, legally or illegally, and making a value judgement about that which properly belongs to the prudential decisions of the government on how to deal with those immigrants.
Katerina and I realize this quite well. Our issue with American Papist is his mocking of the very man whom Pope Benedict XVI has empowered to speak on behalf of the Vatican at that conference. If one wants to disagree with the U.S. bishops and Cardinal Martino, then that is one's prerogative. However, to minimize the importance of the statements of a Curial official, as well as the entire U.S. episcopacy (which includes your own bishop), as just mere "opinion" is quite brash. What sort of example do we set to non-Catholics when we brush aside mere "opinions" of our hierarchy, but then we are so insistant on the need to have a hierarchy for the preservation of Christianity?
My opinion, which is far less important than that of the U.S. Bishops and the President of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Refugees himself, is that Martino's statement is consistent with the constant social teaching of the Catholic magisterium and ought to be accorded more respect by otherwise faithful Catholics.
As for Boethius, we've already responded to his points, which tell us far more about Martino's past sentiments toward American policty than about the validly and authority of Martino's immigration statements.
Post a Comment
Katerina and I realize this quite well. Our issue with American Papist is his mocking of the very man whom Pope Benedict XVI has empowered to speak on behalf of the Vatican at that conference. If one wants to disagree with the U.S. bishops and Cardinal Martino, then that is one's prerogative. However, to minimize the importance of the statements of a Curial official, as well as the entire U.S. episcopacy (which includes your own bishop), as just mere "opinion" is quite brash. What sort of example do we set to non-Catholics when we brush aside mere "opinions" of our hierarchy, but then we are so insistant on the need to have a hierarchy for the preservation of Christianity?
My opinion, which is far less important than that of the U.S. Bishops and the President of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Refugees himself, is that Martino's statement is consistent with the constant social teaching of the Catholic magisterium and ought to be accorded more respect by otherwise faithful Catholics.
As for Boethius, we've already responded to his points, which tell us far more about Martino's past sentiments toward American policty than about the validly and authority of Martino's immigration statements.
<< Home
