Saved in Hope: Benedict's Second Encyclical

Richard John Neuhaus

Saved in Hope: Benedict's Second Encyclical Spe salvi facti sumusin hope we were saved. So says Saint Paul to the Romans, and also to us (Rom. 8:24). !hat"s the openin# o$ Pope %enedi&t"s se&ond en&y&li&al. 'ohn (llen, a typi&ally thou#ht$ul reporter on all thin#s )atholi&, says the en&y&li&al is a replay o$ Rat*in#er"s +reatest ,its. !hat is -oth $lippant and ina&&urate. !rue, there are themes that will -e $amiliar to anyone who has $ollowed the wor. o$ Rat*in#er/%enedi&t over the years, and, as one would e0pe&t $rom a pope, the do&ument draws deeply $rom S&ripture and the )hur&h"s tradition. 1hat would one e0pe&t2 !hat the pope would produ&e an updated version o$ the #ospel to ti&.le the palate o$ our neophilia& &ulture2 3 &on$ess, however, that it too. several &are$ul readin#s to appre&iate the $reshness o$ this representation o$ the $aith on&e delivered to the saints ('ude 4:5). %ut $irst a word on his &hoi&e o$ the su-6e&t o$ hope. %enedi&t"s $irst en&y&li&al was Deus Caritas Est+od is love. 7aith, hope, and love are the three theolo#i&al virtues, meanin# that they are the #i$t o$ #ra&e, in &ontrast to the natural virtues o$ pruden&e, temperan&e, $ortitude, and 6usti&e. 8ne mi#ht e0pe&t that %enedi&t was wor.in# his way -a&.ward throu#h the theolo#i&al virtues, with the $irst en&y&li&al on love, the se&ond on hope, and a later on $aith. %ut no: ,is ar#ument is that hope is $aith disposed toward the $uture, and ma.in# all the di$$eren&e in the present. (s one has &ome to e0pe&t o$ this tea&her, the new en&y&li&al is mar.ed -y a relentless intelle&tual a&uity 6oined to a penetratin# devotional intensity. 3 will not attempt to summari*e here the entirety o$ the ar#ument. !he en&y&li&al opens with the &laim that a distin#uishin# mar. o$ )hristians is the $a&t that they have a $uture. !hey do not .now the details o$ that $uture, -ut they .now that their li$e will not end in emptiness. !his truth is -oth in$ormative and per$ormative. !hat is to say, it is li$e/&han#in#. !he dar. door o$ time, o$ the $uture, has -een thrown open. Pertinent -oth to the ar#ument and to &urrent a$$airs, %enedi&t re$ers to St. 'osephine %a.hita o$ 9ar$ur in Sudan, who was &anoni*ed -y 'ohn Paul 33. She was enslaved and later dis&overed a new master in )hrist, and so was #iven the #i$t o$ hope. 3 am de$initively loved and whatever happens to me, she said, 3 am awaited -y this :ove. (nd so my li$e is #ood. %enedi&t emphasi*es redemption as -ein# -ou#ht -a&., and -rou#ht -a&., $rom slavery. )hristianity did not -rin# a messa#e o$ so&ial revolution, he writes, -ut a messa#e that &han#ed so&iety $rom within. ,e &ites Paul"s words to Philemon on how 8nesimus, the slave, is now his -rother. )hristians, the pope unders&ores, are pil#rims who live in the present -ut understand it is an e0ile $rom their true home, whi&h is anti&ipated in the new so&iety that is the )hur&h. 3n )olossians 2, Paul &ontrasts li$e a&&ordin# to )hrist with slavery under the elemental spirits o$ the universe. %enedi&t &ites St. +re#ory ;a*ian*en, who said that, when the <a#i $ollowed the star to the new-orn .in#, astrolo#y &ame to an end, -e&ause the stars were now movin# in the or-it determined -y )hrist. Slavery to the elemental spirits has reappeared in our time, however, with the &laim that the laws o$ matter ultimately #overn the world. !o whi&h %enedi&t says, 3t is not the laws o$ matter and evolution that have the $inal say, -ut reason, will, lovea Person. ,e-rews &hapter eleven says that $aith is the su-stan&e o$ thin#s hoped $or. !he re$eren&e, %enedi&t insists, is to substance, rather than, as in the translation -y :uther and a &urrent translation approved -y the +erman -ishops, to inner &onvi&tion. 7aith is not 6ust rea&hin# out $or what is now a-sent -ut provides a proo$ o$ what is now unseen. 7aith draws the $uture into the present, so that it is no lon#er simply a =not yet." 3t is the e0pe&tation o$ thin#s to &ome $rom the perspe&tive o$ a present that is already #iven. 3t is a loo.in# $orward in )hrist"s presen&e, with )hrist who is present, to the per$e&tin# o$ his %ody, to his de$initive &omin#. 3t is o-viously not an a&&ident that this en&y&li&al was issued on the eve o$ the 7irst Sunday o$ (dvent, with its orientation to the $uture and the promised &omin# o$ )hrist in #lory. 1hat is to &ome is eternal li$e, -ut eternal li$e is not this li$e &ontinued inde$initely. !o &ontinue livin# $orever endlesslyappears more li.e a &urse than a #i$t. (#ain and a#ain, %enedi&t invo.es St. (u#ustine, re$le&tin# how very mu&h he is an (u#ustinian. (!homas (>uinas #ets only one mention in more than si0ty pa#es o$ te0t, and then with a re$eren&e to his usin# the terminolo#y o$ the philosophi&al tradition to whi&h he -elon#ed. 3n a -rea. $rom the en&y&li&al pattern o$ re&ent de&ades, the Se&ond ?ati&an )oun&il does not #et even one re$eren&e, as there is also no re$eren&e to earlier papal te0ts.)

Via Negativa

1e do not .now the eternal li$e $or whi&h we hope, says %enedi&t. (ll we .now is that it is not this. !hen this $rom (u#ustine: !here is there$ore in us a &ertain learned i#noran&e ( docta ignorantia), so to spea.. 1e do not .now this true li$e, this ultimate happiness, writes %enedi&t, and yet we .now that there must -e somethin# we do not .now toward whi&h we $eel driven. !he term =eternal li$e" is intended to #ive a name to this .nown =un.nown." ,e ta.es a poeti& sta- at des&ription: 3t would -e li.e plun#in# into the o&ean o$ in$inite love, a moment in whi&h time the -e$ore and a$terno lon#er e0ists. Su&h a moment is a plun#in# ever anew into the vastness o$ -ein#, in whi&h we are simply overwhelmed -y 6oy. Su&h a hope is responsive to the words o$ 'esus, 3 will see you a#ain and your hearts will re6oi&e, and no one will ta.e your 6oy $rom you ('ohn 4@:22). ,ere and elsewhere, the pope employs the via negativathe way o$ .nowin# -y what we do not .now. !he en&y&li&al dis&usses in some detail the tra#i&ally unsatis$a&tory ways in whi&h the world has tried to satis$y the irrepressi-le hope that -elon#s to -ein# human, &itin# 7ran&is %a&on"s proposed &on>uest o$ nature and Aarl <ar0"s utopian #oal o$ the .in#dom o$ $reedom. 3n various $orms, $aith in pro#ress -e&ame a new reli#ion. %enedi&t &alls 3mmanuel Aant, o$ all people, to the witness stand in ma.in# the &ase that tryin# to -uild the Ain#dom o$ +od without +od leads to the perverse end o$ all thin#s. <odernity is -ased on reasonand freedom, -oth #i$ts o$ +od, and there has indeed -een mu&h in&remental pro#ress in the rational and te&hni&al mastery o$ nature. %ut moral pro#ress, the realm o$ $reedom, is a >uite di$$erent matter: Bet in the $ield o$ ethi&al awareness and moral de&ision/ma.in#, there is no similar possi-ility o$ a&&umulation Cin&remental pro#ressD $or the simple reason that man"s $reedom is always new and he must always ma.e his de&isions anew. !hese de&isions &an never simply -e made $or us in advan&e -y othersi$ that were the &ase, we would no lon#er -e $ree. 7reedom presupposes that in $undamental de&isions, every person and every #eneration is a new -e#innin#. ;aturally, new #enerations &an -uild on the .nowled#e and e0perien&e o$ those who went -e$ore . . . -ut they &an also re6e&t it, -e&ause it &an never -e sel$/evident in the same way as material inventions. . . . Sin&e man always remains $ree and sin&e his $reedom is always $ra#ile, the .in#dom o$ the #ood will never -e de$initively esta-lished in this world. . . . 3$ there were stru&tures whi&h &ould irrevo&a-ly #uarantee a determinedi.e., #ood state o$ the world, man"s $reedom would -e denied, and hen&e they would not -e #ood stru&tures at all. 7ran&is %a&on and those who $ollowed in the intelle&tual &urrent o$ modernity that he inspired were wron# to -elieve that man would -e redeemed throu#h s&ien&e. . . . 3t is not s&ien&e that redeems man: man is redeemed -y love. . . . 3n this sense it is true that anyone who does not .now +od even thou#h he may entertain all .inds o$ hopes, is ultimately without hope, without the #reat hope that sustains the whole o$ li$e (&$. Ephesians 2:42). (ll serious and upri#ht human &ondu&t, says %enedi&t, is hope in a&tion. 1ithout the #reat hope inspired -y the #ospel, e$$orts to improve the world end up in either despair or $anati&ism. !hen $ollows a re$le&tion on the ties -etween hope, love, and su$$erin#. !o a&&ept the =other" who su$$ers means that 3 ta.e up his su$$erin# in su&h a way that it -e&omes mine also. ,e notes in an aside that &onsolation, $rom the :atin consolatio, indi&ates how the solitude o$ the su$$erer is over&ome -y love. %ernard o$ )lairvau0 is >uoted: Impassibilis est Deus, sed non incompassibilis, whi&h is translated as +od &annot su$$er, -ut he &an su$$er with. !here $ollows an e0&ursus on the wisdom o$ the ne#le&ted popular piety asso&iated with o$$erin# up daily hardships. !he latter part o$ the en&y&li&al is devoted to the >uestion o$ theodi&y, althou#h the word is not used. )hristian depi&tions o$ the :ast 'ud#ment $re>uently instill dread, -ut the :ast 'ud#ment is also a statement o$ hopeo$ hope that 6usti&e will prevail. !he atheism o$ the nineteenth and twentieth &enturies isin its ori#ins and aimsa type o$ moralism: a protest a#ainst the in6usti&es o$ the world and o$ world history. ( world mar.ed -y so mu&h in6usti&e, inno&ent su$$erin#, and &yni&ism o$ power &annot -e the wor. o$ a #ood +od. 1ithout +od, man must esta-lish 6usti&e. !his $alse idea, says %enedi&t, has led to the #reatest $orms o$ &ruelty and violations o$ 6usti&e. !hen this: ( world whi&h has to &reate its own 6usti&e is a world without hope. !his leads to an assertion that is stri.in# in its -luntness: 7or this reason, $aith in the :ast 'ud#ment is $irst and $oremost hope. . . . 3 am &onvin&ed that the >uestion o$ 6usti&e &onstitutes the essential ar#ument, or in any &ase the stron#est ar#ument, in $avor o$ $aith in eternal li$e. !he purely individual need $or a $ul$illment that is denied to us in this li$e, $or an everlastin# love that we await, is &ertainly an important motive $or -elievin# that man was made $or eternityF -ut only in &onne&tion with the impossi-ility that the in6usti&e o$ history should -e the $inal word does the ne&essity $or )hrist"s return and $or new li$e -e&ome $ully &onvin&in#. Even were it possi-le to -uild a per$e&tly 6ust so&ial order some time in the $utureand all our e0perien&e tells us this is a &alamitous delusionit would not -e 6usti&e $or those livin# now, nor $or the &ountless millions who have su$$ered un6ustly in the past. !o retain our humanity, we must not a&&ept the possi-ility that the in6usti&e o$ history is the $inal word. 8nly the :ast 'ud#ment will serve. 3n this &onne&tion, %enedi&t dis&usses the ines&apa-ility, alon# with the limits, o$ our thin.in# a-out heaven, hell, and pur#atory. 3nes&apa-le -e&ause 6usti&e demands a -alan&in# o$ the s&alesF limited -e&ause we must e0press in lan#ua#e what we -elieve in lan#ua#e, and lan#ua#e $alls so $ar short o$ the

promised reality. !hrou#hout this re$le&tion runs an intri&ate diale&ti& o$ 6usti&e and #ra&e. 3$ it were only #ra&e, ma.in# all earthly thin#s &ease to matter, +od would still owe us an answer to the >uestion a-out 6usti&ethe &ru&ial >uestion that we as. o$ history and o$ +od. 3$ it were only 6usti&e, in the end it &ould -rin# only $ear to all o$ us. !he in&arnation o$ +od in )hrist has so &losely lin.ed the two6ud#ment and #ra&ethat 6usti&e is $irmly esta-lished: we all wor. out our salvation =with $ear and trem-lin#" (Philippians 2:42). ;evertheless, #ra&e allows us all to hope, and to #o trustin#ly to meet the 'ud#e whom we .now as our =advo&ate" or =para&lete" (&$. 4 'ohn 2:4). (t every step o$ the way, our hope $or salvation is a &ommunal hope, and %enedi&t >uotes 'ohn 9onne"s no man is an island, entire o$ itsel$. !oward the end, <ary is invo.ed, as has -e&ome the &ustom with papal en&y&li&als. She is the e0emplar o$ hope, and the letter &on&ludes with this: ,oly <ary, <other o$ +od, our <other, tea&h us to -elieve, to hope, to love with you. Show us the way to his Ain#domG Star o$ the Sea, shine upon us and #uide us on our wayG 8ne may respe&t$ully su##est that the ,oly 7ather &ould do with a #ood editor. !he en&y&li&al is mu&h lon#er than it needs to -e, whi&h will dis&oura#e its -ein# widely read -y the $aith$ul. !here are s&holarly dis&ussions o$ etymolo#i&al and other >uestions that are -etter suited $or the &lassroom. !hey &ould -e &onsi#ned to $ootnotes or i#nored alto#ether. !here should -e someone who &ould #ently -ut e$$e&tively remind the pope that an en&y&li&al is addressed to the universal )hur&h, not to a &on$eren&e o$ theolo#ians. !hat the pope is su&h a distin#uished s&holar is a #reat #i$t to the )hur&h, -ut in this, as in the $irst en&y&li&al, one has to wonder whether the ri#ht -alan&e has -een stru&. -etween the pro$essor and the pastor. 3n ni#ht hours and in times snat&hed -etween the myriad appointments o$ the day, %enedi&t sits alone at his des., writin# and writin#. ,e is ever the tea&her, a s&ri-e who has -een trained $or the .in#dom o$ heaven . . . who -rin#s out o$ his treasure what is new and what is old (<att. 45:H2). ,en&e the $irst two en&y&li&alsF hen&e the &ompellin#ly erudite le&tures at pu-li& audien&esF hen&e the $irst and promised se&ond volume o$ Jesus of Nazareth. 3t is said that this ponti$i&ate represents a return to the -asi&s o$ )hristian $aith and li$e, and there is truth in that. <ore stri.in#ly, it represents an appeal $or the modern world to re&o#ni*e that its a&hievements &annot -e sustained apart $rom the authenti& humanism o$ )hristian $aith. !o date, and with $ew e0&eptions, those who &ontrol the &ommandin# hei#hts o$ &ulture have not en#a#ed, or even dei#ned to noti&e, his e$$orts. Indaunted, he returns to the tas. a#ain and a#ain, writin# and spea.in# in most intimate &ommunion with St. Paul and St. (u#ustine, proposin# to the world a more e0&ellent way (4 )or. 42:54). American Preeminence, for Better and for Worse <i&hael ;orth&ott, pro$essor o$ ethi&s at the Iniversity o$ Edin-ur#h, illustrates the em-arrassin# silliness o$ so mu&h o$ the &ontemporary pro$essoriate. 3n Ne !lac"friars, ;orth&ott tells us that $ear is -ein# mar.eted to us -y the %ush and %lair (now %rown) administrations under the -rand name war on terror. %y ;orth&ott"s a&&ountin#, the %ush/)heney &a-al promotes a dis&ourse o$ $ear in order to sustain an atmosphere o$ $ear in the Inited States so that &orporate sponsors &an reap pro$its and maintain power. !he -rand the =war on terror" &reates the illusion, ;orth&ott writes, that the Inited States is en#a#ed in a #lo-al war with a ran#e o$ enemies who in&lude 3slamists, anti/#lo-alisation a&tivists, environmental and animal ri#hts a&tivists. %ut we &an"t see this, o$ &ourse, -e&ause we have -een duped -y that dis&ourse o$ $ear. 1e &an"t see that all those &ontroversial poli&ies developed -y the %ush and %lair administrations were not really put $orward in #ood $aith as e$$orts to prote&t (meri&an and %ritish &iti*ens $rom repeated terrorist atta&.s. Juite the &ontrary, as ;orth&ott"s dis&ourse a-out dis&ourse asserts, it"s all $or the sa.e o$ a #lo-al imperialism that wants to, well, rape, pilla#e, destroy, and dominate. !he nuan&e underwhelms. Sanity does intrude $or a moment. ;orth&ott &annot sustain his illusion that our enemies are illusions. 3t"s di$$i&ult to show how the dead -odies in ;ew Bor. and :ondon were produ&ed -y dis&ourse. !errorism e0ists. %ut silliness returns: !he deaths are our $ault. 7ar $rom redu&in# the ris. o$ terrorist atta&.s, ;orth&ott writes, the =war on terror" has a&tually advan&ed -oth the $ear and the reality o$ terror and violen&e. So it"s not that dis&ourse &reates dead -odies. !hat"s mu&h too simplisti&. Rather, dis&ourse ma.es people into our enemies, and then they atta&. us. Even the 7orei#n 8$$i&e, ;orth&ott in$orms us, now -elieves that the rhetori& o$ =war on terror" has advan&ed 3slami& hostility toward %ritain around the world. 3$ only we had adopted a less &on$rontational approa&h. !he lo#i& seems $lawless. 3$ you re$use to &all any-ody an enemy, then, -y #olly, you won"t have any enemies. !his moral and &ultural appeasement has -een a lon#time strate#y o$ the &apitulatory le$t. 7a&ed with evil, they rede$ine it as &ultural di$$eren&e. (s Patri&. <oynihan o-served, the le$t tends to handle so&ial pro-lems -y de$inin# devian&y down. ;orth&ott simply applies this (li&e/in/1onderland approa&h to international a$$airs. 7or &enturies, ordinary $ol.s have made $un o$ -oo.ish dons and a-stra&ted pro$essors. 1e &all the university the

3vory !ower -e&ause we sense that an e0pertise in ideas o$ten has little to do with &ompeten&e in reality. 3n the old days, the pro$essors were serene in their splendid isolation. 8ne &ould admire their -rillian&e while ma.in# #entle $un o$ their irrelevan&e. !oday we see a mu&h less appealin# pro$essorial personality at lar#e: someone who dresses up ill/ in$ormed politi&al diatri-es in the $inery o$ dis&ourse analysis and pu-lishes them in what were $ormerly thou#ht o$ as s&holarly 6ournals. 3t"s a dou-le shame. ( shame that the a&ademy loo.s so transparently and unthin.in#ly partisan. ( shame that people who are paid to #ive patient thou#ht to the #enuinely di$$i&ult moral >uestions $or#o their intelle&tual duty and #ive us -ree*y spe&ulations a-out dis&ourse and rhetori& instead o$ &lose analysis o$ poli&y intentions, a&tions, and &onse>uen&es.

Something Different

Ro-ert Aa#an is no postmodern pro$essor. <any pre$er to -elieve the world is in turmoil not -e&ause it is in turmoil, he writes in #olic$ Revie , -ut -e&ause %ush made it so -y destroyin# the new hope$ul era. !hat pretty mu&h sums up Pro$. ;orth&ott"s $antasies. !his view has the distin&t lia-ility o$ not -ein# true. 7rom Russia to 3ran, $rom )hina to Sudan, $rom the remote rea&hes o$ Pa.istan to the trou-led streets o$ )airo, the &roo.ed tim-er o$ humanity (Aant) has ensured that new &on$li&ts sprin# up to repla&e the old )old 1ar &hallen#es. (s o$ this writin#, the sur#e in 3ra> seems to -e wor.in#, the intelli#en&e &ommunity that a while -a&. told us that 3ran is on the ed#e o$ havin# a nu&lear weapon now tells us with the same hi#h &on$iden&e that it isn"t true, and the ;ew Bor. Philharmoni& has a#reed to play in ;orth Aorea. So there is a period o$ relative >uiet. %e sure it will not last. )on$li&t o$ various levels o$ intensity in the politi&s amon# nations (,ans <or#enthau) is the permanent state o$ a$$airs. (s Aa#an points out, the so/&alled %ush 9o&trine mar.s no -rea. with past (meri&an poli&y. Sin&e 4K4H, he writes, (meri&ans have insisted on a&>uirin# and maintainin# military suprema&y, a =preponderan&e o$ power" in the world rather than a -alan&e o$ power with other nations. Presidents $rom !ruman throu#h )linton operated on the ideolo#i&al &onvi&tion that li-eral demo&ra&y is the only le#itimate $orm o$ #overnment and that other $orms o$ #overnment are not only ille#itimate -ut transitory. Aa#an notes that this &onsensus, whi&h was -oth militaristi& and idealisti&, o$ten irritated our European allies in the past. 8ne re&alls the lon# history o$ 7ren&h e$$orts to so$ten the &ontrasts -etween East and 1est, as well as the +erman popular resistan&e to President Rea#an"s deployment o$ Pershin# missiles. 3n short, all the $eatures o$ the %ush do&trine preemptive military a&tion, promotion o$ demo&ra&y, so/&alled re#ime &han#e, unilateralismwere mu&h pra&ti&ed in the de&ades a$ter 1orld 1ar 33, and Aa#an seriously dou-ts that the administration that ta.es o$$i&e in 2LLK will approa&h international a$$airs di$$erently. !here is one main reason why: (meri&a is very power$ul, and it is hard to ima#ine that the (meri&an pu-li& will ele&t a president who does not #enuinely -elieve in the humani*in# potential o$ demo&ra&y. Power plus patriotism will ensure a $or&e$ul (meri&an #lo-al presen&e. (ll the ma6or powers)hina, Russia, and the E.I.&ontinue to plan and a&t under the presumption o$ (meri&an dominan&e. 3n spite o$ endless #ripin# and &hallen#es around the ed#es, writes Aa#an, mu&h o$ the world &ontinues to tolerate and even lend support to (meri&an #eopoliti&al prima&y i$ only as a prote&tion a#ainst more worryin# $oes. !here are dramati&ally di$$erent views on how the %ush administration has handled, or mishandled, that prima&y -utmoments o$ &risis, tomorrow"s polls, and this year"s ele&tion &ampai#ns notwithstandin#(meri&an preeminen&e, with all the pro-lems attendin# (meri&an preeminen&e, is a $a&t o$ li$e $or as $ar as anyone &an see into the $uture. Islam and Christianity:Changing the S !"ect ($ter Pope %enedi&t"s histori& address on $aith and reason at Re#ens-ur# Iniversity on Septem-er 42, 2LL@, a #roup o$ thirty/ei#ht prominent <uslims $rom diverse s&hools o$ thou#ht wrote him a letter in the hope o$ arrivin# at mutual understandin#. !he thirty/ei#ht #rew to 458, and this past 8&to-er 45 they addressed a se&ond letter to the pope and an array o$ other )hristian leaders. !he letter is titled ( )ommon 1ord %etween Is and Bou and &alls $or theolo#i&al and do&trinal dialo#ue -ased on the dual &ommandment o$ love $or +od and nei#h-or. !he 8&to-er letter re&eived rave reviews in the mainline media o$ the 1est, with 'ohn Esposito, a s&holar o$ 3slam at +eor#etown Iniversity, de&larin# it a histori& event that puts the -all in the ?ati&an"s &ourt. ( #roup at Bale 9ivinity S&hool &omposed a letter in response, :ovin# +od and ;ei#h-or !o#ether, and soli&ited a-out three hundred si#ners $or its $ull/pa#e pu-li&ation in the Ne %or" &imes o$ ;ovem-er 45. !he Bale letter lavishes praise on the initiative o$ the 458 and is almost #ushin# in its #ratitude $or the e0pression o$ <uslim #oodwill. !he 458 had written: (s <uslims, we say to )hristians that we are not a#ainst them and that 3slam

is not a#ainst themso lon# as they do not wa#e war a#ainst <uslims on a&&ount o$ their reli#ion, oppress them, and drive them out o$ their homes. 3n 3ra> and ($#hanistan, soldiers, most o$ whom are )hristian, have wa#ed war a#ainst $i#hters who are <uslim, -ut not on account of their religion. Inless, o$ &ourse, the 458 a#ree with al/Jaeda that the 'ihadists are indeed $i#htin# in the &ause o$ 3slam. !he response o$ the Bale letter is very, well, very )hristian. ?ery )hristian, that is, in the way that ;iet*s&he &ari&atured )hristianity as the supine morality o$ losers. !he letter says: Sin&e 'esus )hrist says: =7irst ta.e the lo# out o$ your own eye and then you will see &learly to ta.e the spe&. out o$ your nei#h-or"s eye," we want to -e#in -y a&.nowled#in# that in the past (e.#. in the )rusades) and in the present (e.#. in e0&esses o$ the =war on terror") many )hristians have -een #uilty o$ sinnin# a#ainst our <uslim nei#h-or. . . . 1e as. $or#iveness o$ the (ll/<er&i$ul 8ne and o$ the <uslim &ommunity around the world. !he >uestion o$ whether the )hristian e$$ort to re&on>uer the ,oly :and a$ter it had -een &on>uered -y <uslims was sin$ul is, to say the least, de-ata-le and mu&h de-ated. Pla&in# the war on terror -etween >uotes is tellin#. !hat murderous 'ihadists have, in the name o$ 3slam, de&lared a terrorist war on the 1est is a su-6e&t deli&ately evaded in -oth the letter o$ the 458 and the Bale response. )ertainly every opportunity $or dialo#ue is to -e nurtured, -ut dialo#ue that ma.es $or pea&e is dialo#ue in truth that does not indul#e sentimentality and wish$ul thin.in# at the e0pense o$ honesty and 6usti&e. !he #reat ma6ority o$ those who si#ned the Bale letter are, as one mi#ht e0pe&t, $rom the mainstream o$ li-eral Protestantism. !here are a $ew )atholi&s: the a$orementioned 'ohn EspositoF !homas Raus&h, S.'., o$ :oyola <arymountF and 9onald Senior o$ the )hi&a#o !heolo#i&al Inion. !here are a surprisin# num-er o$ evan#eli&als, some o$ whom have a reputation $or thou#ht$ulness: Ri&hard )i*i., !imothy +eor#e, %ill ,y-els, 9uane :it$in, Ri&hard <ouw, 9avid ;e$$, Ro-ert S&huller, 'ohn Sta&.house, +lenn Stassen, 'ohn Stott, 'im 1allis, Ri&. 1arren, and ;i&holas 1olterstor$$. ( prominent evan#eli&al who de&lined to si#n the letter told me, 3"m tellin# our #uys to wait and see how the ?ati&an responds. Rome has #uys who .now this stu$$ and has -een dealin# with <uslims $or &enturies. 8ur #uys don"t .now $rom s>uat and are 6umpin# on a train run -y li-erals who have -een wron# on 6ust a-out everythin# you &an name. !here-y han#s a tale. Rome"s response to this letter $rom <uslims, as to the letter o$ 2LL@, has -een -oth &alm and &ool. !he reason is that <uslim leaders have -een persistently &han#in# the su-6e&t. !he su-6e&t is not theolo#i&al dialo#ue a-out how or whether )hristianity and 3slam tea&h the love o$ +od and nei#h-or. !he su-6e&t, %enedi&t has said at Re#ens-ur# and elsewhere, is the relationship -etween $aith and reason, -etween violen&e and persuasion, -etween &oer&ion and reli#ious $reedom. Pope %enedi&t said in his )hristmas 2LL@ address to the Roman )uria: 3n a dialo#ue to -e intensi$ied with 3slam, we must -ear in mind the $a&t that the <uslim world today is $indin# itsel$ $a&ed with an ur#ent tas.. !his tas. is very similar to the one that was imposed upon )hristians sin&e the Enli#htenment, and to whi&h the Se&ond ?ati&an )oun&il, as the $ruit o$ lon# and di$$i&ult resear&h, $ound real solutions $or the )atholi& )hur&h....8n the one hand, one must &ounter a di&tatorship o$ positivist reason that e0&ludes +od $rom the li$e o$ the &ommunity and $rom pu-li& or#ani*ations....8n the other hand, one must wel&ome the true &on>uests o$ the Enli#htenment, human ri#hts, and espe&ially the $reedom o$ $aith and its pra&ti&e, and re&o#ni*e these as -ein# essential elements $or the authenti&ity o$ reli#ion....(lso the 3slami& world with its own tradition $a&es the immense tas. o$ $indin# the appropriate solutions to these pro-lems....1e )hristians $eel ourselves in solidarity with all those who, pre&isely on the -asis o$ their reli#ious &onvi&tions as <uslims, wor. to oppose violen&e and $or the syner#y -etween $aith and reason, -etween reli#ion and $reedom. !hese are the >uestions that need to -e en#a#ed in an honest and &onstru&tive dialo#ue with 3slam. (s 'ean/:ouis )ardinal !auran, head o$ the Ponti$i&al )oun&il $or 3nterreli#ious 9ialo#ue, has e0plained, what we in the 1est mean -y theolo#i&al dialo#ue is e0&eedin#ly di$$i&ult with 3slam. <uslims, he says, do not a&&ept dis&ussion a-out the Aoran, -e&ause they say it was written under the di&tates o$ +od. 1ith su&h an a-solutist interpretation, it is di$$i&ult to dis&uss the &ontents o$ the $aith. !he >uestions posed -y %enedi&t a-out reason and $aith, reli#ion and $reedom, entail an understandin# o$ re&ipro&ity. 3n dialo#ue -etween -elievers, says !auran, it is understood that what is #ood $or one is #ood $or the other. 3t should -e e0plained to <uslims, $or e0ample, that, i$ they are allowed to have mos>ues in Europe, it is normal $or &hur&hes to -e allowed in their &ountries. Rome has indeed had &enturies o$ e0perien&e in these matters. 8n ;ovem-er 2K, !ar&isio )ardinal %ertone, se&retary o$ state, wrote to Prin&e +ha*i -in <uhammad -in !alal o$ 'ordan, the &hie$ or#ani*er o$ the letter o$ the 458, on -ehal$ o$ the pope: )ommon #round allows us to -ase dialo#ue on e$$e&tive respe&t $or the di#nity o$ every human person, on o-6e&tive .nowled#e o$ the reli#ion o$ the other, on the sharin# o$ reli#ious e0perien&e, and, $inally, on &ommon &ommitment to promotin# mutual respe&t and a&&eptan&e amon# the youn#er #eneration. !he Pope is &on$ident that, on&e this is a&hieved, it will -e possi-le to &ooperate in a

produ&tive way in the areas o$ &ulture and so&iety, and $or the promotion o$ 6usti&e and pea&e in so&iety and throu#hout the world. !he letter &on&ludes: 1ith a view to en&oura#in# your praiseworthy initiative, 3 am pleased to &ommuni&ate that ,is ,oliness would -e most willin# to re&eive Bour Royal ,i#hness and a restri&ted #roup o$ si#natories o$ the open letter, &hosen -y you. (t the same time, a wor.in# meetin# &ould -e or#ani*ed -etween your dele#ation and the Ponti$i&al )oun&il $or 3nterreli#ious 9ialo#ue, with the &ooperation o$ some spe&iali*ed Ponti$i&al 3nstitutes (su&h as the Ponti$i&al 3nstitute $or (ra-i& and 3slami& Studies and the Ponti$i&al +re#orian Iniversity). !he pre&ise details o$ these meetin#s &ould -e de&ided later, should this proposal prove a&&epta-le to you in prin&iple. 3n sharpest &ontrast to the em-arrassin# e$$usions o$ the Bale letter, the response o$ the ,oly See represents, 3 -elieve, 6ust the ri#ht mi0 o$ &ordiality, &larity, &andor, and &aution. 8$ most parti&ular importan&e, it .eeps the $o&us on the sour&es o$ terrorism and oppression perpetrated in the name o$ 3slam. !hat, a$ter all, is what prompted these e0&han#es in the $irst pla&e, and it serves neither pea&e nor understandin# to a&>uies&e in the e$$orts o$ <uslim leaders to &han#e the su-6e&t. (s o$ this writin#, the response o$ Prin&e +ha*i -in <uhammad -in !alal, i$ any, has not -een made pu-li&. While We're At It M 7ive/point )alvinism, as many readers will .now, re$ers to !I:3P. !I:3P, in turn, re$ers to !otal depravity, In&onditional ele&tion, :imited atonement, 3rresisti-le #ra&e, and the Perseveran&e o$ the saints. Put too -rie$ly, total depravity means that, as a &onse>uen&e o$ ori#inal sin, there is a-solutely nothin# we are &apa-le o$ doin# in order to -e saved. In&onditional ele&tion means that +od predestines who will -e saved and who will -e damned. :imited atonement means that )hrist died only $or the ele&t. 3rresisti-le #ra&e means, in the &ase o$ the ele&t, 6ust what it says. (nd the perseveran&e o$ the saints is o$ten e0pressed as on&e saved, always saved. Sin&e the seventeenth &entury, most %aptists in this &ountry have not -een $ive/point )alvinists. !he %aptist tradition, as shaped -y (meri&an revivalism in the +reat (wa.enin#s, has #enerally leaned toward (rminianism, a modi$ied version o$ predestination proposed -y 'a&o- (rminius (d. 4@LK) that allowed a #reater role $or human &ooperation in salvation. 3 -rin# this up -e&ause a 2LL@ study $ound that a-out 4L per&ent o$ ministers in the Southern %aptist )onvention (S%)) are $ive/ pointers. ( new study o$ the most re&ent S%) seminary #raduates, however, reports that 2N per&ent somewhat a#ree or stron#ly a#ree that they are $ive/point )alvinists. 7or instan&e, @N per&ent a$$irm that +od"s #ra&e is irresisti-le, and H8 per&ent say they -elieve that people do not &hoose to -e&ome )hristiansF +od &hooses and &alls people who respond to him. !hat last a$$irmation stri.es me as am-i#uous. 3 e0pe&t many non/)alvinists, in&ludin# in$ormed )atholi&s, mi#ht a$$irm it. ($ter all, 'esus says, Bou have not &hosen meF 3 have &hosen you ('ohn 4H:4@). <ost %aptists in (meri&a have -een $ree/will ((rminian) %aptists rather than hard/shell ($ive/point). ( moment"s re$le&tion will su##est why the $ormer tend to -e more &ommitted to the evan#eli*ation o$ others, while many o$ the $ive/ pointers don"t see the point o$ tryin# to win those whom +od has not ele&ted and are there$ore lost no matter what we do. !he new study, however, says that the more )alvinisti& re&ent #raduates report that they are somewhat more &ommitted to personal evan#elism than their peers. +o $i#ure. !he S%), with a-out $i$teen million mem-ers, is the lar#est Protestant e&&lesial &ommunity in this &ountry. 8ne %aptist $riend says it au#urs ill $or the Evan#eli&als and )atholi&s !o#ether pro6e&t i$, in $a&t, there is a dramati& in&rease in $ive/point )alvinism, sin&e most o$ the evan#eli&al opposition to that initiative has &ome $rom )alvinists. %ut another tells me 6ust the opposite. )alvinists, he notes, have a ri&her theolo#i&al and intelle&tual tradition that e>uips them to -e more e$$e&tive e&umeni&al interlo&utors. 7ran.ly, 3 don"t .now who is ri#ht. %ut it is the &ase that i$, twenty or thirty years $rom now, the predominant %aptist leadership is &ommitted to $ive/point )alvinism, it would -e a ma6or &han#e in the (meri&an reli#ious &ir&umstan&e, and a &han#e with unpredi&ta-le &onse>uen&es. M 3n news reports and &ommentary, 73RS! !,3;+S is o$ten re$erred to as a )atholi& ma#a*ine. 3n $a&t, we are e&umeni&ally )hristian and interreli#ious, with a parti&ular interest in 'ewish/)hristian relations. %ut it is true that thin#s )atholi& re&eive what some view as disproportionate attention. Several $a&tors may e0plain that, not least the $a&t that most o$ the editorial sta$$ is )atholi&. 1e mi#ht $airly -e des&ri-ed as an e&umeni&al and interreli#ious ma#a*ine o$ reli#ion, &ulture, and pu-li& li$e in$ormed -y a predominantly )atholi& perspe&tive. !he $ore#oin# is prelude to a word on the demise o$ the print $orm o$ Crisis, an indisputa-ly )atholi& ma#a*ine. ($ter twenty/$ive years o$ pu-li&ation, Crisis is now availa-le only on the 3nternet. Some may view this as another si#n o$ the end o$ print &ulture and the triumph o$ the di#ital revolution. 3 don"t thin. so. 1hile ma#a*ines, and espe&ially ma#a*ines not aimed at a mass mar.et, are stru##lin#and have re&ently -een hit -y another lar#e and, 3 -elieve, un$air hi.e in postal ratesthey, alon# with -oo.s, will &ontinue to -e the &hie$ $orm in whi&h serious ideas are en#a#ed. 3 am sorry that Crisis is no lon#er in print. 7ounded -y <i&hael ;ova. and ;otre 9ame philosopher Ralph <&3nerny, Crisis rendered invalua-le servi&e in the 4K8Ls and 4KKLs -y &hallen#in# with intelle&tual $or&e the he#emony then en6oyed -y li-eral proponents o$ the post/?ati&an 33 )hur&h as represented -y, inter alia, lay/

editedCommon eal and 'esuit/edited 'merica. !here is a -arely dis#uised s&haden$reude in Common eal"s editorial on pro-lems e0perien&ed -y Crisis. !he editors say that, a$ter ;ova. and <&3nerny handed over &ontrol o$ the ma#a*ine in 4KKH, it -e&ame less intelle&tual and even more partisan. !hat is true enou#h, -ut the nu- o$ the editorial is that the de&line o$ Crisis disproves the &laim that li-eral )atholi&ism is a spent $or&e. 7ran&is )ardinal +eor#e said some years a#o that li-eral )atholi&ism is an e0hausted pro6e&t. Crisis pushed that &laim with relish. !o whi&h the editors respond, in e$$e&t: Crisis is deadG Common eal livesG M 3 e0pe&t that Common eal will &ontinue to pu-lish $or many years. 3t has -een around almost ei#hty years and, li.e 'merica and the main voi&e o$ li-eral Protestantism, Christian Centur$, it has an entren&hed -ase in li-rary and other institutional su-s&riptions esta-lished over #enerations. Su&h pu-li&ations &an survive with relatively $ew individual su-s&ri-ers. ;ewer ma#a*ines su&h as Crisis,Catholic (orld Report, and the evan#eli&ally oriented !oo"s ) Culture do not have that advanta#e. !hey have to #et new su-s&ri-ers or die. 8$ #reater interest, however, is how Common eal understands its mission. !he editors say that &laims a-out the death o$ li-eral )atholi&ism are premature. )ontra the position pressed -y Crisis, li-erals are not un$aith$ul. (ssimilatin# what is o$ undenia-le value in se&ular modernity"s em-ra&e o$ reli#ious pluralism, $reedom o$ &ons&ien&e, individual autonomy, and the e>ual di#nity o$ men and women re>uires #enuine dis&ernment. . . . Bet =$aith$ul )atholi&s" do in $a&t disa#ree a-out &hur&h tea&hin# re#ardin# &ontra&eption, the ordination o$ women, and the nature o$ the papa&y, amon# other thin#s. ,istory, espe&ially the history o$ the Se&ond ?ati&an )oun&il, tells us that disa#reement is o$ten the wor. o$ the ,oly Spirit. !hat is a -undle o$ assumptions that needs &are$ul unpa&.in#. 3"m not sure what is meant -y the nature o$ the papa&y, -ut it is hard to .now how a $aith$ul )atholi& &an re6e&t the <a#isterium"s &onsistent and emphati&ally repeated tea&hin# on the insepara-ility o$ the unitive and pro&reative dimensions o$ marria#e or the )hur&h"s ina-ility to ordain women to the priesthood. (3 will not spe&ulate on what is meant -y amon# other thin#s, althou#h positions espoused -y Common ealover the years provide su##estive leads.) ( $aith$ul )atholi& may have di$$i&ulty understandin# or livin# the )hur&h"s tea&hin#. ,e may thin. a tea&hin# is inade>uately presented. %ut he &annot disa#ree with, in the sense o$ re6e&tin#, a tea&hin# on $aith and morals that is authoritatively, &onsistently, and &ertainly tau#ht and remain a $aith$ul )atholi&. 8ne re&alls )ardinal ;ewman"s ma0im that ten thousand di$$i&ulties do not add up to a dou-t. Common eal o-6e&ts to the $ollowin# statement in Crisis: ( &all $or dialo#ue on settled issues is itsel$ a symptom o$ dissent. 3t is a statement su-6e&t to >uite di$$erent interpretations. 3$ -y dialogue one means that a settled >uestion is, in $a&t, an open >uestion and that the <a#isterium"s answer &an -e re6e&ted without &onse>uen&es $or one"s &ommunion with the )hur&h, the statement is &orre&t. 3$, however, -y dialogue one means honest en#a#ement with the di$$i&ulties in understandin# and livin# a tea&hin#, and perhaps ma.in# su##estions $or a more persuasive presentation o$ a tea&hin#all with a view toward thin.in# with the )hur&h ( sentire cum ecclesia) then dialo#ue is 6ust the thin#. In$ortunately, Common eal leaves little dou-t that it has the $irst and not the se&ond .ind o$ dialo#ue in mind. M <isleadin#, too, is the statement that history, espe&ially the history o$ the Se&ond ?ati&an )oun&il, tells us that disa#reement is o$ten the wor. o$ the ,oly Spirit. 3t is true that the theolo#ians who #reatly in$luen&ed the )oun&il $or e0ample, <arie/9omini>ue )henu, Bves )on#ar, ,enri de :u-a&, Aarl Rahner, ,ans Irs von %althasar, 'oseph Rat*in#er, and Aarol 1o6tyla disa#reed amon# themselves and with others on how -est to present the )hur&h"s $aith and li$e, -ut none o$ them disa#reed with, in the sense o$ re6e&tin#, the authoritative tea&hin# o$ the )hur&h. (ll o$ them were assiduous in unders&orin# their $idelity to that author ity and that tea&hin#. %ut Common eal is ri#ht in sayin# that li-eral )atholi&ism is not dead. !here will always -e people who are sin&erely insistent that they are )atholi& and are, as )ole Porter mi#ht say, true to the )hur&h in their $ashion. 8r, perhaps more a&&urately, true to the )hur&h o$ their re$ashionin#. %ut it is, at -est, a li-eral idiosyn&rasy to des&ri-e them as $aith$ul )atholi&s. 1ith respe&t to the $uture o$ the )hur&h in this &ountry and the world, )ardinal +eor#e is ri#ht: :i-eral )atholi&ism is an e0hausted pro6e&t. M Inli.e the &ase o$ <ar. !wain, the $re>uently announ&ed death o$ the ;ational )oun&il o$ )hur&hes (;))) was not #reatly e0a##erated, -ut it was e0a##erated. !he last time we had o&&asion to &omment on the ;)), it had to do with the or#ani*ation"s -ein# maintained on li$e support -y li-eral $oundations and spe&ial/interest #roups. 3t has -een a lon# time sin&e it &ould rely on $inan&ial support $rom the thirty/$ive denominations that are its nominal mem-ers. !his $all the ;)) announ&ed that $ourteen o$ its $orty sta$$ positions would -e terminated. !he Reverend %o- Ed#ar, a $ormer 9emo&rati& &on#ressman, led the or#ani*ation $rom 2LLL to 2LLN, when he le$t to head )ommon )ause, a li-eral lo--yin# #roup in 1ashin#ton. ;ominated as his repla&ement is the Reverend <i&hael Ainnamon o$ the 9is&iples o$ )hrist, who on&e ran $or the top o$$i&e o$ his li-eral denomination -ut was re6e&ted, a&&ordin# to o-servers, $or -ein# e0&essively li-eral. )ontrary to reports, the ;)) lives. Sort o$.

M !hose unremar.a-le :utherans, as <atthew Rose, then our assistant editor and then a :utheran, &alled them in a whimsi&al essay (7e-ruary 2LL4), do not very o$ten ma.e the $ront pa#e. ( -rie$ e0&eption was the :utheran )hur&h/ <issouri Synod, a -ody o$ 2.H million mem-ers, when in the 4KNLs it went throu#h e0plosive disputes and divisions over do&trine. (ll that has &han#ed now, says Pastor Peter Spe&.hard in his *orum +etter report on the latest national &onvention o$ the :)<S. !he -i# division is -etween the evan#eli&al and the &on$essional parties. (re :utherans evan#eli&al &atholi&s (the &on$essional position) or 6ust evan#eli&als more or less li.e other evan#eli&als2 !he di$$eren&es involve whether or not to worship a&&ordin# to the litur#i&al tradition :utherans adapted $rom the history o$ 1estern )hristianity, whether or not to admit non/:utherans to ,oly )ommunion, and related pra&ti&es. %ut that is 6ust the point, says Spe&.hard. (t the ,ouston &onvention, the insisten&e was that these are di$$eren&es in practice, not in doctrine, there-y allowin# the :)<S to -e $ree o$ do&trinal disputes. 3t is a neat resolution, i$ you &an -elieve it. 8n moral and so&ial do&trine, however, it seems the :)<S has a&hieved somethin# very &lose to unanimity. 7or instan&e, a stron# resolution opposin# em-ryoni& stem &ell resear&h, whi&h destroys human lives, passed with KN per&ent support. ,ow to a&&ount $or even the hand$ul o$ ne#ative votes2 as.s Spe&.hard. ,e su##ests the ne#ative votes &ame $rom $our #roups: people who re$le0ively vote no on everythin#F people who didn"t li.e the &ontroversial $ellow &hairin# that sessionF people who a&&identally pushed the wron# -uttonF and perhaps one or two who are se&retly pro/&hoi&e. 1hen one &onsiders the &ontroversies that roil many &hur&h &onventions, may-e the :utherans, or at least the :)<S :utherans, are not so unremar.a-le a$ter all. M !he )ommittee on 9o&trine o$ the Inited States )on$eren&e o$ )atholi& %ishops has issued a statement on a -oo. -y 7r. Peter Phan, &hairman o$ the department o$ theolo#y at +eor#etown. !he -oo. is !eing Religious Interreligiousl$, 'sian #erspectives on Interfaith Dialogue, and the -ishops have $ound it to -e #ravely $lawed. Re#retta-ly, 7r. Phan did not respond to the -ishops" invitation to dis&uss their &on&erns. !he statement says that the -oo. is in&ompati-le with )atholi& do&trine on three &ru&ial s&ores: 'esus )hrist as the uni>ue and universal Savior o$ allF the salvi$i& &hara&ter o$ non/)hristian reli#ionsF and the )hur&h as the ordinary means o$ salvation. !he purpose o$ the $i$teen/ pa#e statement is to identi$y pro-lemati& aspe&ts o$ the -oo. and provide a positive restatement o$ )atholi& tea&hin# on the relevant points. 3n a manner -oth lu&id and 6udi&ious, it a&hieves -oth purposes admira-ly and is $urther eviden&e o$ the renewed attentiveness o$ the )ommittee on 9o&trine, &haired -y %ishop 1illiam :ori o$ %rid#eport, )onne&ti&ut, to the responsi-ility o$ -ishops as tea&hers o$ the $aith. M !here is in this issue a &omment on the letter $rom 458 <uslim leaders, the un$ortunate response initiated -y the Bale 9ivinity S&hool, and the very di$$erent response -y the ,oly See. Sin&e Septem-er 44, 2LL4, many in the 1est have -een ta.in# a &rash &ourse in 3slam, with parti&ular re$eren&e to 3slami& terrorism"s de&lared war a#ainst )hristians and 'ews. !he pu-li&ation -y 9ou-leday o$ a new -oo. -y +eor#e 1ei#el &ould hardly -e more timely. *aith, Reason, and the (ar 'gainst Jihadism -rin#s to#ether in a little more than two hundred pa#es a treasure o$ in$ormation and perspe&tives on what may well -e the de$inin# &on$li&t o$ the twenty/$irst &entury. Readers o$ 73RS! !,3;+S are $amiliar with 1ei#el"s tou#h/minded analyses, and will -e intri#ued -y his reevaluation o$ the meanin# o$ realism in $orei#n poli&y when it &omes to respondin# to the 6ihadist &hallen#e. Perhaps the #reatest &ontri-ution o$ the new -oo., however, is its demonstration o$ the ways in whi&hthou#h many other dynami&s are en#a#ed'ihadism is at its &ore a reli#iously driven phenomenon. 1hether your &rash &ourse is 6ust #ettin# underway or is well advan&ed, 3 su##est $or your &onsideration *aith, Reason, and the (ar 'gainst Jihadism . M )atholi& so&ial do&trine $rom :eo O333 to %enedi&t O?3, %ernard :aurent relentlessly ar#ues, is one o$ relentless intransi#en&e a#ainst the Enli#htenment, modernity, li-eralism, and all their pomps and wor.s. !hat is an ar#ument we are a&&ustomed to hearin# $rom ultra/ traditionalists and some thin.ers asso&iated with the En#lish edition o$ the &onservative theolo#i&al 6ournal Communio. %ut this arti&le, )atholi&ism and :i-eralism: !wo 3deolo#ies in )on$rontation, appears in the 'esuit/edited &heological Studies, a 6ournal that -ravely resists the pronoun&ement that li-eral )atholi&ism is an e0hausted pro6e&t (7ran&is )ardinal +eor#e). So what is this arti&le -y :aurent, a 7ren&h e&onomist, doin# in &heological Studies2 3 don"t .now, -ut 3"ll ris. a #uess that the editors thou#ht it worth a momentary suspension o$ their li-eral propensities to have someone ta.e on with #usto, whi&h :aurent &ertainly does, those terri-le )atholi& neo&onservatives who &onstrue )atholi& so&ial do&trine in a way supportive o$ a mar.et e&onomy and li-eral polity. 8r may-e the editors, &omin# $rom the le$t, a#ree with ultra/traditionalists, &omin# $rom the ri#ht, that intransi#ent )atholi& do&trine is lo&.ed in unremittin# war$are with all thin#s modern. 7rom the le$t, that is reason to 6ettison )atholi& do&trine. 7rom the ri#ht, that is reason to &lin# to it all the more $irmly. (s 3 say, 3 don"t .now the reason $or this essay"s appearan&e in &heological Studies. %ut there is ample pre&edent $or those -esie#ed at opposite mar#ins to a#ree that the enemy o$ their enemy is their $riend. M !he >uest $or )hristian unity was the su-6e&t o$ 1alter )ardinal Aasper"s address to the &ardinals at the ;ovem-er &onsistory. 3t is a use$ul tour d-horizon, hi#hli#htin# developments dis&ussed also in (very )ardinal 9ulles" Savin#

E&umenism $rom 3tsel$ in our 9e&em-er 2LLN issue. !urnin# $irst to the &hur&hes o$ the $irst millennium, Aasper notes si#ni$i&ant advan&es with the 8riental 8rthodo0 (non/)hal&edonian) &hur&hes and is hope$ul a-out relations with the 8rthodo0, seein# a thaw also in relations with the <os&ow patriar&hate. !he e0plosion o$ &harismati&, Pente&ostal, and indi#enous &ommunities, espe&ially in ($ri&a, poses all .inds o$ pro-lems, -ut here, too, the o-servation applies that the most si#ni$i&antand most #rati$yin#result o$ e&umenism over the past $ew de&ades is not the various do&uments Co$ a#reements and &onver#en&esD -ut the re&overy o$ $raternity, the $a&t that we have redis&overed that we are -rothers and sisters in )hrist. Perhaps most interestin# is Aasper"s view o$ relations with the &ommunities issuin# $rom the si0teenth/&entury Re$ormation, o$ten &alled the &lassi& or mainline Protestant traditions. ,ere diver#en&es are emer#in# in the ethi&al $ield, parti&ularly on >uestions related to the de$ense o$ li$e, to marria#e, to the $amily, and to human se0uality. !he &risis ta.in# pla&e within Cthese &ommunitiesD is &learly e0empli$ied -y the situation that has arisen in the (n#li&an )ommunion, whi&h is not an isolated &ase. !he &risis is pre&ipitated -y a theolo#i&al &ollapse. Protestant theolo#y, mar.ed durin# the $irst years o$ dialo#ue -y the =:uther Renaissan&e" and -y Aarl %arth"s theolo#y o$ the 1ord o$ +od, has now returned to the moti$s o$ li-eral theolo#y. (s a result, we are seein# that, on the Protestant side, the )hristolo#i&al and !rinitarian $oundations that were until now &ommon presuppositions are sometimes diluted. 1hat we held to -e our &ommon herita#e has -e#un to melt here and there li.e the #la&iers in the (lps. 1ith &ommunities usually &alled evan#eli&al, Aasper notes, there is a#reement on $undamental do#mati& >uestions alon# with &ontinuin# diver#en&e on e&&lesiolo#y, sa&raments, and ministry. (s $or the 8rthodo0, Pope %enedi&t emphasi*es that we are already in nearly $ull e&&lesial &ommunion with these &hur&hes. (nd with the third wave o$ Pente&ostal and indi#enous #roups, Rome is ea#er to esta-lish &onstru&tive relations. !he #reat set-a&. has -een with the oldline Protestant &ommunities, with whi&h the e&umeni&al movement o$ the twentieth &entury -e#an. ;onetheless, Aasper a$$irms that the unsparin# e$$ort $or the restoration o$ the $ull and visi-le unity o$ all o$ )hrist"s $ollowers is, $or the )atholi& )hur&h, not an optional &hoi&e -ut a sa&red o-li#ation. M 3t must now -e a&.nowled#ed that, sin&e he -e&ame ar&h-ishop o$ )anter-ury almost si0 years a#o, Rowan 1illiams has -een somethin# o$ a disappointment. (ll who .now him &an testi$y that he is a devout )hristian and a most amia-le man. ,e is also a theolo#ian o$ distin&tion. %ut he seems to -e in over his head as leader o$ the (n#li&an )ommunion, whi&h on his wat&h #ives every appearan&e o$ shatterin# -eyond repair. Perhaps the shatterin# was inevita-le, -ut those who $ollow these developments &losely ar#ue persuasively that his $irm intervention at a num-er o$ points mi#ht have made a -i# di$$eren&e. %e that as it may, it is his $re>uent politi&al pronoun&ements that ran#e $rom the disappointin# to outra#eous. <ost re&ently (as o$ this writin#) he is pushin# the weary line o$ petulant %ritish resentment that #oes on a-out how mu&h more sophisti&ated we %rits are than those &ow-oy (meri&ans. Even more distaste$ully, he does so in an interview with a popular <uslim ma#a*ine pu-lished in the I.A., thus mi0in# petulan&e with panderin#. 1illiams: 3t is one thin# to ta.e over a territory and then pour ener#y and resour&es into administerin# it and normali*in# it. Ri#htly or wron#ly, that"s what the %ritish Empire didin 3ndia, $or e0ample. 3t is another thin# to #o in on the assumption that a >ui&. -urst o$ violent a&tion will somehow &lear the de&.s and that you &an move on and other people will put it -a&. to#ether3ra>, $or e0ample. Really2 E0pendin# trillions o$ dollars and thousands o$ lives in a lon#/term pro#ram o$ re&onstru&tion, as (meri&a is doin#, is a very odd way to -e &learin# the de&.s and movin# on. (nd who are these other people who are puttin# 3ra> -a&. to#ether2 !he %rits under !ony %lair helped, with no than.s to 9r. 1illiams. (nd, &ome to thin. o$ it, whi&h wise empire #ave the world arti$i&ial &ountries li.e 3ra> in the $irst pla&e2 (s $or the %ritish military &ampai#ns in 3ndia, the &orpses are -eyond num-erin#. !hen there is the ever so prudent way in whi&h the sophisti&ated %rits e0ited 3ndia. 9r. 1illiams has perhaps heard o$ the $ive hundred thousand to one million deaths in the violen&e that attended their -rilliant plan $or the partition o$ 3ndia, never mind a &ouple o$ million more dead in the war -etween Pa.istan and East Pa.istan, now %an#ladesh. Some normali*ation. Ever the diplomat, 9r. 1illiams did not -rin# up with his <uslim interlo&utors the murderous 'ihadism that is at the heart o$ the &on$li&t in 3ra>. ;or did he mention indeli&ate su-6e&ts su&h as the status o$ women or the pra&ti&e o$ poly#amy in the 3slami& world. (nd, o$ &ourse, it would have -een unspea.a-ly provo&ative, espe&ially $or a reli#ious leader, to tou&h on the >uestion o$ reli#ious $reedom in 3slami& &ountries. Perhaps the ar&h-ishop is hopin# to visit <e&&a on his ne0t tour o$ pea&e and #oodwill. (s 3 say, 9r. 1illiams has turned out to -e somethin# o$ a disappointment. M 3$ you want to #et into the intelle&tual thi&. o$ thin#s related to advan&in# the &ulture o$ li$e, the annual &on$eren&e o$ the Iniversity 7a&ulty $or :i$e is the pla&e to #o. !he pro&eedin#s o$ the si0teenth &on$eren&e, held at ?illanova Iniversity, is 6ust out@L@ pa#es o$ papers &ho&./$ull o$ thou#ht$ul arti&les on law, philosophy, ethi&s, &ulture, and politi&s. !here is also an illuminatin# se&tion devoted to the personal e0perien&es o$ Pro/:i$e (&ademi&s in a Pro/ )hoi&e (&ademy. !he whole thin# is edited -y 7r. 'oseph Aoters.i o$ 7ordham Iniversity. 7or more a-out this &olle&tion and the Iniversity 7a&ulty $or :i$e, #o to www.u$$l.or#.

M ( )atholi& )all to )ivility in Pu-li& :i$e is issued -y a distin#uished list o$ )atholi& laity, led -y !homas <elady, $ormer I.S. am-assador to the ,oly See. )ivility is always in short supply and one &an readily a#ree that we need to .eep in mind the &ommon humanity that we share with those with whom we disa#ree, and that we should never lose $aith in the power o$ reason, and that the )hur&h should never -e used as a partisan politi&al tool. Bes to that and mu&h else in the statement. %ut then there is this: 8thers, $or politi&al and even e&&lesiasti&al reasons, see. the pu-li& em-arrassment o$ politi&ians whose pu-li& positions di$$er $rom &hur&h tea&hin#s throu#h the pu-li& re$usal o$ the sa&rament o$ ,oly )ommunion or pu-li& admonition -y the -ishops. (nd there is this: (n individual"s $itness to re&eive )ommunion is his or her personal responsi-ility. (nd it is a -ishop"s responsi-ility to set $or his dio&ese the #uidelines $or administerin# )ommunion. !he responsi-ility o$ -ishops is and always has -een, as (r&h-ishop Raymond %ur.e o$ St. :ouis and other -ishops have e0plained in #reat detail, to prote&t the inte#rity o$ the sa&rament, to prevent pu-li& s&andal that &reates &on$usion a-out the )hur&h"s tea&hin#, and to avoid the dan#er o$ people re&eivin# the sa&rament, as St. Paul puts it, to their damnation. 7itness to re&eive )ommunion is both a personal and e&&lesial responsi-ility. <u&h is made o$ the lay statement"s -ipartisanship, and -ipartisanship &an -e a very #ood thin#. !he )hur&h, however, has &onsistently tau#ht over the &enturies that the dire&t and intentional ta.in# o$ inno&ent human li$e, as in a-ortion, is a #rave and intrinsi& evil. 3t is not the )hur&h that has turned that tea&hin# into a partisan issue in (meri&an politi&s. M )ommentators who $ear and loathe evan#eli&al Protestants, and there are not a $ew who $it that des&ription, os&illate -etween, on the one hand, warnin# us a-out the theo&ra&y that the reli#ious ri#ht is determined to impose and, on the other, reportin# that the evan#eli&al enemy is a spent $or&e. 3n sharpest &ontrast to su&h partisan e0&itements is 9. <i&hael :indsay"s *aith in the .alls of #o er, .o Evangelicals Joined the 'merican Elite (80$ord). :indsay is a so&iolo#ist at Ri&e Iniversity, and he e0amines with &are the as&endan&y o$ evan#eli&als in $our se&tors o$ the (meri&an elite: politi&s, the a&ademy, arts and entertainment, and &orporate leadership. :indsay is aware that havin# a pla&e at the ta-le, as it is said, does not ne&essarily mean that you"re ma.in# a di$$eren&e. <any o$ the evan#eli&als who have made it to the halls o$ power seem indistin#uisha-le $rom the people who have lon# -een at home there. %ut, to a stri.in# e0tent, the story o$ the past thirty years is that o$ people who, as :indsay puts it, -e&ause their reli#ious identities are so important to them, have -rou#ht $aith to -ear on their leadership, &han#in# the very institutions they lead in the pro&ess. (lthou#h some o-servers are still stu&. there, we are in $a&t a very lon# way $rom 'immy )arter in 4KN@ and the $lood o$ media pu**lements under the #eneri& title 1here did these people &alled evan#eli&als &ome $rom2 *aith in the .alls of #o er avoids -oth -oosterism and de-un.in# in its strai#ht$orward des&ription o$ the ways in whi&h evan#eli&als are rede$inin# leadership in (meri&a. M ;ow this rather surprises me. 3 re$er to a num-er o$ messa#es e0pressin# &on&ern that 3 am #oin# so$t on the -ishops. !he &on&ern is apparently prompted -y my $avora-le &omment on 7ormin# )ons&ien&es $or 7aith$ul )iti*enship, a statement adopted -y the -ishops &on$eren&e (IS))%) at their ;ovem-er meetin# in %altimore. 3 also thou#ht the statement on the 3ra> 1ar, issued -y out#oin# president %ishop 1illiam S.ylstad and approved -y the &on$eren&e, was a thou#ht$ul tea&hin# e0er&ise in whi&h, as 3 put it on the 73RS! !,3;+S we-site, the -ishops neither e0&eed their &ompeten&e nor shir. their responsi-ility. %ut, it is protested, 7aith$ul )iti*enship does not une>uivo&ally address the s&andal o$ politi&ians and other pu-li& $i#ures who persistently re6e&t the )hur&h"s tea&hin# on the #ospel o$ li$e and yet &ontinue to re&eive )ommunion. !rue enou#h, -ut that is not what 7aith$ul )iti*enship is a-out. 3t is a very help$ul #uide to the $ormation o$ &ons&ien&e with respe&t to >uestions raised in votin# and other politi&al a&tivity i$, in $idelity to the )hur&h"s tea&hin#, one re&o#ni*es the intrinsi& evil o$ ta.in# inno&ent human li$e in a-ortion. Bes, the statement dis&usses di$$i&ult situations in whi&h one mi#ht in #ood &ons&ien&e support a pro/ a-ortion &andidate despite his -ein# pro/a-ortion. !here are su&h situations. 3t is understanda-le that some pro/li$ers want -ishops to say une>uivo&ally that it is always and in every &ir&umstan&e a sin to vote $or a pro/a-ortion &andidate. %ut a -ishop &annot say that -e&ause it is not true. (s 7aith$ul )iti*enship &learly says, it is a sin$ul &ooperation with evil to vote $or someone because he is pro/a-ortion. !he statement leaves no dou-t that a-ortion is not 6ust one issue amon# others. Inintimidated -y the oppro-rium asso&iated with sin#le issue politi&s, it e0plains why one may well support or oppose a &andidate on the sin#le issue o$ a-ortion. %ut in instan&es when all the availa-le &andidates are pro/a-ortion, or when the pro/li$e &andidate em-ra&es other positions that are intrinsi&ally evil, it mi#ht -e permissi-le to vote $or a pro/a-ortion &andidate. 3t is $irm )atholi& tea&hin# that one must a&t a&&ordin# to &ons&ien&e, ma.in# sure &ons&ien&e is in$ormed -y moral truth. (dmittedly, there is a #reat ris. in issuin# a statement su&h as 7aith$ul )iti*enship. !hose who are disposed to loo.in# $or loopholes or e0&eptions with respe&t to the )hur&h"s tea&hin# on a-ortion will predi&ta-ly e0ploit su&h a statement. 3n a manner $amiliar -y now, they &onstrue the tea&hin# on &ons&ien&e as a &ons&ien&e &lause e0emptin# them $rom moral responsi-ility. )ons&ien&e is not to -e &on$used with a stron#ly and sin&erely held pre$eren&e. 3t $re>uently opposes and &orre&ts our pre$eren&es. )ons&ien&e, said 'ohn ,enry ;ewman in a statement >uoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is a messen#er o$ him, who -oth in nature and #ra&e, spea.s to us -ehind a veil, and tea&hes and rules us -y his representatives. )ons&ien&e is the a-ori#inal ?i&ar o$ )hrist.

M 3t is seldom enou#h that there is a development thatupon e0aminin# it &losely, turnin# it upside down and sha.in# it, wal.in# all around it and pro-in# it $or wea. spotsappears to -e an honest/to/#oodness no/dou-t/a-out/it un>uali$ied #ood. %ut su&h seems to -e the &ase with the s&ienti$i& -rea.throu#h announ&ed the day -e$ore !han.s#ivin#. 'ames !homson o$ the Iniversity o$ 1is&onsin and Shinya Bamana.a o$ Ayoto, 'apan, dis&overed a way to produ&e em-ryoni& stem &ells dire&tly $rom adult &ells. ;o em-ryos are destroyed. !here seems to -e #eneral a#reement that this is possi-ly one o$ the most important s&ienti$i& advan&es o$ the past >uarter &entury. <any &ommentators have heaved a si#h o$ relie$ that the stem &ell wars are over. (s is to -e e0pe&ted, mu&h o$ the &ommentary $o&used on the importan&e o$ a -i# hot/-utton issue -ein# removed $rom the presidential ra&e. Some o$ our &ollea#ues in the pro/li$e &ause say this is a win/win development and we must not #loat. 1hile outri#ht #loatin# is unseemly, we may ris. indeli&a&y in pointin# out that those who in re&ent years insisted that s&ien&e a&&ommodate itsel$ to moral prin&iple, rather than the other way around, have -een vindi&ated. (nd it would -e &hurlishas, un$ortunately, mu&h &ommentary has -een &hurlishnot to a&.nowled#e the vindi&ation o$ President +eor#e 1. %ush, who in (u#ust 2LL4 drew the line a#ainst em-ryo/destru&tive stem &ell resear&h. (nd one may, without -ein# unpleasant a-out it, note that the mainstream media and the s&ienti$i& esta-lishment who -eat the drums $or the ne&essity o$ .illin# em-ryos in order, they said, to $ind &ures $or all .inds o$ illnesses, alon# with politi&ians who a#itated $or multi-illion/dollar re$erendums in )ali$ornia, <issouri, and ;ew 'ersey, were, not to put too $ine a point on it, dead wron#. +ently alludin# to the indisputa-ly o-vious is not #loatin#. M <y &ollea#ue 'oseph %ottum notes that, durin# the stem &ell wars, the le$t routinely a&&used their opponents o$ -ein# anti/s&ien&e. !his, he o-serves, is in &ontrast to the le$t in Europe, whi&h has $or years, in the hi#her &ons&iousness o$ its .eenly attuned environmental sensi-ilities, &ultivated a deep anta#onism to s&ienti$i& advan&es in areas su&h as #eneti&ally altered $oods, whi&h they re$er to as 7ran.en$ood. !he di$$eren&e, he says, is that the le$t in this &ountry has a deep sta.e in the story line that pits enli#htened se&ularists a#ainst %i-le/thumpin# theo&rats. %ut now, in the stem &ell &ontroversy, it is pre&isely the &ause espoused -y the mu&h reviled reli#ious ri#ht that has -een s&ienti$i&ally vindi&ated. %ottum opines that we should prepare ourselves $or the ne0t &hapter in the &ulture wars, in whi&h the le$t here will #et into step with its European &ompatriots, espousin# a militant s.epti&ism toward s&ien&e while maintainin# their polemi& a#ainst the reli#ious ri#ht, -ut this time $or its un&riti&al em-ra&e o$ s&ienti$i& pro#ress. ,e may -e ri#ht a-out that. 3n a world that #ets &uriouser and &uriouser, stran#e thin#s happen. %ut my ponderations e0plore a di$$erent phenomenon. M Remem-er when, many years a#o, the pro/li$e leadership de&ided to ma.e a very -i# issue a-out partial/-irth a-ortion2 ;ot all pro/li$ers a#reed. 9issenters said it would distra&t attention $rom the main and massive reality o$ a-ortions in the early wee.s and months o$ pre#nan&y, and a -an on partial/-irth a-ortions would save very $ew, i$ any, lives. !hey had a point. %ut the intense $o&us on partial/-irth a-ortion had a di$$erent purpose. 3t was a &ampai#n to edu&ate people a-out the horror o$ a-ortion and to illuminate the patent a-surdity o$ &laimin# that a $etus with no ri#hts suddenly -e&ame a -a-y with ri#hts when it #ot its navel throu#h the -irth &anal. 3t also edu&ated the pu-li& to the $a&t that the unlimited a-ortion li&ense de&reed -y Roe v/ (ade was, in $a&t, unlimited all the way throu#h in$anti&ide. !he &ampai#n a#ainst partial/-irth a-ortion was in these ways a #reat su&&ess and &ontri-uted immeasura-ly to &reatin# the &ir&umstan&e in whi&h a ma6ority o$ &iti*ens now identi$y themselves as pro/li$e. )onsider what has now happened with respe&t to em-ryoni& stem &ell resear&h. (s a result o$ the !homsonPBamana.a -rea.throu#hs, it is, all o$ a sudden, respe&ta-le to spea. a-out the humanity not only o$ $etuses on the ver#e o$ -e&omin# -a-ies -ut o$ the em-ryo at the very -e#innin# o$ li$e. !his is an astonishin# advan&e. ;o lon#er is it 6ust those pro/li$e $anati&s tal.in# a-out the humanity o$ the em-ryo. 'ames !homson is respe&t$ully >uoted a-out his moral uneasiness in destroyin# em-ryoni& li$e. !he a&&ounts o$ the pre/!han.s#ivin# -rea.throu#h in the Ne %or" &imes, the (ashington #ost, and elsewhere eviden&ed a palpa-le si#h o$ relie$ that a #reat moral pro-lem had -een resolved. 7or years they had adamantly insisted that there was no moral pro-lem. ;ow the &onventional wisdom is that the moral pro-lem that never was has disappeared. !his is a development o$ inestima-le importan&e. Bes, some &ommentators were simply relieved that a di$$i&ult issue had -een removed $rom the presidential de-ate. (nd yes, some proponents o$ em-ryo/destru&tive stem &ell resear&h insisted that it must #o ahead, alon#side the resear&h path &harted -y !homson and Bamana.a. %ut the #reat and en&oura#in# &onse>uen&e o$ this -rea.throu#h is that the humanity o$ the un-orn &hild, even at the earliest em-ryoni& sta#e o$ development, is now a su-6e&t o$ polite &onversation even in the &ir&les that so $anati&ally resisted a&.nowled#in# the $a&ts o$ li$e. M Permit me to ta.e this a step $urther. (&tually, several steps $urther, into the realm o$ the metaphysi&al and theolo#i&al. 8ne &annot help -ut -e intri#ued -y the impli&ations o$ the $a&t that these adult stem &ells &an -e indu&ed to repro#ram themselves -a&. to their -e#innin#all the way -a&. to their em-ryoni& -e#innin#. 3n my little -oo. 's I +a$ D$ing, 3 re$le&ted on the unity o$ -ody and soul and wrote, !he -ody remem-ers. 3 intended that in a somewhat poeti& mode, -ut what i$, in $a&t, the -ody &an do somethin# very mu&h li.e remem-erin#2 1e all learned in hi#h s&hool that all the mole&ules o$ the -ody are repla&ed a-out every seven years. <ole&ules are &omin# and

#oin# all the time with di**yin# rapidity. Ipon arrival they immediately -e&ome part o$ the 9;( that provides #eneti& instru&tions $or their development. %ut, or so it now seems, the in$ormation runs -a&.ward as well as $orward. 3t is not e0a&tly memory, sin&e the stem &ells do not re&all what they were -ut re&onstitute themselves as what they were. 3t is as thou#h there is an operative form holdin# in potentiality the past, present, and $uture. !he $orm o$ the -ody, as in soul. Please, 3"m not ma.in# a s&ienti$i& ar#ument here. !hat"s not my $ield. ;or a theolo#i&al ar#ument, $or that matter. %ut the dis&overy announ&ed the day -e$ore !han.s#ivin# is metaphysi&ally su##estive. Ipon readin# the reports, the words o$ Psalm 45K &ame to mind. 1e are learnin# ever more o$ the ways in whi&h we are $ear$ully and wonder$ully made. M ( #iant has $allen. 1hen 3 am as.ed a-out early in$luen&es on my thin.in# a-out reli#ion and pu-li& li$e, 3 re#ularly &ite ,arold '. %erman"s &he Interaction of +a and Religion, a little -oo. pu-lished in 4KN4. !he ar#ument o$ that -oo. was e0panded in *aith and 0rder, &he Reconciliation of +a and Religion in 4KK5. %erman wrote many -oo.s, -oth -i# and little, perhaps the most in$luential -ein#+a and Revolution (4K85), whi&h made the &ase that modern le#al systems have their roots less in the Renaissan&e and Re$ormation than in the )hur&h"s &anon law o$ the late <iddle (#es. ,arold %erman was #reat &ompany, and 3 &herish the memory o$ many hours to#ether at &on$eren&es and other events. ,e was the (mes Pro$essor o$ :aw at ,arvard and tau#ht there $or more than thirty years -e$ore movin#, in the late 4K8Ls, to the Emory Iniversity law s&hool, where he helped esta-lish the )enter on :aw and Reli#ion. ,e was also a&&laimed as an authority on Soviet law and spent mu&h time in Russia durin# and a$ter the Soviet Inion. ,is wor. has -een mentioned $re>uently in these pa#es, -ut 3 am sorry we never pu-lished him. 1e dis&ussed a &ouple o$ pie&es, -ut, $or various reasons, they didn"t seem to wor. $or 73RS! !,3;+S. 8ne &an say with &on$iden&e that, in the last several de&ades, there is no-ody who has done serious wor. on the $as&inatin# &onne&tions -etween law and reli#ion, and the ways in whi&h worldviews in$orm the res publica, who is not deeply inde-ted to this man. ,arold '. %erman died at a#e ei#hty/nine on ;ovem-er 45, 2LLN. Re1uiescat in pace. M :ast $all the s&hool/vou&her re$erendum went down to a &rushin# de$eat in Itah. 3t was a very am-itious proposal, &overin# a-solutely everyone. Some supporters thou#ht it too am-itious. 3n any event, the state and national tea&hers" unions, plus other pu-li&/employee unions, predi&ta-ly poured tons o$ money into a media -lit*.rie# to de$eat the measure. 3t was an o$$/year ele&tion when $ewer voters turn out, #ivin# a hu#e advanta#e to the tea&hers" unions and their la-or allies that &an or#ani*e turnout to prote&t their po&.et-oo. and power. !he -est sin#le arti&le 3"ve seen on the moral &ase $or parental &hoi&e in edu&ation is S&hool )hoi&e as Simple 'usti&e, pu-lished in 73RS! !,3;+S ((pril 4KK2) and written -y Pro$. 'ohn )oons o$ the law s&hool o$ the Iniversity o$ )ali$ornia, %er.eley. %ut the moral &ase standin# on its own is not enou#h to persuade the ma6ority o$ voters. !he moral &ase is $o&used on the pli#ht o$ the disadvanta#ed, espe&ially the ur-an under&lass, mainly -la&. and :atino, in our lar#er &ities. ,ere in ;ew Bor., as in other ma6or &ities, e0penditure per student in the #overnment s&hools has multiplied many times over, and still less than hal$ the youn# people end up with a hi#h s&hool diploma they &an read. ( third o$ all -la&. youn# men in the &ountry will spend some time in 6ail. 3n the inner &ities, that $i#ure is well over hal$. !he reality is that most parents in (meri&a are, wisely or not, more or less satis$ied with the #overnment s&hools that their &hildren attend. !hey may have a twin#e o$ &ons&ien&e a-out their sel$ishness, -ut the tea&hers"/union propa#anda a-out vou&hers ta.in# money away $rom their own s&hools is power$ully e$$e&tive. (nd they understanda-ly as. whether &arin# a-out your own $irst is really sel$ishness or the e0er&ise o$ parental responsi-ility. !he -rutal $a&t is that twin#es o$ &ons&ien&e &an -e easily sti$led when they &ome up a#ainst sel$/interest. 3n any event, Itah is not a state in whi&h the pli#ht o$ the ur-an under&lass is a pressin# issue. ;ow some advo&ates o$ parental &hoi&e, nota-ly (dam S&hae$$er o$ the )ato 3nstitute, are ar#uin# that the way to #et to parental &hoi&e in edu&ation is throu#h ta0 &redits rather than vou&hers. <ay-e they"re ri#ht, -ut there are a lot o$ >uestions to -e answered. ,owever this dis&ussion develops, the way to #et the moral >uestions into &lear $o&us -e#ins with a &are$ul readin# o$ 'ohn )oons" S&hool )hoi&e as Simple 'usti&e. M Evan#eli&al and )atholi&, writes a %aptist minister who is a s.epti& a-out the pro6e&t Evan#eli&als and )atholi&s !o#ether, are two radi&ally di$$erent and in&ompati-le ways o$ -ein# )hristian. 3n some ways, and with respe&t to some evan#eli&als, he may -e ri#ht. 7aith in (&tion is a pro#ram sponsored -y three leadin# evan#eli&al or#ani*ations, 1orld ?ision, 8utrea&h, and Qondervan pu-lishers. 3t proposes that &hur&hes &an&el their servi&es on what it &alls outrea&h Sunday and ur#e their mem-ers to use the time to en#a#e in some $orm o$ &ommunity servi&e instead. ( &hur&h that puts its $aith into a&tion $o&uses not on themselves -ut on )hrist"s tea&hin# and his divine e0ample o$ &ompassion, says Qondervan"s dire&tor o$ &hur&h en#a#ement. 8ur hope is that &hur&hes a&ross the &ountry will unite and show their &ommunity a true servant"s heart. !o -e sure, there are sa--atarians and other evan#eli&als who have a >uite di$$erent understandin# o$ the imperative o$ &ommunal worship on the :ord"s 9ay. 7or the in$ormed )atholi&, the proposal o$ 7aith in (&tion will -e simply in&omprehensi-le. !he )hur&h"s understandin# o$ Sunday, $rom the apostoli& era to the present, is &omprehensively set $orth in 'ohn Paul 33"s 4KK8 apostoli& letter Dies Domini (the :ord"s 9ay). 3t is pre&isely in the &ommunity #athered $or worship, and most e0pressly in the Eu&harist, that the )hur&h puts its $aith into a&tion, $o&uses on )hrist"s tea&hin#, in&ludin# the &ommand to do this in

remem-ran&e o$ him, and o$$ers its &hie$ servi&e (+ree.: leitourgia) to +od and to the world. !he Eu&harist is, in the words o$ the Se&ond ?ati&an )oun&il, the sour&e and summit o$ the )hur&h"s li$e. !he o-servan&e o$ Dies Domini is not optional -ut &onstitutive. 3t is the supreme e0pression o$ $aith in a&tion, as is )hrist"s presen&e with the #athered &ommunity the sour&e o$ all other $aith$ul a&tions. 3 e0pe&t the mis#uided proposal o$ 7aith in (&tion will have relatively $ew ta.ers amon# evan#eli&als. %ut the $a&t that it is even proposed lends a measure o$ &redi-ility to my %aptist &orrespondent"s &laim that evan#eli&al and )atholi& are two radi&ally di$$erent and in&ompati-le ways o$ -ein# )hristian. M 8ne may as a #eneral rule oppose >uota systems, in the a&ademy and elsewhere. !hey introdu&e invidious dis&riminations and en&oura#e slei#ht o$ hand in &reatin# sundry $orms o$ diversity other than diversity o$ thou#ht. 7r. 1ilson <is&am-le, a distin#uished pro$essor o$ history at ;otre 9ame, proposes what some mi#ht &all a >uota system i$ that s&hool is to remain )atholi& in anythin# more than name. ;otre 9ame must hire at least two/thirds )atholi& $a&ulty, he writes, simply to arrest the de&line that ultimately puts at ris. its identity as a )atholi& s&hool. 1ritin# in 'merica, he >uotes the statement o$ E2 Corde Ecclesiae that the )atholi& identity o$ the Iniversity depends upon . . . the &ontinuin# presen&e o$ a predominant num-er o$ )atholi& intelle&tuals on the $a&ulty. (s o$ 2LL@, H5 per&ent o$ the ;otre 9ame $a&ulty answered )atholi& on a $a&ulty >uestionnaire. %ut $or many who &he&.ed the )atholi& -o0 on the >uestionnaire, says <is&am-le, the pra&ti&e o$ the $aith appears nominal at -est. ;otin# that the theolo#y department and law s&hool are nota-le and honora-le e0&eptions, he &ites instan&es in whi&h &andidates $or $a&ulty positions have -een re6e&ted -e&ause they were thou#ht to -e too )atholi&. 8n the other hand, 'ill <ann was appointed to an endowed &hair in the En#lish department althou#h she is an outspo.en atheist. ,irin# an individual who mi#ht undermine the s&hool"s true mission too. a -a&.seat to the payo$$s in terms o$ a&ademi& presti#e and reputation. (ppointments li.e <ann"s su##est that presti#e trumps )atholi& mission in the hirin# pro&ess. ;otre 9ame and other s&hools, says <is&am-le, need to en#a#e in what mi#ht -e termed strate#i& hirin# or hirin# $or mission. !hat &ertainly sounds -etter than &allin# it a >uota system. 3n truth, a university, li.e any other enterprise, should hire people who -elieve in the enterprise. 3n this &ase, the purpose o$ the enterprise is to -e a )atholi& university. <ore important than havin# a predominant num-er o$ )atholi&s is havin# a predominant num-er o$ $a&ulty, )atholi& or not, who understand and are &ommitted to that purpose. 8ne notes, $or instan&e, that when Stanley ,auerwas, a <ethodist, and Ro-ert :ouis 1il.en, then a :utheran, were at ;otre 9ame, they did mu&h more to advan&e that purpose than did many o$ their -o0/&he&.in# )atholi& &ollea#ues. M 3t is hard to .now what to ma.e o$ the Russian wal./out $rom the )atholi&/8rthodo0 meetin# in Ravenna, 3taly, last 8&to-er. Rome says it is an intra/8rthodo0 dispute that must -e resolved -y them. (nd it does seem to -e a dispute -etween the Patriar&hate o$ )onstantinople and the Patriar&hate o$ <os&ow, the latter e0er&isin# 6urisdi&tion over more than hal$ the 8rthodo0 )hristians in the world. !he immediate issue was the presen&e o$ the Estonian (postoli& )hur&h at the Ravenna meetin#. !hat &hur&h is re&o#ni*ed -y )onstantinople -ut not -y <os&ow. %ishop ,ilarion, who is the 8rthodo0 -ishop o$ ?ienna and (ustria, says he had no &hoi&e -ut to leave the meetin# -e&ause <os&ow has a $irm poli&y o$ not parti&ipatin# in meetin#s with the Estonian &hur&h. ,e notes that there are other autonomous and auto&ephalous &hur&hes not re&o#ni*ed -y <os&ow and that these disputes will have to -e resolved -y a Pan/ 8rthodo0 )oun&il. (!he late 7r. (le0ander S&hmemann o-served that a Pan/8rthodo0 )oun&il is an es&hatolo#i&al &on&ept.) 1hether or not there will -e a ne0t meetin# o$ the <i0ed )ommission o$ )atholi&/8rthodo0 dialo#ue, says ,ilarion, will lar#ely depend on the position o$ the Patriar&hate o$ )onstantinople. ,e unders&ores the importan&e o$ &ontinuin# -ilateral relations -etween Rome and <os&ow. !ensions -etween )onstantinople and <os&ow #o way -a&., and in the 8rthodo0 mind a thousand years are -ut as yesterday. 3t is an admira-le histori&al perspe&tive that, when it &omes to har-orin# suspi&ions and remem-erin# sli#hts, is not without its downside. 3n any event, and as mentioned elsewhere in this issue, )ardinal Aasper and the ,oly See do not seem to -e dis&oura#ed -y the Ravenna spat. M Ra--i %yron Sherwin o$ the Spertus 3nstitute $or 'ewish Studies, in )hi&a#o, is a man o$ views -oth de$inite and in$ormed. See, $or instan&e, his 'ews and the 1orld to )ome in the 'uneP'uly 2LL@ issue o$ 73RS! !,3;+S. 1ritin# in Judaism, the 6ournal o$ the (meri&an 'ewish )on#ress, he addresses a &ate#ory mista.e that &on$uses 'udaism with a li-eral assimilationism that threatens the &ontinuity o$ the 'ewish people. ,e &ites a statement -y his tea&her (-raham 'oshua ,es&hel: 1hen 3 thin. o$ what our people have a&&umulated over the &enturies that no-ody will ever .now a-out, it seems li.e a se&ond holo&aust. ,itler destroyed our people. ;ow we let their spirit die. (nd he &ites Steven )ohen who wrote that, -y the early 4K8Ls, most (meri&an 'ews had -een raised with the understandin# that li-eralism or politi&al radi&alism &onstituted the very essen&e o$ 'udaism, that all the restthe rituals, litur#y, &ommunal or#ani*ationswere outdated, vesti#ial trappin#s $or a reli#ion with a #reat moral messa#e em-odied in li-eralism. !his is &alled propheti& 'udaism, an idea that, as Sherwin and others note, mimi&s Enli#htenment/ driven re&onstru&tions o$ li-eral Protestantism. Aey to that re&onstru&tion is the idea o$ the soverei#n sel$. 7or 3mmanuel Aant, ethi&al a0ioms must -e universal and &ate#ori&al, premised on individual will and autonomy.

'udaism with its ethni& parti&ularism and e&&entri& laws do not >uali$y, and it is there$ore not surprisin# that Aant &alled $or the euthanasia o$ 'udaism. !he Aantian approa&h led in &ir&uitous ways to the notion o$ a 'udeo/ )hristian ethi&. Sherwin writes: !he pro-lem, however, is that there is ='ewish ethi&s" and there is =)hristian ethi&s," -ut they are not the same. !here is no 'udeo/)hristian ethi&s. !hat &laim deserves more attention than Sherwin #ives it. ,e is no dou-t ri#ht that, in authoritative 'ewish tradition, ti""un olam re$ers to the ri#ht orderin# o$ the 'ewish &ommunity, and not, as the very le$tward ma#a*ine &alled &i""unwould have it, to a #enerali*ed &ommand to -uild a -etter world. !he history o$ the phrase Judeo3Christian ethic is a mi0 o$ )hristian politesse, Enli#htenment rationalism, and 'ewish assimilationism, amon# other thin#s. 9espite its du-ious provenan&e, however, it re$ers to an understandin# o$ history, human purpose, and 6usti&e that has in$ormed the dominant ethi&al presuppositions o$ the 1est and is indisputa-ly #rounded in the ,e-rew S&riptures as reda&ted and disseminated -y )hristianity. 3n any event, Ra--i Sherwin"s &on&lusion is worthy o$ note: Re&ent demo#raphi& studies predi&t that i$ &urrent trends are maintained or a&&elerate, within a $ew #enerations, most (meri&an 'ews will -e pra&ti&in# a reli#ion other than 'udaism or no reli#ion at all. <any o$ those who -elieve themselves to -e pra&ti&in# 'udaism will a&tually -e pra&ti&in# and a$$irmin# somethin# very di$$erentF they will -e in a state o$ spiritual e0ile and alienation, -ut will not even -e aware o$ it. !his is the &ate#ory mista.e that he -elieves imperils the survival o$ the 'ewish people and pro$oundly distorts the meanin# o$ 'udaism. M Bou"re possi-ly not $amiliar with this earlier version o$ the )ole Porter son#: %ou-re the top4 %ou-re the 5reat .oudini4 %ou-re the top4 %ou are 6ussolini4!hat"s the way it was when %enito <ussolini was a hero o$ the le$t in this &ountry and mu&h o$ the world. !here-y han#s a tale vi#orously, and o$ten humorously, told -y 'onah +old-er# in +iberal *ascism, &he Secret .istor$ of the 'merican +eft from 6ussolini to the #olitics of 6eaning , pu-lished -y 9ou-leday this month. +old-er# is a politi&al 6ournalist, not a historian, and readers more $amiliar with the ideolo#i&al twists and turns o$ the modern era will -e $amiliar with his thesis: 1hile the le$t has lon# depi&ted the ri#ht as $as&ist, it is in $a&t the le$t $rom ,e#el to ,itler to ,illary and, yes, the politi&s o$ meanin#, toothat $ollows the $as&ist $ormula most in$luentially arti&ulated -y <ussolini: Everythin# within the stateF nothin# outside the stateF nothin# a#ainst the state. ,ere you will $ind the ways in whi&h the le$t em-ra&ed eu#eni&s, s&ienti$i& ra&ialism, the &ampai#n to -an )hristianity $rom the pu-li& s>uare, and utopian politi&s, all resultin# in the #reat human &atastrophes o$ the &entury past. !he la-elfascist #ot pinned on the ri#ht -y 1estern &ommunists o-edient to the Soviet Inion under Stalin, who $ound it &onvenient to distan&e his $as&ism $rom that o$ ,itler"s. 3 e0pe&t +old-er#"s ar#ument will -e >uite new and $as&inatin# to many readers. ,e $re>uently paints with a -road -rush, and his polemi& is sometimes over the top. ,e has to step -a&. $rom time to time, assurin# the reader that he is not reall$ sayin# that ,illary, ,itler, and the ,olo&aust are more or less indistin#uisha-le. Some readers may understanda-ly resist the su##estion that !eddy Roosevelt, 1oodrow 1ilson, 79R, and '7A all su&&um-ed to the totalitarian temptation. %ut +old-er#"s essential ar#ument is, 3 -elieve, &orre&t. 3t is the le$t, not the ri#ht, that in the past and at present more &losely resem-les the revolutionary and utopian statism that #ave fascism its de$inition under the auspi&es o$ <ussolini, ,itler, Stalin, and their imitators. +iberal *ascism is worth readin# as a provo&ative and $re>uently instru&tive romp throu#h modern politi&al history, and as an antidote to stereotypes that have lon# -e$uddled popular understandin#s o$ what is le$t and what is ri#ht. M <anhattan is ri&h in ar&hite&tural monuments to e0pired $aith. 8n the Ipper East Side, nei#h-ors are unhappy that a handsome )hristian S&ien&e )hur&h has #iven up on reli#ion alto#ether and rented the -uildin# out $or the entertainments o$ the &ity that never sleeps. St. 'ohn the 9ivine, the Epis&opal &athedral up on <ornin#side ,ei#hts, is used $or ro&. &on&erts and sundry so&ial events. ;ow 3 see that 1ashin#ton"s ;ational )athedral (Epis&opal) is #ettin# into the a&t. !he settin# $or the &ele-ration o$ its hundredth anniversary is des&ri-ed in the (ashington #ost: !he soarin# nave o$ the +othi&/style &athedral, pews repla&ed -y sumptuous ta-les, #iant plasma s&reens, a li#ht show. !here were a thousand #uests at R4,LLL ea&h, in&ludin# &ele-rities su&h as )olin Powell, %o- S&hie$$er, 'ohn +risham, and Patri&. :eahy. !he &athedral"s dean, Samuel :loyd, told the #uests: ,avin# a $ormal dinner here has &aused a $ew raised eye-rows. !here"s a tou&h o$ s&andal in the evenin#. (h, the $risson o$ violatin# stale &onventions. !he honoree o$ the evenin# was %ishop 9esmond !utu, who said, 1owG !his is what heaven is #oin# to -e li.eG ( sadly minimali*ed $orm o$ reali*ed es&hatolo#y, one mi#ht o-serve. Philip :ar.in"s )hur&h +oin# &omes to mind: %et stop I did, in fact I often do,

'nd al a$s end much at a loss li"e this, (ondering hat to loo" for7 ondering, too,

(hen churches fall completel$ out of use (hat ' fe e shall turn them into, if e shall "eep

cathedrals chronicall$ on sho ,

&heir parchment, plate, and p$2 in loc"ed cases, 'nd let the rest rent3free to rain and sheep/ Shall e avoid them as unluc"$ places8

%ut what did Philip :ar.in .now a-out R4,LLL/per/person dinners and #iant plasma s&reens and li#ht shows and entertainment -y the li.es o$ (aron ;eville and, as the #ost notes, an open -ar2 1owG 1ho .nows what will su&&eed in raisin# eye-rows in the ne0t hundred years2 3t is reasona-le to e0pe&t that it will -e more di$$i&ult.

So rces:

<i&hael ;orth&ott, Ne !lac"friars, Septem-er 2LLNF Ro-ert Aa#an, #olic$ Revie , (u#ustPSeptem-er 2LLNF %ernard :aurent, &heological Studies, @8 (2LLN)F Aasper address, ;ov. 25, 2LLN, 9enitF )atholi& lay statement, origins, ;ov. 4H, 2LLNF 7aith in (&tion, Qondervan press release, Sept. @, 2LLNF ;otre 9ame $a&ulty, 'merica, Sept. 4L, 2LLNF Russian 8rthodo0, Inside the Vatican, 8&t. 48, 2LLNF Ra--i Sherwin, Judaism, 7allP1inter 2LL@F ;ational )athedral,(ashington #ost, ;ov. 42, 2LLN