Lesson 7: Reason

AGENDA

• Review From Last Time

• Discussion of Case #6: Gay Marriage, Right Reason, and the Public Voice of the Church

REVIEW FROM LAST TIME

1. Summary of Our Discussion of Academic Freedom
1. Father Jenkins: freedom to inquire is necessary for university life, and there are three important points on this topic:
1. First, that thought not be artificially constrained in the classrooms, readings, and discussions. At issue is whether the University as an institution is a classroom, or does it confine this unrestrained investigation to particular classrooms.
2. Second, that the Catholic intellectual tradition, including what it has to say about human sexuality, has a privileged place in the conversation.
3. Third, that there does not seem to be a need, in Jenkins statements, to resolve the problem of whether one can think rightly about a tradition unless one is first educated and formed morally within that tradition (we will return to the idea of the “unity of the virtues” later and the possibility of virtues outside the traditions that give rise to them). So we must therefore answer the question about what kind of moral agents are being formed through “free academic inquiry”—in other words, what good does this free inquiry seek to bring about?
4. We also noted, however, that all of this must be set within the context of preparing students for life outside this University (and this means not just students who are Catholics), which would mean cultivating habits of thinking that Catholics and non-Catholics might share that will allow them to enter into reasoned debate after they leave here.
2. Bishop D’Arcy: the role of the Bishop is to teach the faith through explanation and witness.
1. This means that the Bishop must, on the demands of his conscience, testify to the truth he teaches, even if that sometimes means testimony against institutions that he otherwise admires.
2. The question here is whether the University as institution ought to play the same kind of witnessing role as the Bishop or any other individual Christian in communion with other Christians. Does an administrative policy witness in a way different from how a classroom witnesses or how an individual student or teacher witnesses?
3. It also pushes the question of whose responsibility it is, in the context of the Church, to determine what counts as an authentic expression of and witness to the Catholic faith.
4. Does this mean that bishops, Catholic university administrators, professors and students must share the same form of witness or are they called to be different kinds of witnesses?
5. Do professors and students share a complementary role of witnessing through their questioning?
3. Professor Cavadini: the meaning of freedom at a Catholic university should be mediated through the Church, but this means both the bishop and the “Catholic intellectual tradition” and the people of God (a body not exhausted by Notre Dame affiliates).
1. This suggests that, to some degree, such a small debate as we are faced with on this campus is no match, in terms of richness and complexity of history, with the challenges that the people of God have faced over the centuries.
2. It also means that, to the extent that the University draws on an implied understanding of “the Catholic intellectual tradition,” it must be aware that “the Catholic tradition” in the fullest sense transcends its privileged forgers of thought.
3. On this reading, the Catholic communities in the surrounding towns, as well as the wider Catholic witness worldwide, have an interest in and ought to have an influence on this University’s claim to be Catholic. But how should such interest and influence be reconciled with the academic freedom so treasured here?
2. What does this say about the idea of tradition as source of moral knowledge? At least it suggests different senses of tradition operative in the discussion.
1. Tradition as preserving the "Deposit of the Faith" (something that is passed on from generation to generation, as witness to the meaning of the event of Jesus in history)
1. Note that this means that the response of the Church as institution has the same form as the response of the individual to Jesus' call.
2. Tradition as re-interpreting the Faith for each new generation and culture, while preserving its essential elements
1. This means we must have some principle for deciding what is essential and what is the product of social-historical location and therefore open to revision and what is not
2. Bishops as Authoritative Interpreters.
3. Tradition as debate about what constitutes the faith itself
1. Here we need to decide whether the faith is still open in this way. Can reason and experience ever critique the deposit of the faith, or does tradition set the parameters for the proper exercise of reason and the interpretation of experience?
4. Tradition as the witness of the people of God
1. On what basis can we say that we are really talking about the same faith, the faith of the Apostles? Through the living witness of the Church in spite of its debates about the meaning of the call of Jesus to a new form of life.

DISCUSSION OF Case #6: Gay Marriage, Right Reason, and the Public Voice of the Church

1. Summary of Catholic Teaching on Freedom and Human Sexuality
1. Question: Based on what we have read and discussed so far, suppose we are following the first model as preserving the deposit of the faith, or its authoritative re-interpretation for our generation, how would you describe the basic elements of Catholic Sexual Teaching?
2. Elements:
1. Because we are created (that is, owe our existence to something other than our own will), our freedom must always be in the service of realizing the purposes for which we exist. (Fundamental)
2. This freedom is truly realized when we understand both the true nature of our humanity and the law of God—in each is a discernable order.
3. As to nature, the tradition points to human nature as something that has a twofold distinction—an earthly and a trans-earthly orientation—and that we must pursue both as unities of body and spirit, neither denying nor elevating excessively the bodily or the spiritual
4. Marriage is the institution intended by God for the highest form of this realization. It was granted by God for the realization of three goods: procreation/education of children, fidelity, unity—all of these, particularly the last—informs the understanding of marriage as a sacrament—the reality of God’s love present in the life of the couple.
5. The nature of this love of God which the couple aspires to live has both erotic (desire which unites with the object of love) and agapic (which moves outward from the one who loves as a gift of oneself to another) dimensions. Creation and salvation history both confirm this.
2. Three basic questions to guide our discussion of this case
1. First, what do the bishops mean by “right reason” and how are we to know that we are reasoning rightly about the moral issue in question
2. Two, why do the bishops think that it is not possible for a homosexual couple to realize love on the model of Christian married love that we have been discussing?
3. Three, on what basis do they think that others in the public space ought to listen to them when considering public policy decisions about civil marriage (because the debate is about public not Church policy)?
3. Not because of accepting scripture or the tradition of Catholic teaching as authoritative, but because of an appeal to what they describe as "right reason"
1. This case is intended to illustrate what it means for reason to serve as a source for ethical thinking.