Posted on by roncolombo · 1 Comment

Cristiada / For Greater Glory – Impressions

As promised, I’m reporting back with my impressions of “For Greater Glory,” a film depicting the Mexican Cristeros War of 1926-29, which opened this past weekend.

The film is not an American production – and its director makes his debut with it.  I fear that this shows.  Despite some genuine stars (Andy Garcia, Peter O’Toole, Eva Longoria), and beautiful visuals, the film lacks a certain polish.  It is at times too fast and choppy, and at times too slow and drawn out.  That said, the film has its moments – there are several excellent scenes.  And overall, it is certainly watchable.

And given its subject matter and content, I suggest that it is certainly worth watching.

The Cristeros War was sparked by widespread popular resistance to Read more

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Eldevik, “Episcopal Power and Ecclesiastical Reform in the German Empire”

A very interesting examination of the practice of tithing as a political instrument of power in the early medieval period — Episcopal Power and Ecclesiastical Reform in the German Empire: Tithes, Lordship and Community , 950-1150 (CUP 2012) by John Eldevik (Hamilton College).  The publisher’s description follows.

Focusing on the way bishops in the eleventh century used the ecclesiastical tithe – church taxes – to develop or re-order ties of loyalty and dependence within their dioceses, this book offers a new perspective on episcopacy in medieval Germany and Italy. Using three broad case studies from the dioceses of Mainz, Salzburg and Lucca in Tuscany, John Eldevik places the social dynamics of collecting the church tithe within current debates about religious reform, social change and the so-called ‘feudal revolution’ in the eleventh century, and analyses a key economic institution, the medieval tithe, as a social and political phenomenon. By examining episcopal churches and their possessions not in institutional terms, but as social networks which bishops were obliged to negotiate and construct over time using legal, historiographical and interpersonal means, this comparative study casts fresh light on the history of early medieval society.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

ECtHR Decides Church Autonomy Case

2012 is turning out to be a big year for church autonomy rulings across the world. The rulings don’t all cut the same way. In January, the US Supreme Court handed down a pro-autonomy decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC,  unanimously endorsing a constitutional “ministerial exception” to the federal employment anti-discrimination laws. In February, a section of the European Court of Human Rights handed down an anti-autonomy decision, Sindacatul “Pastoral cel Bun” v. Romania, holding that Orthodox priests could form a union over their church’s objections. Now, a section of the ECtHR has handed down a pro-autonomy decision in a case involving the employment of a laicized Catholic priest.

In Spain, public schools offer classes in Catholicism, taught by instructors approved by the local bishop. In the most recent case, a local bishop had withdrawn approval of one such instructor, a laicized priest who had taken a public stand against mandatory priestly celibacy. When the school dismissed the instructor, he brought suit under the European Convention, arguing that the dismissal violated his rights to privacy, family life, and expression. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, a section of the ECtHR ruled against him. In withdrawing approval, the section stated, the bishop had acted “in accordance with the principle of religious autonomy;” the instructor had been dismissed for purely religious reasons, and it would be inappropriate for a secular court to intrude.

It will be interesting to see whether the Grand Chamber reviews this judgment, or the judgment in the Romanian case, which Romania has already referred. The case is Fernandez Martinez v. Spain, available on the ECtHR’s website here (in French). For an interesting analysis of how this case relates to Hosanna-Tabor, check out Stijn Smet’s post on Strasbourg Observers.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

More on Religion and the Eurozone Crisis

Last week, I discussed Walter Russell Mead’s interesting post on how the Greek crisis implicates the divide between the Eastern and Western Christian worlds. Here’s another reference to the religious implications of the eurozone crisis, in an essay by Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves. Ilves complains that northern countries have been trying for decades to be fiscally responsible. Now, he says, the EU is asking these countries, even relatively poor countries like Estonia, to fund transfer payments to profligate southern countries like Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. And when political leaders in the northern countries object, their counterparts in the rest of the eurozone accuse them of courting “populism,” which, in the European context, carries the connotation of fascism.

These accusations irritate Ilves, and he says so bluntly. In the course of his essay, he makes a startling religious reference. It’s only a quick reference in a long essay, with a subtle, almost dog-whistle quality. But I think it’s significant. Ilves draws on the image of the Protestant Reformation to explain the current eurozone crisis:

When we still talk about new and old members, we still talk nonsense about “populism” in all the wrong ways. Indeed I believe that the “populism” and the “specter of the 30s” that all kinds of pundits unknowledgeably appeal to has nothing to do with the populism we see in Northern Europe. That is not a populism of the dispossessed, the unemployed. It is a populism more akin to what Calvin and Luther appealed to than what the fascists of the 1930s appealed to. It is, like most populism, based on resentment, and resentment at unfairness. But the unfairness is, as it was in the 16th Century, a resentment of those who flaunt their flouting the rules by which others abide. Resentment on the part of those who take commitments seriously regarding those who do not: Is that the “specter of the 30s”?

It would be silly to ascribe the whole eurozone crisis to the different worldviews of Protestants and Catholics, and Ilves doesn’t do so. Some fiscally responsible countries that Ilves praises, like Austria and Poland, are historically Catholic. And, anyway, politics throughout Europe is quite secular, and there’s plenty of blame to go around. Still, one can’t help noticing that the “frugal” countries happen to be mostly northern and historically Protestant, and the “profligate” countries tend to be southern and historically Catholic (or Orthodox). Paging Max Weber! H/T: Rod Dreher.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

The President, Faith, and Same-Sex Marriage

An interesting point that may be overlooked in President Obama’s announcement yesterday that he supports same-sex marriage. According to the President, his faith as a Christian helped lead him to this position. Referring to his wife, First Lady Michelle Obama, he said:

This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others.

But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.

Of course, as the President suggested, not everyone agrees with his assessment of what Christianity requires in this respect — the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example. Still, in stating that his religious faith helped determine his position, the President is well within the American tradition of political leaders who explain their policies in religious terms.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Beam Reviews Fosi’s “Papal Justice”

This is an informative and very positive review by Sara Beam of Irene Fosi’s book, Papal Justice: Subjects and Courts in the Papal State, 1500-1750, which we noted here some time ago.  A bit from the review:

Fosi focuses on the ways in which the Roman courts sought to extend papal control over its temporal territory, a region in central Italy bordered by the Kingdom of Naples in the south and reaching in the north just beyond the city of Bologna. The bulk of Fosi’s analysis focuses on the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a period of state centralization and religious orthodoxy. Courts at the heart of the papal enterprise, such as the governor’s tribunal and the Roman Inquisition, were key tools in the pope’s efforts to create a hegemonic state out of disparate regions with strong local traditions of governance. Like waves lapping on the shore, the efforts of the papal courts to undermine the traditional privileges of the nobility, to correct the religious doctrine of its subjects, and to bring the authority of local bishops under the control of Rome were gradual, uneven, and yet relentless. They were also often less than completely successful, and Fosi endeavors to tease apart the aims of the government from the reality of judicial practice. Grounding her analysis in decades of intensive work in the Roman criminal archives, she shows how the rules of justice functioned while at the same time, she remains attentive to the negotiations between different courts and the frequency with which legal disputes were settled outside of the court system. Justice, for Fosi, was a fundamental component of early modern state-building not because it was always rational and systematic, but rather because it was sufficiently flexible to adapt to local conditions and mediate between competing power-brokers.  

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Catholic Bishop Warns of Interdict in Parish Dispute

You don’t see this everyday. Bishop Robert Morlino of the Catholic Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin has warned parishioners that they may be subject to the penalty of interdict if they continue protesting the behavior of two parish priests. An interdict is a rare canonical punishment that would exclude the parishioners from sacraments like marriage and communion.

The priests, from a Spanish order, have been serving at a parish in Platteville, a farming community. They are, in Catholic terms, “traditionalist.” According to the Wall Street Journal, they have, among other things,  banned female altar servers, forbidden shorts and other casual clothing at Mass, and stressed “doctrinal orthodoxy in their sermons.” These activities did not go over well with more liberal parishioners, hundreds of whom signed a petition to Bishop Morlino demanding the priests’ removal. The parishioners complained that the priests were acting inconsistently with Church teaching, particularly the reforms of Vatican II.

In a letter to the parish, Bishop Morlino admitted that some of the priests’ actions had been hurtful; he encouraged parishioners to forgive the priests and the priests to be more sensitive in future. But there was no evidence that the priests had contravened Church doctrine, including the teachings of Vatican II, he wrote. In the end, the complaints reflected mere “personal likes and dislikes, along with inflated rumors and gossip, some of which may even rise to the level of calumnious inciting of hatred of your priests, the faith, and myself.” These complaints could not be the basis for “firing” the priests — indeed, under canon law, a parish has no authority to “fire” its pastors.

Canon law does, however, give a bishop authority to discipline refractory parishioners, and Bishop Morlino suggested he might do so if the complaints don’t stop. He attached to his letter a list of relevant texts on which he asked parishioners “to reflect prayerfully.” Among these were canons providing for “penal sanctions, ” including Canon 1373, which provides that a person who “publicly incites . . . animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary [e.g., a bishop] because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.” The parishioners would still be Catholics; an interdict would not change that. Of course, some parishioners may decide to leave the Church on their own. As it is, donations since the priests began serving the parish have dried up, so much so that the parish school has had to close.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Levy, “Holy Scripture and the Quest for Authority at the End of the Middle Ages”

An absolutely wonderful looking book dealing with religion and political and legal authority round about the 15th century by Ian Christopher Levy (Providence College), Holy Scripture and the Quest for Authority at the End of the Middle Ages (Notre Dame 2012).  And note some very similar issues of textual interpretation which we see in our own day.  The publisher’s description follows.

All participants in late medieval debates recognized Holy Scripture as the principal authority in matters of Catholic doctrine. Popes, theologians, lawyers—all were bound by the divine truth it conveyed. Yet the church possessed no absolute means of determining the final authoritative meaning of the biblical text—hence the range of appeals to antiquity, to the papacy, and to councils, none of which were ultimately conclusive. Authority in the late medieval church was a vexing issue precisely because it was not resolved.

Ian Christopher Levy’s book focuses on the quest for such authority between 1370 and 1430, from John Wyclif to Thomas Netter, thereby encompassing the struggle over Holy Scripture waged between Wycliffites and Hussites on the one hand, and their British and Continental opponents on the other. Levy demonstrates that the Wycliffite/Hussite “heretics” and their opponents—the theologians William Woodford, Thomas Netter, and Jean Gerson—in fact shared a large and undisputed common ground. They held recognized licenses of expertise, venerated tradition, esteemed the church fathers, and embraced Holy Scripture as the ultimate authority in Christendom. What is more, they utilized similar hermeneutical strategies with regard to authorial intention, the literal sense, and the appeal to the fathers and holy doctors in order to open up the text. Yet it is precisely this commonality, according to Levy, that rendered the situation virtually intractable; he argues that the erroneous assumption persists today that Netter and Gerson spoke for “the church,” whereas Wyclif and Hus sought to destroy it.

Levy’s sophisticated study in historical theology, which reconsiders the paradigm of heresy and orthodoxy, offers a necessary adjustment in our view of church authority at the turn of the fifteenth century.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Paul Ryan and the Catholic Bishops

When the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued its statement on religious freedom this month, critics complained the bishops were being inappropriately partisan. The bishops’ statement portrayed the Obama Administration’s contraceptives mandate as a major threat to religious freedom. Critics argued that the bishops shouldn’t have taken sides in an election year.

This week, there was evidence that Catholic social teaching cuts both ways. Yesterday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) gave a speech at Georgetown University. Ryan is famous, of course, for proposing a budget that cuts the growth in federal benefits programs, like Medicare and Medicaid. Earlier this month, the Bishops Conference wrote Congress to oppose the proposal. The  Ryan budget inappropriately burdens the poorest Americans, the bishops argued, and fails to meet “moral criteria.” At Georgetown, where 90 faculty members and priests signed a letter admonishing him for misunderstanding Catholic social teaching, Ryan defended himself on religious grounds. “I suppose that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly of sorts, not exactly on heaven, but on the social teaching of our Church,” he said. (Ryan was perhaps referring to the Catholic bishops). “There can be differences among faithful Catholics on this.”

As an outsider, I’m not in the best position to evaluate whether Ryan is correct in suggesting that Catholic social teaching allows more room for debate about how best to assist the poor than about the need to avoid cooperation with the distribution of contraceptives. I’ve certainly heard people make that argument. For me, the interesting thing is how quickly the rhetorical positions switch. Politically liberal Catholics often argue that  Church teaching, properly understood, allows latitude for dissent on sexuality; politically conservative Catholics argue that Church teaching allows latitude on economics. What this indicates, perhaps, is that Catholicism, like other traditional Christian confessions, represents a political third way: conservative on social issues, especially sexuality, but liberal on fiscal issues. Given contemporary American politics, that doesn’t seem a winning combination.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Piatt, “Catholic Legal Perspectives”

Robert William Piatt, Jr. (St. Mary’s) has published Catholic Legal Perspectives (Carolina Academic Press 2012), designed for classes on jurisprudence and Catholic legal theory. The publisher’s description follows.

This book examines our system of justice by identifying, in several critical areas, how Catholic principles and legal principles overlap and diverge. While it is not expected or required that the reader agree, in every instance, with either the law or the Catholic perspectives, the reader of this work will come away with an understanding of both. Critiques and responses are included throughout. Topics include family issues (marriage, same sex marriage, divorce, and annulment), immigration, public assistance, and matters of life and death (including abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty).