Nowhere in the New York Times in 1990, writes Peter Steinfels in his last Beliefs column today, “was there a regular treatment of religion for readers with a special interest in the topic, as there was, obviously, for business and sports, but also for science, art, architecture and many other subjects."
“Beliefs," he hoped, "would be a column that no more had to insert a phrase identifying the Apostles’ Creed, Gnosticism or Ramadan in a sentence than art or music critics had to insert capsule definitions of Romanticism or Expressionism.”
His “regular treatment” was required reading for any serious student of religion for the last 20 years. For me, what made the column so valuable was not that it was written by an eminent Catholic writer but that it was by an eminent writer with catholic tastes. You never knew if Mr. Steinfels, a former editor of Commonweal magazine, would turn his wide-ranging intellect to the latest papal encyclical, a scholarly new book on Buddhism, the “new atheism,” a little known painter or novelist, the Stations of the Cross, prison libraries or, even as the title of one recent column had it, “Scandinavian nonbelievers.” With Mr. Steinfels, you also got the idea that, unlike some who report on religion, he had not only read more about the topic than he could possibly fit into the article, or more than you, but also much more than you ever would!
One relatively recent article stands out for me. A few days after the presidential election last November, Mr. Steinfels was analyzing, with his usual acuity, the involvement of the U.S. Catholic bishops in the last presidential election. Gallons of ink had been spilled over the topic, and some reporters never seemed to be able to understand fully the complicated interplay between: the Vatican, the U.S. bishops, the U.S. bishops conference, Catholic social teaching, the Catholic opposition to abortion, the Catholic position on other important life issues, the role of the "informed conscience," and so on. That Saturday I was driving with a Jesuit friend to a meeting. Reading Mr. Steinfels column I was so taken by the summary of the way that many Catholics had "received" the statements of their bishops, that I read it aloud:
Catholics are not supposed to be single-issue voters, but, by the way, abortion is the only issue that counts. The bishops do not intend to tell Catholics how to vote; but, by the way, a vote for Senator Obama puts your salvation at risk. Catholics are to form their consciences and make prudential judgments about complex matters of good and evil — just so long as they come to the same conclusions as the bishops.
"That's it!" shouted my friend.
Mr. Steinfels says at the end of his column that “time will tell” what he does in the future. Along with his wife, Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, also a former Commonweal editor in chief, he co-directs Fordham’s Center on Religion and Culture, the provider of invaluable public lectures and forums on religious life.
Certainly Mr. Steinfels’s future will involve some writing. Here’s hoping that time tells him to do a lot of it.
If this place is so very bad, there are many that would undoubtedly be more to the liking of the inmates. May they journey well.
Pseudonym and fake name are different.One of my favourite writers who should be known to most who post here. Do you see yourself as a humble liberal and maybe lacking in self-awareness?Besides, the two things are not really connected. Anyway ,good luck in all that you do and keep giving glory to God.
You should be arrested for impersonating a jesuit!
" We are looking for a more open Church,just so long as it is in our image and we are all for freedom of Speech,just dont disagree with us and we are adamant about the right to life,just so long as it does not clash with our political ideologies"
Attacks on Bishops yes,but less than fawning remarks about a journalist should be anathema.
The Bishops are not perfect,but they are a far more human bunch than the scorning elite that sets them up for a fall.
This statement is simply false - Catholics and the Church leaders are involved in thousands of activities that advance the common good (i.e. health care, schools, social services).
That said, when millions of human lives are sacraficed each year in the name of expediency and narrow self interest via the federally supported abortion industry the bishops are right to speak out forcefully and give the topic priority.
Martin shouts "that's it!" not because the statement is true but because it give him, and other liberals, rhetorial cover to support their favored political ideology while ignoring its support and legitimization of an absolutely evil practice.
His presence will be mourned by me. This morning I read something that was a reminder that wisdom is found not in answers but in the questions. Steinfels understood that and I think it was all the good questions, Catholic and catholic questions, that were his gift. Well - let me rephrase that, the gift of the questions and the subsequent gift to write well about them.
Catholicity - despite the viewpoint of many - is about being immersed in the world and not withdrawn from it. That was another light shining from Beliefs each week, it was about this immersion in the world and not disdainful withdrawl from it. This is why the questions are so essential in my opinion, as Catholics we should never fear the answers. However when we start with answers that fly like bullets from some semi-automatic weapon, much is lost.
Two closing thoughts... One is that I continue to seek, but have I missed the line of Scripture in which we are reminded that ''blessed are the vitriolic?'' The other is is... Fr. Jim, Matt Nannery in comment 9 may be onto something. Please consider it!
Thank you to Peter Steinfels. He will be missed!
I have never had any problems using my real name.I get some junk mail but I am sure that can never be really avoided.I think there is nothing to worry about using your name on a blog.I only do it out of a sense playfullness.I could have written Wallace Stevens and I am sure people would understand I am taking on a pseudonym.I like the old tradition of the Cistercians who when they wrote a book would sign it "a cistercian",so that people focus on the content of the book and not the name of the Author.In the Imitation of Christ the Writer urges us to do this.It was regular reading for the Jesuits.
God bless
How about a quick look at the facts:
President Obama has over turned the Mexico agreement and now uses US tax dollars to fund NGOs that promote and provide abortions overseas. He has also undone restrictions on embryonic stem cell research in the name of "objective science."
He also supports the Freedom of Choice Act that is currently in congress that will abolish ALL restrictions on abortion in all 50 states. This includes partial birth abortion.
Finally, in the last election he was the nomination of NARAL - a nomination he own over the extrememly pro abortion candiate Hiliary Clinton.
What does Jim Martin have to say about this? Why no blog posts on this reality of Democratic politics in general and this president in particular?
I suppose he will not proclaim "that's it!" because these facts reflect negatively on his favored political ideology.
It makes me feel very sad. That said, I still say thank you to Peter Steinfels for what he did for the world with his work, I say thank you to Jim Martin and others on this blog. They come to post with all the curiosity and wisdom that I have come to expect from America and the Ignatian spirituality that they represent.
As for not blogging or commenting under your own name, I find that a sorry practice. Once again, Catholicity is about being who we are in the world. Be that person openly.
As for the issue of this particular post, that of catholic commentary and politics - it was raised by Mr. Martin in the original post and is therefore relevant to the discussion.
Finally, if you think that going against the dominant modern liberal doctrines of this country and defending tradition is risk-free then you are ignoring current events. Those who finiancially supported prop 8 in California had their identities and home addresses posted on the web and many were harassed at home and in the work place (some lost their jobs or businesses). Churches (Mormon and Catholic) were also vandalized.
Also, ask Catholic Charities in Boston or Washington DC or Connecticut if supporting traditional values and culture is risk free as many have been vilified and shut out of public funding or closed down due to new laws regarding "tolerance."
It is sad to say, but publicly opposing the liberal doctrines of our day can be personally and professionally detrimental - esp. if you live in a major city and work for a national corporation or the government.
Brett, I commend you for your zeal in opposiing values that do not ring true to you. It is important to publicly speak out against the delusions and sins of our culture. But "liberal doctrines" are not the enemy anymore than conservative doctrines are the answer.
We live in a pluralistic society, which means that there are a lot of different perspectives, none of them fully wrong and none of them fully right. Like a family. The glory is that together we can find our way, but we have to be able to listen to each other and acknowledge each others truths.
In our culture there are many people who do not believe that the organization of cells of beginning life constitute a being with the full rights of humanity. They believe that at this stage of development, it is the right of the woman to determine whether or not the life can continue. Even St. Augustine believed that an unborn life did not receive a soul until around the 3rd month of development.
Making abortion illegal will not end abortion, especially since so many people (roughly half) of the people in this country believe that the choice lies with the mother.
This being the case, there are many of us who sincerely believe that life begins at conception, but feel that focusing only on the legality of abortion will not instill the value - the sacredness of life - that will eventually end abortion in our culture.
Your focus upon the actions of President Obama (in comment #16) is not valid. There have been several Republican Presidents since Roe v. Wade passed, none of whom have done anything that has reduced the number of abortions performed in the USA. So the "political ideology" that you accuse Fr. Martin of seems to infect your own writing as well.
I think that your last words are wonderful.Be that person openly.I used the name Olver Gogarty as a way to break the monotony of always writing my own name.It has cuased scandal to many here on the Blog.I will now conform to their views.I agree with you about the openness.I am proud to be a Catholic.I think it is a beautiful gift to receive the Faith.I am not a "Why I remain a catholic" Catholic.There are many of them around and they think that the Church is privilieged to have them instead of them being privileged to be with the Church. Maybe the reason people continue to ask questions is becuase they dont like the answers they get,and will not stop asking questions till they get the answer that suits their ears.It does not always have to be a noble exercise.If you read my other posts you will see that I have often said that Fr Jim Martin is not open.He uses a sly ruse to get his opinions across becuase he does not have the courage to state clearly where he is right and the Church is wrong.That said ,we all can change and I include myself.Curiosity and Wisdom are signs that God is working in us and hope that all who write here continue to feel that.