So I’m really, really interested in this.  And I’ll admit my ignorance, so I ask for the advice of you readers.  How did it happen that John Courtney Murray SJwas silenced for his advocacy of certain political mechanisms but then later redeemed while Gustavo Gutierrez (now OP) got in trouble and more or less stayed there?  I would argue that it’s because of the historical record: Murray’s advocacy of democracy turned out to produce pretty good governments while the socialist-like governments Gutierrez wrote about did not turn out nearly as well.  So by your fruits you knew them?  Could we then see a similar result about, say, gay marriage or birth control?  Just as people did democracy despite the Church being opposed to it and the world did not end, could they see the good fruits of controlled marriages and change their mind?  I wonder.

Anyways, let me know what you think.  I’m working all of this out right now in my head and I’m not really sold any which way.

Because theology rocks! (Sorry.  It had to be done.  Anyways, h/t to Commonweal).

Nothing that surprising, it appears, but I haven’t read it yet.  And Lord know the NYT is not the best summarizer of Catholic work.  Still, here’s the link and I’m sure there will be a lot more as the day goes on.  I still think there’s important work to be done in determining when human life starts.  I understand that conception is a good theological marking point, but is it a scientific one?  (This has important implications for RU-486 for example.  If we view zygotes like Hindus view cows, then our sense of how to engage that debate in the public square becomes different.)  I think we need to be clear that we’re distinct on these kinds of analysis, and I’m not sure the Church does that.  But again, I haven’t read it yet.