Hadley Arkes
Posted on 06/01/2010 9:52:44 AM PDT by NYer
Hadley Arkes
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Catholic Church’s voice for the littlest among us got even stronger last month.
Hadley Arkes, professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions at Amherst College, and one of the foremost Pro-Life legal scholars in the country, received the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and first Communion at the chapel of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C. on April 24.
Born and raised a Jew, Arkes said he views his newly-embraced Catholic faith as a fulfillment of his Jewish faith. Rather than a departure, he sees it as accepting Christ as Messiah.
More than a decade ago, Arkes realized that there was something special about the Catholic Church as a “truth-telling institution.” When the Church stood against the currents of opinion in the world, he was inclined to believe the Church was right, he told The Anchor.
Before he embraced the Church’s faith, he had embraced the Church’s respect for human reason. In an article about his conversion for The Catholic Thing, an online periodical, he described his appreciation for the Church’s tradition of defending and promoting the natural law, with regard to the Pro-Life issue and in general. “The natural law we know through that reason that is natural for human beings. The Church’s moral position here did not depend on faith or belief. One didn’t have to be Catholic to understand it. And that was precisely the teaching of the Church.”
He told The Anchor, “I found myself explaining the Catholic position to Catholics.”
Robert George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, wrote about his friend Arkes’ conversion on Mirror of Justice, a blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory. He noted that, although the Catholic Church’s moral witness on the sanctity of human life, marriage and sex has made the Church a “sign of contradiction” to many of the most powerful in contemporary Western culture, that same witness drew Arkes to the faith. Despite the failings of many of its members and leaders, especially in the wake of the sexual abuse crisis, Arkes recognized that the Church is indeed “a truth-telling institution,” he said.
“In teachings that many find to be impediments, Hadley found decisive evidence that the Church is, indeed, what she claims to be,” George wrote.
Friends have said that Arkes has remarked that it is not a surprise that a faith that believes God himself comes under the appearance of unleavened bread is sensitive to the dignity of human life in even its tiniest form.
Joe Reilly, a former executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, told The Anchor that Arkes is a “deep thinker” and one of the most brilliant men he has come across in his work to defend life. He says he has long helped the whole Pro-Life movement think more deeply about the legal and philosophical principles at play.
Former students of Arkes have thanked him for leading them to the truth found in natural law and, well before Arkes became a Catholic, for helping them to become better Catholics.
One former student, Ned Desmond, who grew up on Cape Cod and graduated from Amherst in 1980, said that Arkes’ course on political obligations was “very clever” and “really steadied my hand and my mind as far as what I believed and what I thought was right,” he told The Anchor.
Arkes taught that abortion can never be justified, and Desmond said he was struck by the “deep saneness” of natural law theory. He later made the connection between the theory and Catholic teaching, which brought him closer to the faith.
“He helped so many Catholic students get their bearing at Amherst,” said Desmond, who now lives in Maryland where he is the president of Go Sportn, Inc, and a former executive at Time magazine.
Many leading Pro-Lifers give Arkes credit for some of the biggest recent achievements of the Pro-Life movement. Arkes helped write the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 and calls the legislation proof that “you don’t have to wait for the court to do everything.” He regularly contributes to journals and has written several books. He is currently working on a new book while on leave from Amherst, where he has taught since 1966.
Although he accepted the teachings of the Church, Arkes waited to convert. Concerns about how family members would take the news held him from taking the leap right away. He did not want to hurt his family nor seem to disrespect the Jewish faith.
He found that many Catholics respected Jewish tradition. They, like him, believed Abraham made a covenant with God. He saw the connection between the manna in the desert and the Eucharist. “You can read the Old Testament without the New, but you can’t really read the New Testament without the Old. Everything is predicated on the Old,” he told The Anchor.
Last year in October, after the Red Mass for members of the legal profession in Washington, Arkes and his wife Judy were approached by Father Arne Panula, the director at the Catholic Information Center where Arkes would be baptized. Father Panula provocatively asked him what was preventing the most famous non-Catholic at the Red Mass from coming into the Church. Arkes responded in the tradition of “The Wizard of Oz’s” Cowardly Lion, “c-c-c-courage.” In a homily one month later at a Mass at which Arkes was present, Father Panula said what the first reading and the Gospel of the Mass showed was the need for “c-c-c courage.” For Arkes, that illustration and inside joke “was the hook that finally worked.”
In a letter to friends after the baptism, Arkes wrote to thank them for their continued support.
“Judy and I are still dealing with the after-glow. It lingers, magically, and we aren’t inclined to snuff it out right away and get on with other things,” he said. “We can’t thank you all enough.”
Arkes and his wife, Judy, met in high school and have been married 48 years. Judy is Jewish, and Arkes said he could not have joined the Church without her support.
In a second Mirror of Justice blog entry, David Forte of Cleveland State University School of Law and a consultor to the Pontifical Council for the Family, said that Arkes was like Jesus in ministering to those who reason. Arkes, he said, “has never entered a debate to debate, much less to ‘win.’ Rather, he prepares for contests by seeking to understand, and he enters the lists seeking to persuade.”
“For all of his adult life, Hadley Arkes has followed in the steps of the Master. He now walks along side of him,” he added.
I believe everything the scriptures say...Word for word...
So when Timothy says we should pass on the traditions we have learned, you reject it?
Of course I believe what Timothy said about traditions...But I also know that the traditions were the actual scriptures before they were put to paper...
You see, you would have us believe that those traditions are still floating in thru your church...You have no traditions that Timothy passed on...There weren't any outside of the scriptures...
Naw, I see the Trinity all over the scriptures...I don't see a pope anywhere...
No, the real irony is that the statement comes from someone who belongs to a religion that has developed Marian devotion, Marian Mediatrix, Marian co-redeamer, Marian Queen of Heaven completely outside of the scriptures...
You have a vested interest in not accepting Sola Scripture...
Iscool:
Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. I never said the theological basis for the Holy Trinity were not in Sacred Scripture. However, what I did state was the Formal definition of the Holy Trinity is not in Sacred Scripture as the understandig of the Godhead was one that was highly contested and debated starting in the 2nd century with the appearance of gnosticsim, the early 3rd century with the appearance of Modalism [Sabellianism], Adoptionism, and moving to the 4th century we get into Arianism, etc and thus all of these theological debates resulted in the Church reflecting on the Scriptures and Tradition [i..e How the Church prayed and the consensus of the Church Fathers] to hammer out what was orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine and what was not.
Again, the theological basis for the Holy Trinity is in the Scriptures as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all mentioned. What is not formally defined is the relatioshhip among the 3 Divine Persons of Trinity as that was formally defined at the Councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinopiile (381 AD).
Yes, there were traditions that weren’t recorded in scriptures. The trinity is just one of many.
And yes, many of those traditions are still found in the Catholic church. Some have changed over time, such as the use of the vernacular.
Exactly the opposite is true. Protestantism has a vested interest in establishing sola scriptura because it is the only way that it can control the dialog at the expense of the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura cannot be established based upon scripture.
When challenged Protestants make the argument that to suggest that scripture does not contain 100% of the revealed word of God is to challenge the credibility of scripture. The Catholic position is that scripture is 100% accurate, but not 100% complete.
Protestants claim that scripture is both 100% accurate and 100% complete, but require the belief in the extra-Scriptural Sola Scriptura argument to defend it. Dizzying to say the least.
What basis do you have for declaring, simplifying, or summarizing what the Catholic Church does or does not teach or what Catholics do or do not believe since you admittedly have never studied any of the Catechism? Back in the hood they would call what you are doing 'talking out of your you-know-what'....
Iscool:
No, I said the recapitulation theory was further developed by St. Ireneaus of Lyon (175 AD). As for Melchizedek being Christ before the Incarnation, that is utter nonsense as that would have made Christ’s incarnation happen in Genesis, which is theological heresy of the 1st order.
Melchizedek was a priest and priest offer sacrifice and the offering that Melchizedek made used “Bread and Wine” and thus Christ eternal priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek (cf Ps 110:4) as it points to how God gave us Bread to strengthen us and Wine to gladden to our hearts (cf Ps 104:14-15).
Indeed, throughout the OT you see Bread being an important sign as the Jewish people are liberated from Slavery in Egypt and journey to the Promise Land (cf Ex 12: 1-20 (passover), Exodous Chapter 16 [Manna is food for the journey as the Jewish people wonder for 40 years before entering the Promise Land, which prefitures the Eucharist as our spiritual food in this life on our journey to our heavenly homes, etc).
As for the forged Letters of St. Ignatius, every reputable Scholar, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican and Reformed Patristic Scholars in Europe [J.B. Lightfoot, Harnack and Zahn] agree that there are 7 authentic Ignatian epistles.
Now, the best evidence of that the 7 Ignatian epistles are authentic can be found in the CHurch History written by Eusebius in the early 4th century as he quotes from them and St. Jerome’s writings in the late 4th and early 5th, who also quotes extensively from them.
Again, the consensus of Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Patristic Scholars is that there are 7 extant Ignatian epistles which are the letters to the Church at Ephesus; Church of Magnesia; Church at Tralles; Church of Rome;
Church of Philadelphia; Church of Smyrna; and a Letter to St.Polycarp.
So does Scripture.
So does everyone else who's baptized. There's only one baptism. And there's only one Church.
In other words then, it's a wild guess...It's not an understanding, it's a decree...And it has no more meaning that what you or I may come up with to define and describe the Trinity...All that we know about the Trinity is in the scriptures, alone...
You need to get with CTrent1564 on that...
Christians don’t walk along side of Jesus...They walk in Him...You can’t get that concept until you ARE in Him...>>>>
The Eucharistic Doxology
Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honour is yours Almighty Father, forever and ever. Amen.
I read his post, he’s saying what I’m saying in a different way, that the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by the church after the Gospels were written. All the ecumenical councils resolved issues and clarifications of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Iscool:
No, the Councils of the Church represent the CHurch speaking with authority under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and notice that Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinopile (381 AD) both occurred before the NT canon was totally defined at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397, respectively.
So I believe the Creeds, dogmatic doctrinal statements from those Councils, are authoritative otherwise we fall into Lone ranger Christianity, which is ultimately where you end up, i.e. that you are in essence your own Church Council and/or Pope. I believe what they believe and they professed back then what I believe now and those Same Church Fathers in the early Church are the same ones who decided the orthodox biblical canon versus the canons held by various heretical gnostic sects and the faith of the Fathers and their understanding of the scriptures reflects the theology of the CHurch that was used to define doctrines at these same Councils.
“Born and raised a Jew, Arkes said he views his newly-embraced Catholic faith as a fulfillment of his Jewish faith. Rather than a departure, he sees it as accepting Christ as Messiah.”
This sounds to me like he indeed accepted Yeshua as the Savior. The Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church, and I doubt that one can convert unless he or she accepts Christ as Savior, which is the key part of Christianity.
Also, Ben, I’m not a theologician, but I strongly doubt that Luther’s and Calvin’s stuff were “lies”, rather it was just their interpretations of Holy Scripture. Yes, they were fallible men, and yes they were certainly capable of making mistakes and getting things wrong-but then again the same could be said of Catholic theologicians. I fear your Protestant bashing won’t do the cause of Christian reunity any good and in fact may even turn off Protestants who are favorable towards better relations with their Catholic brethren.
I’m sure you guys think you’re being oh so cute with that graphic. However, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that anyone can intrpret the Bible for themself. Rather, it means that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. It isn’t a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
Let’s leave out the theological debates.
A distinction without a difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.