This diagnosis of the problem is absolutely dead-on. I deal with "Catholic" legislators frequently, and there is no doubt that they are politicians first and Catholics second. And, when the teachings of the Church conflict with their ideology (or their political interests), guess which gets thrown over the side.
The sad reality is that, in both the public and private realm, many secularized Catholics view the teachings of the Church as just one more opinion in the marketplace of ideas. They adopt them when they're convenient, and reject them when they're not.
I have to add, though, that many orthodox and faithful Catholics (including some bishops) have tended towards "after-virtue retreatism", and have basically run up the white flag on a lot of issues. Some retreat to a Catholic version of Hasidism to escape the culture. Others seek accommodation with the culture and the government, trying to make the best of a bad hand. See, for example, your recent post on the situation up in Boston, which is a forerunner of many such compromises by weak-willed and poorly-anchored Catholic institutions.
To me the key response is what Pope Benedict has been pressing for -- a renewal of authentic Catholic identity. This strikes me as the agenda being pursued by prominent Catholic intellectuals like Prof. George, Archbishop Chaput, and others (including the host of this blog). The new generation of Catholics who've cut their teeth at World Youth Day, Steubenville, chastity education, and the pro-life movement, are of this mindset. So are the new religious communities and many of the younger clergy.
I think there's great hope there. Our generation, well, we created this mess when we selfishly bought into the sexual revolution and threw away the Church's teaching on contraception and marriage. Why should the politicians be any better than we are?
Hi, Mike.
Thanks for reading my blog at the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good site. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. You are right that I worry that some Catholic political conservatives would prefer the institutional Church to withdraw from needed engagement in society and political life.
You err though about my motives. I'm pro-life and believe the foremost issue facing our generation is abortion and similar life issues. Before all else, we are called to engage fully in politics and society to address these intrinsic moral evils. But, the institutional Church (and you and I) cannot limit engagement to life issues. In addition to these issues of intrinsic evil, the Church is obliged to address--root and branch--the full range of challenges that the shortcomings of the contemporary world pose for the human person in the context of the common good.
Ultimately, our faith transcends ideologies like liberalism and conservatism and calls us to do much more than such political value sets would prescribe. Much as I admire George's intellect or Scalia's judicial gusto, both--and I could well be wrong--seem to limit themselves in the cases I cited to the boundaries of conservatism. And, yes, we can also complain about some Catholics who seem to limit the engagement of their faith in political life and society to the boundaries of liberalism.
Sorry for the long response. But, again, thanks so much for your attention to my thoughts.
Steve Schneck
Again, the pro-death Catholics who hold the high ground in Boston and elsewhere have been building their cathedral of Death for 41 years. Many of them are of the second, and in some cases third generation.
I have heard innumerable homilies exhorting the worshippers of Moloch to wait just a little longer. I have heard homilies verging on prayers for the death of the Pope (as the gateway to the bright future).
Every time I hear "Sing a New Church Into Being" I get the chills (being a Protestant I listen to the words), because I know it's a prayer to raise the synagogue of Satan.
This has become a serious problem, and now that the President of the United States has enlisted in the cause of reform of the Catholic Church by his numerous appointments of pro-death Catholics, I'm not sure where it's all going.
Mike seems to think this is a movement of aging hippies which is in decline. Me, I'm not so sure.
In addition to these issues of intrinsic evil, the Church is obliged to address--root and branch--the full range of challenges that the shortcomings of the contemporary world pose for the human person in the context of the common good.
To put it bluntly, no, the Church has no such obligation. Most matters like these are within the range of human judgment that is best left to individual competence. There are certainly some broad principles of the good of the individual that can be announced, but they are not absolute, and the manner in which they are addressed and balanced is a matter of judgment. The Church's guidance in those situations is essentially "Do the best you can as you see fit to do."
But there are some cases where the Church imposes a grave obligation to correct the fundamental government structure and to refuse to cooperate with that structure to the extent that it fails to comply. To cooperate with such a structure, except beside one's intention, is gravely immoral. Catholic teaching requires that we not cooperate with the government in ANY way except for the express purpose of correcting its stance on the non-negotiables. If it gets better, THEN we might consider these other prudential matters, but to work with such a government for any reason other than the amelioration of these grave injustices is itself an immoral cooperation with tyranny. These matters must be repaired before we can even consider other forms of cooperation with the government. Consequently, every time these is an opportunity to better the situation on the non-negotiables in any way, we are obliged to take that option, as repairing those structural flaws is a sine qua non of any broader form of political participation.
I actually wish your explanation had been a little longer, because you seem to have endorsed exactly the error that Dr. Liccione accused you of making. The remark I quoted above is just plain wrong; the Church imposes no specific, positive obligation to work on areas other than the non-negotiable "culture of death" issues given above. To misrepresent Catholic dogma on the point in order to excuse what is clearly an overriding obligation imposed by Catholic dogma seems to be exactly the sort of rationalization of dissent that Dr. Liccione right condemns.
To put it another way, Mr. Schneck, to use the government to accomplish some other good is an illicit use of means if the government is corrupted on these other issues. Consequently, it is immoral to deliberately use the government to correct these other goods while still allowing its corruption. In order to avoid cooperation with the corruption (which you have a grave moral obligation to do), you would have to always first politically participate to reduce the corruption. Otherwise, your cooperation would not be merely material but formal, since you would have had an opportunity to oppose what you are obliged to oppose but deliberately chose to forego that opportunity in order to use the corrupt means for the sake of obtaining some lesser good. One might balance several obligations of equal gravity, which would provide proportionate reasons for voting for a candidate that was the lesser of two evils on these issues, but those serious obligations can't ever be sacrificed for the sake of any other good.
While it may be difficult or impossible to change the situation, that doesn't excuse us to cooperate with the situation. So long as the government is corrupted, we can't deliberately use our political participation for any purpose other than cleaning it up.
Hi, Jonathan.
Thanks for your comments, which I know are heartfelt and well-intentioned. My remark to Mike that "the Church is obliged to address--root and branch--the full range of challenges that the shortcomings of the contemporary world pose for the human person in the context of the common good," is the language of the social encyclicals from Rerum Novarum down through the soon to arrive Caritas in Veritatis. Here, for example, are two snippets from Gaudium et Spes.
In Section #42, after speaking first of the Church's primary religious mission, the document turns to the Church's earthly role, saying "As a matter of fact, when circumstances of time and place produce the need, she can and indeed should initiate activities on behalf of all men, especially those designed for the needy, such as the works of mercy and similar undertakings."
Later in section 42 Gaudium et Spes says this. "With great respect, therefore, this council regards all the true, good and just elements inherent in the very wide variety of institutions which the human race has established for itself and constantly continues to establish. The council affirms, moreover, that the Church is willing to assist and promote all these institutions to the extent that such a service depends on her and can be associated with her mission. She has no fiercer desire than that in pursuit of the welfare of all she may be able to develop herself freely under any kind of government which grants recognition to the basic rights of person and family, to the demands of the common good and to the free exercise of her own mission."
I'm happy to trade quotes from encyclicals. But, throughout the 20th century, in the face of extraordinary political situations, the Church has consistently argued that it cannot walk away from social and political engagement in pursuit of the common good--which goes beyond merely opposing intrinsic evils, even though such opposition must be foremost. Now in fairness to Robby George, I do not think he intended to promote the degree of withdrawal from political life that his words implied. But, given the encyclical language, any arguments for withdrawal or narrowing of the Church's mission in light of the common good should be given careful scrutiny.
Thanks for the opportunity to think through this again. I wish you every good thing!
Stephen Schneck
It's a question of motivation.
I have nothing but respect for those Catholics that cannot bring themselves to ever vote for pro-abortion Democrats.
I have nothing but contempt for right-wing Republican Catholics, many of them recent converts from Protestantism, that use the Life issue to cover their asses with regards to their un-Christian militarism, Mammonism, American nationalism and xenophobia . May God burn down their country clubs, fill their suburban parishes with Mexicans and scatter their nuclear submarines.
Jonathan -- The point you're making is very, very important. To what extent, and on what terms, are we permitted in conscience to continue to give our consent to a government that has enacted profoundly unjust and wicked laws? Especially when it has done so in an illegitimate way (i.e., through judicial fiat rather than through the democratic process)?
You may remember that this was the subject of the famous First Things symposium "The End of Democracy?", a discussion that really needs to be re-visited in these days.
All too often Catholics in the public square -- especially those who are in the "common ground" crowd -- fail to emphasize enough that the laws permitting abortion (and, soon enough, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and other intrinsically evil things) are not laws at all. They are not valid, we cannot accept or acquiesce in them,we must never cooperate in them or aid in their enforcement, and we must devote our energies to overturning them as our primary political goal.
The "common ground" approach is to say "alas about this injustice, but let's move on to talk about immigration or some more interesting thing". This approach is deliberately designed to encourage people to overlook the iniquity of abortion etc. and to consent implicitly to this illegitimate legal regime, as embodied by the policies of this 100% anti-life Administration.
The proper response here is not accommodation, but resistance by all lawful means. This includes refusing to support candidates or public officials who are supporters of the status quo, and refusing to be apologists for them.
Mr. Schenck:
I'm happy to trade quotes from encyclicals. But, throughout the 20th century, in the face of extraordinary political situations, the Church has consistently argued that it cannot walk away from social and political engagement in pursuit of the common good--which goes beyond merely opposing intrinsic evils, even though such opposition must be foremost.
Forgive me, but I don't perceive where what you quoted from the encyclicals mentioned political participation particularly. The guidance of the Magisterium specifically on the point of political participation, particularly Evangelium Vitae, seems to place far more stringent restrictions on political participation. That, too, makes sense, given that the primary purpose of government is the protection of the lives under its jurisdiction.
Mr. Mechmann:
This approach is deliberately designed to encourage people to overlook the iniquity of abortion etc. and to consent implicitly to this illegitimate legal regime, as embodied by the policies of this 100% anti-life Administration.
Exactly, and that implicit consent is formal cooperation with the evil, the same as if a bodyguard collaborated with an assassin by agreeing not to interfere with a murder attempt.
I have nothing but contempt for right-wing Republican Catholics, many of them recent converts from Protestantism, that use the Life issue to cover their asses with regards to their un-Christian militarism, Mammonism, American nationalism and xenophobia . May God burn down their country clubs, fill their suburban parishes with Mexicans and scatter their nuclear submarines.
God sez: "I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter" (Matt. 12:36). You might want to think about the tone of your request to Him. Just sayin'.
"God sez: "I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter" (Matt. 12:36). You might want to think about the tone of your request to Him. Just sayin'."
And you might also want to think about Matthew 25: 31-46.
Stephen:
Thanks for responding to my post. Thanks in particular for saying that the pro-life cause is primary for you and, presumably, CACG. I have no doubt you sincerely believe what you're saying; I just don't think it's credible on the key questions of methodology. Here's why.
As the discussion develops here, a general and a specific question have been emerging. Assuming that the mission of the Church includes leavening society at large with grace and truth, to what extent is it up to the Catholic hierarchy to do that by means of direct political engagement? And in the present circumstances of this country, would direct and across-the-board political engagement on the hierarchy's or even the laity's part help or hinder the pro-life cause?
As to that first, general question, I still think Robert George is right. Politics is primarily the mission of the laity, who are to form their moral consciences according to Church teaching and act accordingly in the public square. But if the hierarchy weighs in on specific policy issues about which reasonable Catholics may disagree in good conscience, it displaces the role of the laity and confuses strictly prudential judgments with theology. That only fuels charges of theocracy because it would, in effect if not intent, be a kind of Constantinism. Such, at any rate, was my difficulty back in the 80s with the US bishops' pastoral letters about such questions as disarmament and the economy. I fully supported Reagan's policies back then because I believed, and still believe, that what he was doing more effectively promoted peace in the world and poverty reduction at home than the policies advocated by the bishops would have. For the bishops to get into such debates is normally ineffective in itself and also diverts energy and attention from the specific "life issues" you agree are primary. On the other hand, it is not only seemly but necessary for the hierarchy to be politically active on matters which involve intrinsic evils. That's because such matters are not only of great social importance, future as well as present, but are also ones on which reasonable Catholics may not disagree in good conscience. Given that decades of poor catechesis have left Catholics desperately in need of leadership from their shepherds on such questions, the bishops do need to be specific as well as public about them.
[continued in next comment]
So then the question becomes whether, when the Federal government is definitely not with the Church on the specific "life-issues" I've mentioned, across-the-board political engagement with it serves to promote or to hinder a sound pro-life agenda. The arguments given by Messrs. Mechmann and Prejean only confirm my belief that it does not. Alexia Kelly, you, and many Catholics like you may be convinced otherwise; but it's far more likely that the Obama Administration will co-opt progressive Catholics than that such Catholics will aid the pro-life cause by joining or even supporting such a government. I see that happening even now. Kathleen Sebelius is not going to make her boss more pro-life, and the policies she was hired to implement are not going to make Americans more pro-life. It may make them more dependent on the nanny state, which is a very different matter, but which Catholics who are politically liberal don't seem to think is that different from being pro-life. I'm sorry that Ms. Kelly doesn't see that.
To me, all that is so obvious that I question the motives of many educated progressive Catholics in supporting Obama. I know for a fact that many of them do not agree with the Church on the "non-negotiables" which the hierarchy and orthodox Catholics now see as primary. Given as much, their attitude is perfectly understandable and stands exposed by my post. If you do agree as a Catholic that the non-negotiables are non-negotiable, then all I can say is that you're kidding yourself if you think that cooperation with the current government will do anything but negotiate them into oblivion.
Best,
Mike
" May God burn down their country clubs, fill their suburban parishes with Mexicans and scatter their nuclear submarines."
Sounds more like a blessing than a curse.
Is the question of whether the state has jurisdiction over a woman's womb non-negotiable? What if you believe that abortion is murder but do not consider the state competent to intervene in the inviolable kingdom of a person's body -- that the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is categorically unlike relationships between biologically autonomous persons, in terms of the state's mediating role and authority.
Should a pregnant woman be charged with child endangerment if she goes on a roller coaster or drinks a bottle of pitcher of sangria?
These are the bioethical questions that cannot be waved away with a crosier.
Adrian:
What if you believe that abortion is murder but do not consider the state competent to intervene in the inviolable kingdom of a person's body -- that the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is categorically unlike relationships between biologically autonomous persons, in terms of the state's mediating role and authority.
In other words, what if you believe that, under the law, a woman's right to control her body should include the right to murder the innocent child she has helped to bring into existence? That's the belief of some of the more honest pro-choicers, such as Camille Paglia. Refreshing.
Well, the direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. If we can't agree on that, then the conversation is over. But if the right of the innocent not to be killed for the convenience of others is treated as alienable, then we have not only given up the principle that evil may not be done so that good might come, but also undermined the practical basis for treating any other right as inalienable. That's why the fundamental duty of the state is to protect the innocent. A state which decrees that the innocent may be killed, for whatever reason, is valuing the ersatz freedom of some over the lives of innocents. No greater violation of the fundamental duty of the state can be imagined.
It doesn't require Catholic theology to see that. But as this is a discussion among Catholics about Catholics, why rule out appeal to the teaching of the Church as a wave of the crozier?
Best,
Mike
"A state which decrees that the innocent may be killed, for whatever reason, is valuing the ersatz freedom of some over the lives of innocents. No greater violation of the fundamental duty of the state can be imagined."
Just to be clear, you are affirming that the relationship between the mother and the little human being within her is, as far as the state should be concerned, no different than the relationship between a mother and a born child. That might be the correct position, but it involves a number of very complicated logical conclusions with regard to how we regulate the habits and behavior of pregnant women. It also presumes that the state and its police apparatus should exist in the first place -- something that is not immediately clear to me.
I pray to God that I will see the day when we as a nation, acknowledging the right to life of the unborn, debate vigorously just how far the state should go in legislating the protection of that little life. The thought of news pundits calling each other fools over the issue fills me with more joy than I can fathom.
Mike: I don't know if there are any pro-abortion bishops (I don't know any bishops). But, given the number of pro-abortion priests, and given that the population of bishops is selected from priests, it seems likely.
I think you are being a little hard on the pro-death Catholics here, at least in the way you refer them to the authority of the hierarchy. They have a whole parallel hierarchy of dissenting clergy who comfort them in their belief that the Church's teaching on this matter is NOT "non-negotiable". At least SOME of the pro-death Catholics hold this belief more or less honestly.
Of course, it's clear what the Church teaches about this is you have an open mind. But many of the pro-death Catholics DON'T have an open mind. They function with a quasi-Episcopalian definition of conscience (If I desire it, that's my conscience talking), and they have a very significant body of the clergy who help them along with that belief.
When the hierarchy becomes unified on this issue, it may become possible for the laity to follow. But not before.
evagrius:
It's usually Matthew 19 that I keep in front of me. Plenty of rich people give something to the poor, but giving completely is a different matter.
Adrian:
How one enforces the law is a question that one can reasonably ask. But to say that the state has no responsibility to do it defies both reason and Catholic dogma. It is the state's business to protect innocent life in any case.
Sounds more like a blessing than a curse.
That may be, but that is God's to judge.
Jim:
Sorry I haven't reacted before to your comments this week.
1. In the previous thread, you asserted that liberal Catholics are against the church on the "down there" stuff, and if you're going to have free sex you have to be able to kill the consequences. I don't think that's true of all "progressive" dissent; some of it is more about power than sex, e.g. the priestesses and the liturgists. True, insistence on sexual autonomy surely motivates a lot of it. In fact, the same stance among homosexual priests also rationalized much of the sexual abuse of teenaged boys. But my political concern is not about Catholics who disagree with the Church about morality. They are pretty much beyond the pale de facto if not formally. My concern is about Catholics who agree with the Church about morality but who, for whatever reason, take the "personally opposed, but" line politically. That's a problem across the board, not just with abortion.
2. On that score, you write: Your Chicago-thug-in-chief doesn't want to beat down Catholicism - he wants to take it over. How else do you account for Sibelius, Napolitano, Sotomayor, rumors of Granholm, the ND speech - he seeks out and surrounds himself with pro-death Catholics. I don't think that Obama has a chance of "taking over" American Catholicism even if he wanted to. Rather, with such appointments he's pursuing a "divide-and-conquer" approach so as to neutralize Catholic opposition to his policies. He will succeed in the short run but not, I believe, in the long run.
Of course he would succeed in the long run if, as you suggest, prog dissenters seize the opportunity to make the 40-year-old de facto schism a formal one. But I don't think that will happen. As you know, there's already a church which is almost exactly what prog dissenters want the Catholic Church to be: the Episcopal Church. So there's no compelling rationale for dissenting prog Catholics to pay the price, in money and legal hassles as well as controversy, of setting up what would amount to little more than a clone. It is unneeded and would wither and die, which is what the Episcopal Church is doing anyhow. No, prog dissent must stay formally within the Catholic Church in order to sustain its energy. As long as Obama is in charge, that energy will be fairly high. But they won't set up a formal ecclesiastical structure on their own. That's already been done here and there, but such things are very small potatoes because hardly anybody cares. What the progs want is something impossible if Catholicism is true: they want to remake the real Church to their liking.
[continued in next comment]
3. You point to dissenting clergy, mostly priests, who help to sustain the numbers and energy of progressive Catholics. There's certainly a fair number of such priests still; it was just such priests, such as Robert Drinan and J. Bryan Hehir, who turned the Kennedys "pro-choice," and with them many other pols. But most prog priests are of the Vatican-II generation that is now looking at its dotage. Younger priests tend to be much more conservative, for the simple reason that, unlike authentic Catholicism, prog theology gives young men little motivation to make the sacrifices necessary for the Roman Catholic priesthood (as the saying goes: "No money, no honey, and a boss"). I still think the Church's future in this country will be better than the recent past. We may become like a white-dwarf star, smaller than before but burning brighter and hotter.
Best,
Mike
Adrian:
I see that our differences are more in the area of political philosophy than morality. You aren't even convinced that anarchism is a bad idea. My response to that is what Jonathan said.
As for holding pregnant women just as accountable for their unborn children's' welfare as for their born childrens'--well, I think that issue is a distraction. It's one thing to try to prevent women from killing their unborn children outright; but applying child-endangerment laws as much to merely pregnant women as to those with already-born children would be impractical. It would require a degree of state supervision of the family which not even the Church has ever called for. So it is not inconsistent of the Church to call for banning abortion while not calling for banning all behavior which puts pregnancies at risk.
Best,
Mike
"It is the state's business to protect innocent life in any case."
Then there should be equal passion with regards to pre-natal, post-natal, infant, child, adolescent and adult health care, education, and shelter.
But, somehow, all that is gven to the "market"to handle, blessed it be.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Evagrius:
You're illustrating exactly the sort of confusion I discussed in my post. There can be no legitimate disagreement among Catholics about whether the state should permit the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings. It should not. But there can be legitimate disagreement among Catholics about whether, or if so to what extent, government action is the best way to ensure that nobody goes without necessities of life. You're ignoring the principle of subsidiarity. Catholic teaching does not dictate a nanny state.
Best,
Mike
Mike, thanks as always for your thoughtful responses. I'm using your blog, of course, to work through the claims of the church to be THE Church for quite personal reasons, I really appreciate the opportunity.
"Sounds more like a blessing than a curse.
That may be, but that is God's to judge."
How does more Mexicans mean anything other than a blessing? Who wouldn't want more Mexicans?
How does more Mexicans mean anything other than a blessing? Who wouldn't want more Mexicans?
But is it a blessing for the Mexicans? I wouldn't wish suburban white churches on them.
We are coming. Resistance is futile...
The suburbs are better than the barrio, since we have to go to bad, under-funded schools, deal with drug abuse, crime, and Little Crier getting capped on the block last night. If there is something we have to fear, it is not the suburban white church.
You're right, Arturo. And it wouldn't be such a bad thing for them to repopulate gringo suburban parishes.
Best,
Mike
My comment was about "protecting" innocent life, not the " intentional" killing of innocent life.
It's you who are confused. You seem to stop your absolutist concern at the moment of birth.
Perhaps, in your view, the unborn are "innocent", therefore free from "original sin". Once born, however, the born are no longer innocent but tainted with sin.
Being innocent, the unborn deserve full state protection. Once born, and therefore sinful, they don't.
I know my logic is erroneous but it seems to me that most of the arguments around this tragic situation have, at their basis, this very type of logic.
Yeah, I mean if we can survive the barrio, a suburban white parish would be a cinch.
Mike, This is well-thought out, articulate post.
The Bernadin Glory days at the USCCB are gone. 80 Bishops spoke out against Notre Dame. Like any other fall of an empire built without God (and we are in a free fall) Christendom is more prophetic. Whoda thunk that the disastrous Catholics in Alliance cronies would be without a priest or Bishop to back up their premises? Aside, of course from Gumbleton.
We've got to spend these years capitalizing on the rhetoric and debunking, igniting courage, inspiring zeal and ripping what's left of that seamless garment. If anything at all, is left.
Thanks too for the recapping of the Kmiec/George discussion. I watched a few minutes of Kmiec - that kind of lethargy and intellectual malarkey just can't inspire.
They're up against the Holy Spirit. Every one of us has been there in one capacity or another. It is never pretty. God help them.
Touche'. OK, I will consider the wishing of suburban white parishes on Mexicans a blessing. I don't really know much about white suburban parishes anyway, because I have only been attending Mass in California and Texas since my confirmation, so I can't really imagine an absence of Mexicans in a Catholic Church.
I'll stick to my guns on the other parts, though.
Hi, Mike. Good points... Thanks!
Benedict XVI has spoken forcefully on all manner of public policies: global warming, land mines, the importance of labor unions, against nuclear weapons, the limits of capitalism and Marxism, a two state solution to Palestine, debt reduction in the Third World, the need for anti-malarial programs in Africa, against torture, subsidizing AIDS medications, and on and on. I'm not even scratching the surface of his policy recommendations. And, during the long papacy of John Paul II, the body of specific policy prescriptions is even longer.
Both pontiffs grounded such policy arguments on Catholic social teachings. The policy arguments themselves are not infallible proclamations. But, the teachings on which they are grounded reflect the magisterium. Indeed, the word magisterium refers not only to the Church's teachings on abortion and similar life issues. It refers to the full and complete fabric of the Church's authoritative teachings. If faithful, we cannot be cafeteria Catholics and only act in the public square in support of those authoritative teachings with which we agree.
As for the roles of the Church in regard to the public square, the primary (but not only) political role goes to the laity. The Church has long worried about clergy and bishops too involved in politics. But, every encyclical on the subject speaks of a guiding and formational role for bishops in instructing the laity about policy needs. Recent encyclicals like Deus Caritas Est and Gaudium et Spes offer clear statements of this role for the institutional Church in regard to policy.
Finally, I appreciate your worries about those of us who endorse working on common ground policies in pursuit of progress on the all-important life issues. You know the arguments we make--that working with only the GOP has not yielded progress but rather a thirty year stalemate, that it's more moral to work for achievable if limited progress rather than to make no progress, and so on. If you've not yet been persuaded by such arguments or the convictions of those who make them (who are attacked by pro-choicers and by many pro-lifers) than I suspect I won't change any minds here.
But, do at least consider that how we as laity decide to implement the Church's teachings in actual public policy and what political tactics to employ is a matter for prudential judgment. You make this point when you prefer Reagan's approach to poverty over the bishops' 1986 approach. It might turn out that you are wrong and the bishops were right--but how to proceed and what tactics are best is a matter for prudence. My best prudential judgment on what policies and tactics are best for ending abortion is different from yours, just as your judgment about how best to end poverty is different from the bishops.
Let's look for other chances to continue talking, Mike. I am very grateful for the thoughtful and compelling conversation here and wish you
Ah, yes, "progress" on non-essentials that are subject to prudential judgment, and inaction and political cover on fundamental non-negotiables. Good strategy.
I guess we're happy just so long as we can keep voting for rich whores that murder and oppress multitudes, after all, they're with us on the non-negotiables.
Now, returning to Tolkien, Chesterton and other delightful Anglo Saxons: I've always thought the Lord of the Rings was really an allegory about the battle of Lepanto...
Adrian:
Since Tolkien hated allegory, and said so, I shall assume you're joshing him. 
As for your prior, immoderate comment, it perfectly illustrates the Catholic Left's skewed understanding of priorities. You take as fact that, e.g., the Iraq war has consisted in the murder and oppression of multitudes on the part of the U.S. I take as fact that the war liberated Iraq from a murderous tyrant, did not involve our deliberately targeting non-combatants, and established the conditions for the growth of genuine democracy in Iraq. If your account of the facts is right, the Iraq war fails to satisfy the Church's formal criteria for just war; if mine is right, it does. The debate over what the facts really are is not going to be resolved, and we are each perfectly free as Catholics to take the views of the facts that we respectively do. On the other hand, we are not free as Catholics to question just-war doctrine or any other of the non-negotiables. That's the point Ed Mechmann is making in his previous comment. Neither you nor Mr. Schneck seem to get it.
Best,
Mike
evagrius:
I know my logic is erroneous but it seems to me that most of the arguments around this tragic situation have, at their basis, this very type of logic.
It is not only your logic, but your understanding of doctrine, that is erroneous. When the Catholic Church speaks of infants as "innocent" human life , she is speaking of those who are not capable of committing actual sin. That holds as much for neonates, and indeed toddlers, as for the pre-born. On the other hand, when the Church teaches that we have all inherited original sin, she refers as much to embryos as to everybody else. For original sin is contracted at the moment of conception.
But original sin is not an action, and hence incurs no personal fault in those who inherit it (CCC §405). It is a state of deprivation of the sanctifying grace the human race was meant to have always but which our first parents lost by sinning. The effects of original sin, even in those baptized as infants, make it inevitable that people will actually sin once they reach "the age of reason" and thus become capable of actual sin. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the question whether babies, born or unborn, are innocent. They are.
Best,
Mike
"I take as fact that the war liberated Iraq from a murderous tyrant, did not involve our deliberately targeting non-combatants, and established the conditions for the growth of genuine democracy in Iraq."
My Lord! I may have been howling at the moon when I proposed the dissolution of the state. But you, good sir, have constructed a marzipan castle on its cratered surface.
Then your logic should demand that there should be full medical and social care for all who are incapable of sin.
That would involve what I stated, namely, pre-natal, post natal, infant and child care, ( adolescents, adults and elders able to commit sin would, of course not count).
Thanks for the clarification on the term "innocent".
Your logic is still erroneous. What being innocent entitles you to is the absolute right not to be killed intentionally by other human beings. That means everyone has the duty not to kill you. It does not follow that everyone has the duty to take care of you.
That said, Catholic moral and social teaching does entail that somebody has the duty to take care of a person who cannot take care of themselves, even if that person is not innocent. In the case of children, it is usually clear who that somebody is: the parent(s). In the case of disabled adults or the elderly and frail, when family can take adequate care of them, family ought to do so. When family cannot, the duty falls to others: church, civil society, and/or government. But it doesn't follow that the taxpayer must be the payer of first resort or that the government be the care administrator of first resort. That's where the current administration in Washington wants to take us, of course; but whether or not that's a good idea, it's not required by the principles of Catholic social teaching.
Adrian:
You continue to confirm my main point. I find this discussion amusing because you are doing so unwittingly.
What you're dwelling on is not so much the difference between questions on which Catholics may differ and those on which they may not, as on your view of the facts about a particular war. That you find my view of the facts less plausible than anarchism as a political philosophy only shows that you treat empirical and political questions as if they were irreformable theology. With due qualification, that is my, Mr. Mechmann's, and Mr. Prejean's criticism of Mr. Schneck and the Catholic Left in general.
Best,
Mike
Always happy to amuse! What I mean to express is my conviction that Life cause has been instrumentalized by the political right as a kind of Gorgon's head on their aegis -- to petrify their critics when we start whining about dead Palestinians, exploited immigrants and other silly concerns that do not interest serious Catholics like Newt Gingrich and Sam Brownback.
These political issues are subject to legitimate wide-ranging debate. But there is ultimately something called the Truth, and my convictions regarding war, peace and social justice either conform to that eternal standard of Truth and Justice or they do not. Similarly, my suspicions regarding the motivations of the American establishment and its Catholic apologists are either founded or unfounded. I am either right or wrong. And if I am right, God help these pinstriped Pharisees.
So...what other governments have done, ( provide universal health care), is not what should be done in the U.S.?
I have always been under the impression that the right, including the Catholic right, cares only about making sure that black and brown babies are born, but is not seen as caring about them for much afterwards, if at the point of birth itself. (No health insurance in the ghetto, plus daddy is locked down in prison.) That's why no one in my family votes Republican. We can have lots of talk about the impeccability of our abstract principles, but if this perception continues, all such talk will do is create a badge of white, conservative respectibility that endlessly sighs, "o tempora, o mores", yet never touches those who it seeks to reach.
evagrius:
That doesn't follow either. I don't profess to know the best means of trying to ensure access to health care for everybody who cannot afford the health care they need. I have an opinion, but it is very tentative and subject to much correction by those who are more knowledgeable about the pitfalls. And that's kind of the point. This is an issue about which reasonable Catholics can disagree because there are so many empirical factors that need to be weighed.
What empirical factors? How much weighing of options is necessary for such a fairly simple thing as universal health care to be implemented?
Other countries have had fifty or more years experience in running such programs with quite excellent results.
You're avoiding the question. Hand wringing while avoiding making a decision isn't very moral.
I think Mr. Vasquez's point is quite accurate.
Arturo:
You make a good political point. I myself have had no health insurance of any kind for years, and the only answer anybody can give me is "get a good job," which I've also been trying to do for years. Such an answer given to blacks and Hispanics in "the ghetto" must seem even emptier than it does in my case. As for American prisons, we can't build them fast enough because that's where we warehouse addicts and the mentally ill. Not the best way to deal with such people.
As I indicated in my post, Catholic laity do have an obligation to help bring about a more humane society and political order. I just don't think the bishops should be telling us how or that we should compromise the non-negotiables.
evagrius:
It is your empirical judgment that single-payer (i.e., the taxpayer) systems in other countries have had "excellent results." That is not the opinion of everybody I have spoken to from such countries, or of everybody in America who is knowledgeable about health-care economics. You insist on emphasizing the moral necessity of a particular means to a desirable end while quitting the fight against what every Catholic must agree are grave evils. That's why I don't find the Catholic Left politically credible.
Okay, let's try this one more time because it's obviously not getting through. In the real world of public policy, there are different kinds of debates. Most of the public policy debates that take place may have a moral absolute involved, but the real debate is over prudential judgments. So, for example, the question of health insurance for the poor. The moral absolute is deep in the background -- e.g., we must provide access to reasonable medical care for those poor people who cannot care for themselves, which involves the intersection of solidarity and subsidiarity. In this case, all participants generally accept this proposition -- nobody is arguing that there should be no medical care for the poor.
But the policy argument does not take place at that level. The real debate is over prudential judgments -- e.g., at what income level shall we provide benefits (100% of poverty level v. 200% of poverty level), and what shall the benefits be (full range of benefits v. scaled down benefits), all of which implicate other prudential issues as well (how high a tax burden can the private sector bear, what level of reimbursements will permit hospitals to stay open, etc.).
Different parties, and different individuals, have a variety of positions in this real debate, but we cannot say that one position is an absolute moral good, while another is objectively morally evil. People of good will can, consistently with a well-formed conscience and without any legitimate moral opprobrium, adopt any one of this variety of positions. The "Catholic left" consistently gets this wrong, and assigns to the prudential policy prescriptions of the Democratic Party the erroneous value of being absolutely morally good, while alleging that the prudential policy positions of the Republican Party are absolutely morally evil. The "Catholic right" does the same thing, in mirror image. Both are wrong.
That is not what we have been arguing here. What we are saying is that there are other issues that involve moral absolutes directly -- Will we legalize same-sex "marriage" or not? Will we permit the destruction of unborn human life or not? Shall we permit our armed forces to torture prisoners? We are bound by the natural and divine law to oppose any legislation that is objectively morally evil, not to cooperate in it, not to trade them off for other issues, not to provide political cover to those who espouse them, to do all that we can within the law to overturn them, and to resist them even by civil disobedience if we cannot change them. Here, it is not a question of prudential judgment, but moral duty.
Our contention is that the "common ground" crowd erroneously treats these issues as if they were mere prudential matters on the same plane as those other issues, and not the moral absolutes that they are. And we are also contending that the "Catholic left" and the "common ground" people have essentially run up the white flag about these mora
(continued)
And we are also contending that the "Catholic left" and the "common ground" people have essentially run up the white flag about these moral absolutes, that they do not wish to fight over them, but prefer to change the subject to discuss other issues. We also draw an inference from their arguments and actions -- that it is likely that they do not truly accept the Church's teaching and the natural moral law on those issues, but instead prefer to advance some ideology or partisan preferences.
By the way, here's a bit of fraternal correction, Arturo, for what it's worth. The slur that pro-lifers are only concerned about babies before birth is unworthy to be spoken by a Christian. It is a patent lie typically spouted by pro-abortion ideologues who have no interest in the truth, but are seeking to change the subject from the murder of unborn children. Be careful about whose arguments you adopt -- I am sure that you do not wish to be associated with the kind of people who make that vile and slanderous argument.
How much weighing of options is necessary for such a fairly simple thing as universal health care to be implemented?
If you think it's simple, then you don't understand the American health care system very well. But regardless, entities have a purpose, and the primary purpose comes first. The first purpose of government is defense of lives under its jurisdiction from aggression. The second purpose, related but not entirely unconnected, is the protection of marriage for natural procreation. Those are its two central purposes; everything else it does is ancillary. When you have a case of the government not doing even its first and most basic jobs, you don't put additional responsibility that would distract from the core principles. What we have now is a security guard who leaves the building every time a robber shows up, but darn it, he's sure a nice guy who gives out candy to the kids. That's an disproportionate sense of function.
If socialized health care comes at the cost of increased government disregard for abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex "marriage,"as it did in Europe, it's not justified. Putting more responsibility on the government is not an option anymore; it has already taken on too much to the point of not being able to do what it needs to do.
Newt Gingrich and Sam Brownback are both politicians, so they *should* be talking specifically about the government's role. If politicians emphasize certain aspects of social policy, they are right to do it, just because they are politicians and should emphasize what government does. The problem is that people are buying into the entirely false notion that "society" = "government."
I myself have had no health insurance of any kind for years, and the only answer anybody can give me is "get a good job," which I've also been trying to do for years. Such an answer given to blacks and Hispanics in "the ghetto" must seem even emptier than it does in my case.
What's incredible is that they are actually being given an even emptier answer, which is "we'll extort it from people with jobs and give you a cut." At some point, people have to manage at least the common sense to determine that what is too good to be true is not true. Electing people whom you know for a fact are lying to you because they'll give you a tiny crumb of what they are stealing strikes me as a pretty stupid political philosophy. I saw it for years in Louisiana, and now it's gone national. Yay.
Arturo said "No health insurance in the ghetto, plus daddy is locked down in prison"
Arturo, how many of those daddies do you think are imprisoned unjustly (i.e., didn't do the crimes for which they are locked up?).
And how many of those ghettoites are eligible for Medicaid (hint: pick a number between 97% and 99%) and rgefuse to sign up?
Just sayin'...
The funny thing is this kind of Wall Street Journal conservativism we see on this thread is unique to our American political culture. At least the right in Europe has enough patronizing concern for the little people to develop a Christian-democratic consensus around universal health care. Europe's traditional elites also have a healthy skepticism toward commercial bourgeoisie that doest not exist in this country, where speculators and cheese-venders are consider the best people. It is the price we pay for having no history of pre-capitalist feudal relations (only commercial cash crop slavery).
Adrian:
I see you assume that not being in favor of universal, single-payer health care is equivalent to not caring about "the little people." Well, I'm one of those little people. As I write, I have no money, no job, no credit, no health insurance, and a child-support obligation I cannot fail to meet for very long without going to jail. But I'm not in favor of universal, single-payer health care for the U.S. In my opinion, the problems it would bring would outweigh the benefits. If you want to accuse me of being callous too, go right ahead; I have a thick skin. But I won't impugn your character because your prudential judgment about what would best achieve a common goal differs from mine.
"we'll extort it from people with jobs and give you a cut."
There was a time when only people with private fire insurance could rely on the prompt service of private fire companies. Of course nowadays we "extort" taxpayers in order to retain professional fire fighters and police departments, pave highways, maintain parks, schools, libraries, the armed forces, etc.
" I myself have had no health insurance of any kind for years, and the only answer anybody can give me is "get a good job."
As it is now, you are a burdensome liability on the community. If you become catastrophically ill tomorrow and go to the emergency room, some "extorted" tax-payer is going to have to pay for your expensive last-ditch remedial health care. And they really would've been better off if we had all been pooling our risk from the get-go.
Perhaps, these political questions are not really relevant to this blog .... unless, of course, American white-shoe conservatism is the result of a spiritual defect ... which it clearly is.
Adrian:
Everybody is spiritually defective to some extent. But you should beware more of losing your sense of irony, as you have here.
Unlike what are called "the non-negotiables" by orthodox Catholics, the question what kind of health-care system would optimize the cost-benefit ratio for the country as a whole is purely a matter of opinion. It is a question of what means is best suited to attaining an an agreed-upon end, which is to ensure that nobody has to go without the health care they need. Yet you persist in characterizing as spiritually defective those Catholics whose opinion differs from yours, while remaining silent about the non-negotiables. That, I submit, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't think you're spiritually defective because you disagree with me about single-payer health care; I just think you're mistaken. But it is a spiritual defect to accuse fellow Catholics of being spiritually defective because they disagree with you about what is purely a matter of opinion. It should not be so difficult for you to extend the same courtesy you have hitherto enjoyed.
Come now! Your blog is full of gently vicious put-downs (none of which upset me) and I doubt that any of my more vulgar provocations have really offended you. If they have I unreservedly apologize.
With irony fully intact,
Your spiritual better,
Adrian
Amazing -- in addition to bad form, injury and insult, Adrian outdoes himself by engaging it outright libel and calumny about Dr. Liccione.
If anybody is madly 'spiritually defective', it is he.
Regarding Arturo's comment above: "I have always been under the impression that the right, including the Catholic right, cares only about making sure that black and brown babies are born, but is not seen as caring about them for much afterwards, if at the point of birth itself."
You would probably group me in with the "Catholic right". Yet I and many tens of thousands like me volunteer in our parishes' St. Vincent de Paul societies to meet "black and brown" and whatever other color people to help them, no matter their religion or lack thereof, documented or undocumented. We help with jobs, making rent and utility payments, buying cribs, clothes, diapers, car seats for (almost always single) mothers. And this is only one organization within the Catholic Church. There are many others and ones operated (often by volunteers) by people you would probably also lump in the "conservative" or "right" category.
Finally, I am sure you know of the fact that thousands of white couples adopt "black and brown" babies every year because there are a disproportionate number of minority children given for adoption compared with the minority population. My wife and I are adopting two such (beautiful) children as we speak.
Can more be done? Should more be done? Yes. But much is being done by people like you and me, and I think those efforts should be recognized and not disregarded.
Dr. Liccione: Are you planning to submit reply to Witt's own reply to you on the matter concerning Development? Just curious... I know you've been very busy with more vital matters (most especially -- and quite understandably -- concerning the hunt of job prospect), so if not; that's fine too. Only wanted to know. Thanks.
------------------
Dr. Liccione,
It appears the insufferable Will Witt has managed a reply to your post at Philosophia Perrenis:
Link:
April 21, 2009 / More on the Development of Doctrine
e. | 04.21.09 - 2:54 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
e, I shall reply at Philosophia Perennis and just leave a pointer post here.
Mike L | Homepage | 04.21.09 - 11:37 pm | #
E., E., dearest E., That last post of mine was a joke.
e:
That is my next major blog project. But I have much to deal with in the meantime. The next few weeks are going to be very difficult for me.
Best,
Mike
Of course nowadays we "extort" taxpayers in order to retain professional fire fighters and police departments, pave highways, maintain parks, schools, libraries, the armed forces, etc.
There's a difference between reasonable democratic choices and mob rule. What is being advocated by most Democrats is a straight seizure of wealth from a certain segment for the good of another segment. That's not reasonable democracy; it's tyranny.
Mike,
see this piece by Schindler:
http://www.communio-icr.com/schi...indler36-
1.html
He covers some things on dialogue. It's his view on Obama and ND and the best analysis thus far
"There's a difference between reasonable democratic choices and mob rule."
Public health insurance is mob rule? Well, by the time the HMOs see our machetes glinting in the torchlight, it will be too late for their Ancien Régime.
Dr. Liccione:
Thanks for the prompt & generous reply.
"The next few weeks are going to be very difficult for me."
We're still praying for you.
Hopefully, things will work out.
Whatever your current circumstances, hang in there!
God's Holy Spirit shall prevail and, God-willing, things will turn out for the better.
Commenting by HaloScan
