Reservations on ‘Faithful Citizenship’
Tuesday evening’s panel on “Faithful Citizenship” at the Fordham Center on Religion and Culture will bring some much-needed light to the heated topic of Catholics and bishops and elections. Over at Vox Nova, Morning’s Minion offered what I thought was also an interesting addition to the discussion, explaining why he has “soured” a bit on FC even as he appreciates the document overall.
The first problem, in MM’s view, is that FC is framed around “intriniscally evil acts”:
The current framing is not wrong – and it is very neat – but it opens itself up to some egregious misinterpretation.
Second, MM writes, is that “the economic crisis changed everything.”
In such circumstances, simply re-issuing a document from 2008 seems almost bizarre. It has the feel of a different era. It reinforces a general feeling that the bishops are out of touch on basic economic issues, that they are not capable of applying the strong messages of Economic Justice for All, written a quarter of a century ago, to the problems of today.
MM cites by way of contrast the approach of the Irish bishops:
In their voting guide, they thundered in a way that evoked Pius XI in the 1930s, lambasting a “radical individualism” that manifested in a ”bonus culture” that is “regrettably still a feature of banks and financial institutions”, which in turn gave rise to “inequality and damage to social cohesion”. They talk about the need to check the “excesses of advanced capitalism” with “a robust regulatory environment and a concern for the welfare state.”
Good post, I thought. Read and discuss.
I guess I didn’t find MM’s piece particularly persuasive. The bishops seem to continue to believe, as they have for many years now, that abortion and related life issues are the most important political issues of this time and place. It’s just a simple statistical truth that, if you toss a handful of issues onto the table and rank them by importance, one of those issues will outrank the others, just as another one will outrank all of the others but one, another all of the others but two, and so on. Nothing that has happened in the last few years – neither President Obama’s election, nor the Tea Party, nor the state of the economy, nor whatever has happened in the various wars – none of that has changed that judgment. When the bishops wrote this document in 2007, there was a Republican in the White House, the situation in Iraq was very different, the Tea Party hadn’t been dreamed up yet, and, if the recession had started, none of us had yet realized it. Yet in that very different environment of four years ago, the bishops examined the signs of those times and concluded respect for human life is our most pressing issue. Now, four years later, they’ve looked at the very different signs of these times and determined that respect for human life is still our most pressing issue.
There are things that could change that judgment – for example, if Roe v Wade were somehow set aside or substantially modified; or if the Democratic Party changed course and took the sanctity of life seriously – but none of those things has happened. In short, nothing fundamental has changed with regard to respect for the sanctity of life. The legal regime is essentially the same, abortion clinics are still open, and babies are aborted in about the same numbers as before. I look forward to an election season of calling candidates to responsibility for the greatest evil of our time, perhaps of all time.
As for the economy – all I can say is that it is treated extensively in the document. There are major sections on the option for the poor and vulnerable, the rights of workers, social justice and global solidarity. The bishops call for affordable health care that respects human dignity, for food security, for a just and humane immigration policy, for improvements in education. They offer neither offer a blanker endorsement of our current economic arrangement nor call for its abolition. They seem to see, correctly in my judgment, that our current economic system does not require fundamental “restructuring”. They name injustices, and call for all of us, clergy and laity, to work to build a more just country. That strikes me as the responsible course.
You can examine something dispassionately or you can open the floor to all prominent passions. It looks as though MM wants much more of the second approach. That’s OK, but it’s very limiting. Only the conspicuously impassioned and contentious need apply for floor time.
Thanks, David, for the kind words.
In response to Jim, I would argue that the by ignoring the economic crisis, the document seems so dated, and makes the bishops look out of touch, which in turn diminishes its potential impact. They also seem to be diverging from their episcopal brethren in other countries. But I can certainly see why they let sleeping dogs lie – the Conference is so divided right now, any attempt to re-open these debates would have brought these divisions to the surface.
I find it amazing that the American Church in particular is doing its best to ignore the legacy of John A. Ryan and Pius XI, to name but two sources. Quadragesimo Anno denounced the corruption in the financial system during the 1930s, using language that still resonates today (I would love to show up to Occupy Wall Street with a Pius XI quote on a banner!) But where are the US bishops in a land that was the ground zero of the financial excesses that led to the global financial meltdown? Can we simply pretend this never happened? Can we ignore the fact that 30 million people lost their jobs and 64 million people were pushed into extreme poverty because of the American banks?
I understand that the bishops view abortion as a paramount issue, and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them pushing the economic teachings under the rug, and never correcting the egregious errors of the Catholic individualists, from Paul Ryan to Robbie George. I do have a problem with their embarrassing stance on the Affordable Care Act, when they were duped by the so-called pro-life movement. And I do have a problem with the belief that same-sex marriage is more of a threat to the social order than radical individualism in the economic sphere.
Jim argues that nothing has fundamentally changed regarding the sanctity of life, and I agree. Nothing changes when the Republicans are in power either – its all rhetoric and very little substance. How much poverty, how much unemployment, how much economic unfairness, how much destruction of the environment are we willing to tolerate in the name of having the correct rhetoric? Of course, I would expect abortion to jump up during an economic crisis of this magnitude – because of the spike in poverty and marginalization. But the masters of rhetoric are never asked these questions.
Fundamentally, at least part of the New Evangelization is about convincing people who are currently skeptical about the Church. Will this be done if episcopal courage is only partial? I don’t think so.
Jim – sorry but have to disagree and thanks for posting this. We have seen for years the results of political parties paying lip service to issues such as abortion.
Intrinsic evil – agree that this whole moral concept is problematic today as MM outlines.
Finally, a very obvious example of those who can take papal encyclicals and parse them to mean the opposite of what the church tradition has said about social justice was repeated tonite on EWTN – the usual duo of Arroyo and his sidekick, Rev. Sirico. Sirico continues his meme about how the marketplace is neutral and that capitalism is not bad – only the folks involved from time to time. This ignores tradition in terms of concepts:
- distributive justice
- class/economic inequality
- financial systems (i.e. marketplace) which inherently are set up to reward corruption (e.g. mortgage betting; multi-million dollar bonuses for risky behaviors that created market instability; derivative trading)
- role and duty of unions
Listen to the show – it is an excellent example of how one type of catholic can twist FC and other encyclicals to say what they want them to say.
Perhaps American bishops have a better understanding of the American context than their European brothers, who have long been burdened with a cultural antipathy to New World economic approaches. Both perspectives are valid – as are many others. But if you’re speaking to the entire Church, and not just to one corner of it, it’s essential to avoid choosing sides – especially in matters like economics and social policy that are far from settled.
Distributism or distributivism is an economic theory proposed by G. K. Chesterton and Hillare Belloc. It incorporated Catholic social principles, or tries to. To me it sounds like just an outline of an economic system, and a naive one at that. But with the current crisis the theory is being re-visited. Here’s an article from today’s Washington Post about an Anglican priest who is pushing it, and it seems he is finding an audience.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/age-old-distributism-gains-new-traction/2011/10/17/gIQANGBKsL_story_1.html
MM: “And I do have a problem with the belief that same-sex marriage is more of a threat to the social order than radical individualism in the economic sphere.”
I always find it funny that the liberal side of the Catholic family always harps on “radical individualism” in the economic form, but then ignores the very real economic and social consequences of the radical individualism promoted by the left. Yes, MM, stable families and traditional social structures matter to economics.
I can say – and so can the bishops – without a doubt that libertine economic policies of the Republicans are damaging to the common good and I can also say that the libertine sexual policies of the Democrats are equally as damaging to the common good. Liberal catholics, however, seem unable to really criticize their side and it seems like hypocrisy to me.
In any case, as for subsidiarity — it is not something tried and found wanting, it is something found difficult and left untried (as Chesterton would say)
Here is “Red Tory” on true economic justice – “After the market state” (he starts at 10:10 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2LWc5DIQrc
That should read: Red Tory, Philip Blond,
Philip Blond is the subject of the WP article I recommended above. Here’s another one from The Guadian. Interesting thinker.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/aug/08/phillip-blond-conservatives-david-cameron
Thanks for posting that article, Ann, it was a good, evenhanded piece by David Gibson. The video I posted is from his talk at Villanova.
It was Prof. Patrick Deneen over at Georgetown and the Tocqueville Forum that has really introduced him to the east coast university circuit last year, I believe.
Final post on Blond, I promise — a very good, short video by him on a critique of capitalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PK6w5lqe9A
Interesting, Brett, but he’s still just an ideologue, and ideologues will never be king – will never get to impose their philosophies. Everything, except in dictatorships, gets watered down, spread out and about, mashed up with other stuff. Ideologies are nice for mulling over in a study and, probably, ego-feeding as you chat endlessly and earnestly about them with pals, but in the end, they’re just hot air. Of course, ideologues can get the ear of the king of the moment, and that can make some change. Maybe :O)
I feel like our bishops have a little tunnel vision. Abortion is NOT their only issue; they did just find time to put together an ad hoc committee to defend a traditional view of marriage. Here in NYC, we get endless blog posts from our Archbishop criticizing our marriage equality law, but nary a word or a reference to the fact that thousands of our neighbors are Occupying Wall Street just a stone’s throw away. So how about an ad hoc committee to respond to the economic collapse that put millions of Americans out of worK?
Thanks to all for an interesting post, link and discussion.
Morning’s Minion, I appreciate the humble and down-to-earth tone of your original post. It seemed to me to contain a recognition and acceptance of a basic fact: that the USCCB “is what it is”. There was a time when our national bishops’ conference issued public statements that engaged with the US and global church, as well as the wider society, on pressing issues of the day. This is not that time. It’s worth noting. It’s worth registering one’s views. But, at the end of the day, it’s their statement and—within the parameters of such statements—they’re within their rights to say what they want, in the way that they want.
@ Jim Pauwels (10/17, 9:29 pm) I appreciate the way your comment had a similar tone—but from a different perspective. (Would that more debates took place on such terms!) I hope I’m continuing in your footsteps when I note that if legal abortions are “the greatest evil of our time, perhaps of all time”, then the bishops’ response strikes me as woefully inadequate—as does that of the entire anti-abortion movement. It would be an extraordinarily glaring example of a gap between words and deeds, both by the bishops and by the movement.
As best as I can tell, those countries with the lowest abortion rates tend to be countries in which women are relatively powerful, abortion is legal, and contraception is widely available (and used). The experience of a country like Brazil is, for me, a cautionary tale for those who argue that (for example) overturning Roe v. Wade would be the best method of reducing abortions in the US.
@David Smith (10/17, 11:53 pm) I agree that American bishops may “have a better understanding of the American context than their European brothers”. However, given the radical changes in “New World economic approaches” in the US over the past 40 years, it strikes me that “old world” v. “new world” is not the most useful frame within which to have this discussion. (E.g., If this were, say, 1971, then the American bishops might be writing about the Christian virtues of progressive taxation and trade unionism as tools for spurring economic growth and reducing income inequality—since that was the American experience from 1946-73.)
@Brett (10/18, 12:53 am) This is, perhaps, tangential to your main point (so, apologies in advance), but gay marriage doesn’t strike me as a triumph of “radical individualism”. On the contrary, it seems in many ways to be socially conservative—binding individuals to each other and to the wider society in a web of mutual rights, responsibilities and obligations.
Yes, a wonderfully written piece on Blond, I would say…!
Distributism, or neo-distributism, is worth its own thread at some point. There is much fodder for debate and much more information to convey. I find myself quite attracted to the notion, much like I am to Radical Orthodoxy. I just am not quite sure what they are, however.
In any case, I think Morning’s Minion and other commenting on the economy make a powerful case. There is also the salient point that economics affects the baortion rate, the stability of families, the rate of births, all that. These are not discreet issues. There is an “abortion door,” if you will, into the economic issues if bishops need such cover.
To wit:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/was-the-housing-bubble-also-a-baby-bubble.html
Morning’s Minion: “Jim argues that nothing has fundamentally changed regarding the sanctity of life, and I agree. Nothing changes when the Republicans are in power either – its all rhetoric and very little substance.”
Bill deHaas: “We have seen for years the results of political parties paying lip service to issues such as abortion.”
Let me preface my comment by noting that neither party is wholly pro-life and neither party is wholly pro-choice. There are pro-choice Republicans, and there are some pro-life Democrats, at least one of whom, Bart Stupak, arguably sacrificed his political career in the cause of the sanctity of life.
Having said that, I don’t believe the points from MM and Bill deH that I quoted above hold up under scrutiny. Virtually everything done in the post-Roe-v-Wade era to chip away at the legal regime of abortion on demand, from the Hyde Amendment, to the Mexico City policy, to state-level initiatives that require parental notification/permission and restrict late term abortions, to the nomination of judges to all levels of the federal judiciary who are not ideologically committed to the right to choose, to the ban on partial-birth abortions – all of these (except the Mexico City policy, which is not currently in place because the Obama Administration has discontinued it) are in place as a result of Republican political advocacy for the sanctity of life – and are in place in virtually every case in the face of fierce opposition from Democrats, including Catholic Democratic elected officials.
Bill DeHaas makes a good point on EWTN. Indeed, I think one of the greatest criticisms I have of the bishops’ conference is that they let EWTN go about its business undisturbed. Yes, I realize that Mother Angelica avoided an apostolic visitation and likely smackdown by turning her outfit over to lay control at the last minute, but it still presents itself as an authentically Catholic news medium when it is not.
The real problems are Arroyo and Sirico (and the nutcase that just left the priesthood). These people have said, on air, that torture is fine and dandy as long as the United States is doing it. In other words, they have defended an intrinsically evil act, one that is gravely evil, and in doing so have committed a grave scandal by pronouncing in so public a manner. And not a single bishop spoke out against them, for fear of the angry right. I once raised this with Stephen Collechi of the USCCB in a public forum, and he agreed with me, but dodged the issue by saying he had to reflect more on what response was appropriate.
And as Bill says, EWTN is now preaching from the “poisoned spring” of the “evil individualist spirit”. And there is no correction whatsoever. This is part of the problem. A big part of it.
“As best as I can tell, those countries with the lowest abortion rates tend to be countries in which women are relatively powerful, abortion is legal, and contraception is widely available (and used). ”
Luke – you’ve described the United States. Yes?
Brett: I do not disagree with what you write, but you seem to assume I do. One of the themes I have been pushing for years on Vox Nova is that there is one single and consistent Catholic social teaching. As the pope wrote in Caritas in Veritate: “clarity is not served by certain abstract subdivisions of the Church’s social doctrine, which apply categories to Papal social teaching that are extraneous to it…there is a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new”.
And indeed, I would argue that economic issues on one side and the sexual/ familial on the other stem from the same source – a rejuvenation of the individualist ethic that seems to hold a particular attraction in the United States (probably because of its Calvinized culture). In both cases, the idea of a harmonious social order is rejected in favor of a voluntarist social contract of autonomous individuals.
As for subsidiarity not being tried, I disagree. Perhaps not in the US, but is has in Europe, especially in countries like Germany. See the excellent work of Lew Daly. In places like Germany, the institutional path of charity (to use Pope Benedict’s term) was paid for by the government by administered by subsdiary (and often confessional) groupings. Workers had a say in the running of business through corporarist structures. And the family was supported, including by subsidies and generous leave time.
To Jim Pauwels: Yes, the Democrats opposed these initiatives, and let’s not pretend they are on the wrong side of this issue. But let me ask you this: how much did these measures have on the impact of abortion? The Republicans like to talk the talk on these issues, but as I haev said, with them it is all rhetoric.
On the other hand, the largest post-Roe decline in abortion rates look place during the Clinton administration, which (not surprisingly) coincided with an economic boom that led to lower poverty rates.
And now, since poverty has gone through the roof, I fully expect abortion rates to increase again, irrespective of all the pro-life rhetoric and smug half-measures in the world. So yes, we are back to the economy, to the recession, to the economic structure and zeal for deregulation that brought us to this point.
Since you mentioned Bart Stupal, let’s talk about that. Stupak stepped down in the face of death threats from people who claimed to value life (Joseph Cao did not support the final version of the Affordable Care Act for the same reason). Let’s look at this. The ACA, without the support of a single Republican, contained the first ever attempts at the federal level to restrict abortion coverage in private insurance plans. And yet, the pro-life movement had a fit. Their bluff was called. Each press release became more and more desperate (remember the great conspiracy to sneak abortion through the community health centers?).
It became so clear to me that the Catholic right were using the abortion issue to oppose the ACA on libertarian and individualist grounds. What they objected to was the attempt to subsidize the healthcare of others, eitehr directly through fiscal subsidies or indirectly through tighter regulation of private insurance. For Catholics, this is a violation of solidarity and even subsidiarity. And the USCCB failed in their duty to correct these errors.
Just a couple of thoughts:
Again at the talks tonight I urge a moment of silence to recall Fr. Brackley -a great priest who said working with the poor really changed his life.
Would that others, including some posters here, would share that experience/perception.
Tonights talk is about the age of spin also. Our op ed in the New Mexican today is by a GOP candidate for Sernate and former party chairman who argues we long for leadership (no kidding) and then spins that as the usual anti-Obama rant.
Irene is right in her view: see the latest from Minnesota where the good bishop of Minneapolis St. Paul is trying to put together a prop 8 style campaign about same sex marriage.
Faithful Citizenship indeed. There is stuill so much spin in the world of our own hierachy and their loyalists.
I don’t think the US Bishops are better than others on our situation – they continue to live in an encapsulate dworld of priorities handed down to them.
What has the “Catholic left” done, with respect to their non-Catholic brothers and sisters on the left, to reduce or eliminate entirely the practice of killing innocent human life in the womb?
It is one thing to rail against the political right and the Catholic right for their inadequacies on pro-life issues. And many will agree that not enough has been done, what with 50 million slain in this country alone. But those on the right hardly have the ability to persuade those on the left about anything, much less soften their hearts on the matter of abortion. Indeed, when the Christian right participated in their own version of “Occupy Wall Street,” seeking to save lives in Operation Rescue, the left called them terrorists.
So, it is incumbent upon the Catholic left — the burden is upon you — to persuade the pro-abortion and “pro-choice” left about the evil that is abortion, to convince them of the inherent value of all human life and the inherent indignity and inherent anti-woman aspect of a woman killing her own child.
But what has the Catholic left done, other than to “give lip service” to the truth of the value and dignity of unborn human life, while seeking to bury it within a mountain of other issues, deprioritizing it and drawing moral equivilences between the slain blood of 50 million innocents with what someone’s income tax rate should be.
Yes, abortion is a priority. It is THE priority, above all others. We are in an ocean of blood. When 50 millioin lie dead because Warren Buffett or Bill Gates make more than the average income, which is enough to live comfortably in itself, then maybe these other issues will deserve a higher consideration. Until then, stopping the killing of innocent human life in the womb is the priority, as well as repentence and praying to God to forgive us for doing so damn little to stop it before now.
But it is on you, Catholic left. What are you going to do about it?
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-bishops-document-gives.html
MM – here is another discussion related to your initial post. Now you have Pavone of Priests for Life (and currently under siege by his bishop in Amarillo, TX) twisting FC to meet his highly individualized interpretation of the gospel and his call to priesthood.
Dolan is mentioned in this article – he states that his background in American Church History allows him a vantage point…..sorry, with a few exceptions, Dolan in both STL and now in NYC has rarely risen to the level of a good historical analysis tied to the gospel values around social justice. His one good point is to indicate that social justice issues have been supported and dimininshed by both parties – altho, he seems less than emphatic about that.
Reality – the social justice issues such as economic justice; inequality; worldwide lack of food/water seem to be ignored when certain US bishops decide to ride the “cultural wars” – yes, Neidenhauer in Minneapolis is almost as embarrassing as Olmsted or Morlino.
Here is another link today to the “Dominionists”: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TAKING_DOMINION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Help me out – I can see the approach of Wagner, Bickle to be similar to what Bender and Neidenhauser are advocating under the banners of: Abortion is the only issue; and the New Evangelization.
Key: “These preachers believe demons have taken hold of specific geographic areas, including the nation’s capital. They also promote a philosophy of public engagement known as the “seven mountains,” which urges Christians to gain influence in business, government, family, church, education, media and the arts as a way to spread righteousness and bring about God’s kingdom on earth. The language seems close to dominionism, the belief that Christians have a God-given mandate to run the world.”
Morning’s Minion –
About EWTN — at least that group is trying to supply a Catholic perspective on a national level. The Protestants and seculars are all over the map on cable TV. I have yet to find a Catholic station. My local diocese started a second public TV station and there are some locally produced programs there, but much of it is canned non-religious programming. The locally produced programs aren’t much. We need a quality national cablel channel. It would, of course, take millions to set it up, but I dare say that St. Paul is not proud of us.
I would imagine that at least some of the bishops see the need. But with the chasm between the American Catholic liberals and conservatives there would no doubt be endless wrangling about what should be presented.
@Jim Pauwels (10/18, 10:18 am) This is not my issue of expertise (which means it’s one among many). If you or others have more data and comparative research, I’d welcome it. If I’m reading the linked 2007 Guttmacher Institue article correctly, the US does have an abortion rate lower than the global average, but towards the high end of the cohort of countries in which abortion is legal and contraceptive use is high. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100402.html
Again, I’d appreciate any links folks can provide to useful information on this topic.
David Gibson –
Sorry, I didn’t notice that you were the one who wrote that interesting Blond article. Yes, it deseves a thread.
By the way, I recently read that Dorothy Day was a distibutist and actually opposed Social Security. Her wisdom has gone down in my estimation.
Ann, I wouldn’t let DD’s views on such public policy programs at that time affect your estimation of her, which I hope is high.
The Tablet in its 1 August 2009 edition had a nice package on the then-emerging reconsideration of distributism. A sidebar by Jennifer Swift ended with this nice line:
Apropos to the the discussion; posted today: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/reports-occupy-boston
Key – “B16 & Seamless Garment
by Michael Sean Winters on Oct. 18, 2011 Distinctly Catholic
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionOn the occasion of World Food Day, Pope Benedict XVI said, “The right to life includes freedom from hunger.”
I guess no one told the Pontiff that such sentiments risk reviving talk of the “seamless garment” approach to life issues once favored by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.
Me thinks I hear some gnashing of teeth from the right wing bleachers.”
Also, FC’s rewrite specifically highlights that right to life can not be distilled to one or two issues solely. Would suggest that this is exactly what some bishops continue to do e.g. Neidenhauser, Olmsted, Finn, Naumann, Morlino
As a pro-life person I ask if abortion and right to life is ‘the’ political issue for bishops where is the bishops’ plan to eliminate RU486 from every high school hallway and every college dorm? RU486 is getting to 50% of abortions and growing. Since it cannot be either legislated or policed out of the country. a new tactic, other than blaming my congresswoman who is an Italian Catholic grandma [Pelosi] , needs to be implemented to teach respect for life. Where is the police and law plan to eliminate RU486??
MM – I don’t think you’re wrong to highlight income inequality. I agree the bishops could have said more about it than they did.
Bender is spot on.
@Luke,
I don’t think we can cover the gay marriage issue on this thread; however, I understand the homosexual rights movement to be the epitome of individualism: the focus on affective relationships over the religious, social and procreative relations that have constituted marriage for thousands of years, for example.
“I can love who I want and do what I want” is the general idea — and, when looked at from the point of top gay commentator, Dan Savage, marriage becomes something even more individualist as he advocates for “open marriage” where affairs are “part of the spice” of the arrangement. Also, raising a child without a mother or a father (depending on the same sex partners involved) is really quite selfish and unnatural, if you think about it the important role each plays in human development.
Gay marriage and traditional marriage – despite the degraded state of the latter via no-fault divorce and increasing cultural individualism – are two very different things.
“The obsession with defining an individual’s identity by his or her sexual desires, and putting the fulfilment of those desires above everything else, is only about 100 years old and will, I suspect, pass. The need for men and women to have children, bring them up and look after one another is much more important.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8813461/Gay-marriage-is-not-as-simple-as-David-Cameron-believes.html
As I read this thread, I don’t see how we’ll get past the problem of spin.
Last night CNN had several GOP worthys defending Perry against any anti-Mormonism charges raised by his good buddies; America beleives in freedom of religion not the Christian nation some would trumpet here and elsewhere.
The voice of the Church in the public square is a right but needs to be used rightly.
If that voice is skewed or not seen as credible, the message is weakened not strengthened.
(BTW I think EWTN is skewed Catholicism and maybe is not the great service it’s cracked up to be.)
At this site, we’ve long argued the merits of ‘seamless garment;” Jim may think Bender is spot on but many of us think his rant underscores an unproductive skewing of the message.
I think we should have sent Brett to the Fordham Listening conference.
His apptoach on selfishness is the kind of insensitivity that drives people away.
Things strike me as getting uglier -big headline today is Susan Sarandon calling the Pope a Nazi.
Sad, but of course the Catholic league rode to the rescue of telling her how mean spirited she was.
I think meanspiritedness is part and parcel of the spin world today though -Rush is at it I see.
I don’t see very much top down healing resonating against the spin in politics/culture – or even our faith.
And that’s what’s really sad!
@ bender and Jim P.
what is your plan to eliminate RU486 from HS hallways and college dorms? Law, Police, Border fences, persuasion?
Oh please–if same-sex marriage were about individualism, there would be no push for marriage at all. If you want to attack people for individualism, attack those who eschew marriage altogether so as to dodge the civil responsibility that comes with the institution, or trivialize it by offering spouses as prizes on “The Bachelor” and such, or who move from spouse to spouse while claiming to uphold “family values.”
Marriage is intrinsically an act of civil, social responsibility for those who make those promises. It is connected to raising children, certainly. One of the reason same-sex couples argue for legal recognition of their relationships is PRECISELY for legal stabilization of the families in which, IN FACT, they raise children, their biological offspring and adopted or fostered kids. And surely no Christian would denigrate those who raise kids in need of homes whose biological parents have proven incapable?? And if you wish to reduce marriage merely to a reproductive arrangement, you ignore both the history of the institution and the richness of Catholic tradition on marriage. The Church has NEVER taught that marriage is only about reproduction. Even to return to a “reproduction first” model of marriage is to ignore the clear teaching of Vatican II (and Casti Connubii before it.) To discount the affective is inconsistent with current Church teaching, (heck, not just current teaching, but as far back as Augustine!!)
So oppose same-sex marriage if you wish, but not by resorting to facile slanders of those who take the institution and the responsibilities it engages far more seriously than many heterosexual couples do. Sheesh!
Now on FC: right. It’s out of date, and the document reflects internally the division of the bishops that is, if anything, only worse now. There’s also a real problem in the dichotomy of abortion and racism as intrinsically evil acts that are used to give the illusion of ideological neutrality. The two are both bad, but belong to different categories. (E.g., while there are acts of racism, racism itself isn’t an act, intrinsically evil or otherwise.) And yes, harping on “intrinsically evil acts” to begin with is problematic.
“I do have a problem with [the US bishops'] embarrassing stance on the Affordable Care Act, when they were duped by the so-called pro-life movement.”
I don’t have time right now to get into details, but my recollection is that, of the passel of issues that the US bishops had with PPACA – all of them legitimate – the two primary ones were government funding of abortion and conscience protections. And subsequent events have vindicated both of those concerns, particularly the second. Perhaps the CHA, for whose members the danger to conscience protection pose a grave risk, will weigh in again.
Note, though, that this shot at the bishops for opposing PPACA illustrates Bender’s point. If life issues are the most important issues, that means that they are even more important than issues such as the economy, and even health care. As many good things as there are about PPACA -things that the bishops praised and continue to praise – life issues, which are the single most important issues today, made the act unacceptable.
@Bender (10/18, 10:56 am) I fear I’m not “Catholic” enough, “left” enough, or “knowledgeable about abortion and its politics” enough to do justice to your opening question. Nonetheless, it’s a fair question, so here is a (quick, casual, not carefully thought out) response.
First, the number of abortions in the US far exceeds 50 million. That’s just an estimate of the total number since 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided. I was unable to find (in a very brief search) an estimate for the number of abortions in the US in the century before Roe—a time in which abortion was mostly illegal in most states. Nor was I able to find an estimate of the number of abortions in the US in the previous century (when abortion was legal in many states), or for the two centuries between the arrival of European settlers and the nation’s establishment.
Second, even among those who accept natural law reasoning/philosophy there is disagreement about abortion. Some Orthodox Jews, for example, use natural law reasoning and conclude that abortion is morally permissible/justified. (I’m on shaky ground here; natural law philosophers jump in, please). So, like many things, this is more complex than “left” v. “right”.
Third, I take note of MM’s observation above (10/18, 10:33 am) that “the largest post-Roe decline in abortion rates look place during the Clinton administration, which (not surprisingly) coincided with an economic boom that led to lower poverty rates”. Clinton also used the slogan of making abortion “safe, legal and rare” to summarize his approach to the issue.
Combining that experience with the Guttmacher Institute’s data and analysis, and using the moral reasoning taught (and used) by the USCCB in its various pastorals and statements, it seems to me that there’s at least a decent argument to be made that a good way to reduce the rate of abortions in the US today is:
*reducing the rate of poverty and the degree of income inequality;
*raising the social and economic status of women;
*making widespread the availability of, and encouraging the use of, contraception;
*keeping abortion legal in most circumstances (so as to avoid the relatively high rates of illness, injury and death for women undergoing illegal abortions).
Yeah, I know. It doesn’t exactly motivate one to charge the ramparts (metaphorically speaking). If you’ve got a better proposal—particularly if there’s evidence to back it up—I’d be happy to see it (and even happier to be proved wrong).
Ed and all –
Some of us who are against killing children either in the womb or out of it have reason — that is, evidence and ethical principles — to think that RU486 does not cause an abortion because there is not yet a child there. And in the matter of the ensoulment of the fetus, we are the ones thinking with the traditional segments of Catholic theology (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas) — you aren’t. If you don’t know why you aren’t with them, then you haven’t thought about the issues clearly enough.
This isn’t the thread to argue abortion again, but so long a the pro-life movement is seems to be motivated mainly by shock and revulsion at the very image of an aborted child nobody on either side is going to change their minds. So let’s cut the dramatics and stick to persuasion.
And leave your acccusations behind. You cannot judge the sincerity of others in this matter. Yes, some people do appear to be heartless, and that is to be condemned. But only God knows who is being honest in their approaches to truth of this issue.
“Third, I take note of MM’s observation above (10/18, 10:33 am) that “the largest post-Roe decline in abortion rates look place during the Clinton administration, which (not surprisingly) coincided with an economic boom that led to lower poverty rates”. Clinton also used the slogan of making abortion “safe, legal and rare” to summarize his approach to the issue.”
If the implication is that President Clinton’s policies arrested an increase in abortion and introduced an interlude of reduced abortions, then my opinion, that view isn’t borne out by the data. This link is to the number of abortions by year suggests that the number of abortions rose in the early post-Roe-v-Wade years, leveled off during the Reagan and GHW Bush presidencies, began declining during the Clinton presidency, and the decline continued through the GW Bush presidency.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
Demographics (aging boomers) and generational change (from boomers to successor generations as the latter reached child-bearing years) seems to me more likely to explain the leveling off and decline of abortions than any particular president’s policies.
The basic legal framework for abortion on demand is the edifice of Supreme Court decisions that began with Roe v Wade. As long as that framework remains in place, I don’t believe that any president or any other elected official is going to be able to implement any policies that are going to make a substantial difference in the numbers of abortions. We will need to settle for marginal changes: e.g. whether or not the federal government funds abortions; whether or not late-term abortions are permitted in a given state.
“So oppose same-sex marriage if you wish, but not by resorting to facile slanders of those who take the institution and the responsibilities it engages far more seriously than many heterosexual couples do. Sheesh!”
Lisa, I did not want to debate this issue on the thread, but I did not use facile slanders — I am simply stating that homosexual marriage is at odds the the very communal notion of marriage has been for centuries– gay marriage is about emotional, affective relations rather between two individuals rather than the much broader social consideration and relations involved in traditional marriage. Also, did not say that it was primarily about marriage — I said it was about religious, social and…then procreative ties.
As for the institution itself, it certainly is a wreck thanks to protestant views on divorce and modern liberal social policy among other factors (70% of all black women are single mothers – and 40% of the general population are as well) and individualistic consumer culture; however, it does not invalidate the idea of traditional marriage, nor does it validate homosexual unions.
It is really amazing how much history and custom is denigrated and casually thrown out the window by contributors on this blog — no matter if it is talk of placing limits on economics behavior a la distributism or sexual behavior via Christian morality. It is as though you feel that modern culture is somehow progressed to an enlighten state when the facts on the ground clearly contradict you. You assume that modernity suddenly trumps human nature and traditions that had survived for centuries before our current culture. Very arrogant and dangerous, in my opinion.
In any case, here is the prolific Dan Savage on the future of gay marriage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html?pagewanted=all
Such individualist ideology only makes sense when you separate the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality — much the way our individualist consumer culture does when it uses sex to sell every product under the sun.
@Brett (10/18, 3:11 pm) Just for the record, the shift to marriage being about the “emotional, affection relations…between two individuals” rather than “broader social consideration and relations” predates the current debate about gay marriage by several decades at least. Papal scholars can probably supply the citation(s), but if memory serves, papal statements on marriage going back to the first half of the 20th century talk about the importance of the emotional, affective relations in marriage. (It’s also in that time period—again if memory serves—that papal statements begin to equate the sanctity of married life with the sanctity of vowed celibate life.)
As for history and culture on this blog, I find one of the most useful things about the blog (and indeed, about the Church itself) is the breadth and depth of human history, custom and culture that people bring to the conversation. I am constantly reminded that what I consider ancient custom is, in fact, relatively recent cultural developments of the last generation or three.
“The bishops seem to continue to believe, as they have for many years now, that abortion and related life issues are the most important political issues of this time and place.”
And, besides, it’s easier to whip the same dead horse hoping it will get up and be ride-able again rather than deal with current issues that are far more pressing in most people’s lives.
And (here’s the kicker) the KCs will spend millions on protect life stuff but can’t be counted on to help fund what many of them thinks is commie-inspired creeping socialism from the party of that secret Muslim, Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
To reinforce both Lisa’s and Luke’s comments:
New article on Commonweal: “The Economics of Family”
http://commonwealmagazine.org/economics-family
Key: “Interestingly, one politician who agrees with Santorum is named Barack Obama. “We know that children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty,” the president said at a Father’s Day event last year. “They’re more likely to drop out of school. They’re more likely to wind up in prison. They’re more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol…. They’re more likely to become teenage parents themselves.” Growing up without a father, he added, “leaves a hole in a child’s life that no government can fill.”
Before we ask what is to be done, what we shouldn’t do is blame gays and lesbians for disrupting the heterosexual family. We straight people have done a fine job of this all by ourselves.”
Thanks for the reply, Luke – I like your style and perhaps you are right. But, there have been several recent threads where “old” objective ideals or traditions seem to be disregard out of hand as outdated in regards to current system of economic and morality. Yet, perhaps many our problems stem from this new free wheeling system rather than proposed alternatives or limits of culture.
As for the shift, it has been a continual change in the ”secular age” yet it has become every more pronounced and rapid calling for individual right and release form all limits of the commonweal – both in economic and sexual spheres (where are now intertwined)
Ed –
I apologize. My 2:30 post should have been addressed to Bender. Don’t know why I keep mixing up names!
Luke –
Yes, there are many different sorts of natural law philosophers. Thomas jefferson, for instance, can be easily contrasted with Hobbes, though they share some very fundamental principles. The Catholic natural law tradition has been a generally Aristotelian kind which generally appeals to the extremely fundamental fact about human nature that people have certain potentialities which much be actualized if they are to flourish and be happy. But within the tradition there is much disagreement among the Catholic natural law philosophers about many different specific issues.
However, it is true that generally the Catholic natural law philosophers have condemned abortion because it deprives the person of life itself and so precludes flourishing and being happy. This group includes Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.
Again however, the latter three Greats agreed that the fetus is *not* a person until some time, even months, after conception. BUT NEVERTHELESS at least Anselm and Thomas thought that the pre-person had a person’s right to life. (I’m not sure what Augustine thought about that particular point.)
Some contemporary Catholic philosophers, relying on contemporary biology, agree with the Greats that the fetus is not immediately a person, but they do not affirm that the pre-person has the person’s right to life, or at least they think that the problem should be reconsidered.
For all of the Catholics alluded to, ethical arguments must include both general ethical principles, which are themselves dependent on metaphysical principles, as well as on particular judgments about more specific matters, The general principles are applied to the specific ones. In the case of the problem of the “ensoulment” of the fetus (the question: when does the fetus become a person?) some of the specific judgements included in the arguments are biological ones. The medieval biology was, of course, largely just guesswork about what happens in the development of the fetus. So I don’t find it surprising that there are now some differences among some of the contemporary Catholic natural law philosophers and the ones of the earlier tradition — their biological premises necessarily differ.
There have historically been a few Catholic philosophers who have admitted some exceptions to the prohibition. Some have thought that abortion is legitimate to save the life of the mother if they are both going to die without the abortion. (The fundamental issues in such cases are the same as in the much debated “trolley problem” in contemporary ethics. It’s still a difficult question.)
Summary: there is general (though not absolutely universal) agreement that killing a fetus is always the killing of a person, but there has been disagreement as to whether the early killing of a fetus is in fact *actually the killing of a person*, and there has been some disagreement as to whether there are exceptional cases.
If you’re interested in some first class scholarship on the subject, I’ll look up the Wolter-Sullivan article in Theological Studies for you. It is largely concerned with arguments which claim that the fetus is not a person early on. If that is true, then one can argue that to kill a non-person can’t possibly be murder. However, the counter-argument is: the early fetus is a potential person, and therefore has the same right to life as a person.
“Very arrogant and dangerous, in my opinion.”
Brett –
You haven’t been around here long enough to generalize about the shared characteristics of the liberals here. You seem to assume that we all agree about everything and that we are all enamoured of “modernity”. Kindly read our posts more carefully and you’ll see that you have misjudged us.
A bit of hyperbole on my part.
That is good advice, Ann – I might just take it ;)
@Brett (10/18, 4:04 pm) Thanks for your kind words.
As best I can tell, the economic and sexual spheres of human society have always been intertwined. Though they are certainly intertwined differently in our society than they were in much of the past—even the recent past within this country.
The astonishing (to me) breadth and complexity of human society today, and of the rapidity of change, is a constant challenge to our understandings of God, faith, the Church—and so many other parts of our daily lives.
Perhaps one blessing in this storm of complexity and change is the opportunity it gives us to deepen and broaden our experience of the Divine. Seeing my children with their classmates and friends, shopping at our neighborhood stores, meditating on the faces of those returning to their pews after Communion—if there’s something of the divine in each person, then the divine is beautiful and powerful and good in ways I never imagined as a child.
@Ann Olivier (10/18, 7:42 pm) Thank-you. (I’ll attend your seminar any time.)
“Just for the record, the shift to marriage being about the “emotional, affection relations…between two individuals” rather than “broader social consideration and relations” predates the current debate about gay marriage by several decades at least. Papal scholars can probably supply the citation(s), but if memory serves, papal statements on marriage going back to the first half of the 20th century talk about the importance of the emotional, affective relations in marriage. (It’s also in that time period—again if memory serves—that papal statements begin to equate the sanctity of married life with the sanctity of vowed celibate life.)”
I suspect that nobody here would dispute that there are dimensions of emotion and intimacy in marriage – that these are some of the “goods” of marriage. Certainly, church teaching acknowledges as much. Anyone in a good marriage would agree that these are wonderful things.
As I’ve commented here in the past, what has changed is the perception that these are the *only* goods of marriage – that emotional and sexual intimacy is the whole of what marriage entails, and so any two individuals who share these subjective experiences should be entitled to marry. This is why gay marriage “makes sense” to so many people these days, when it didn’t make sense to a majority just a few years ago.
One obvious implication of relegating the goods of marriage to emotional and sexual intimacy is that, when that sense of intimacy is no longer present, the marriage is no longer justifiable, and there is no reason it shouldn’t end.
To extend it a step further: if I felt emotional and sexual attraction to a woman twenty years ago and we married, and then lost that loving feeling ten years ago and we divorced, and then discovered it with another woman five years ago and so *we* married, it makes no sense that the church should refuse to give me communion – after all, I loved my former wife and received communion, so why, now that I love my current wife every bit as much, shouldn’t I get communion now?
The church claims a number of things about marriage that don’t fit the paradigm, I’ve sketched here: that it must be between a man and a woman; that it is a social rather than private arrangement; that its end is procreation; that it is permanent; and that violating these norms is sinful.
The church will need to be “defensive” about marriage going forward – it will need to maintain that its view of marriage is okay for its members. I expect that we will continue to see cultural, and probably legal, incursions against the church’s paradigm of marriage, even for its own members.
Jim, thanks for 12:03. That’s a keeper.
Great post, Jim.
What Jim doesn’t say about the’goods” of marriage -classicly from Augiustrine, was that practice is enshrined in canonical rules.
Up until 30-40 years ago, the good of children seemed to be the major concern but a broader relational understanding (beyond the obstacle of”insanity” to a real marriage) began to appear.
Giuven the changing state of marriage especially from arranged or the old shot gum n marriages, or the axiom that couples had to stay together for the sake of the children(even in highly dangerous domestic situations) has led many to rethink the”goods” and their application.
Many think that the banning of divorced/remarried catholics from Eucharist needs rethought as policy and in my experience many don’t pay attention to the rules anyway.
This is just a small part of the current tension in the Church where for the most part canonists hold sway, exist to support the current structure, as opposed to say the priests in Austrua who think much of pastoral experience has been abandoned.
As to the question of gays/lesbians, etc. maybe the Fordham conference on listening might provide some with a better frame for stating their views.
“The church will need to be “defensive” about marriage going forward – it will need to maintain that its view of marriage is okay for its members.”
OK is one thing. But is it obligatory and definitive for all in all cases?
“. . .that it is a social rather than private arrangement . . .”
Jim P, –
Up to the above point I was with you, but I was not taught that matrimony is a social rather than a private arrangement. I was taught it was primarily a contract between two individuals with ramifications in the whole society. Neither was I taught it was permanent, but, rather it was “till death do us part”, The latter is perhaps what you meant, but it was not what Archbishop Dolan meant when he said not long ago that marriage was “forever’ or words to that effect. I suspect there is a bit of JP II’s romanticization of marriage going around in the Church today.
Jimmy Mac, you’re right – of course the church thinks its views are universally right, and that it would be best if society would agree to them. Of course, the pendulum is not swinging in that direction right now (probably the wrong metaphor, because it’s difficult to imagine that the pendulum will ever swing back again – once a stricture is loosened, is it ever tightened again?)
Legislative attacks on the rights of Catholic-affiliated organizations like Catholic Charities to exclude birth control benefits from the health-care packages for its employees are one harbinger of the defensive posture that the church will need to assume just to maintain the integrity of its teachings among its own members and institutions.
Hi, Ann, “public” would have been a better word than “social”, but “social” isn’t entirely wrong.
And you’re right about “till death do us part”.
Again, here’s the thing. Same-sex partners who merely want to do their individualistic thing don’t seek marriage at all, just as straights who want to be left alone to sow their wild oats don’t marry. Marriage is a social reality, for same-sex couples and for straights. It carries serious social commitments for one’s partner and any children that might be raised in the family. As to religion, first–CIVIL marriage doesn’t require any religious or spiritual understanding of the institution or the relationship. Second, the same-sex couples married in other churches affirm the religious value of marriage every bit as much as straight couples do–sometimes more so for having had their relationships derided and forbidden for so long. None of the goods of marriage that straight couples seek are unavailable to same-sex couples EXCEPT the possibility of biological reproduction with one’s partner. To say that biological reproduction is the essential inviolable purpose of marriage would be to deny marriage to women of a certain age and to all the sterile. Calling same-sex partners individualistic, selfish, hedonistic, etc. is to ignore the deep commitment of body, mind and spirit many homosexual persons bring to their relationships. It’s a slander.
“To say that biological reproduction is the essential inviolable purpose of marriage would be to deny marriage to women of a certain age and to all the sterile.”
Lisa –
The fact that the Church has never prohibited such marriages among the non-gay *shows* that it does admit that the possibility of children is not what is absolutely essential for marriage. This is a huge contradiction, and the Church really can’t have it both ways.
I’d like to add that instead of working to be more”defensive” of the”integrity” of the Church’s teaching (as cited contraception,) the Church leadership, given all tht’s happened should be in serious rexamination mode.
Similarly with its ever slowly evolving view of marriage (evn though on the internet yesterday saw a priece about a priest proclaimingl ove is not an end of marriage -only procreation.)
Got an e-mail of our parish bulletin today -folks are invited to brown bag lunch to learn how to “defend” against criticism of Church teaching.
So the gap widens (see cathy’s latest post for example.)