Rick Santorum on the Catholic cafeteria
At RealClearReligion.org, Rick Santorum has a column talking about how “It Is Hard to Be Catholic in Public Life.” The Republican candidate for president makes it easier for himself, however, by distinguishing between “prudential matters” and “moral absolutes,” a division that happens to cleave neatly along the Democratic-Republican divide:
As it has been pointed out to me on numerous occasions, there are moral issues where I have differed from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and even the pope — welfare reform, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some immigration policies. While all of these issues have profound moral underpinnings none of them involve moral absolutes. War is not always unjust; government aid is not always just or loving. The bishops and I may disagree on such prudential matters, but as with all people of good will with whom I disagree, I have an obligation to them and my country to listen to their perspective and perform a healthy reexamination of my own position.
Give Santorum credit for honesty. He seems to have finished that reexamination, and concluded that the bishops and the magisterium are wrong on a number of issues, including torture and the death penalty, two points of disagreement he does not mention. And the bishops don’t appear to be holding his feet to the fire.
Santorum has hit some of these notes before, but they have ever greater resonance today, not least after Pope Benedict’s remarks about bringing Catholic social teaching to bear on a Catholic’s public life.
Santorum’s division of “prudential matters” and “moral absolutes” strikes me as far too convenient, as I said, but also far too clear and simplistic. Many of the teachings he categorizes as optional are fairly non-negotiable, and the teachings he holds out as absolute (namely opposition to abortion rights, though I imagine he would include gay marriage) are less absolute than he would like: the church doesn’t back the so-called personhood laws, for example, and even overturning Roe wouldn’t end legalized abortion in states, and abortion rates are pegged to “prudential” policies on poverty and such as much as anything else.
But Santorum’s division does appear to accurately reflect the view of many Catholics as regards public policies and Catholic teaching. That seems to include much of the hierarchy. In other times, the bishops have not been as unwilling to tackle “prudential” issues, like war and peace and the economy. The (false, to me) bifurcation between principles and prudential judgments in Catholic teaching is somewhat inherent to the Catholic polity, however, as bishops are teachers who generally espouse principles, while clergy and religious and lay people have the hard work of putting them into practice.
Principles are much easier to enunciate and defend, hence the appeal of the religious freedom context for framing disputes — it’s not about problems with a particular policy, but about a compromised principle, a precedent that will be set. The Obama administration can funnel more funds than ever to Catholic agencies, but if they deny one relatively small grant because the Catholic recipient does not refer victims for contraception or abortion services, then that is religious discrimination that threatens the entire process. Same with the contraception mandate, and its slippery slope to forced euthanasia and the persecution of believers.
Sometimes, however, the understandable preference for absolute clarity winds up obscuring with false certainty, and it can certainly wind up overshadowing too many other “hard teachings” that may indeed be more in the realm of prudential policy judgments but which nonetheless can’t be dismissed as easily as Rick Santorum does.
Istm that the real difference is not so much between moral absolutes and prudential matters, but between foundational principles and applications of those principles to real situations.
It is always the case, istm, that applying foundational principles to real-life situations requires the exercise of prudential judgment. Even rules of thumb that seem near-absolute (abortion is never or rarely permissible; the death penalty is always or nearly always impermissible) are exercises in prudential judgment, working from earlier-order principles.
For complex real issues like just-war decisions or immigration policy, there are a number of foundational principles that come into play simultaneously – for example, the illegal-immigration problem in the US touches on the preferential option for the poor; the importance of the family; and the rights of nations to govern its people, defend its borders, and expect obedience to just laws. Exercising prudential judgment in these matters is not simple, and there may be more than one defensible answer that emerges.
Bishops, as successors to the apostles and teachers of the faith, are the ones who teach our foundational principles. If Rick Santorum, or any Catholic in public life, disagrees with one of those foundational principles and claims that he doesn’t, he should absolutely be called on it.
When the bishops insert themselves into an issue in the public square, they are playing at both levels: at the level of teaching foundational principles, but also at the level of specific applications. I think a person can legitimately disagree with the bishops’ applications of prudential judgment without disagreeing with the underlying principles. Thus, I don’t think the Commonweal editorial board is sinning in stating that the bishops’ analysis of the contraception mandate is inadequate. The editorial board exercised its own prudential judgment, responsibly and honestly, and arrived at a different conclusion. I don’t think it has stated that it disagrees with the bishops on any of the foundational principles that underlie that issue.
On the question of immigration, I don’t think it’s wrong to call Santorum to account, if, for example, his policy inadequately takes into account the importance of the family. On the other hand, part of Santorum’s reasoning – that illegal immigrants typically break many just laws in order to stay in this country illegally, as when they steal or forge different identities – is one that the bishops themselves perhaps need to think harder about.
If the people legally in this country were to be as honest and scrupulous about the numbers and kinds of laws they break as a matter of course, they might not be so quick to criticize some of the things that the undocumented do to protect their families and themselves from the like of the Joe Arpaios of the world.
Mr. Gibson – nice post.
Sorry, Jim, you continue to try to excuse and make distinctions that just aren’t there.
Intrinisic evils – very short history; not universally agreed upon by moral theologians; can be confusing as a “foundation” e.g. masturbation is an intrinsic evil in this argument. Would you compare nuclear war and masturbation on the same level. The discussion quickly becomes ridiculous as is using this as a footnote to justify Santorum’s distinctions. The same goes with the use of “slippery slope” arguments – they can actually go both ways (don’t you find it amusing that almost every European/english speaking country in the world has universal health plans that provide contraceptives, etc. and yet we don’t seem to see these issues. Why? Why are the US bishops different?)
Mr. Gibson – you linked to an older John Allen column but his just posted article needs to be added hear and reflected on. Most especially it addresses Santorum’s conclusions and finds them “wanting”:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/benedicts-gentle-debunk-clericalism
Examples from the article compared to Santorum’s comments – highlights:
- from B16′s speeches in Mexico/Cuba via John Allen’s analysis –
“Typical expressions of this clericalism include:
- Clergy see themselves as political powerbrokers, playing a direct role in affairs of state.
- The church projects an image of power and privilege, with its preferred spiritual imagery emphasizing God as a cosmic monarch.
- The role of the laity is conceived in largely passive terms — “pay, pray and obey.”
- Little premium is placed on evangelization or faith formation, with pastoral care understood largely in terms of administering the sacraments.”
“First, Benedict insisted that the Catholic church is not a political party, and that its most important contribution to political life is the formation of individual consciences — putting the premium on the role of clergy as pastors, not pundits or activists.
Benedict struck that note even before arriving in Latin America, on the papal plane shortly after takeoff from Rome. In response to a question about the church’s political role, he stressed that one has to be clear about “what the church can and should do, and what it can’t and shouldn’t do” — a reference to the danger of directly partisan stands.”
B16 ends by stating: “His kingdom does not stand on the power of his armies subduing others through force or violence,” the pope said. “It rests on a higher power that wins over hearts — the love of God.”
In that spirit, Benedict called on Catholics to be “courageous in humility.”
(Santorum, Dolan, Lori – not hearing much courage in humility)
John Allen summarizes: “Yet Benedict never said anything about the looming elections, even something anodyne like a generic call to electoral responsibility. Strikingly, he largely avoided the hot-button issues of abortion and gay marriage, both of which are in play in Mexico and other parts of Latin America.
As far as the political loyalties of the Catholic church, Benedict insisted that the church should “stand beside those who are marginalized as the result of force, power or a prosperity which is blind to the poorest of the poor.”
The pope did say that the faith must have consequences for public life, at one point rejecting a “schizophrenia” that tries to separate private ethics and public morality. Yet even here, the pope stressed that the role of the church is “education of consciences” rather than offering direct legislative solutions.”
Allow me to add – It would be interesting to have this dialogue with the USCCB legal folks and the sub-committee on religious liberty as framed by Dolan and Lori.
The essential question appears to be catholic hospitals, universities, social agencies and the revised mandate. In many ways we are breaking new ground in terms of a movement towards a “universal health plan” and the position/place of catholic hospitals and social agencies in that mix. But, have not really heard logical arguments from the bishops beyond – but we were always exempted and this changes that so the administration is making war. IMO, CHA and Sister Keehan are trying to stand by the marginalized without sacrificing this on the altar of some type of assumed religious liberty threat. B16 seems to be advocating for a very different approach than what we have been subjected to by Dolan, Lori, or even Santorum.
Is the poor, southern, non-white world also to become anti-Christian because the white, capitalist world is claimed as Christian? Such a scenario is not wholly devoid of plausibility. ” Let liberation theology be “excommunicated” in Latin America; let the black millions of central Africa be alienated from the churches by a prolonged while-black conflict centered upon a South Africa firmly supported by the United States and Western Europe; let the classic Christian communities of the southern continents be deprived of the eucharist, and starved of life; let a diminished priesthood retreat into the realm of the sacral, reasserting its segregation from the laity, and its concern with more important clerical matters than torture and starvation; let an other-worldly and authoritarian form of Christianity be proclaimed again as the only one fully acceptable to Rome; and we are almost there. It is not impossible. ”
Adrian Hastings, African Catholicism, SCM Press (1989).
Excellent post. The sad thing is that issues such as these (and issues raised in David Gibson’s previous “Contraception objections fail Catholic’s moral reasoning” article) are never addressed in a meaningful way by the bishops. They just repeat the party line. Why? See comment about clericalism above.
But imagine if there were actual dialog on such issues. What an interesting and compelling Church it would be. Where’s the medieval disputation when you need it.
“War is not always unjust,” but for at least one side all wars are unjust: war can’t be defensive for both sides. Moreover, it is fully possible that war can be unjust for both sides, especially in the jus in bello aspect.
“Pre-emptive” war is unjust by definition, and yet it is U.S. policy since the second Bush administration, and talked around but not explicitly renounced by the administration of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Given the difficulty of starting and fighting a just war, the notion that “not all” wars are unjust is, at minimum, a weaselly starting point for a would-be head of state. It doesn’t give one much confidence in his other moral pronouncements. And, of course, Santorum is on record as being unsound on torture, which is intrinsically evil. So his claims as a moralist hardly deserve further consideration.
Deacon Jim, you have described the situation perfectly IMO. There are moral principles and they must be applied with prudence.
Santorum’s remarks distort that basic teaching, trying to establish moral absolutes that must be applied, with or without prudence. It is doubly deceptive because it is si close to the truth.
I wonder if those who think a President should consult bishops will be happy when President Romney consults his fellow Mormon bishops about laws that will affect us all.
How can anyone take Santorum seriously? Here is a politician who claims Palestinian people do not exist. The logical conclusion then is that since they don’t exist they not being brutalised which is contrary to the facts on the ground. Furthermore he has promised to make war with Iran the moment he gets into the White House. According to him in this matter all is things are on the table including the use of nuclear weapons.
Christians of Santorum ‘s color not only give Christianity a very bad name but they scare the living day lights out of men and women of good will.
So who salvaged the entirety of Catholic social doctrine from the cauldron of moral absolutes? The same ones who decided no decision about abortion can ever be subject to prudential judgment? And would the authority of those authoritative sources be absolute, or is that question itself subject to prudential judgment?
I ask after years of not voting in Presidential elections because of abortion. I couldn’t see voting for the party that keeps liberalizing abortion law, but neither could I justify voting for Republicans who institutionalize economic injustice and wage war or havoc or both around the globe. (Of course, Democrats have been known to do the latter as well, but at least they don’t brag about it.) For all his talk about fighting the culture, Santorum, like so many conservative Catholics, seems never to have wrestled with even the tiniest conflict between religion and politics, faith and country. For him, it’s been an amazingly smooth fit.
Fwiw, I’ve declared my own war on political paralysis with the realization that, for all intents and purposes, the Church in America has been had by the Republican party, manipulated into an eternal corner by the cheap claim to stand for a handful of relatively personal issues the Church’s own conservatives simultaneously decided have to be the only moral absolutes in the public square. There’s something fundamentally wrong with this picture, and long past time conservative Catholics took a closer look at their place in it.
“I wonder if those who think a President should consult bishops will be happy when President Romney consults his fellow Mormon bishops about laws that will affect us all.”
Gerelyn, are you channeling those Houston ministers from 1960?
Politically I am fairly conservative, and I agree with this post. I think Jim Pauwels nails it on the head, that “prudential judgment” means using prudence to apply certain core principles in diverse ways, not following the party line without any effort to root it in those core principles. Back in December I compared Santorum unfavorably to Newt Gingrich as conservative Catholics attempting to root their positions in a Catholic sensibility: http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/?p=1469.
I also agree with Gibson’s point that even for the most staunchly pro-life politician, any actual decision dealing with abortion will involve prudential judgment. No politician will ever have a simple Yes/No decision on abortion, if there even is such a thing. That is especially true of the U.S. president, whose main influence on the issue is only indirect.
To be fair to Santorum, I believe that the statement that Palestinian people do not exist is not a denial that the actual people called “Palestinians” are not in fact there, but that the idea of a distinctive nationality “Palestinian” is a historical invention used to justify ongoing efforts to destroy the state of Israel in the name of a distinct Palestinian homeland, rather than simply absorb them into the surrounding Arab nations. I do not know the answer to that question, but that is what he meant.
“Exercising prudential judgment in these matters is not simple, and there may be more than one defensible answer that emerges.”
Jim P. –
Agreed. ISTM that the biggest hole in the Catholic moral system is that it doesn’t provide any general moral prnciples for handling conflicting interests, including rights which may not oth be suuported and duties which may not both be done . These lead to the contrary concluion (moral commandments) you note. Sometimes we just don’t know what to do. Telling us to look at what a prudent man would do just begs the issue — how would we know he’s prudent if we dont already know what the prudent actions are?
Beverley (6:31 p.m.). You nailed it. I hadn’t stopped voting in presidential elections, but I have on occasion expressed my opinion of the choice with a write-in. That is probably what I’ll do again this year. If you get a vote in Florida, that’s where it comes from.
Gerelyn, are you channeling those Houston ministers from 1960?
———-
For anyone unfamiliar with American Catholic history, there are many starting points. Imho, an interesting approach is to read diocesan histories and histories of religious orders. They’re easily found in university divinity libraries.
Learnig what it was like to be Catholic in pre-Civil Way America is interesting. Or in the days of Al Smith. Or even in 1930s. The nuns who taught at my parochial school had been insulted and berated on trains and in other public places by Protestant louts. To mock (or throw up at the thought of) Kennedy facing the “Houston ministers” should be beneath a Catholic of today, but obviously isn’t.
A book I enjoyed (because the subject was the bishop who confirmed me), and one that might surprise today’s Catholics is Some Seed Fell on Good Ground: The Life of Edwin V. O’Hara, by Timothy Michael (now Cardinal) Dolan.
http://tinyurl.com/3nsnys9
Topic for its own thread: given pre=emptive war as always wrong, how should terrorists who have sworn to destroy another country and who do not follow the accepted rules of warfare be countered? By physical force of some sort? If so, which sort?r Or by words? Or bribes? Or what?
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Tom. I appreciate the kind words, but even I wouldn’t waste my vote on me this time around, not with the prospect of Paul Ryan and Iran-obsessed neo-cons unleashed at last. Frankly, American politics has gotten too scary to ignore.
Once one reaches the level of politics, everything is prudential. There are often several possible solutions with different trade-offs and probabilities of success. People of good will can and will disagree about how to respond to an issue and what priority to give it. This is especially true of political strategy. One should try to get as much as possible done, but no one knows what actually is possible.
That said, the prudential nature of politics isn’t an excuse to blow off the underlying moral issues. If politicians really believe that the poor will be better served by cutting Medicaid in exchange for tax cuts for the rich, they should make that case. If they believe that sacrificing the poor in exchange for getting another conservative judge on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, they should make that case.
David,
Your points about Santorum are absolutely right. Santorum’s positions on immigration, Iran, and torture, to name a few are, in my opinion, unconscionable and–again, IMO–completely indefensible in light of CST. Much as I might like to vote for someone with his position on abortion and traditional marriage, I can’t, and won’t, because of these other issues which you rightly name. His disagreement with the Church goes beyond mere prudential issues and, I believe, undermines his credibility as an authentically pro-life candidate.
But how you, of all people, can write a post like this with a straight face is totally beyond me. Your hypocrisy is appalling. It stinks of politics and pot-meet-kettle indignation.
Making bold stands for authentic religious freedom, the rights of the unborn, and the rights of children to have a mother and a father are every bit as essential as the causes you rightly call the Senator out on. But in your work you actively undermine these CST principles daily and, moreover, you gleefully mock others who have the courage to stand up in defense of these principles. What’s truly laughable is that Santorum uses the same arguments of prudential judgment and vox populi that you do for undermining your least favorite positions of the Church. As far as your attitudes toward CST are concerned, you and Santorum are opposite sides of the same coin. Doppelgangers.
Can you honestly not see how you blithely condemn yourself and your own politics with every word you write against Santorum? I really don’t know how you sleep at night. Seriously, David. For the love of God, repent. Or at least have the decency to let someone else fight this particular battle. You’re just making a fool of yourself.
G
Ann-
First, it’s important to remember that terrorists for the most part can’t destroy a country regardless of how fervently they swear. An attitude of keep calm and carry on can prevent 90% of the damage of terrorism. While the loss of life is tragic, the magnitude of even the largest terrorist attacks is dwarfed by deaths from other causes in a single year. I don’t want to trivialize terrorism, but given that the goal of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction, it is vital that we don’t overact.
I would generally treat terrorism like a form of organized crime or a militia planning violence. Keep an eye on potential threats, make arrests once they break the law, and move up the chain of command as much as possible. It isn’t perfect, but nothing is.
Greg: Is that the limit of your self-righteousness? Or is there another level–the one where you’re willing to associate with hypocrites as long as they will blurb your book?
Cupcake ==
I don’t see how we can treat terrorists such as the Bin Laden organization as a mere crime synidcate or a local illegal militia. Yes, that particular group seems to have been incapacitated, but others are possible . Bin Laden was a rich man who supposted the cause, and no doubt there are other rich Muslims like him who will bankroll such groups. The Muslims include many highly educated young men, the sort who often provide the nucleus of revolutionary leadership. i”m sue there are Muslims who are quite capable of building a small portable bomb, deliverable to our shores by submarine or other hidden means.
Were such a “small” bomb to be set off in New York City, not only would a large portion of the city be totally destoyd, but if it were set off in Manhattan, the center of the world’s main financial and commercial district would be destroyed. This would seriously affect not only the U. S. but the hwole world. That, plus simultaneously blowing up of the Mississippi levees at St. Louis and Baton Rouge would cripple a great deal of American commerce. for years to come.
Bin Laden’ group was destroyed by pre-emptve warfare. What alternative do you propose to combat a similar enemy? (Actually I think this requires a whole new thread.)
Mr. Popcak — surely you know by now that for too many of the posters here, it is all politics, all the time?
You would think that just once they might welcome those areas where they have common cause with someone on the opposite side of their politics, such as abortion, which purportedly, because this is a “Catholic” site, they oppose. But no.
Even their opponents’ support of undeniable and fundamental Catholic issues are to be ridiculed and attacked. It is enough, especially when combined with all the comments characterizing pro-lifers as “them,” rather than “us,” to lead one to think that maybe, outside of the public arena, they actually are not opposed to abortion, etc.
Ann-
I’m not worried about nuclear terrorism, especially by non-state actors. Building a bomb is hard. It isn’t something that a non-state organization can accomplish.
Al Queda has been destroyed by firing missiles at anything that looks like a meeting with an Al Queda leader. Over time, there have been enough successes that much of Al Queda’s leadership is now dead. This comes at a cost of slaughtering countless non-Al Queda members who had the misfortune of matching what the government considered to be a signature of Al Queda at the time. I suspect that this isn’t an acceptable treatment of collateral damage under just war theory.
As I said, I would treat them like other criminal organizations. Arrest and try those that you can, cut off money, and take precautions to make it difficult for them to operate if they leave the places where they can hide. This isn’t perfect, but the day when death is no more and every tear shall be wiped away is not with us yet.
Cupcake –
The reason terrorists who are likely to do very serious physical damage to this country cannot be treatted like ordinary criminals is simply because they do not live here. LIke foreign countries they are external enemies. But enemies they are. just ask them.
I’m not satisfied with any of the answers to this problem, but aproblem it is. My (old) reading told me that if you have the materials, a small atom bomb is not technically very difficult to make. They can be made small enough to carry in a suitcase. Getting the materials would be difficult, but with enough money you can buy almost anything.
I think the problem of threats to national security by non-nations has to be faced as objectively and thoroughly as possible. We probably need some new moral categories due to the changes in the nature of warfare. and due to changes in which sorts of organizations are capable of threatening a country or even of actually waging what amounts to war (e.g., bombing a city). It’s a scary subject, so we tend to ignore it — unless we’re from New York City or Arlington, VA.
Mr.Popcak & Mr. Bender, I don’t think it’s right to attack the contributor or commenters. If you disagree with what people are saying,I think you should challenge the substance of the comments, not insult the people making them.
Ann, atomic bombs, large or small, are VERY, VERY hard to make. At least 2 things make it difficult, getting enough of the right radioactive material at sufficient concentration and building a conventional explosive which compresses the radioactive material enough to start a nuclear chain reaction. Witness the years of efforts Iran is devoting to making a single bomb. The large number of centrifuges you hear discussed are trying to complete step one, getting enough radioactive material at a sufficient concentration. What is easier to make is a dirty bomb, which I believe is generally defined as a conventional explosive with radioactive material around it. Radioactive material is all over as you can surmise by a visit to a doctors office or hospital. But that material wont explode in a atomic bomb. Even the radioactive material at a nuclear power plant wont create an atomic explosion, though a conventional explosion will scatter it all around.
Agree with Jim Pauwel’s approach as it brings all of these issues, including the so-called non-negotiables into the realm of prudential decision making at a political level and invites a conversation about substantive issues.
Drift Alert here…….(apologize in advance to the moderators) but I have to respond to Matthew on Santorum’s defense of Gingrich’s Palestinian invented people comment. Gingrich’s comments were inflammatory, divisive, uncritical, unreasonable, lacking a complete and total awareness of the compexity of the issues involved. That Santorum defended them shows that he is cut from the same mould and lacks the critical judgement to lead.
To illustrate the point:
See…there are two competing narratives at play each of which has grains of truth in them.
Matthew Shadle, at 7:48, that’s a good point, and interesting post.
Greg Popcak, apologies for not responding sooner. Remarkably, I was sleeping…
I strongly endorse Irene’s comment that challenges the tone and substance of the Popcak and Bender comments. I also wonder if we might not work a little harder to understand the worldview of cultural conservative Catholics who occasionally contribute to dotCommonweal. Case in point: The moral vision shortcomings of Catholic politicians of the Right understandably receive intense focus. Those of Catholic politicans of the Left…not so much. It’s got to rankle.
Why not stipulate that, unfortunately, politics and religion are both team sports, that we’re all Cafeteria Catholics more interested in trumpeting their hypocricy than in owning our own? We all regularly fall short of our most elevated ideals, don’t we? Aren’t we remarkably tolerant of acid and dismissive commentary when it comes from our team even as we deplore it emanating from the other?
The insights in Jon Haidt’s The Righteous Mind begs for application in the Catholic space. We’ll never emerge from the mutual contempt until the problem with bias and polarization is ‘theirs’ rather than ‘ours.’ Maybe our contributors influential with The Common Ground project could imagine a project involving discussion of the insight that morality both ‘binds and blinds.’
Correction to my final paragraph:
“The insights in Jon Haidt’s The Righteous Mind begs for application in the Catholic space. We’ll never emerge from the mutual contempt until the problem with bias and polarization is ‘ours’ rather than merely ‘theirs.’ Maybe our contributors influential with The Common Ground project could imagine a new project: “Morality both binds and blinds. Discuss.”
Sorry.
Mike McG: In his new book THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: WHY GOOD PEOPLE ARE DIVIDED BY POLITICS AND RELIGION (2012), Jonathan Haidt (pronounced “height”) makes the following statements:
“Beware of anyone who insists that there is one true morality for all people, times, and places” (pages 316).
But this is exactly and precisely what the Catholic tradition of so-called “natural law” moral theory regarding sexual morality claims.
But nowhere in his book does Haidt give any indication of understanding, or even knowing about, the centuries-old Catholic tradition of “natural law” moral theory. So has Haidt actually studied this tradition of thought, or not? If he has not, then he is making a sweeping generalization about something that he has not studied seriously. But if he has studied this tradition of thought, then shouldn’t he provide some evidence that he has studied it before he dismisses it in such a sweeping way?
But let me turn to the abortion debate. If I were to follow Haidt’s advice to “[b]eware of anyone who insists that there is one true morality for all people, times, and places,” then I would not engage in debate with, say, the Catholic bishops about legalized abortion in the first trimester, because they base their objections on the Catholic tradition of “natural law” moral theory. But if I beware of them because of the moral theory they hold, then I will not debate with them about legalized abortion in the first trimester. Hmm.
It seems to me that if I don’t debate with them, I am thereby removing myself from the public arena of debate about abortion. This seems to me what following Haidt’s advice would seem to mean.
Haidt also says, “But anyone who tells you that all societies, in all eras, should be using one particular moral matrix, resting on one particular configuration of moral foundation, is a fundamentalist of one sort or another” (page 316). But just how is this way of categorizing people supposed to help those of us who would like to see Catholic fundamentalists change their position regarding legalized abortion in the first trimester?
Thomas Farrell –
LEt us also note that Haidt assumes an absolute principle: fundamentalism is always wrong.
One of the problems with “the Catholic natural law tradition” is that it is actually quite varied, th e recent popes say lots of good things about Aqunas, but as I see them, they don’t know him very well, and neither do they teach him — they teach his conclusions (sometimes) but rarely his premises. Very unThomistic of them.
I haven’t read Haidt’s new bood, but it sounds interesting == as far as it goes. (I’ve read other stuf of his that’s quitegood.) At least he seems to realize that there is such a thing as human nature, which is more than you can say for many ethcians. The sticking point between him and the natural law people is, i think, the matter of the *partial* malleability of human nature. The natural law ethicians do admit the malleability is real, but then they don’t ususally reallize how much it can affect our ethics. Their talk of the “universality” of natural law then becmes open to criticism.
Thomas:
I’m tempted we brought very different issues to the reading of Haidt’s book and consequently experienced it very differently. In THE RIGHTEOUS MIND and in his other works, Haidt is forthcoming about his enlightenment-informed, atheistic worldview, both as a matter of full disclosure and in order to’ locate’ the limited attention he gives to public policy. But he’s pushing neither his cosmology nor his politics, not by a long shot.
He is writing as a social psychologist who has rendered a treasure trove of research accessible to lay readers. He speaks to our incapacity to understand one another and the biases we all harbor. I very much doubt that he has immersed himself in the Catholic natural law tradition nor do I consider that to be disqualifying. He doesn’t claim any expertise although he understands authority to be one source of moral reasoning.
The application to the Catholic space, in my opinion, goes to behavioral science data he shares, the processes we engage in when we converse across tribal boundaries. He would argue that we should start by acknowledging that we would benefit all from seeing the moral landscape from an angle very different from our own. Then we would go about finding a safe way to dialogue…not an easy task.
I doubt that he has any advice on how to ‘convert’ Catholic ‘fundamentalists’ on abortion. Instead, I believe he would argue that morality is largely intuitive. We come to believe one way or another on abortion, then fish about for a supporting rationale. When someone demolishes our rationale we’re inclined to search for another rather than change our minds. Now I don’t think appreciating Haidt requires unqualified endorsement of intuitionist moral psychology. But it is a provocative argument and it contains wisdom.
As an alternate to setting folks straight, I think he would endorse initiatives like the Public Conversations Project and the Princeton Prolife/Prochoice Dialogue. Get people to know each other as multidimensional and, perhaps, conflicted. Then see what happens. At least that is the thrust of his conclusion in THE RIGHTEOUS MIND.
There are two issues I wish he had developed further. First of all, I wish he had elaborated more extensively on the two experiences that undermined his previously orthodox worldview. I think that binary, Manichean worldviews work for many of us…until they don’t. Only then are we radically open to those we have always deplored.
Secondly, I wish he would have addressed the imprtance of woundedness as a major barrier to openness. I think we see raw wound exposed ‘most every day at dotCommonweal. The vehemence of the responses to the ‘other’ bespeaks memories of painful experiences at their hands. I don’t see how we can progress to dialogue until we can see ourselves as wounder as well as wounded.
I invite Thomas and anyone else interested in exploring Haidt’s work to contact me back channel. Maybe we can get something going.
Gerelyn @ 03/30/2012 – 5:53 pm: “I wonder if those who think a President should consult bishops will be happy when President Romney consults his fellow Mormon bishops about laws that will affect us all.”
There is a definite difference in the concept of bishop between Catholic and LDS churches:
“In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), bishops are called from among the members of a local congregation, known as a ward, and traditionally serve, without pay, for four to seven years (the actual length of service can vary). A bishop must be a married high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood. The bishop acts as the Presiding High Priest of the ward. A bishop simultaneously serves as the president of the Aaronic priesthood and president of the Priests Quorum in the ward. In a branch, the branch president fulfills the same functions as a bishop; however, a branch president does not need to be a high priest.
The Bishop is often called “the father of the ward”[1] as he is the priesthood leader who is most intimately involved with individual church members. The bishop is not paid for the time he devotes to serving his ward. All ward and stake level callings in the LDS Church operate as a lay ministry; members donate their time to perform the duties assigned with each calling.
The LDS Church also has a Presiding Bishopric which oversees the temporal affairs of the church (including its Welfare Services) and provides assistance and instruction to the various bishoprics worldwide. However, there is no ecclesiastical or priesthood reporting relationship as the bishop’s immediate ecclesiastical priesthood leader is the stake president.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(Latter_Day_Saints)
“Beware of anyone who insists that there is one true morality for all people, times, and places”
The age-old unassailable rejoinder is, of course, “So, that command can’t be true for all peoples, times and places, can it?”
“There is a definite difference in the concept of bishop between Catholic and LDS churches”
This is all very true, but it doesn’t respond to Gerelyn’s basic point, i.e., what would Catholics like Santorum think of a Pres. Romney taking orders from a non-Catholic religious authority whose teachings conflict with public policy?
I think the answer’s obvious: It would depend on what that authority said. If he (or she) agreed with Catholic doctrine, then Santorum and friends would be for it; if not, no. Truth is truth. So would their take on the principle of religious liberty allow anybody who thinks differently to be exempted in that case? What trumps what? Could religious liberty ever trump truth?
Until the 1960s, the Church wouldn’t allow that it ever could, not even in a pluralistic democracy. If divorce or contraception or what-have-you is wrong, it should not be legal, never mind how many citizens of a particular democracy think it should. Still, unlike the episcopates of majority Catholic countries such as Italy and Ireland, America’s bishops, however loudly they spoke out on moral issues and demanded Catholics follow their lead when it came to books and Hollywood movies, were careful not to step over the line into public policy. While there were always politicians beholden to Catholic voters, the bishops didn’t call press conferences to tell Presidents to change their policies, or else. Cynics might say that was because, before JFK, they were on best behavior, pretending they respected American pluralism in order to trick wary Protestants into voting Catholics into office. Now that Catholics are in office and refuse to listen to them, the game’s off. I don’t say that, of course. I just wish they’d stop acting as if it were true.
George D @ 11:42 am, agreed. Even if the statement about Palestinians is true, it is certainly not the only truth.
@ Cupcake: It isn’t merely drone strikes and SEAL teams that have weakened al-Qaeda. Bin Laden managed to alienate a lot of followers by his willingness to inflict collateral damage, i.e., kill fellow Muslims without hesitation in his drive to kill western “infidels.”
Terrorism as Bin Laden practiced it wasn’t designed to send invading armies into the United States to replace our leaders with mullahs, and the Constitution with sharia law. It was meant to lure us into unwinnable wars in Muslim lands at the cost of American lives and money. Bin Laden played the in-over-his-head George W. Bush like a fiddle.
Ann and Cupcake – Al Qaeda isn’t the only model for terrorism. According to Wikipedia, Hezbollah has an arsenal of over 30,000 rockets. Hamas and other Palestinian groups have made something on the order of 6,800 rocket attacks on Israel. One of the two groups’ chief financial backers – Iran – is actively pursuing nukes.
Are there circumstances that would justify a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from deploying nuclear weapons? According to traditional just-war theory, the answer would be no. I agree with Ann that this is problematic (to say the least). Would Israel, or some other actor, be justified in taking such pre-emptive action? Would the Vatican condemn such an action?
Jim ==
I think the basic question is: does one ever have the right to hit someone else first? Somehow I suspect the answer is Yes. But when? And when not?
“I suspect that this isn’t an acceptable treatment of collateral damage under just war theory.”
Given that the policy is also deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles, the non-collateral damage is inconsistent with CCC 2313.
Mike McG at 03/31/2012 – 12:04 pm…Yes, good points, and I think the point I hope to make is that we all fall short of embodying the Catholic ideal — left right and center — and especially in public life, where having to win elections and pass policies with opponents requires more public and perhaps greater accommodations than those who do do not have such public responsibilities.
I think two things I push back against is the implicit, or often explicit, charge that Catholic polcs on the “right,” like Santorum, are “good” or “better” Catholics than those on the left. If the left claims they are better, that’s obviously a problem too. But the default mode, backed by the instittuional church so often, seems to be that conservatives or those who oppose abortion rights and gay rights, first and foremost are the better Catholics. And that those conservative Catholics can then take a pass on the rest of Catholic teaching, or much of it.
That leads to my second concern, with is the division of Catholic teaching into these discrete segments, which are unintelligible without the other. I guess this makes me something of a seamless garment Catholic, which of course is suspect for some. But so be it.
The Haidt book likely merits a separate thread. I have read many reviews, bu only reviews, and have heard him speak a couple of times. I think he is interesting about how we perceive each other, and largely right. But again I feel there is also a right or at least better answer to many issues, as well as a morally correct precept. The policy stuff can be argued, and one can be right, or wrong.
David G. –
I agree that the the real Church teaching are too often perceived as the conservative ones. This happens especially when the hierarchy is politically conservative, as is happening in the U. S. right now, even though Rome is not so conservative in social matters. The default description of “orthodox Catholic” then becomes “conservative Catholic”.
We really should regularly object to this misuse of words. It influences the image of the Church. For instance, it seems true of the press that it identifies conservative Catholics with orthodox ones, and it becomes a vicious circle, with many young people growing up thinking that all Catholics are fundamentalists and so they reject the real Church, leaving a disproportionate number of fundamentalist Catholics. This is an over-simplification, of course, but the outline is sadly true, I think..
Thanks for that observation, Ann. I’m afraid a great many American Catholics may be comfortable with that conservative/progressive distinction. I have the sense that it’s almost a necessary element of self-identification for many. It certainly tends to be here, both in blogging and in commenting on the blogs.
But a conscious attempt to avoid those labels might help us all to grow a deeper understanding not only of the issues but of one another.
Thanks, Mr. Gibson for a shout out to “seamless” catholic social justice approaches. Just watched EWTN’s Arroyo interview Mr. Santorum. Posed a question to him about his stance on a “first strike” against Iran and the catholic just war theory.
Unfortunately, Santorum’s response had little to do with the just war theory – in fact, doubt that Santorum could pass a catholic high school morality class test on the just war theory, its history, and applications. Rather, he darted around the subject and gave his “uninformed” reaction to various public media proclamations. What is troublesome is that this responsiveness pattern is matched when he speaks about other issues such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, end of life issues, the poor, immigrants, etc. Iran – Santorum has no internal knowledge from US military, US intelligence, US state department. He is operating blind and reacting based upon his time in the Senate – foreign policy can change on a dime. Yet, he attackes with certitude. This “certitude” is what he appeals to often and frequently – it is not a certitude based upon the merits of the issue or arguments. It is a fundamentalist and emotional appeal. And, again, as some have said – it is the marriage of evangelical Christianity (with all of its shortcomings) and pre-Vatican II catholicism. How sad and how dangerous.
Bill de H ==
I think that one crucial, defining value of the conservative frame of mind is certitude. I suspect that behind the categories of authority and loyalty which Haidt analyses is a deep psychological demand for certainty, a necessity which many people simply cannot function without. This, I think is a defining trait of fundamentalism, and it is why fundamentalist Catholics are incapable of admitting that change of some teachings is even possible.
I think that this fear of skepticism is also behind the anti-academe/anti-elite prejudice of many fundamentalists: because higher education does make one at least somewhat critical of one’s own mental pre-suppositions, higher education cannot be trusted and needs to be put in its place. This anti-intellectual bias has ramifications not only in the religious order but in the political one. It’s why anyone who disagrees with a fundamentalist is considered “disloyal” to whatever doctrine is at issue.
and it’s why conservatives constantly suggest that liberals leave the Church — got to maintain anothr value that Haidt considers, purity.
IF this weren’t so predictable one could take it less seriously. But I fear that Hadt is right about a great deal of this. Our loyalties to the Church are never as rational as we’d like to think they are.
Ann, how is the certainty of the right different from that of the left?
David S. –
I think there is an irrational kind of certainty that is found on both sides. But think that in conservatives the need for certainty is often bound up with a confidence in one single authority or small group of authorities that isn’t as pronounced in liberals. Liberals do tend to trust experts, but each in his/her own field, while conervatives seem to accept certain individuals or groups of individuals as sages (see R. Reagan, JP II/Benedict, Rush, Cdl. Dolan, AEI) whether or not they speak from a real competence in a subject. But both sides have their preferred sources. Both sides have their tribes, but the pull of the tribe seems stronger among conservtives.
“Seriously, David. For the love of God, repent.”
Greg Popcak,
You are condemning David G for an opinion he holds while you have never or rarely crticized the moral behavior of Catholic bishops who resent predators to abuse Catholic children. What you condemn is for a belief while you fail to criticize for moral behavior which even a child knows is what the Gospel is about. Further you spew venom which, while I will not condemn you as you are condemning others, I remind you, as I have done personally to you before, that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” I also mentioned your compromised marketing in Catholic circles as you were reminded of in this thread. Your response was to to tell me to go “&#&& myself and the horse I came in on.” In Latin no less. Is this what one of your critics meant when you were criticized for your “perverse psychology and profane theology.”
We all need to repent. But for our behavior, not our opinions. Not for dogma, but for the way we live.
“I think two things I push back against is the implicit, or often explicit, charge that Catholic polcs on the “right,” like Santorum, are “good” or “better” Catholics than those on the left. If the left claims they are better, that’s obviously a problem too. But the default mode, backed by the instittuional church so often, seems to be that conservatives or those who oppose abortion rights and gay rights, first and foremost are the better Catholics. And that those conservative Catholics can then take a pass on the rest of Catholic teaching, or much of it.”
It’s an interesting situation.
I’d start by reiterating what I said above: if/when Santorum, or any other politician on the Right, deviates from Catholic teaching, particularly when it appears to be for cynical, self-serving reasons, we should always call him on it.
And as David G says, the same holds for those on the Left.
The inverse is also true: when a politician on the Right goes against his ideological brethren to abide by Catholic teaching, we should celebrate it. Poor, hapless Rick Perry, who is not a Catholic himself, came under fire from the right wing a couple of times in the early debates, when he defended HPV testing for adolescent girls, and when he defended a Texas program that provided educational opportunities for children of illegal immigrants. Arguably, both of these programs are in line with Catholic teaching.
And we should celebrate when Democrats do the right thing. Bart Stupak is still my hero. And we conservatives should give President Obama credit for the executive order that prevents Affordable Care Act funds from being used for abortions.
Now … having said all that … Santorum is on the right track when he states (at least I think that this is what he means), that some problems are amenable to a variety of acceptable answers … and some aren’t. I do understand, for example, that Paul Ryan’s budget proposals drive liberals nuts. But without endorsing every jot and tittle of his latest proposal, I’d just say that Ryan is absolutely right, from a Catholic social teaching perspective, to try to put the entitlement programs on an economically sustainable path. His answer certainly isn’t completely right, or the only possible right answer, from a Catholic perspective. But nor is it what Democratic demogoguery tries to paint it to be – and in fact, it’s far more responsible, from a sustainability point of view, than *anything* that the Democratic Party has seriously proposed. And Democrats should be called to account on this – and Catholic Democrats should be the ones to call them to account. Where are the Democratic voices on dotCom calling Democrats to fiscal responsibility? Do y’all not see how easy it is to dismiss liberal critiques of the Ryan budget when there is nothing but empty silence from liberal Catholics on fiscal responsibility?
The same applies to abortion. Conservative Catholics rightly criticize liberal Democratic abortion policies, and rightly pillory Sebelius, Pelosi, Biden et al. But their critique is suspect because conservative Catholics are expected to do that for ideological reasons. How much more effective the critique would be if liberal Catholics could manage to make the same critique. Why don’t they?
President Obama’s HHS mandate accommodation is a remarkable instance of what happens when Catholic liberals criticize their own. If the critique of the original mandate had been relegated to the Catholic right wing, I suspect that the White House would have more or less blown it off; they’ve been pretty upfront that they think the bishops are working from ideological motives. It was when the Catholic left rose up that the White House took notice. Why doesn’t the Catholic left rise up over the issue of abortion?
Jim – you need to brush up on the HV Texa/R. Perry issue. First, you really have to make a stretch to see that as part of catholic social justice principles. Second, the reason most objected to this was the process – Perry manipulated and signed the HV process as an exectuve order – he did not go thru the Texas legislature. That is where he angered most folks.
Finally, most folks see catholic social justice as supporting and stregthing the family – Perry’s executive order actually would have resulted in dividing families based upon suspect medical documentation and research.
There are many positions on abortion – one that is rarely expressed is that of most catholics who totally agree that abortion should not happen but also do not see how that can be unilaterally put into US law – because most do not want to see abortion criminalized. It is a catch 22 resulting in much prudential judgment. Like Santorum, you mix apples and oranges across your issues and their resultant public/legal expressions.
Jim,
Fiscal responsibility is a broad principle that must be implemented prudentially. Arguably there are times when fiscal responsibility demands a lot of spending, and cutbacks would jeopardize our future. The past few years may be an example of that, in which case Obama is the fiscally responsible person, while those who call for fiscal responsibility are actually irresponsible. It is not as clearcut an issue as some would have it be.
So where are the Republicans who call for real fiscal responsibility? Where were they when Bush passed irresponsible tax cuts while increasing spending? Where were they when the Tea Party identified fiscal responsibility with tax cuts and lower spending? That is the problem with principles and prudence, different people make different judgments.
Jim McK – sure, you may be right to ask those questions of Republicans. But my questions still stand. Where are Catholic Democrats on fiscal responsibility, particularly when as it regards the sustainability of our entitlement programs? Where is the Democratic plan to make these plans sustainable? Why aren’t Catholics leading the charge? There is no shortage of Catholic Democrats in power in Washington right now. Where are they on this issue?
Jim – here is a catholic talking about Paul Ryan’s budget – makes a lot of sense:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/weighing-justice-versus-charity
Here is an article about Santorum’s Just War Theory application:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/tom-rosshirt.html
Just today, USCCB filed and amicus brief against the state of Arizona’s anti-immigration bill. The same one that Santorum has defended:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/kudos-usccb
One snippet: “It will be very interesting to see what Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum have to say about this. They have not only voiced support for the Arizona law, they have explicitly criticized the Obama administration for filing suit against it. They have also criticized the Obama administration for attacking the religious liberty of the Church. So, in this instance, which will win? Will they defend the Arizona law or will they defend the Catholic Church’s religious liberty?
Bill – I’m still waiting.
Jim,
A principal purpose of the Patient Protestion & Affordable Care Act was to rein in health care costs because the goverment, through Medicare, is the largest health care insurer. The irresponsibility of Republicans has been prominent in the discussions of preventive care that followed the contraception rules. (why should we pay for contraception? Gym memberships? They are not health care)
Or you could look at Clinton’s record on balancing the budget.
But the point of my note is that issues cannot be divided into principles and prudential judgments as Santorum would have it. Fiscal responsibility is a principle that is to be applied with prudence. It is not a principle that demands lower taxes and less spending in the fundamentalist way that Republicans use it. The term itself has become a shibboleth, a sign of irresponsible policy pretending to be respectable. (a candidate in PA is campaigning on a promise not to raise the debt ceiling! “Vote for me, I am irresponsible!”)
Sorry, Jim, didn’t realize you were expecting a response.
A few things:
- usually the party that controls the executive branch allows the president to set the budget; to propose on big item issues such as Medicare and Social Security, etc. Yes, president may direct or ask for his party to propose but …..
- given that Obama just recently laid out his budget proposal (this would include his own party’s backing in Congress)
- so, why would you ask for where the Democrats are – they proposed weeks ago and folks such as Ryan dismissed the proposal
- this polarization has gone on since Obama was elected and only increased
To the specific issue, yes, would have liked to have seen Obama enact some of the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations. But, given the current polarizations he made a prudential judgment. Watch and see what happens a year from now
Thanks to Jim McK – following CST and working in the medical field, I would have liked to move to a single payor system but again our current Congress would not have allowed that on political grounds; not based upon logical arguments, the merits of the proposal, etc. That being said, just about anyone in catholic hospital care would tell you that a single payor of the PPACA is a positive move forward in terms of justice and charity.
The same could be said for other issues that have been shelved by politics – Obama’s direction on immigration (not currently politically feasible but wait and see).
In other areas – Obama has ended the Iraq war; saved the US economy from depression with positive direction in terms of lowering unemployment; stopped the use of torture in most cases; decreasing health costs while covering 50 mil more; stabilizing the housing market; beginning to go after Wall Street; saving the auto industry; all the while keeping the deficit from ballooning out of control.
Contrast that with Bush’s 8 years – 3 trillion in debt and growing; Iraq/Afghan wars; inciting Islamic hatred with his brand of jingoism; ignoring the financial scandals of Wall Street, Main Street; doing nothing in terms of European markets; doing nothing in terms of the environment; investigating or controlling markets for the common good, etc.
All of the above are components of catholic social teachings. None of Bush’s legacies have much to do with catholic social teachings except his efforts in education.
Dubya did do one important good thing that is often overlooked — he upped the aid to Africans with AiDS a great deal.
It seems to me that in all this budget debate the jargon is obscuring the facts, which are fairly simple: it is We the People who are consuming a lot of government services that we are unwilling to pay for, and we have rewarded politicians who tell us there there is such a thing as a free lunch. Take social welfare programs such as food stamps and medicaid. What is really being said in the Ryan budget (and Democrats are equally to blame in the long run) is that we Americans are not willing to pay for continued assistance, at the current level to the poor in terms of food subsidies and health care. We are unwilling to change priorities to do so, we are unwilling to pay more taxes to do so, and we are unwilling to continue to spend borrowed money to do so. But we ARE willing to continue to borrow money (under the Ryan budget plan) to increase spending on military far beyond what is necessary to provide for basic national security. We ARE willing to continue to borrow to provide further tax cuts for the wealthy, and we ARE willing to continue to borrow for a wide range of corporate subsidies — sugar, to name only one.
While there is a lot more, it pretty much comes down to a matter of priorities.
Ann, he also tried, twice, to put get an immigration bill through Congress, in the face of strong resistance from his own party and enough resistance from the opposition party to kill it.
Successes aren’t the only things worth praising.
Somehow, I am not convinced that Santorum has written this himself. It is much different in tone and sophistication from his public remarks on the issues upon which he disagrees with the magisterium and other Catholics, and shows much greater charity towards his opponents than he has ever shown previously. Maybe he has a personal theologian who writes this material for him?
“All of the above are components of catholic social teachings. None of Bush’s legacies have much to do with catholic social teachings except his efforts in education.”
This is a tendentious (and of course highly selective telling) of the history of Bush’s years in office: for one thing, it was President Bush who initiated the bailouts of both the banking industry and the auto industry, and there is scant evidence that the housing market has stabilized. I like to thing that if I find myself thinking that President X’s policies fully operationalize the teachings of CST (or vice versa) that somewhere along the way I’ve mislead myself.
This isn’t directly on point, but I thought this response to a fair critique of the Ryan Budget was helpful, particularly this paragraph:
“it’s tough to make generalizations about programs for the poor. Some involve direct transfers (conditional or unconditional, cash or in-kind) while others are spending programs that hire civil servants, for-profit firms, charities, etc., to deliver services. Spending programs of the latter kind help shape a broader ecology that can either work well or work badly. Many believe, as James Capretta and others have argued, that the Medicare and Medicaid programs have stymied the emergence of high-quality, cost-effective integrated medical care; if that is true, high spending levels have actually exacerbated the challenge of offering high-quality, cost-effective care to poor people. Again, this is a contested view. But the debate is not over whether or not we want to help poor people. It’s about how we should go about doing it, and whether or not the dominant approach has actually proven counterproductive. ”
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/295147/thoughts-emerging-case-against-ryan-budget-reihan-salam
I apologize for the negative cast of my earlier comment, but I do have a question regarding Santorum’s distinction of prudential matters versus moral absolutes, as it pertains to his support for the Iraq War. He and other Catholics who support the war seem to justify their support for the war and their disagreement with the Pope in doing so by asserting that according to Catholic teaching, not all wars are unjust and that they believed that war to be just according to their consciences. What seems to make it a prudential matter for them is that the war question does not fall under the category of a moral absolute, so therefore they give themselves permission to disagree with the pronouncement from the Pope that the war was unjust. But my question is, since this particular war was unjust and seemingly morally suspect if it were so, the distinction is disingenuous. Catholics in America (and other nations) contributed money to an unjust and possibly immoral cause, and Catholic pundits and politicians openly supported this in at least disagreement if not defiance of the Vatican. Why is support for this particular policy any different than Catholics participating in a health care plan that supports the dissemination and paying for artificial birth control? If the answer is because ABC is intrinsincally evil, I would reply that the Vatican’s finding of the Iraq war to be unjust and the coercion of Catholics in support of it to be equally abhorrent. Just because war in general is not always evil does not justify the support of a war that has been individually been determined to be immoral. It’s this kind of hair splitting that usually drives “conservative” Catholics batty when applied by Catholic liberals, and the silence of Church officials when it comes to conservative Catholics when they employ it is most unfair, as when a liberal Catholic uses it, they are threatened with denial of the sacraments and other punishments. A little consistency on these issues would be greatly appreciated, if no other avenue of reasonable disagreement can be found.
In my view, Santorum’s positions are very UnChristian, including his belief that people in Puerto Rico should be made to speak English. And both he and Gingrich had the stupidity to claim the murder of Trayvon Martin was not racially motivated.
Poor Santo: he seems to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. To some, his problem is he’s too stridently, even “weirdly” (in the words of Eugene Robinson) Christian (how dare he mourn the death of infant child! AND they don’t use birth control!?!), yet to others, not Christian enough! I’m starting to get whiplash with this debate.
Sanctitorium is a paleopuritanical fundiegelical masquerading as a Roman Catholic.
Jeff: are you starting to push for “Santo Subito” before he goes down in electoral ignominy?
Well, the reason he’s damned if he does or doesn’t is that he is very selective in the way he applies his Christianity. If he were more consistently pro-life in his stances for people after they are born as he is before they’re born, maybe he’d be more positively and consistently identified as a Christian all the way around.
“Well, the reason he’s damned if he does or doesn’t is that he is very selective in the way he applies his Christianity”
Aren’t we all, to an extent?
@ Jimmy Mac: Santorum is not my candidate of choice; the sooner the electoral ignominy, the better.
Yep, we all are, to some extent, or at least, we are weaker in some areas of our practice of the faith than we are others. But not all of us are running for president trying to be the face of the Catholic Church for all of America to see, so if he is going to do that, he has a responsibility to represent the totality of Catholic teaching on all issues, not just the ones that get him the votes from the base of the Republican party. His willingness to neglect or downplay the issues which put him at odds with the magisterium looks more like opportunism than the personal weakness that we all share when we sin and disobey God’s commandments. And that is what I find so objectionable, the opportunism that he is not called out for by the bishops, and that would be called out in an instant if a liberal or centrist democrat were to do the same. Maybe no one can be completely consistent in their application of a social teaching that reaches across the platforms of both parties, but if one at least tried, than maybe not so much opprobrium would cast in his direction.
Thank you, David, for your provocative article. There is, of course, a tension between being a Catholic and an American. Unhappily, Santorum and all of us Catholics are working to resolve that tension–to the extent that it can be resolved–within a church that does not enjoy the full implementation of its own teaching.
All Catholics can easily agree on our general moral principles. But we should be discussing the prudential political judgments that follow from our principles within the context of the sensus fidelium. The conscientious discernment of our bishops, our theologians, and the church at large should be openly expressed and mutually respected–as long as it remains within our principles. Since we do not do that, our church and society suffer.
Our bishops fall short when they refuse to regard the laity’s discernment before they express their views. Gone are the 1980′s when, after consulting with the church and country at large, they produced excellent papers that offered clear and humble judgments on peace and the economy.
Our schools, universities and parishes fall short when they fail to develop well-informed, ever-maturing, contemporary Catholics who, within our one Catholic faith, can operate on their own initiative to prophetically elevate and correct our society in the grace of Christ, while respecting our American ideal of freedom and our Catholic ideals of justice, peace, humility and love. So in this campaign we get Catholics like Santorum, Gingrich–and many of us.
We fall short when we don’t demand that our church obey our own teachings and work to form us into the well-informed, spiritually mature Catholics that today’s society so badly needs.
Well said, Anthony. That was beautifully written.
@ Mathew Shadle
Why should the Palestinians who have lived in Palestine for generations simply be absorbed into surrounding Arab nations in essence be thrown off their land to make room for “settlers” from New Jersey and New York so they can live the good life in the West Bank? Some Palestinians, whom you suggest so cavalierly that they be absorbed, are Christians among which are also a sizeable number of Catholics. How are they supposed to fit into an all Isalamic culture? It boggles the mind that US Christians show so little solidarity with their fellow brothers in faith in Palestine.
Protestant Fundamentalists give unconditional support to Israel in their belief based on the Scofield Bible that this will hasten the arrival of Armageddon. US Catholics to their credit don’t believe this remarkable nonsense. Sadly though they just don’t seem care about the suffering of their fellow Palestinian Catholics. From their behaviour one has the impression that they lack a sense of justice and decency.
It is clear to even the most casual observer that Israel is engaged in slow motion ethnic cleansing by “making facts on the ground”. The last time I checked such activity is a crime against humanity. US politicians, Santorum included, are partners in this criminal conspiracy for fear of the Lobby.
Finally, one wonders how Americans would react should they have their homes bulldozed in the middle of the night by a foreign ethnic group which claimed that God gave them the land by virtue of their status, ie they are the chosen?
“He seems to have finished that reexamination, and concluded that the bishops and the magisterium are wrong on a number of issues, including torture and the death penalty, two points of disagreement he does not mention.”
Wrong.
1. The magisterium has NOT ruled that the death penalty and torture for information (ie interrogation, which I understand Santorum agrees with in certain circumstances) are intrinsically evil and so can never be used.
On the contrary:
The Catechism says at 2267: Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church DOES NOT exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. (emphasis added)
And at 2297 it says: Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.
See that? Extract confessions. Punish the guilty. Frighten opponents. Satisfy hatred. ie: it does NOT rule out torture for the direct intent (“to”) of uncovering vital information.
2. The U.S. Bishops are fallible.
I hold no brief for Rick Santorum – I don’t even know all his policies. But on these cited issues at least, while disagreeing with (some) American bishops on non-magisterial “teaching”, he’s no cafeteria Catholic. He’s a Catechism Catholic.
Hey, aren’t liberal Catholics supposed to be against “creeping infallibility”?
3.
“And the teachings he holds out as absolute … are less absolute than he would like: the church doesn’t back the so-called personhood laws, for example, and even overturning Roe wouldn’t end legalized abortion in states, and abortion rates are pegged to “prudential” policies on poverty and such as much as anything else.”
This is pure gobbledygook. Do you really think you’re telling Santorum something he doesn’t know about Roe and abortion? And so what if overturning Roe wouldn’t end legalized abortion? Or that abortion rates vary with poverty? Does that mean that the Church’s blanket prohibition against the taking of innocent human life is “less absolute”? I’m sure murder rates vary with poverty in many places as well. So should we think about de-absolutising our stance against murder, too?
CCC 2267 goes on to say: “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression[sic] of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
CCC 2298 continues on the subject of “Respect for Bodily Indtegrity”: In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
Hugh,
Cafeteria Catholic refers to picking and choosing among Catholic teachings. Your quotes from the Catechism are an example of this, choosing one part of its teaching but ignoring the rest of it.
If you support the death penalty only when “this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor,” you are holding to Catholic teahing. I doubt very much that that is what most people mean when they support capital punishment.
Your quote on torture comes from a section on “Respect for Bodily Integrity.” It is hard to see how your interpretation illuminates that value. The intent is clearly to condemn violations of bodily integrity, not to set limits on when to commit such violations.
This kind of inccomplete rendering of Church teaching is why your “Catechism Catholics” are lumped with Cafeteria Catholics.
Thanks, Jim. It is not cafeteria to point out that the magisterium does not teach the death penalty is instrinsically evil. That is a fact. But it is a gross distortion of his position to baldly assert that Santorum says the magisterium is wrong on this issue.
He said this in 2005: “I felt very troubled about cases where someone may have been convicted wrongly. DNA evidence definitely should be used when possible. I agree with the pope that in the civilized world … the application of the death penalty should be limited. I would definitely agree with that. I would certainly suggest there probably should be some further limits on what we use it for.” And in January this year he said: When there is certainty, that’s the case that capital punishment can be used. If there is not certainty, under the law, it shouldn’t be used.”
Santorum does disagree with the propositon that the need for the death penalty is “practically non-existent” today. But note from your own quotation that it’s binding of Catholics to believe that it IS “practically non-existent” – it’s just speculated as a possibility (“if not”). I’ve watched “America’s Hardest Prisons”. Unless that program is a total misrepresentation of reality, one can reasonably conclude that murders and assaults by prisoners of and on each other are a not infrequent occurrence, even in prisons of the highest security. (Prisoners are “human lives”, too, let’s not forget.) It seems that, at least in America, it’s not true to say that the state here and now has the ability “to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it”. Hence it is at least open for a Catholic to hold that in the U.S. in some circumstances the death penalty is warranted. This is what Santorum holds: The need for the death penalty is rare, and in fact rarer than what the current policy is.
As to torture: I’m sorry, but what’s the difficulty here? I’m quoting exactly what the Catechism says. I’m sure you’re familiar with the sort of example that is relevant for consideration: A Nazi soldier you’ve captured has wired up a populated city with a huge time bomb set to explode and kill thousands in couple of minutes. He knows which wire to cut which will defuse the bomb, but will not disclose this to you voluntarily. You have reason to believe that if you inflict superficial but painful injuries on him, or threaten as much, he will divulge the information. May you proceed?
It is precisely this form of torture that, it seems to me, Santorum is saying might be legitimate in certain circumstances- ie. torture which extracts information from unwilling perpetrators or their accomplices which will (eg) save lives. This form is not singled out in the Catechism, whereas torture for several other reasons is, and is condemned . Which is remarkable – and not a little disappointing – as it’s the only candidate form which poses a moral dilemma, at least for these times.
The issue is a difficult one, and perhaps magisterial clarification will come in the future. But it is at least permissible to hold that the magisterium, through the Catechism, does not intend to bind Catholics to the belief that torture for the purpose of extracting information is always morally impermissible. Moreover, it is not cafeteria Catholicism to hold this position, since one is not choosing one position set forth by the magisterium and ignoring another.
3rd para: “that it’s binding” should read “that it’s not binding”
1st para is a little confusing logically, but should be decipherable. Apologies.
Perhaps only the lowly laity is to be classified “cafeteria Catholics. “ However, the Conservative elite Catholics should be classified as “a la carte” Catholics. They also pick and choose what they like. They love to quote St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas but only what they like. For example, Augustine and Aquinas taught there is an immortal soul created by God and infused into the fetus, but the “a la cartes” disregard their teaching that this occurs only after the fetus is sufficiently developed to receive the soul – after 40 to 80 days. 1500 years of a tradition has been overturned by papal decree. Discussions have ranged around many topics including “prudential matters” and “moral absolutes”. There are no “moral absolutes” or “”foundational teachings” involved in the current discussions – contraceptives, abortion, abortifacients, masturbation. These are doctrines not dogmas or infallible teachings of the Magisterium. “Intrinsic evil” is used without the distinction that what is intrinsically evil may be insignificant morally like lying- which is intrinsicallly evil – when the lie is part of a joke. Moral teachings have often changed in the history of the Church. In an exercise of his ordinary Magisterium. – which some conservatives consider infallible – Pope Pius XII proclaimed to a group of military surgeons in 1953: “The patient … has no right to dispose of his own existence, of the integrity of his organism, of his particular organs and their functional capacity, except in the measure demanded by the good of the whole organism.” Indeed, there was almost unanimous agreement from Catholic moral theologians that the practice was morally unacceptable. Fast forward to Pope John Paul II who declared organ transplants with some caveats are wonderful. Almost all moral teachings are classified as doctrines not dogmas, not moral absolutes, not foundational teachings. According to the Catechism, a person must follow his conscience even when it disagrees with these Catholic teachings. Thank God for COMMONWEAL, AMERICA and THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER where these issues have a hearing!