“You’re a liberal something, but you’re not a Christian.”
Apropos of Cathleen Kaveny’s post below regarding crucial social justice issues and their role in the campaign–versus charges of false messianism and the like–Steve Waldman at Beliefnet recounts a talk by former GOP senator Rick Santorum, who is seen by many as an uber-Catholic because of his fierce claims to orthodoxy and his attacks on those who do not agree with him. At the talk to a gathering of foreign journalists, Santorum rather predictably called Obama’s faith “phony,” but continued:
After he’d accused Obama and other Democrats of religoius fraudulance for a few minutes, journalist Terry Mattingly of GetReligion.org asked whether it’s possible that rather than being fake, perhaps,Obama was sincerely reflecting a form of liberal Christianity in the tradition of Reinhold Neibuhr. Santorum surprised me by answering that yes, “I could buy that.”
However, he questioned whether liberal Christianity was really, well, Christian. “You’re a liberal something, but you’re not a Christian.” He continued, “When you take a salvation story and turn it into a liberation story you’ve abandoned Christendom and I don’t think you have a right to claim it.”
Perhaps Santorum thought he’d score some points by channeling Joseph Ratzinger, but he didn’t do a very good job. Needless to say, this idea that one is a Christian only by belief and not by any works–a quietism that conveniently plays into GOP conservatism–is a longstanding one obviously, but also a theme, I think, behind the noxious anti-Christ propaganda on Obama…That he is promising paradise here on earth.
Tags: GetGetReligion
“You’ve abandoned Christendom”? Does he know what that means?
There are many of Santorum’s conservative co-religionists that would say that, as a Catholic, HE has abandoned Christendom/Christianity.
Lie down with pigs, etc.
I try to explain the difference between “Christianity” and “Christendom” in this way: Christianity is the religion, the set of beliefs and practices that characterize Christians; Christendom is a particular social and historical embodiment of the religion, e.g., “medieval Christendom.” In at least some of the Romance languages, however, confusion is possible. E.g., in French Christendom is “la chrétienté”, while Christianity is “le christianisme”; similarly in Italian. I’ve seen translations that don’t recognize the difference.
I don’t really see how Santorum’s remark, as quoted, represents “this idea that one is a Christian only by belief and not by any works”. Doesn’t this greatly oversimplify things? And I do wonder whether Niebuhr would have been content with being called a “liberal”.
Joe K: I was not sure about the connection between “liberal” and Niebuhr, but as it was Terry Mattingly, a conservative Christian, asking the question, he may have been trying to connect Niebuhr to the “old-fashioned” sense of liberal, i.e., the one conservatives like. Just saddling poor Niebuhr to yet another agenda, perhaps.
As for the distinction between faith and works, I think that is pretty self-evident in Santorum’s remarks here and elsewhere, and those of others critiquing Democrats who claim to be believers. The idea that Democrats are trying to “immanentize the eschaton,” as the late William F. Buckley Jr. would have had it, seems new again. One could also see the pushback from the other side, in the repeated citation of James, and the faith without works idea.
I’d like to know what he means (or thinks he means) not only by “Christendom,” but also by “salvation” and “liberation.” Because I can see him arguing that “liberal” values are not part of proper Christianity, but it wouldn’t have occurred to me to call that “liberation” — and now I want to know, was he just grasping for a term that seemed to mean “the state of being a liberal,” or does he really think that “liberation” has no relevance to salvation and, well, Christendom?
I was glad to see this in the Beliefnet post: “(At the end of the attack, he added that of course it would be inappropriate for him to judge the authenticity of Obama’s faith, as only God could do that.)” I’m really glad he cleared that up, because it certainly sounded like that’s what he was doing.
He was grasping at something, all right. I wonder whether he was accidentally regurgitating the standard criticism of liberation theology–that it focuses too much on liberation in the here-and-now. But you’re right, Mollie. That sentence is a muddle.
As for Niebuhr, he’s notoriously difficult to categorize. I doubt “liberal” does it. But I don’t know whether “neo-orthodox” or “neo-liberal” do the trick either. Part of what makes him so interesting.
David: Are you saying that Santorum doesn’t think that any works are necessary to Christianity, that only faith is important?
I think he’d be hard to pin down on that. He once (in)famously blasted the idea of Catholic Charities taking government money–at a talk right in front of Cardinal O’Connor, who was not amused! But that was before Bush came into office, and Santorum then converted to a big backer of faith-based programs. Essentially, he wants Christians to do only the good works he thinks they should do, i.e., those that comport with his political ideas. Anyone who promotes programs that would smell of a Democratic or liberal (in the current sense) issue would be seen as promoting utopianism etc., and that ways lies perdition.
Santorum aside (and he is one of the cruder manifestations of this divide), I think this reflects the longstanding works v. faith debate, but one that is being played out in political terms these days. Perhaps it was always thus, to some degree or another.
This sounds to me like works vs. works, not faith vs. works.
In a textbook on Latin, I just happened to read today an adage for Publilius Syrus: “Beneficium accipere libertatem est vendere” — “To accept a favor is to sell one’s freedom.”
I think Joseph Komonchak may have it right. It seems that the distiction is not between a works-based liberation story and some sort of faith-based doctrinal story, but between two competing visions of what constitute properly Christian works. The right seems to offer up one picture of Christendom rooted in personal morality and responsibility and the left presents an apparently competing image focused on economic and social justice. Why these two eschatologies must be positioned against one another seems to be something of a political contrivance, but that is where they seem to stand. If there’s any doubt that the Christian Right is hungry for paradise on earth just look at how people like Pastor John Hagee have tried to influence the U.S. policy in the Middle East in hopes to spur on the apocalypse by supporting an absolutely sovereign Israel. That seems motivated by far more bat-crazy blind, works-based “immanentizing of the eschaton” than anything Obama has proposed.
I find Santorum utterly muddled.
Christendom–not sure what he means here.
It seems to me what’s at stake for him might be the idea of government. Social justice Catholics tend to justify bigger government, whereas he seem to place a bigger emphasis on private charity. I’ve seen two arguments for this position. First, charity is more effective. Second, it doesn’t matter if charity is more effective because Jesus told us the poor are always with us. We can’t expect the kingdom of God on earth. You can run this line out of Deus Caritas Est.
It’s helpful to interpret what people say, not in the abstract, but in a broader context. Here’s one list of how he voted:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm
David G.,
I would think that a more important criticism of liberation theology is that only a few (the rich and powerful) are called to a repentance that has anything to do with the Sermon on the Mount.
Pubilius Syrus must have been a barrel of laughs on Christmas morning. (Or the Saturnalia.) I suspect he was being droll, but who knows. On the other hand, I always assumed faith was gift, and that I was liberated, not enslaved. But again, I’m not an expert in such things.
Actually, I’m not even a Christian, as some would probably call me a liberal, thereby negating my baptism.
Which gets to the larger point, I hope: namely, that whether it is works versus works, or faith versus works, or two “contrived political eschatologies,” why is it that embracing one (the conservative affiliation) qualifies a person as a Christian and embracing the other disqualifies a person as a Christian? That seems to be a signal difference between the two visions, and while I don’t think it is doctrinally defensible, I’m interested to hear more of the arguments for it. I don’t think these are “two competing visions of what constitute properly Christian works,” as Eric has it, since one denies the Christianity of the other, an accusation which does not seem to be reciprocated.
Istm that “being a Christian” minimally means: accepting salvation. Specifically, accepting the reconciling salvation offered to me and all sinners before God the Father who graciously sent God the Son, who died and rose and who even now sanctifies us by the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit.
The question, then, is whether salvation can be accepted by people of every political persuasion.
Given that previous thread in which Terry Mattingly was criticized for being too conservative (and — untruthfully — for not having journalistic experience), maybe someone should appreciate the fact that he came to Obama’s defense here.
Is there any transcript of Santorum’s talk (or will one be produced)?
The line of Publilius Syrus could also be rendered “To accept a benefice is to sell one’s freedom”. That resonates. Could he have been a Gentile prophet like the Sibyl.
David – I’m sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough in my comment. The idea that these are competing visions is part of the political contrivance. I certainly don’t think personal morality and responsibility (or whatever Santorum thinks his Christendom is) is fundamentally opposed to the liberation vision of social and economic justice touted by the Left. Ultimately, these virtues should be life giving elements of the same Christian ethic, but pitted against each other as it seems they are in the race to get votes, they can be mutually life-sucking instead of life-giving. The Right can use “social issues” to mask economic injustices while painting liberals as communist Antichrists, and the Left can also engage in painting their opponents as rabid, capitalist Antichrists while pursuing their revolutionary causes. I have heard plenty of “noxious anti-Christ propaganda” aimed at Bush and McCain from the Left, and while they’re at it, some liberals even throw earnest socially conservative, but politically liberal, Catholics under the bus for holding “oppressive” stances on abortion, etc. Now, of course, I think a McCain presidency may be as disastrous as the Bush reign, but “anti-Christ propaganda” never gets anyone anywhere and I’m not so sure that in all cases it is not reciprocated. I think the moral might be: Eschatology is a dangerous thing when mixed with worldly power.
Interestingly enough, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein this month describes neoconservatism’s foreign policy as “unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy.” Another view of Christendom?
I think I understand your point, Eric, but I’m not sure I can find any parallel to the Santorum/McCain/Rove/GOP campaign tactics (and theology, if that’s what it is) on the Left. If you can find something to support the claim to equivalency, I’d like to see it.
In a broader context, I think this “conservative=virtuous-believer” and “liberal=materialist-skeptic” is one that has played out in history, and very much now. But I doubt we’ll be able to address those bigger ideas here, and my premise may be off target.
David – I agree that the unholy alliance of Christian conservatism and the GOP is a unique brand that has not been replicated with the same shameless, political, mechanistic efficiency on the Left. It is not something that has been placed at the center of the Democratic party’s marketing campaign. So, claiming equivalence is an overstatement. The liberal leveraging of eschatology is something I have experienced in more scattered and individual instances. One example that comes to mind has to do with socially conservative students at liberal divinity schools who feel unwelcome in theological discussions of hot-button issues. I have one friend, a conservative Southern Baptist who is by no means blindly intractable in his views, who was asked to leave a discussion of homosexuality for even bringing up Biblical texts which may challenge a more liberal viewpoint. While, I don’t agree with his ultimate stance on the issue, I do believe he should be heard without being labeled a heretic and forced out of the very conversation that might better inform his views. So, equivalent? No. Subtle and powerful? Yes.
“I’d like to know what he means (or thinks he means) not only by “Christendom,” but also by “salvation” and “liberation.” Because I can see him arguing that “liberal” values are not part of proper Christianity, but it wouldn’t have occurred to me to call that “liberation” — and now I want to know, was he just grasping for a term that seemed to mean “the state of being a liberal,” or does he really think that “liberation” has no relevance to salvation and, well, Christendom?”
Re: salvation vs. liberation – I took his meaning to be something along these lines: salvation is an unmerited gift from God; liberation is something *we* earn with *our* blood, sweat and tears. Liberation myths don’t require God. Hence liberation may tend toward the Pelagian.
In short, it’s another riff on the naked public square, on the failure to acknowledge God’s providence in our public life, on the control of our public life by secularists and their fellow travelers, etc.
David:
In quoting Publilius Syrus, I was thinking of the argument that Santorum made in his famous attack on Catholic Charities, that to receive the favor of the federal government was purchased at the cost of playing down the religious grounds and motives out of which Catholic Charities operates. That is the only part of his speech that i could agree with. Sorry for being somewhat arcane.
During the Second World War, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., is said to have told people who supported de Gaulle and the Free French that they were in mortal sin. Edward Schillebeeckx said that he did not believe that a Christian could vote for any but a socialist party. In the mid-1970′s some US participants in a workshop on liberation theology were told that they should not receive the eucharist because their awareness of the systemic evil in which their country’s politics and economics were involved was insufficiently elevated (remember all that talk about “consciencization” — consciousness-raising?). So a tendency to identify one’s own political orientations with what the Gospel requires is not all that uncomoon.
I think that this is what Ratzinger opposed in political theology and in liberation theology: that they were drawing immediate political consequences from the Gospel when he thought that the move from the latter to the former has to be mediated by a political ethics. In the literature, this would be an instance of what were called “mediating disciplines”. More practically, it’s an exhortation to cool the rhetoric.
I’m reading a biography of Helen Waddell (of whom more later, in another thread). She was Irish, the child of a Methodist minister, in what is now northern Ireland, she was aware of the social inequities (and iniquities); after a lecture on unjust wages, she wrote:
>> Do you know, I think what is wrong with Belfast is a too easy evangelicalism. For these men of whom Professor Henry spoke were “good” men according to their lights: they were appalled at discovering a whist club among their workers, and at a strike being organised on Sunday. Doesn’t it remind you of “passing over judgement and mercy and the love of God”? They’ve never realized the terrible exaction of religion: or rather, they only realize its prohibitions in the way of things like dancing and the theatre and cards. It seems to me they have narrowed all religion to the saving of one’s miserable soul, as Drummond said, “the safety of Hermit-crabs”. Dear, don’t think I’m too bitter, but I’d rather have a frank “publican” grinding the faces of the poor, than these unconscious pharisees. It does less despite to religion. <<
To the same correspondent who was lecturing her about Irish politics (around the time of the Easter Rebellion), she said: “Sometimes I envy you, envy you terribly, because you have no doubts in politics.” I think that’s roughly where I am myself, not exactly envious but puzzled that so many people seem to “have no doubts in politics.”
Sorry if this is disjointed.
Thanks for that. I love aracana, except when it’s beyond my ken, which often is the case.
The Catholic Charities example (and other regarding the church’s charitable works, as well as universities) is a meaty debate, and one that merits another thread. So many avenues–witness the gay adoption standoff, etc. When to cooperate, when not to, when to take Caesar’s money, when not to, who suffers, etc. I don’t think there are any simple answers, which is why such things lend themselves to political broadsides.
As for Ratzinger’s views, he was obviously implacably suspicious of liberation theology, while recognizing its virtuous motivations (at times). He would not endorse Santorum’s verdict, I think it is safe to say, but might empathize with Santorum’s reasoning. But I think he was, and remains, a pretty down-the-line conservative, culturally as much as anything. I would argue that this, too, is a political position, or rather a position of a sort of activism–the option not to act, or speak out.
We are all on this spectrum, obviously. Where we fall off that spectrum in terms of salvation is where it gets really neuralgic, to me. That’s where it goes beyond the usual banter about liberals and conservatives.
I think that’s roughly where I am myself, not exactly envious but puzzled that so many people seem to “have no doubts in politics.”
My state of mind pretty much. Wasn’t Helen Waddell a Mediaevalist? I associate her with Abelard and Heloise and Latin love poetry from the Middle Ages.
As a follow-up of perhaps some relevance, Hadley Arkes has written an essay at “The Catholic Thing” arguing that, contra the “santo subito” vox pop, Tim Russert and many Catholics have “ceased to be Catholic” by not speaking out sufficiently on abortion:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2008/08/tim-russert-not-a-catholic.html
Yes, Helen Waddell was a medievalist, author of “The Wandering Scholars of the Middle Ages” and the wonderful novel “Peter Abelard.” She also assembled the sayings of “The Desert Fathers,” for which she wrote a brilliant preface. Then there were her translations of “Medieval Latin Lyrics”, of which some said that her translations were finer poems than the originals. I want to start a thread on her sometime soon.
Interesting thoughts and your story, Fr. K, really brings it home. Obviously, this thread is about the linkage (or lack of) between a political point of view(s) and labelling it “Christian”. If I may shift the context a bit, it appears that we have the same dynamic going on within the Christian denominations and the RCC. Example – when Hans Kung published his “On Being Christian”, his starting point was all of Christian history (not just the ordained, dogmatic tradition of the Roman Catholic denomination) – he was searching for the Truth and that involved a certain degree of doubt in how any one tradition has evolved. When Ratzinger published his “Introduction to Christianity”, he basically re-iterated and described the current dogmatic history of the one, true, Roman Catholic Church from a more “triumphant” point of view.
Your stories of past religious notables aligning with politics, Fr. K, is insightful because I resonate more with folks who may have a little doubt at all times, constantly search for the truth, etc. Think of Fr. Coughlin. Your stories remind me more of Niebuhr than B16.
Fr. Komonchak,
Surely there is no comparison between whist and abortion?
Kathy:
Who could ever imagine there is?
I’m sure there are some who think that votes based on abortion are nothing other than pharaseeism, the same obsession over vice and virtue that narrows religion into a matter of being on one’s best behavior–especially re: sexual ethics.
And there are some who–me and a number of my friends among them–who would like nothing more than to vote Democrat, except for this pesky matter of abortion that keeps us voting Republican. It’s the one sure thing we know–legalized abortion is bad law, wrong law. Anything but this.
“And there are some who–me and a number of my friends among them–who would like nothing more than to vote Democrat, except for this pesky matter of abortion that keeps us voting Republican. It’s the one sure thing we know–legalized abortion is bad law, wrong law. Anything but this.”
Well you got your Bush/Cheney, your war, your busted economy, the worst economy since the depression, contempt for the Geneva convention, torture etc. All this for something that has no scriptural nor scientific basis.
For authentic directed Christians what greater example is there than this? http://www.lcwr.org/lcwrannualassembly/2008%20Assembly%20-%20The%20Banquet%20of%20Faith%20-%20Elizabeth%20Johnson%2012%20point%20.pdf
Bill, I’m not here to fight about how we can modify Catholicism to accept different ways of unjustice. I’m wondering why Catholics have to compromise anything that is just and true.
My question is George Wesolek’s:
I cannot help but wonder what the present American political theater would look like if the Catholic Church had been teaching a unified, clear and consistent message for more than 30 years. Could it be that legalized abortion would be a thing of the past? Could it be that healthcare and housing would be available to all? If a core group of 65 million Catholics understood the Church’s full message and acted on it, would there be the a Democratic Party today which still considers pro – life Democrats as somehow unfaithful? Would Planned Parenthood still have a stranglehold on the party? Would the Republican Party have a different slant on those who live on the margins of society as more than just collateral damage of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”? Could it be that with a unified and consistent message taught more than three decades, there would actually be a true “Catholic vote” in the U.S.?
The preoccupation with abortion by the Catholic right while generally approving war, torture, flouting of the Geneva Convention is the problem. Nobody has answered Garry Wills’ questions that there is not science nor scripture to back the anti-abortion position. The inconsistencies are glaring as many have pointed out. There has been no gathering of all those miscarriages (as plentiful as births if not more) which are asserted to be immortal souls.
Allowing abortion for good reasons does not indicate a irreverence or ingratitude for life. All should revere such a gift. It is the emphasis on one issue which justifies the issue as a fraud and an easy one since there is no effort needed except to speak loudly and write constantly about it. You have no assurance that the RCC and Evangelicals are right on this. Both have been embarrassingly wrong before.
If you pretend dialogue then address the points of Gary Wills which are not responded to because there is no rational response probably possible.
Catholics are not on board with this issue because they do not buy it as the most important issue. Republicans have used it advantageously as a swing vote. They have manipulated that small segment while they do not care about Roe vs Wade being overturned at all. In fact they would doubtless lose most Republican women if RVW were overturned.
Bill,
Can you think of a situation in which there could be a single-issue conscience vote?
Kathy – let me try to respond. I would propose that a lot depends upon the time, the person, and the situation:
a) Nazi Germany – the church blessed this via the 1938 Concordat. But, in later votes, public stands, etc. you had Boenhoffer, a few Catholic bishops, hundreds of priests who voted a single-issue not only with their conscience but with their lives;
b) Vietnam – you had cardinals who aligned themselves with LBJ publically; went to Vietnam; raised money for the war….yet, individual Catholics who were drafted or facing the draft probably voted in 1968 and in 1972 on the single-issue of the Vietnam War – a single-issue conscience vote;
c) Slavery – historical records indicate that the election of 1860 probably led to many single-issue conscience votes. Either pro or against slavery;
any way, you get the thread.
Bill,
It seems to me that in situations such as the coming to power of the Nazis, the German people had a duty to a single-issue conscience vote. (Not that I’m one to judge, esp. since the Nazis surfed to power on a board made of propaganda on a wild sea of economic distress.) But in hindsight at least, they should have voted, not for social welfare (as desparate as the need was), not for law and order, not for prosperity or even for education–but for a leader who wasn’t going to loot and murder an entire people in his attempt to conquer the world.
When your house is on fire, you don’t vacuum or pay the bills or get the kids ready for school. You put out the fire. As I see it, since Roe v. Wade we’ve been living in a(n) (inter)national civil liberties emergency of a kind and scale that trivializes all other considerations.
As I stated – it depends upon the individual. Not sure that Roe v Wade outranks all the other issues we face as a nation and a world:
a) if you were a Mexican immigrant legally but whose husband and family were here illegally, I think that immigration reform will mean more than Roe v Wade;
b) if you had sons or daughters that might be ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan, the vote on Iraq might mean more than Roe v Wade;
c) if you had a family member with a spinal cord injury or an auto-immune life-threatening disease, stem cell research may mean more than Roe v Wade;
d) any way you get my thread.
American politics need to move beyond the black and white of Roe v Wade – it is more complex and nuanced than what you state….see link: Shortcut to: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10973
Bill,
At first consideration your last comment seems to be suggesting that self-interest legitimately trumps moral judgment. (Perhaps I am reading incorrectly.)
Kathy –
The Nazis did not announce to the German public that they were going to murder as many Jews as they could find, so few Germans knew what was in store for the Jews. Perhaps they would have voted the Nazis in, but I seriously doubt it, even given the terrible prejudice of so many Germans agains the Jews. The Nazis managed to keep the fact of the concentration camps so secret even from most Germans and Poles that when Jan Karski, a Polish writer. did manage to get to communicate with the Roosevelt administration, FDR didn’t believe him — he thought that Tarki’s story was so awful that it was incredible. NOtice that the Nazis kept the facts as secret as they could — which indicates to me that the Nazis thought that the German people needed to be kept in the dark or the Nazis would risk losing their power.
I myself knew a member of the Free French forces who with some Americans soldiers was among the first jeep-load of the Allies to enter one of th worst concentration camps. What had happend there was an utter, total shock to him, and so awful that he eventually came to the U.S. to help the American black people fight the terrible racism directed against them.
I did not say that self-interest trumps moral values. (Cynically, I fear that most voters do choose based on self-interest; not their values or even the common good)
What I am trying to say is that when you arbitrarily elevate Roe v. Wade and abortion as the “only issue”; you skew the Church’s concern for the consistent ethic for life – immigration, nuclear war, war, terrorism, starvation, disease……all are involved deeply with moral values and at times may be more important than Roe v. Wade. We estimate roughly 1 mil.abortions happen annually – that many children die in one month in Africa because of disease and malnutrion and regional wars.
So, I am at times outraged at the myopic diatribe against Roe v Wade, folks using it as a litmus test for being a good Catholic. These same folks know nothing about the impact of the poor economy, racism, sexism, that leave folks at times facing a decision about abortion and a minority of these same folks do nothing outside of continuing to scream – I am pro-life.
Bill,
The expression “consistent life ethic” can be used appropriately or inappropriately. I would suggest that using it to minimize the evil of abortion by putting abortion on a scale and trying to weigh it against all other evils in the world.
Let me put it this way: would the overturning of Roe v. Wade have any impact on the regional wars in Africa?