The Future of Catholic Politics? (Again)
I, among others, have posed the question (here and here) of what the future of Catholic politics might look like–if it has any future–in light of the great splits between and among Catholic voters and leaders during the recent presidential campaign. There seem to be few good answers, and clearly much will depend on the outcome of the current debate with the Republican Party as to whether it will cool down its rhetoric on abortion and gay marriage and other hot-button issues to draw in more voters.
I thought one possible answer was indicated by the election of a dedicated social justice Catholic, Tom Perriello, in Virginia’s generally conservative Fifth CD. While I was in New Orleans this past weekend (pure coincidence, I swear), there was another potential indication, as 41-year-old Anh Cao, a Vietnamese refugee and former Jesuit seminarian (now married with children) defeated the scandal-tainted incumbent, William J. Jefferson–that’d be the Rep. Jefferson who, in a flourish worthy of Illinois politics, allegedly skimmed hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of which was found wrapped in aluminium foil in the freezer of his Capitol Hill office. (Hey, you want to keep it fresh.)
The election was delayed until now by Hurricane Gustav (poor New Orleans), but an equally big shock to the city was that A) Jefferson, an African-American, would lose in his predominantly black district and in a city inured to corruption (it was former governor Edwin Edwards–now serving time in a federal penitentiary–who said, ”The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy”) and B) that the district would elect a Republican over a Democrat, and a soft-spoken fellow like Cao at that.
But this is apparently a year for miracles. And Cao is a fascinating fellow, as this NYTimes profile shows:
Mr. Cao was a refugee from Vietnam at age 8, a former Jesuit seminarian, a philosophy student with a penchant for Camus and Dostoyevsky, an unknown activist lawyer for one of the least visible immigrant communities here and a Republican in a heavily Democratic district. [snip] He is only a recent convert to the Republican Party, having been a registered independent for most of his adult life, and has no position — at least not one he cares to share yet — on President-elect Barack Obama’s agenda. His politics seem less a matter of ideology than of low-key temperament and a Jesuit-inspired desire to “help and serve people,” as he put it.
Republican leaders are understandably touting Cao as the “Great GOP Hope,” though particular circumstances may have had as much to do with Cao’s win as anything. Moreover, Lousiana governor Bobby Jindal is supposed to be the New Hope. And as Mark Silk points out, the men are both Asian, both Catholic, both Republican–but quite different.
In a sense the pair are a case study in how and whether a new Catholic politics will emerge, and if the GOP can be the incubator.
PS: Good CNS story on Cao here.
PPS: Good Daily Dish entry on “Caopublicans”
When Cao was sskes whether he tended to br liberal or conservatve, he was qupted as saying, “Aristotle said that virtue is the mean between extremes. I will be a centrist”.
It was also reported that 12 percent of the black voters voted for Cao. What non- southerers sometimes don’t realize is that African-American Southerners are in some ways as conservative as white Southerners.
As a Catholic and a Republican, I truly hope that Cao, Jindal, and the like are the future of the conservative movement (and the Republican party), yet more like Cao states, Artistotlean centrism.
Future of Catholic politics? I dunno. Aren’t there 75 million of us in the US? Whatever the future is, pretty sure it won’t be monolithic.
The whole idea of “Catholic politics” appals me! I live in a state where “Catholic politics” has contributed to partial disenfranchisement of me and my partner of 36 years. If that is what “Catholic politics” is about, give me secularism and atheism every time.
I don’t think that the leaders of “Catholic politics” in California have realized the anger of the genie that they have let out of the bottle. George “Can’t we all get along” Niederauer is learning quickly, though.
While I don’t expect there to be a monolithic Catholic vote or “politics” anytime soon–nor do I think there ever was such a thing–I am idealistic and Americanist enough to believe that Catholicism does have something to offer to the United States polity and society and culture that could contribute to the common good, to a different and more “C(c)atholic” vision of America.
Hopefully that vision would include respect for the civil rights of people like Jimmy Mac and his partner.
I too find Cao and Jindal to be extremely promising. Thank you for mentioning them.
I am also, no surprise, skeptical that Perrillo will really be a Catholic voter. Will he vote against abortion? We shall see. If he does not, can he be accurately called a consistent ethic or seamless garment Catholic?
This raises some bigger questions. It seems to me that the ideal candidate between us should be a candidate who supports each of our issues and the Church’s issues, rather than someone who chooses one over the other. So to state it simplisticly, the candidate would oppose legal abortion and assisted suicide and defining marriage, and support social spending and immigration and oppose war.
But what if the new progressive Catholic political movement offers us people who support legal abortion and legal assisted suicide and redefinition of marriage, and support big government and immigration and oppose war? Is that progress from the opposite option?
In light of this it puzzles me why Catholic progressives, from a principled point of view, are not more sympathetic to, but are in fact more hostile to, big government Republicans and paleoconservatives. McCain was pro-immigration and anti-torture, Palin was with him on immigration and was pro-union and pro-disability; Huckabee is pro-social spending and populist and soft on immigration; Pat Buchanan is pro-labor and union and opposed the Iraq war. But people like this seemed to get even more hostility from the Catholic center-left when on paper it seems like they should have gotten less.
I am honestly puzzled by this, and as a pro-lifer I just want to you to know the conclusions that tend to be drawn, because I think it is important to know before having a productive discussion. Perhaps we can agree that Catholic progressives have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that social conservatives under Bush became apologists for war and torture and executive power. (I think that true of neoconservatives and the opposite with paleoconservatives, by the way.)
But in the same way that progressives drew that conclusion, pro-lifers often feel led to the conclusion that when Perrillo and Obama are raised as ideals, and McCain/Palin as against Obama, along with folks like Huckabee and Buchanan are villified, we are left rightly or wrongly connecting dots by thinking the only common explanation is that the person most committed to support legal abortion wins the popularity contest. And suffice it to say that makes us call into question the Catholic progressive agenda on the ground.
In short, if Catholic progressives proposed a political agenda and candidates that really opposed legal abortion and redefining marriage, pro-lifers would join you on an agenda with issues that you feel strongly about. But (re)defining pro-life to be inclusive of Obama’s agenda plus public funding of abortion alternatives is never going to be perceived as reaching across the Catholic aisle.
At the risk of offendoing (secretly, I hope) all here:
-I think Matt represents the ideollogical politics of the past;
–I think david has the question backwards: what is the future of political Catholicism? Where wil the church speak to political issues i nterms of the ooliticval areana wit hclout, I think, is what matters.
“we are left rightly or wrongly connecting dots by thinking the only common explanation is that the person most committed to support legal abortion wins the popularity contest. And suffice it to say that makes us call into question the Catholic progressive agenda on the ground.”
If by “we” you mena both of you, then yes you both are wrongly connecting the dots.
Hint: it’s not about abortion.
Re: “…much will depend on the outcome of the current debate with the Republican Party as to whether it will cool down its rhetoric on abortion and gay marriage and other hot-button issues to draw in more voters”
Last time I checked gay marriage is opposed by a majority of the population including Barack Obama. The “rhetoric” against gay marriage is directly proportional to the rhetoric for it. And as to “cool(ing) down its rhetoric on abortion”, Joseph Cao’s strong pro-life position apparently didn’t hurt him:
From AP story: 1st Vietnamese-American elected to US Congress:
The first Vietnamese-American elected to Congress doesn’t have a long list of policy beliefs. Aside from one major issue, Republican moderate Joe Cao says he’s open on everything else. “The only thing I am certain of is that I am anti-abortion,” Cao said Sunday morning after defeating Democratic U.S. Rep. William Jefferson in a race that marked a major shift in New Orleans politics by ending a 30-year stand for Jefferson, dogged by corruption allegations.
From InsideCatholic.com The Jesuits Produce a Great Political Candidate 11/19/08 by Deal Hudson:
Few candidates for public office are as forthright as Cao when asked about their position on abortion. “I am very anti-abortion,” he told me without hesitation. Cao would like to overturn Roe, but in the meantime, “We have to find a way to defeat Roe without having to overturn it.”
As Ross Douthat – a commentator much admired by at least one dotCommonweal contributor – writes in a New York Times op-ed Abortion Politics Didn’t Doom the G.O.P. (12/7/08) in regard to the pro-life movement’s insistence on the necessity of overturning Roe and Casey:
“So the question isn’t whether the anti-abortion movement can change, adapt and compromise. It’s already done that. The question is whether it can afford to compromise on the national issue that keeps serious pro-lifers in the Republican fold, and requires an abortion litmus test for Republican presidential nominees — namely, the composition of the courts. And here the pro-life movement is essentially trapped — not by its own inflexibility, but by the inflexibility of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence.
In theory, there are many middle grounds imaginable in America’s abortion wars, from bans that make exceptions for rape and fetal deformities to legal systems modeled on the French system, in which abortion is available but discouraged in the first 10 weeks and sharply restricted thereafter.
The public is amenable to compromise: majorities support keeping abortion legal in some cases, but polling by CBS News and The Times during the presidential campaign showed that more Americans supported new restrictions on abortion than said it should be available on demand. And while some pro-lifers would reject any bargain, many more would be delighted to strike a deal that extends legal protection to more of the unborn, even if it stopped short of achieving the movement’s ultimate goals.
But no such compromise is possible so long as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey remain on the books. These decisions are monuments to pro-choice absolutism, and for pro-lifers to accept them means accepting that no serious legal restrictions on abortion will ever be possible — no matter what the polls say, and no matter how many hearts and minds pro-lifers change.
Overturning Roe and Casey has never been an easy task, and the election of Barack Obama will make it that much more difficult. Facing a hostile governing majority, pro-lifers can and should talk more about the possibility of compromise: They should explain, more often and more cogently, that if Americans want laws that better reflect their muddled sentiments on abortion, it is pro-choice maximalism, not the pro-life movement, that’s really standing in the way.
But so long as the Supreme Court remains closely divided, and a post-Roe world remains in reach, the movement’s basic political task must remain the same. Not because pro-lifers are absolutists who reject compromise, but because any real compromise will always depend on overturning Roe. Giving up on this goal would mean giving up the movement’s very purpose, while gaining nothing in return.”
Thank God for candidates like Cao.
Michael Kelly, whether rhetoric on abortion and gay marriage are winners or losers for the GOP are debatable points. My point was that the Republican Party and the conservative movement are in the midst of an intense debate over whether to change their rhetoric and/or policies or not. Your argument is with the Republicans and conservatives, not this thread. It’s not really clear that Cao represents anything beyond himself, and his positions on a host of other issues clearly put him at odds with the party leadership. He and Perriello may have more in common with each other than with their respective party mandarins.
Matt–
You’ve spelled out very clearly the perplexities Americans face when deciding which candidate to support. — only rarely if at all do we find a candidate who would defend all of our principles
What to do, then ? I think that what we must learn to do is prioritize, to decide as. Est we can which issues are the most important at any given time. For instance, for some time now ecological concerns, including wearer changes, have been tops on my list for the simple but overwhelming reason that to continue on our reckless way wasting Earth’seterials and causing killer-weather in the process will inevitably lead to dreadful wars and pestilence and severe temptations to abort (follows by more a ortions) than any piece of bad law called Roe or even FOCA would cause LONG TERM.
In theeante it is up to Catholic philosophers to develop as clearly as possible argue
fnts based on non- theological eidence which will persuade nonCatbolics to support the lives of all innocent persoms.
Note that I didn’t say arguments again at ALL abortions. The current magisterium on the subject is not, so far as I can see, supportive of clear ancient positions on the subject. In other words “the” Catholic positions on the subject are not all that clear about early abortions,
Again, please forgive the typing. Long posts from here are always messed up.
Hello All,
I realize that we are drifting away from the topic of David’s original post. But I would like to add an afterthought to Ann’s post. I agree with Ann that Catholic philosophers need to do much better at presenting arguments for the sanctity of human life that those who are not Catholic will accept. (I also think the onus is not on Catholic philosophers only, because Catholic theologians, lawyers, and doctors are just some of those who could contribute to this discussion.) I would raise similar complaints about the failure of Catholic philosophers to adequately defend a number of other post ions that are part of official Catholic Church teaching. I have in mind as examples the claims that contraception is intrinsically evil and that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, though there are many others. Now I want to make it clear that I am not denying any of the specific claims I mention here. I’m only complaining that I and nearly all my philosopher colleagues find the few arguments from Catholic philosophers we have seen for the latter two claims unpersuasive. (I think that certain Catholic philosophers are somewhat more successful at defending the claim that humans have a right to life from conception till death, but I admit I might be biased because I am about to publish a piece that supports this position.) And I’m only a fair-to-middling philosopher who is Catholic and wants to be persuaded that official Catholic Church teaching is sound. Imagine what sometimes happens when a topnotch philosopher who has no sympathy for the teaching of the Catholic Church enters the picture.
Of course, I am only describing symptoms of a problem. I have no solution, after long reflection. Some colleagues and friends suggest that my puzzlement at some of the arguments I have seen from Catholic philosophers who defend certain controversial Church teachings stems from my training in and being part of a secular, analytic philosophy community that dominates North America. But the we’re back to Ann’s point: Catholic philosophers need to give arguments that will persuade the non Catholics.
Ann–thank you for mentioning the environment–I omitted that from my admittedly simplistic list. Huckabee for example was very supportive of environmental protection. He seems like a guy that Catholic liberals would latch on to for progress within the Republican party. But didn’t the opposite happen?
Bob and Joe–thank you for your perspective. I think you are dismissive of the unborn. The question is, will your attitude characterize the new progressive Catholic agenda, and if so, won’t that agenda be just as onsidedly Democratic as it accuses the pro-life movement of being onesidedly Republican? I think there is a danger, one that is not imaginary, of Catholic progressives like Perriello being Catholic the way Ted Kennedy is Catholic, and the way Kmiec recently praised him as being Catholic–which includes an unswerving commitment to and voting record for depriving unborn human beings of rights at every turn.
If that is defined as a Catholic way to do politics, and if those are the two choices we have, and the Church does tell us that massive killing of the innocent is a higher priority, can’t we expect informed Catholics to continue in their left-right factions?
Peter V and Ann O: Your comments don’t seem off topic, but rather seem to underscore what is an inherent problem in this (and every other discussion on this theme), namely how to persuade, and second, what to do in terms of public policy. It seems these questions about the future of politics, Catholic or otherwise, quickly veer off, or divide, as some (like me) want to discuss politics and the art of the possible and others want to cite Catholic teaching and tradition and the necessity of living the Christian life–the necessary art of the impossible, one might say. Politics is about persuasion, and doing what one can, and making compromises that may be disasteful but which also advance a greater good–and help to forge the bonds of social stability that are vital to an enduring community. Cathleen Kaveny is the expert in the prophetic/casusist categories, and I think that may come into play here. There are overlaps between the cateories in public life, in politics. But when everyone is a prophet, no one is persuaded and nothing gets done. Ross Douthat is actually my prefrred candidate to replace William Kristol on the NYT op-ed page, and he made the point (as has Wm Saletan) of how flexible anti-Roe folks have been in their positions–on exceptions for rape and incest and the like. Those are objectively evil positions, but they adopt them. I am more dubious about Douthat’s point on the impact of the GOP’s abortion stance; the bottom line is that abortion simply doesn’t register as an issue with voters, and that, to my mind, is the greatest argument for focuing on other, more political, means to a common end.
Just to elaborate a bit on Catholic politics: the current state is well illustrated by the current Commonweal Editorial on the USCCB’s actions.
To move somewhat closer to a point raised here, we have the letters from the Archbishop of san Francisco and the Cardinal and Bishops of Los Angeles abou tProp.8 and its aftermath, trying to dance around maintaining the traidtional teaching on marriage/sex and not offending gays.(The ante was somewhat upped by Mayor Newsome’s coments at an ecumenical dinner, attended by his Bishop then turned his back on the mayor.) One wonders what the Bishops would have said to Ned O’Gorman on reading his end piece in the current Commonweal.
It strikes me that we need a new political Catholicism, just as we did when John Courtney Murray and Theodore Hesburgh (Bill Mazzella, please elaborate) laid out ways of brining the Catholic vision to the body politic.
It seems clear that the realpolitik of the immediate furture disdains the old ideological divisions and desires more inclusivity.
I don’t see US hierrachy providing that and I don’t think old appraoches will resonate well either.
Catholic politicians who profess to be Catholic should not look to Aristotle regarding virtue but rather to the greatest philosopher of all time, Christ, a.k.a., The Truth. Aristotle said that virtue is a means between extremes, but those of us who profess to be Catholic know that The Truth is not a matter of opinion, nor is it a matter of compromise. The Truth is consistent, Yesterday, Today and Always.
“IAM the Way, the Light (Life), and the Truth.”-Christ
Nancy, you set out the role of a catechist very well, or perhaps a cleric. But your criteria preclude a Catholic becoming involved in public life, in politics. That seems to me to be a separationist view that Catholic teaching rejects, though it is one that certain believers find much more comfortable than engaging in politics.
For what it’s worth, I’m less and less sure that prophecy actually persuades. I think it functions a) as a way of shoring up those already committed in contemporary debates; and b) reinforcing a social consensus after the debate is over.
Cathy, I’d also add that much of what might be categorized as “prophetic” speech is in fact just political (casuistical) discourse of a different variety. I know prophetic rhetoric is designed to persuade (or I guess it does), but in today’s political dynamic it is, as you said, more a way of confirming the views of political partisans and mobilizing them to get out and vote and donate. And I don’t think that is really what a prophecy of “afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted” is supposed to do. But I may be wrong. Prophecy has many manifestations.
It seems to me that prophecy is also inherently inimical to the political process of creating laws and shaping policies and enacting changes. Washington would grind to a halt, as it it did in 1994.
“Catholic politicians who profess to be Catholic should not look to Aristotle regarding virtue but rather to the greatest philosopher of all time, Christ, a.k.a., The Truth”
I am surprised to hear you holding the heretical position that Christ was a philosopher.
Re “Catholic politics” or “political Catholicism”: So far as I can see, neither of these terms is particularly clear. There are moral principles that should guide a Catholic (as well as other people) concerning what they ought to oppose in the realm of public policy as well as in the domain of personal conduct. But there is no specific political policy that they ought to support. Deciding whether a particular political policy or program deserves one’s support is a prudential matter that each person, with the benefit of information and advice, has the duty to make for himself or herself.
If Catholics band together to push for some specific political policy or program, then they are, and have every political right to, act as a group of Catholics. But no such group, even if it led by the pope,is entitled to claim that the policies or practices it promotes are, all alternatives to the contrary notwithstanding, the “TRUE” Catholic policies or programs. In politics, there are no such things. Or so I think.
It is helpful that DavidG points out that abortion opponents have been very willing to engage in compromise and the “art of the possible.” Thus we have restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, and parental involvement laws, and informed consent requirements, and many other measures.
David concludes that since, in his view, “abortion simply doesn’t register as an issue with voters, . . . that, to my mind, is the greatest argument for focusing on other, more political, means to a common end.” The question I have is, what precisely is meant by “focusing on other, more political, means.” Does it mean pursuing those compromise measures of the type I listed? Or does it mean something different than that, and if so what?
I think it is important to answer this question in specificity to have a genuine discussion. The question might be left for an answer based on what was presented during this past campaign. The progressive Catholic movement mobilized to champion Obama as the actually pro-life choice, and offered reasons in favor. From the pro-life perspective this suggests that “focusing on other, more political, means” is something like Obama’s agenda, which as stated is to increase social welfare spending while actually eliminating all the aforementioned compromises and pragmatic agreement policies. If this is the new paradigm for pragmtic Catholic political action, it is not something that is likely to unite Catholics from the left and right–I would suggest quite the opposite.
It would seem that the “future of Catholic politics” might be spoken of as forging a platform that is both pro-life and pro-social-justice (to use two imprecise categorizations). But if the platform is something like selecting one or the other, that doesn’t seem to be any different than the polarization we have now. Political left and right will continue to battle for power in their zero-sum game, and Catholic left and right will too. That’s a plan for the future, I guess, but it’s not really different or futuristic so much as it is what we’ve already been doing.
Regarding virtue, I am reminded of Christ’s Sermon On The Mount,among many of His other Sermons, regarding how we are to live our lives in communion with one another (the public). Who better than The Truth, The Word Made Flesh, would know the Truth about The Truth?
David, are you suggesting that the Catholic voice on virtue, that is consistent with the Word Made Flesh, should be censored?
While part of Catholic politics or whatever is clearly about values/principles, the issue of how they are presented, not only attractively but with what “juice” or “clout” is vital also.
As a practical matter also, I think the issue of how one works whether publicly or quietly behind the scenes is an important effectiveness question.
Again, I refer to the curren tCommonweal editorial and the PR that groups expressing our faith bring to the table ought to be evaluated.
“Censored”? Not at all. But Catholic preaching and Catholic politics are two different things. One entails the kind of compromise that the other could not comprehend.
It seems to me that so long as moral principles are not the property of either the churches, theologians, philosophers, or political scientists, the churches which have a tradition of arguing morality based on common experience xperience and which subscribes to the use of logic in criticizing itheir own premises, that those churches will have something to offer in the public square.
Unfortunately, the Vatican seems to have lost the appreciation of self-criticism that the medievals had. And this is why the many scientific wing in the public square dismiss Catholic thinkers out of hand.
I still have a problem with the meaning(s) of “prophetic”. If it means only channelling a message from God, then obviousl prophecy has no role in a democracy except to offer an alternative view of facts and principles.. But if it means speaking truth to both the powerful and the person-in-the-street when they don’t want to hear any criticism of themselves, then yes, there is a role for prophecy. (Think of the ecologists we’ve ignored to our regret.) But do prophets usually present *reasons* for what they’re saying? Not most of them, it seems to me. Rhetoric is their main method, of persuation not logic of gathering of data.
(I also have problems with the classic distinction between “wisdom” and “prudence”. Both assume knowledge of general principles, and both presume understanding of the relationships among facts presented. So what is the difference? But this might just be a digression.)
Nancy –
Beware rejecting Aristotle. If anyone is responsible for the high regard for consistency in the West it is Aristotle. (Sounds like you’ve been listening to the rhetoric of the wrong theologians. Yes, some theologians use rhetoric. Sigh.)
Peter –
I agree with you that people from many disciplines can contribute to the understanding of the abortion issue. But when push comes to shove, it is a matter to be settled with the general principles of philosophy and the data gathered by the scientists.
Of course, moral philosophers and theologians are going to disagree about their general principles. But they just have to agree to try to see the other side and to accept criticism when it is well taken. That’s my problem with the institutional Church these days — it has lost its respect for logic and with it seeing the necessity of self-criticism and the necessity of listening to the criticisms of others. Sadly, I think JP II was the biggest sinner in thisi regard — very strong rhetoric, but little back-up with facts and justifications of philosophical oprinciples. Oh, well, at least Pope Benedict has started to affirm the necessity of “reason”, whatever that means to him. Yes, “reason” also is a problematic word. Sigh.
Regarding what DavidG calls “the prophetic/casusist categories”, I think DavidG is correct in saying, “there are overlaps between the cateories in public life, in politics.” In fact the overlaps seem to be significant. Catholic Conferences at the national and state level have fully signed on to legislative advocacy of a pragmatic nature, not only in abortion but in every area touched by Catholic thought. These conferences are led by the relevant Bishops and find their support from them. The Bishops are usually teaching principles (what I think is being defined here as “prophesy”) alongside and consistent with the need to enact pragmatic measures. Again using the pro-life area, this has led to the passage of a multitude of pragmatic restrictions on abortion, each commanding overwhelming public support, and which actually have reduced abortions all the while little progress has been made on Roe itself (showing that it is not really accurate to identify the movement as anti-Roe in a prophetic sense, prophetic used in a bad, anti-pragmatic connotation). Precisely because of the principled need to act, the Bishops use their structural mechanisms to encourage popular support and lobbying for pragmatic measures. So I don’t think the Bishops can be boxed into a prophetic category that carries with it the accusations of antipragmatism, demogoguery or mere fundraising. That seems to be an artificial category, too easily set up and knocked down.
And at the same time, it seems to me that even messages that are categorized as prophetic with these connotations do actually persuade. Sermons persuade. Bishops’ messages convert. Principled teaching spurs the unconvinced into conviction and action. People in the pews can and are persuaded by the annunciation and oration of important principles reasoned from the authority of God. People’s consciences are pricked to move them to action. Martin Luther King Jr. convinced apathetic people to join the cause of equality. Catholics, especially the young or newly interested in politics, are convinced to become active to work for justice. Most Catholics who have voted or lobbied or rallied or leafleted or written a letter to the editor will tell you a story of their conversion from either hostility or inaction. Principles of human dignity rooted in the Divine image and God becoming man really get people involved. The Holy Spirit really moves people’s hearts. It happens. It is our history as a Church.
And it is not divorced from pragmatic politics. The persuaded, act. Even high profile people can be persuaded, and even by strident messages. But as mentioned above, the principled “prophesy” is constantly used to effect incremental change. So I don’t think it is easy to conclude that certain messages are “inherently inimical to the political process of creating laws and shaping policies and enacting changes.”
Hello Ann (and All),
I agree with everything you say in your last post, and I sincerely wish I did not. As for the work of John Paul II in particular, I have found what I have studied very disappointing from an analytic philosopher’s perspective. For example, I found Veritatis Spendor a terrible letdown when I studied it because here JP II frequently makes arguments solely from history, of the form,
X is true because the Church has always consistently taught X.
(Although I think he makes at least one slip in this respect because to my knowledge he is the first pope to explicitly declare slavery to be intrinsically evil (paragraph 80).) Arguments of this form might be compelling to Roman Catholics, but not to non-Catholics. And if I were to present such arguments as my only defense of a claim to other analytic philosophers I’d simply be mocked and laughed at, probably to my face.
But I don’t mean to be griping about a specific individual. The writings of JP II I’ve studied that address philosophical issues are especially important examples of some general patterns I have seen from philosophers who did their formal philosophy education in Roman Catholic institutions. (JP II received his doctorate in philosophy from the Catholic University of Lublin in 1957. Also, in my opinion Notre Dame and Georgetown are the North American exceptions to my generalization.) Two of these patterns I find are: (i) a tendency to give only sketches of arguments, which sometimes prove invalid or unsound when a reader tries to fill in the blanks, and (ii) a tendency to present false straw-man versions of the arguments of one’s opponents. I won’t give more examples because this is just a post. But I’ll end with an opinion I think you might agree with Ann: I think certain controversial church positions like those on abortion, contraception and same sex relationships will never be more widely accepted than they are today without some real changes in the philosophy departments in Catholic institutions. (Again, I think Georgetown and Notre Dame are trying to make these changes by hiring more analytically trained philosophers, and they are getting some criticism for going this route.)
I don’t think artificial contraception will ever be widely accepted by Catholics much less people who are not Catholic. The Catholic Church has reasoned that homosexuality is innate and beyond the individual’s control, but in a glaring non sequitur, still characterizes it as unnatural and forbids people from acting as God made them. If it is innate, it is, ipso fact, not unnatural.
Hello Michael (and All),
I’m not sure you meant to respond directly to my posts but I would like to respond to your comments.
“I don’t think [Church teaching regarding] artificial contraception will ever be widely accepted by Catholics much less people who are not Catholic.”
I’m pretty sure you made a typo ommision in your first sentence that I’ve taken the liberty of Fixing”. If I have interpreted you correctly, I think you are quite probably right. I don’t suggest that we will see a significant shift in the beliefs and practices of most people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, if Catholic philosophers start presenting some original arguments in defense of Church teaching on birth regulation. What I am claiming is that there definitely won’t see any such shift if we see nothing new from Catholic philosophers. (Which puts me on the hot seat I guess because I’m a Catholic philosopher!)
“The Catholic Church has reasoned that homosexuality is innate and beyond the individual’s control, but in a glaring non sequitur, still characterizes it as unnatural and forbids people from acting as God made them. If it is innate, it is, ipso fact, not unnatural.”
As happens so often to me when I try to investigate claims about what the Catholic Church does and does not teach, I’ve seen contradictory claims about what the Church teaches about this. I thought the CCC does not explicitly state whether or not homosexuality is innate and beyond the individual’s control. Could you correct me about the CCC or point me to a source that confirms what you say? (And I most certainly hope you are right.)
Peter Vanderschraaf,
Thanks for responding. I should have let you know that I wrote my message because of your comments. I am not an academic or a philosopher so my responses will be simple. Like you I believe it is unlikely that artificial contraception will ever be widely accepted by Catholics.
The following link is to a document titled Always Our Children (AOC) issued by USCCB on September 10, 1997. Here is a quote from this document: “The meaning and implications of the term homosexual orientation are not universally agreed upon. Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual “tendency,” which proves to be “transitory,” and “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct”(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8).”
I am a 63 year old gay man who discovered I was gay at about age 11 or 12. I don’t think I ever met a homosexual whose homosexuality was “transitory”.
I appreciated your comments very much. I have thought that the Catholic Church’s philosophical treatment of such things as artificial birth control and homosexuality might be unsound.
I hope all of this hasn’t got you on a hot seat. We need more Catholic philosophers like you.
http://www.usccb.org/laity/always.shtml
Peter Vanderschraaf,
I meant to write:
Thanks for responding. I should have let you know that I wrote my message because of your comments. I am not an academic or a philosopher so my responses will be simple. Like you I believe it is unlikely that Church teaching regarding artificial contraception will ever be widely accepted by Catholics…
Peter –
I agree that Catholic universities’ philosophy departments and individual Catholic philosophers need to become knowledgeable about the main contemporary philosophical concerns and methodsoutside of the momnastery walls. Having attended a non-Catholic college myself, and having taken a couple of courses in philosophy at the local Loyola in the 40′s, as well as having an MA from Catholic U. in the 50′s, I know from first hand experience that too many Catholic philosophers of that generation were ill-prepared to engage the wider world of academe.
I suspect that Notre Dame and Georgetown have tried to remedy this, and when I got my doctorate at C.U. in the 60′s the new dean, Msgr. John K. Ryan was making heaway at C. U. Those were the days of Vatican II. However, I suspect that C.U. is reverting to the old closed mentality, Just check the areas of expertise of the current faculty, and although there is a Kant expert and some analytic philosophy (Anscombe and Geach?) , I noticed no one with expertise in the Enlightenment philosophers except Kant. No expertists inthe empiricists. (And I would venture a guess that the School hasn’t continued with Msgr, Ryan’s reforms, but I really don’t know.)
(If you wonder why I didn’t go to Notre Dame, well in 1963 women were not allowed into doctorabl programs in philosophy there. I’m actually glad I went back to C. U. because the school under Msgr. Ryan was just what I wanted.)
At any rate, I don’t see much hope for Catholic philosophy to be reformed from within Catholic universities, It’s up to individuals like you to take the lead.
I apologize everyone. I just posted some remarks in which I repeated by mistake a large part of an earlier post. I will post only the new stuff below and I will leave it to David G. to remove the mistaken post.
Hello All,
Ann and Michael, I will respond to some of your comments privately. But for group consumption I’d like to add another response that also links up with some of David G.’s earlier comments.
I think I’m fair in saying that Catholics tend to take either of two approaches to significant social changes, though not necessarily the same approach all of the time. (Examples of social changes from the last century that most impacted Europe and North America include the ecumenical movement in Christianity, greatly increased political rights and professional opportunities for women, and a widening belief that being homosexual is a benign natural condition rather than a disorder caused by external forces. And of course, the discovery of oral contraception.) Approach one is to do what one can to shield oneself and other Catholics from the effects of these changes. This approach might include criticizing the changes, or perhaps arguing that the changes do not really imply anything new for Catholics. The example you give, Michael, illustrates this approach: On the one hand, the USCCB document Michael cites tells us that they believe at least some people are homosexual by nature, and says nothing about this kind of homosexuality being a bad trait to have. But on the other hand, Church teaching on homosexual acts remains the same: Such acts are gravely and intrinsically evil, no exceptions. (I also know no one myself who had a “case” of “transitory” homosexuality.)
Approach two is to accept and even embrace the changes and then see if one can remain a faithful Catholic.
I agree with you, Ann. My impression is that most philosophy departments at North American Catholic institutions are guiding their written work and their hiring decisions by approach one. (Over many years of applications, no Catholic philosophy department on this continent would hire me because of my heavily analytic research.) Even at Notre Dame one will find some very powerful anti-Enlightenment voices, and without naming names I was stunned to learn that Notre Dame philosopher published a piece not long ago titled “In Defense of Homophobia”.
Now I don’t mean to suggest that approach one is typically the product of ignorance or bigotry. I think in many cases those who employ this approach have an overriding desire to protect the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church. But I also think that in the long run, this approach will tend to push this church towards a much smaller, but possibly internally stronger, membership, the “faithful remnant” Pope Benedict XVI sometimes refers to. And if that happens, I think this numerically diminished Catholic Church will have far less influence than does the Catholic church in its current state, for all its faults and problems.
I tend towards approach two myself. Which makes my life a lot more interesting and tougher!
Peter, I deleted the garbled comment above as per your suggestion.
And just a personal note of thanks for your fine comments here. (And to the rest!)
“Nancy, beware rejecting Aristotle.”
My concern is to not deny Christ.
Michael, all one has to do is google, “Always Our Children”, to find the truth about this document which is not consistent with the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church.
Peter,
I also want to thank you for your fine comments. Like you I haven’t known anybody with a “case” of “transitory” homosexuality.
Hello All,
I will post on the following topic exactly once more because I want to respect the wishes of those who are trying to keep to the topic David’s original post.
Some of the discussion here led me back to the CCC. Paragraphs 2357-2359 are the paragraphs discussing homosexuality. Paragraph 2358 explicitly states that a homosexual inclination, defined in paragraph 2357 as “an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex” is objectively disordered. The text does not elaborate on the meaning of the term “objectively disordered”. I think a natural way to understand the term in this context is that the Church declares that homosexual people have a powerful inclination to commit certain sins, in particular sexual sins, that are intrinsically evil acts. If my reading is correct, then I have a similar objective disorder and I gladly accept being in the same boat as my homosexual sisters and brothers. I’m a heterosexual man and I have known since puberty I have a powerful inclination to commit certain sins, including sexual sins, that the Church declares to be intrinsically evil acts. The Church requires that people with the powerful inclination I have abstain from these sexual acts, which I do. (Obviously, my boat is not exactly the same as that of a gay person because the Church does permit me to have sex under certain circumstances.)
Other regular contributors here have posted similar comments in the past but given the latest discussion I thought these comments might be useful.
If anyone’s still looking at this, I refer them to Cathy’s comment and link at the end of the brief thread on Cardinal Dulles’s funeral.
The coments by Commonweal’s Matthew Boudway ar every pertinent and I would urge, a thread of their own!