Is Commonweal Catholic?
ERRATA: The post below assumes that Charlotte Allen and I shared a similar upbringing and catechetical formation. I have since been informed that this is not the case, so that affects at least part of the analysis below. I apologize to Ms. Allen and to our readers for the error.
As noted by Grant below, Charlotte Allen has posted something of a critique of Commonweal over at the First Things blog. I want to take the discussion in a slightly different direction than the combox discussion seems to be heading.
I hope Charlotte will not mind if I deal with some of her points quickly. She questions what is distinctively Catholic about Peggy Steinfels’ views on the current conflict in Lebanon or Clayton Sinyai’s opinions about union organizing among undocumented workers. But as far as I can tell, the opinions of both authors are solidly within the Catholic mainstream. Outside the United States, the Church’s support for labor unions, migrants, and the concerns of Christians living in Arab nations is taken more or less for granted. It cannot be denied that these are issues of prudential judgment about which Catholics of good faith can differ, but it’s fair to say that Commonweal hews closer to mainstream Catholic opinion on these matters than does, say, First Things.
But these are minor points, because what I really want to address is the broader question she raises about whether Commonweal lacks a distinctively “Catholic perspective.” Here, I think, Charlotte reveals the generational divide that exists between Catholics (like Charlotte and myself) who grew up in the wake of Vatican II, and those whose formation was prior to the Council.
In my experience, the latter group of Catholics tends to have a deep and abiding sense of ecclesial identity. The “Catholic perspective” that they bring to bear is not the result of a conscious choice. It is the way that they reflexively think. Even if they are estranged from the Church, they tend to think about this estrangement in Catholic categories.
The writers and intellectuals of this generation no more needed to stamp “Catholic” on everything they wrote anymore than Flannery O’Connor needed to populate all her stories with Catholic characters to explore Catholic themes. They didn’t think this way. Their Catholicism has a taken-for-granted quality, and Commonweal was founded by—and to a great extent remains guided by—people with this kind of sensibility.
Charlotte and I (and the generations that have followed us) were raised in a very different period. Even for those raised as cradle Catholics, the sense of Catholicism as something constitutive of our identity has been attenuated. One can argue that there are positive and negative aspects of this change, but the fact that there has been a change seems inarguable. We’re more inclined to ask questions about what is distinctively Catholic because our decision to remain Catholics is more of a choice than it was for previous generations.
I teach adult Confirmation classes, which regularly brings me into contact with baptized Catholics who have received little in the way of formal catechesis. They, too, often want to know what is “distinctively Catholic.” In some cases, this has been prompted by their inability to respond to aggressive questions posed by Christians of other denominations. In other cases, it has been prompted by their inability to respond to questions posed by their own children!
I disagree with Charlotte’s suggestion that Commonweal somehow lacks a Catholic perspective. The magazine positively oozes with Catholic sensibility. But because of the deficiencies of my own formation (I was confirmed in 1980—do the math!), it took me a long time for the magazine’s distinctiveness to impress itself upon me. I often felt the writers were using terms and references that I was supposed to know, but didn’t.
So while many of us here will probably disagree with Charlotte’s conclusion, I think she is raising some questions that any of us who are writing for an educated Catholic reader need to think about.
The issues at stake in the debate over episcopal conferences are well set out in a book that can be found on the web at http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/church_studies/reese/ec/index.htm
I wrote the preface and one of the chapters in that book.
My article on “Apostolos suos,” which set out the official line on the theological and juridical status of bishops’ conferences can be found at: http://americamagazine.org/articles/KomonBish.htm.
I second most of your remarks, Peter, but I’d add some cautions. While I agree that Catholics will, if they are properly formed, hold many views that are “distinctively Catholic,” I wouldn’t want to see this degenerate into a narcissism of differences in which we split hairs to distinguish ourselves from others. Catholics can hold many positions on political or economic affairs, for instance, that won’t be different, or not much different, from non-Catholics. Their justifications may be “distinctively Catholic,” and that may well translate into what will be, in effect, subtly different positions. But to seek out “difference” risks self-absorption and self-justiifcation, at least.
I can think of several occaisons when Commonweal has advanced quite “distinctively Catholic” positions, the most compelling of which was William Cavanaugh’s vivisection of FT support for the invasion of Iraq. Nothing written by Field Marshal Weigel matched it in quality of thought, or prose, or theological clarity.
Besides, who appointed First Things the guardian of orthodoxy? I wouldn’t want to see Commonweal start responding to Allen, et. al., as though it had something to prove to these people. We don’t need their stinking inquisition.
Peter raises an important question for the future of Commonweal. It is a question I think is likely a concern to Paul Baumann and to the magazine’s board of directors.
Peter is correct the majority of Commonweal readers appear to be, if the commonweal@yahoogroups.com is a representative sample, older and very long time subscribers. In my own instance, if I’ve done my calculations correctly, my subscription has been running slightly longer than Peter has been.
That doesn’t, however, mean that I think Commonweal has to become more overtly Catholic in the nature of First Things or Crisis. I think Peter partly answered his own question when he wrote, “The magazine positively oozes with Catholic sensibility. But because of the deficiencies of my own formation …it took me a long time for the magazine’s distinctiveness to impress itself upon me.” Peter obviously learned to appreciate and understand the Catholic nature of Commonweal.
Two of my three kids read Commonweal, partly because Dad pays for the subscription but it is the third who is of the most interest. He is perhaps the most distant from the institutional Church, but whenever he visits the first thing he searches out is the most recent issues of Commonweal.
Over those 40 plus years, Commonweal, has changed in subtle ways, many very hard to define. I suspect it will continue to do so.
Eugene:
Points well taken, and let me add another. Catholics historically have been committed to a natural law approach to moral reasoning. So when it comes to issues of public policy, Catholics are more inclined to make arguments that are generally accessible to reason rather than arguments require a specific faith commitment to make them intelligible.
I should hastily add, however, that not all Catholics favor this approach. Someone like Notre Dame’s Michael Baxter clearly favors a more robustly Christological approach to ethics (he makes arguments similar to those made by Stanley Hauerwas). But I would still say that the natural law approach holds the mainstream position among Catholic ethicists, although there are differences between those who think that natural law operates independent of any metaphysical commitments (e.g. Grisez, Finnis) and those who see it as being grounded in specific theological commitments (e.g. Jean Porter).
Peter:
Excellent points all. Personally, I’d favor the Baxter/Hauerwas/Porter approach, even though such an approach would still, I think, sometimes give us political positions that align well with those of non-Catholics. John Milbank and some of the “radical orthodoxy” types favor a politics rooted in specific theological commitments, but still come out socialists of one sort or other.
Note, also, that Baxter and Porter have never (been) published in First Things, at least that I can recall. Hauerwas was on the editorial board until the Iraq war, and even before that he was uncomfortable with the drift of things.
For what it’s worth, this whole imbroglio over “who’s more Catholic” is akin, in some ways, to the “who’s more Protestant” debate that was triggered by slavery. Mark Noll argues in his recent book on the subject that slavery was, in effect, the “culture war” of the 19th century, pitting Protestant against Protestant in a tumult over biblical interpretation.
I resonate deeply with Peter’s post. Squarely (confirmation: 1957) of the pre-conciliar era, Commonweal “positively oozes with Catholic sensibility” for me as well.
I wish I were more sanguine about the transmission of this sensibility to future generations. I have not had the same experience as John with my three sons. Their exposure to the most progressive strains of contemporary Catholicism in vibrant parishes and liberated religious education has left them as disaffected from their parents’ Catholicism as that of their traditionalist grandparents.
Peter’s comments remind me of a letter to the editor in the current issue, responding to a Luke Timothy Johnson essay. A cradle Catholic challenges Luke on his summary of constituitive characteristics of Catholicism by saying that these characteristics are accessible to him as an Episcopalian.
So my questions are:
How broadly distinctive and accessible are our Commonweal Catholic sensibilities? I celebrate the presence of those young Catholics who resonate with our sensibilties, but I can’t help but think that they are in the distinct minority. Do we ‘get’ the others…those indifferent to Catholicism and those drawn to a more distinctive manifestation?
In our discomfort with boundary setting, are we able to understand without exasperation those Catholics who yearn for distinct identity and beliefs? Can “First Things” Catholics and “Commonweal Catholics” move beyond mutual contempt?
The normally irenic Eugene McCarraher cautions against submitting to a “stinking inquisition” on the part of Charlotte Allen or First Things. He also seems to be concerned that there are authors not published in First Things. If he would use the search function on the First Things site he would find several discussions of the authors he mentions, Michael Baxter (including an article by him) and Jean Porter. The discussions are all rather civil. But I should point our there are criticisms. Anyone afraid of inquisitors should preserve his innocence by staying away
The incorrigibly snide Patrick Molloy suggests that I “stay away.” I decline the disinvitation (though I thank him for his correction), and recommend that he work as a bouncer for some other establishment.
Let me respond to the civil Mike. I don’t know quite what he means by Commonweal Catholic sensibilities being “accessible,” so he might want to elaborate. If they’re “accessible” to Episcopalians, it might be beacuse Catholicism is, well, catholic — it embraces all of human experience as sacramental. The distinctiveness is that, at its best, Catholicism holds together the entirety of truth — this is the crux of the difference with Protestants, etc. — and directs our desires in the proper directions.
As for “getting” young Catholics, I think we should pause for a moment and consider that we’re beating up on ourselves too much. One enormous reason why young Catholics aren’t well-formed, in addition to the mediocrity of much religious education, is the impact of mass culture. It’s the air we, not just they, breathe, and it’s toxic for any kind of reilgious formation. If we can formulate cultural strategies to deal with that, then we would have addressed, if certainly not “solved,” a major problem.
I’m hopeful but not optimistic about FT and Commonweal Catholics burying their hatchets. One way to attempt it, I think, would be solidarity on issues like abortion, stem-cell research, and genetic engineering. Even there, the FT folks don’t seem willing to admit that economic imperatives — i.e., the interests of bio-tech corporations — are fuelling the drive to patent genes, etc. If you want a culture of life, you have to have a political economy of life.
Here I am, the infamous Charlotte Allen, and I’ll try to defend myself and my First Things blog post briefly. .
First of all, I just blog for First Things; I don’t speak for First Things. So I don’t view myself as a “guardian of orthodoxy,” Catholic or otherwise, much less as entitled to conduct a “stinking inquisition.” Indeed in my critique of Commonweal qua magazine, I took great pains to avoid name-calling and to give credit where credit was due. I count several regular Commonweal contributors as personal friends and have enormous professional respect for others whom i don’t know personally. For example, I consider Commonweal to be the best-edited Catholic magazine in print. Given that, I am puzzled as to why the “contempt” among “Commonweal Catholics” for “First Things Catholics” that Mike McG pinpoints so accurately and the permeates several of the comments in this combox.
Catholics can and do disagree on many issues of poitics and social policy, and I assume that if they are serious and thoughtful Catholics, they can ground their views in Catholic moral and social teaching. I think that Israel has a moral obligation to its citizens to defend itself–and them–aggressively against an entity, Hezbollah, that is effectively occupying southern Lebanon and is committed to Israel’s eradication and the “disappearance” (by whatever means) of Israeli Jews from the Holy Land. Peggy Steinfels obviously disagrees. The Iraq war has drawn a range of thoughtful opponents, including not only political liberals but my dear (and very conservative) friend Rod Dreher. It also has thoughtul defenders such as George “Field Marshal” Weigel (a term I take as a compliment recalling Field Marshal Montgomery, hero of El Alamein).
When I read the views of such writers as Steinfels, Dreher, or Weigel in Catholic or otherwise religious media–in contrast to, say, the op-ed page of the Washington Post–I expect there to be a specifically Catholic or otherwise religous grounding for those views, and that the writers will make arguments that draw on a distinctively religious view of the human condition. Otherwise, why bother with Commonweal or First Things? Why not go straight to the New Republic or the Weekly Standard? I don’t want to have to rely on the fact that a particular periodical somehow “oozes with Catholic sensibility,” even though the subject-matter and arguments contained therein are thoroughly secular.
Furthermore, I don’t think it’s possible anymore to define certain political positions–such as support for labor unions–as specifically Catholic. The days are long past since labor unions were largely composed of blue-collar, church-going, socially conservative, staunchly anti-Communist Catholics working in the trades or on assembly lines, the kind of people who refused to unload ships at the docks hailing from the Soviet Union. The AFL-CIO is now “pro-choice” on abortion, and when I think of unions these days, I think of teachers’ unions, not the Solidarity movement in Poland. So the very idea that a pro-union article automatically and implicitly “oozes with a Catholic sensibility” is quite alien to me.
In short, when I pick up a relgious periodical, whether it be liberal or conservative, I expect to read religious content. i expect to experience liberal Catholics’ sense of a deep and heartfelt connection between their viewpoints and the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church that we Catholics believe he founded–and I expect the same of conservative Catholics.
Charlotte, thanks for contributing. It’s always helpful when the subject/target shows up to join the tussle.
First, I think that by blogging under the First Things banner, you align yourself to FT, what it stands for, and what people perceive it stands for. Some of us blog under our own headlines so as to be free of stuff like that, accepting the consequences and benefits, including higher or (mostly) lower readership as a result.
Second, and likely for worse mostly, blogging is substantially more rough-and-tumble than your polite commentary. That’s pretty much true across ideological lines, so if there’s a certain fieriness across the FT/Commonweal divide online that doesn’t appear in cocktail parties, it’s pretty typical, I’d say. This blog tends to be more polite, but if our disdain for FT and other things conservative oozes out from time to time, at least you know where we stand.
Third, sometimes I disagree with what I read from FT or Conservative Catholic media organs like it. Sometimes it doesn’t seem to me that the Catholic grounding is very present. George Weigel, for one, strikes me as having gone off into the secular end in sort of a lazy way recently. Commonweal has enough of a history so I perceive the oozing, and accept it, more or less. When I read material from the Acton Institute, for example, I pretty much see secular. I confess my mostly-ignorance of things First Things, aside from what I read online.
Lastly, I think any Catholic organ should be liberated from a certain expectation of fundamentalism/literalism. Not every bit (however a critic may define “bit”) need identify as Catholic in a way such as that critic would suggest. In other words, I don’t need a mission statement in every issue or incorporated into every piece.
Hmmm….
I’m not sure that Charlotte’s decision to blog for FT means that she is accountable for every position taken by the publication, anymore than the fact that I blog for Commonweal makes me accountable for every position Commonweal takes. I think the same could be said for those who write for these publications. It’s also true that both magazines do give space to writers/bloggers who may disagree with specific positions held by the editors. That is, I think, to their credit.
I blogged on Charlotte’s comments because I thought they raised issues worth addressing, not because I felt a need to respond to FT. I know that there is a history between Commonweal and FT, but the two publications have worked collaboratively on projects like Catholics in the Public Square and I think those who write for both publications can and should keep the conversation civil.
In general, I think people should evaluate the arguments made by writers on their merits and not assume they share the positions of other writers with whom they may be associated by dint of writing for the same publication.
It’s not just First Things and Commonweal. Secular magazines, like the Nation and New Republic, for example, often show intense rivalry. They prefer an autonomous stance to making common cause or joining an already articulated position. If and when they finally reach agreement with others they try to achieve pride of place within coalitions. Too often they try to demonstrate the autheticity of their commitment by the extremity of their views.
It would be pleasant to anticipate a change in the plot with Catholic magazines but many intellectuals, religious as well as secular, seem to prefer the barricades. I think Charlotte Allen makes an especially constructive contribution by offering her evaluations with a large measure of civility.
Eugene, you write: “I’m hopeful but not optimistic about FT and Commonweal Catholics burying their hatchets. One way to attempt it, I think, would be solidarity on issues like abortion, stem-cell research, and genetic engineering.”
Would marriage also be included on that list? C. Allen charged that one is “liberal enough” to be a Commonweal Catholic if one is for gay marriage (I think that’s what she said). The fact that nobody has corrected her on this point is interesting.
Take heart, Commonweal Catholics. Some of Charlotte Allen’s best friends are Commonweal writers.
I agree with Peter — let’s evaluate Allen’s arguments on their merits. She’s absolutely right to argue that a Catholic publication should feature points of view grounded in the “teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church that we Catholics believe he founded.” I would second Todd’s caution that we don’t need a mission statement with every issue. Both FT and Commonweal meet that those tests, in my view.
But a Catholic publication should also feature points of view grounded solidly in evidence, and that’s where some of the trouble starts. Take Allen’s post, for instance. She implies that FT doesn’t consider itself a “guardian of orthodoxy” or an “inquisitor.” I don’t see how anyone can read many of Neuhaus’ “Public Square” pieces without getting the clear impression that anyone who disagrees with him is, well, unorthodox. As for FT’s self-anointed status as “guardians of orthodoxy,” as well as the connections of many of its leading lights to some of the more unsavory quarters of the American right, Damon Linker’s forthcoming book will provide ample evidence. (In another thread on this blog, there’s an article about the Institute on Religion and Democracy that traces some of these connections.)
Allen utterly misrepresents Peggy Steinfels’ position about the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. No one believes that Israel has no moral responsibility to defend its citizens, a view that Allen slyly attributes to Steinfels. What’s at issue is the wisdom of the recent incursion, and whether or not the U.S. should be providing overt support for an undertaking that has, by the way, utterly failed to dislodge Hezbollah.
Montgomery’s performance at El Alamein was indeed heroic. Field Marshal Weigel’s support for the Iraq invasion has been something less than edifying, as well as less than vindicated. And by the way, Weigel’s defense of the invasion derived from uncritical acceptance of the Bush Admn.’s lies about WMDs, and it displayed only the thinnest theological camouflage for realpolitik. (Todd observes, rightly I think, that Weigel’s political judgment seems utterly “secular.”) Bill Cavanaugh rightly pointed out that Catholics can’t simply accept the state as the arbiter of information about a contemplated attack. — a view which seems amply supported by recent history.
Allen also doesn’t know much about the contemporary labor movement, so she trundles out the usual suspect — the teachers’ unions — as an object of riducule. John Stoessel does the same thing, with much more wit if also an equal amount of disingenuousness. Unions have been suffering for the last thirty years, under conservatives and liberals, thanks to economic and government policies that most FT writers have heartily endorsed. So enough crocodile tears about workers.
A few months ago, Commonweal featured an article on the meaning of labor by John Joyce that was a remarkable theological reflection. FT has Michael Novak, who thinks that Microsoft and other corporations are akin to “the Suffering Servant.” That’s “religious content”?
As for unions being pro-choice, what’s that got to do with anything? So is most of corporate America.
On the evidentiary part, Allen’s pretty thin.
Well, Editor Bottum hasn’t taken kindly to some of this chatter. As he recently posted over at FT, “But you need to remember that [the Commonweal crowd] hates you—and me and everybody associated with First Things…And now I know that they think of me—and you, all of us—as Nazis and enemies and undereducated fools. It’s a sadness.”
He surely has a point about the particular comment in question, but we can do without the overwritten tone. Cue the tragic (preferably violin-based) background music. The hurtful words in question all relate to comments posted on the site, not to official posts from Commonweal staff. Open comment boards are a difficult matter for editorial staffs; FT has implicitly recognized this fact by not having one on their site!
Sloppy analogy used to score cheap ad hominem points is stock in trade of both conservative and liberal bloggers. To conflate such things with the editorial position of this magazine is a more subtle form of attack, but no more productive.
I’d like to second Charlotte’s point.
It’s not the positions one takes in a Catholic publication as much as it’s the reasoning one uses to get there that matters. Of COURSE there a multiplicity of legitimate positions on many issues in the Church. Argue what you want, but if you can’t “show your math” (i.e., root your argument in the Church documents that have emerged out of a 2000 year old dialog) then you might as well be writing for any number of fine secular publications. At the very least, you sure as heck aren’t engaging the culture as a Catholic, regardless of how Catholic you feel when you put pen to paper.
The difference I see between publications like FT and Commonweal is that publications on the right–whether you appreciate their conclusions or not (and I don’t always, e.g., Iraq)–tend to try to argue their point from Catholic teaching. In response, the Catholic left, rather than engaging the conversation with their own take on the relevant Catholic teaching, has a hissy fit and begins throwing around names like “fundamentalist!” “literalist” and “self-appointed guardian of orthodoxy!” (scroll up for examples). This does the left a real disservice, because there may very well be arguments to be made from Catholic teaching that counter the views of the Catholic right, but we tend not to hear them because the left fears being branded by the labels they use for their ad hominems against the right. So, instead, they shoot themselves in the foot. Let me give you a fer instance.
A few months back, Commonweal published an absolutely appalling piece on the cessation of adoption services by Boston Catholic charities. It was rooted in sentimentalism, emotionalism, and hyperbole. There wasn’t a shred of Catholic social teaching or moral theology in the piece. Hell, it didn’t even have any social science.
By contrast, the piece I did in First Things on the same topic drew from Deus Caritas Est as well as Vatican teaching on the right of children to have a mother and a father. Plus I drew from social science data from the otherwise fairly liberal Evan Donaldson Adoption Institute.
Frankly, I would have liked to see a competent, faithful, liberal Catholic argument against the position I took in FT. I think there is probably one to be made. But the best Commonweal could seem to put foreward was something that frankly, shouldn’t be worthy of a letter to the editor in a local secular paper.
I’m using this example because it is convenient and personally relevant, but I could just as easily choose any position. For instance, I didn’t happen to agree with FT on the justness of the Iraq War, but I don’t ever read Peggy (and I’m picking on her because she never posts here unless its about the war) say anything particularly Catholic about what to do now that we’re there. She seems to simply echo the secular liberal sense about the situation and to consistently argue for a pullout. Okay. I’m emotionally sympathetic to that. But even Benedict says that although we shouldn’t have been there, now that we’re there we owe it to the Iraqi people to clean up our mess. How does a pullout sqaure with CST? I think that argument could be made, but I’ve never seen Peggy made it. (Not that she hasn’t. I’ve just not seen it.)
The point is, the right is winning the day because, more often than not, they use citations, not sensibilities, to make their case. And if the left wants to do the things Grant says it should be doing in his beliefnet debate with Peter, then I think the left had better start showing their math–because frankly, whether you’re on the left or the right, nobody cares about your sensibilities.
When the idea of a “distinctly Catholic perspective” arose, I wondered what was meant. I am still not sure. There are many subjects on which I am quite sure there is no position that is or ought to be shared by all Catholics. That bring us to theology and perhaps a few ancillary philosophical positions. Even there there are probably relatively few positions that are held only by Roman Catholics. There are many items in the Commonweal that I do not find to be distinctively Catholic. I find this cause neither for praise not blame.
A certain sort of apologetic tendency might be considered distinctively Catholic: a tendency to explain why the latest statement from the Vatican is wonderful. There are certain subjects of interest that are distinctively Catholic, but I don’t think they add up to a way of looking at things so much as set of things one looks at. Perhaps I have a peculiar perspective of my own (mis)making
I’m going to weigh in with some further clarifications–and a few responses to the very long comments section attached to Grant Gallicho’s post on my critique.
First off: Of course, I wouldn’t be posting on the First Thngs website if I didn’t feel sympatico with First Things, First Things people, and many (although by no means all) of the views expressed in First Things or on its blogsite. But I’m not First Things, and it’s a bit odd to impute to me everything written by every writer for First Things.
Second, many commentators seem to confuse “aplologetics” and “fundamentalism/literalism” (whatever that means) with a willingness to make a distinctively Catholic–or even a Christian–argument for whatever position a writer has decided is the moral one. As Greg Popcak points out, it’s possible to make an argument based on Catholic social teaching that gay adoption may be preferable to no adoption at all–so why not make it? Whether Israel is right or wrong, whether we should withdraw immediately from Iraq, whether Bush lied about WMDs–that’s not the point. It’s how you make your case. If all you can do is rehash secular arguments, why be a Catholic magazine?
I found many of the scurrilous ad hominem attacks on me quite amusing (my favorite: “Ann Colter’s [sic] favorite Bible verses”). To Paul Baumann, for the record:: All is forgiven, and I’ll buy you a drink the next time you’re in Washington.
But I do find intolerable some of the nasty and untrue remarks made about other people. Again for the record: Michael Novak dropped out of a doctoral program at Harvard to become a stringer for Time magazine in Rome at the Second Vatican Council (it later led to a book). How many Commonweal readers wouldn’t have jumped at that chance? I sure would have.
Finally, to Joe Gannon: Yes, if you folks at dotCommonweal had only posted more neo-Latin epigraphs! I’d be so busy puzzling them out that I wouldn’t have time to critique the magazine.
David
Since there is no place to comment under “For theRecord” and since you introduced Ed. Bottum’s remarks. Please allow me to point out for the record that the quotation I posted in response to an earlier post was not a reference to First Thing but to the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). The article was written by Andrew Weaver for Media Transparency. The quotation was commenting on the way IRD questioned the patriotism of Protestant bishops when they criticized Pres. Bush and the war in Iraq. IRD had likened the bishops to Nazi sympathizers in WWII. So how Bottum took that to mean that my intention was to do the same to First Things escapes me. Even after quoting it I raised a question about whether Weaver’s characterization of IRD was over the top. Similarly with Bottum’s point that First Things intended to divide mainstream Protestants. This too referred to the objective of IRD as stated by Weaver.
Perhaps I should have been clearer or given more of a context for the posts. Blog posts tend towards brevity for the obvious reasons.
I apologize to Commonweal for this embarassment and to First Things for the offense.
My problem with a lot of what is written in First Things is that it is some form of secular ideology in Catholic clothing. They are frequently selective in their application of catholic teachings to the various issues in question. I refer especially to the Iraq issue, and the twisted contortions some went through to argue that the war was consistent with just war theory, and thus thumbing the nose at the rest of the world, Vatican included. Yes, yes, I’m familiar with all the “prudential judgment” arguments but what many on the right need to realize is that prudential judgment is all about applying Catholic teachings to new facts and circumstances, not a convenient way of adhering to a secular ideology whenever it bumps up against some inconvenient teaching. To be blunt, it sounds a little partisan, certainly as partisan as many on the right claim Commonweal to be. To take one issue: I will take the FT crowd more seriously when the lambast the Bushites on the torture issue with as much effort as they attack Democrats on abortion. After all, they are mentioned in the same breath in Gaudium Et Spes…
Since there is no place for commnets on the “For the Record” thread (and that’s legit) I am placing a comment here:
Since FT editor Joseph Bottum is not entirely accurate in his analysis of the comments made on this blog as Alan has clarified, let me express a certain sensitivity to Bottum’s post re: his reference to “the old Catholics’ deep enculturation”.
Peter Nixon never used such a term, preferring instead to identify “the generational divide that exists between Catholics who grew up in the wake of Vatican II, and those whose formation was prior to the Council.”
Bottum’s use of the term “old” implies there is a “new” Catholic out there. Perhaps he is referring to First Things Catholics. What ever he meant betrays in his thinking a divide and perhaps a certain disrespect of pre-Vatican II formed Catholics who have tried to walk the talk of what John XXIII and the bishops of the Council tried to set in motion.
Perhaps we sometimes stumbled; maybe even fell off a few hidden cliffs but we also know why we accepted the challenge of the journey. We, in a way I suspect Peter, Charlotte, Joseph or my own kids will never know, nor fully appreciate, understand why we accepted that challenge.
If at times we get a little ruffled about some of the revisionism currently occurring around Vatican II and the return to some pre-Vatican II authoritarian impulses, please remember that forty years from now you too may be in the same boat.
Sorry about backtracking on this thread; I just got back from vacation.
Mr. Popcak’s comments about “showing the math” above startled me.
I have never thought of Commonweal as a theological publication; our high school English teacher introduced us to it along with the National Review, the Nation, Atlantic Monthly, MAD, and several other “quaity magazines,” in her view.
I have read it on and off for 35 years (30 of which I was not a Catholic), and as far as I can see, it records and reflects not what Catholics are “supposed” to think (though it discusses that topic sometimes), but how the teachings of the Church play out in the lives of Catholics who are engaged in the world.
Mr. Popcak pointed out specifically the recent piece that criticized the Boston Diocese’s ban on gay adoption without offering any theological citations that might speak against the ban.
I agree that an article against the gay adoption ban from a theological perspective would have been interesting and useful.
But most of us–especially us women who are taking care of kids, elderly parents, a household, and holding a job–don’t have time to mine 2,000 years of Catholic documents before we react to life’s situations in a dispassionately correct sort of way.
What he calls “sentiment” and “emotionalism” are often the deeply ingrained responses that have been informed by the spirit, if not the letter, of the faith.
Charlotte Allen twice misrepresents my views on Israel: in her original FT post and now here.
Her use of the word “obviously” above should be a dead give away that she cannot demonstrate what she goes on to imply — that I disagree with Israel’s right and moral obligation to defend itself and its people from Hezbollah or from eradication. She is mistaken.
In my recent review in Commonweal, I repeated and agreed with the Israeli author (politician, historian, and diplomat) that Israel has too often defended itself in ways that are counter-productive and detrimental to both Israeli and U.S. interests, partly because, as the book’s author emphasized, military perspectives have eclipsed political and diplomatic ones. In a final edit, as hostilities broke out, I added lines, by which I certainly stand a month later, suggesting that Lebanon may be another case in point.
If anything is obvious here, it is that my position has to do with means, not ends. To use that to imply that I deny Israel’s moral claims and legal right to exist suggests that Allan has utterly misread my review. I would like to think that was unintentional.
While I think a lot of important points have been raised by all posters, I think we’ve about reached the limit of substantive dialogue on this thread. I’m asking folks for a voluntary “stand down.”
Just a point going forward: the statement of strong views vigorously expressed is okay; gratuitous name-calling or guilt-by-association is not. It also might be helpful to remember the Ignatian principle that we should strive to put the best face on the arguments with which we disagree.
Lastly, I’d just like everyone to remember that we are brothers and sisters in Christ and should conduct ourselves accordingly.
Sorry, but I want to get this inoffensive note in. Perhhaps we have spotted a distinctly Roman Catholic perspective when, in reading a piece, we find oursleves saying: “Only a Roman Catholic could have written this”. The only difficulty is that one could encounter a good many pieces in which one could not confidently make the indentification.
So many points with so many stretches of what is written by others, especially those with whom we disagree.
At any rate I give credit to Allen for showing up albeit rather lamely. I presume all will agree that given Commonweal’s substantial history, the burden is on those who object to show how it is not Catholic.
The apologies of Grant Gallichio, notwithstanding, I still maintain that First Things is more bluster than reason, more rambling than fact, more bombast than truth.
Though Novak’s reaction to liberal academia is what it is, I do not crticize the First Things crowd for their lack of learning, though I admit I resent how they constantly insult my intelligence.
It is not a matter of respect. It is a matter of calling bullies for what they are. In a world where neocons blatantly start wars, where Fox news courts and promotes bullies, somebody has to ask as was asked at the McArthy hearings: Is there any decency left?
In the current issue of Vanity Fair there is an article on the bullies of Fox, friends of First Things: “THE FOX LITERARY SALON Fox News’s conservative firebrands have churned out a bookshelf or two of bluster. Reading the oeuvre of Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly, et al., James Wolcott extracts their seven rules to write by. Illustration by Mark Summers.”
I say those of us missiled by First Things and Fox deserve the apology.
For a different perspective on Catholic identity and First Things, some of you might find this article of interest— Going Catholic, http://christiancentury.org/article_print.lasso?id=2290
Ana, thanks for a most intriguing article. Clearly, the Churches of the Reformation, constitutionally always had troubles maintaining Catholicity. At the same time the Reformation remains of incalculable value to the whole church.
I would like to see more follow-up of these six prominent converts. I am a believer that change. like greatness, is often “thrust upon us.” The devil is in the details.
Overall, this is a subject worth pursuing, it seems to me.
I am a young ( age 31) Catholic with a Master of Arts in Applied Theology. I enjoy reading “Commonweal” and pick it up at my local library on a regular basis. However, I am inclined to agree with the criticism that some of the articles really don’t seem to have much to do with a Catholic point of view.
From an editorial standpoint, I don’t understand how many of the articles are chosen – what books are chosen to review, what movies, etc. In the July 24th issue, the articles “The Court Acts,” “Northern Exposure,” “Refined Sugar,” “Death Becomes Him,” “Agatha’s Ashes,” and “Odd Fellow” come under this heading for me. While the articles may be interesting, they are not ostensibly Catholic. For me, I tend to pass these articles over with a quick glance. Is it possible “Commonweal” is trying to be too many things and suffering as a result? If I am looking for political or secular literary analysis, I will turn to the secular media. I turn to “Commonweal” for analysis from a Catholic perspective.
Isn’t “distinctively Catholic” an oxymoron?
Just to get in a reference to a distinctively catholic source, Vatican 2 said “the Church rejects nothing that is good or true…” (it continues “in these religions” but do we need that qualifier?)
The mark of being catholic is an openness to truth, whatever its source. Reference to Catholic teaching can be a guide pointing to things like the importance of solidarity in unions, a preference for peace over war, when war might be just, etc.
But the guide is not what distinguishes us. It is the goal — truth, justice, love, God. And that is why Catholicism is universal, reaching out to all, rather than parochial, staying in its own little place, just reading its own authorities.
Thanks, Ana. This is really one of the most interesting pieces I have read in a long time. Actually “Why I am still a Roman Catholic” would be an excellent topic.
According to Rodger Van Allen, when the first issue of Commonweal came out on Nov. 12, 1924, an editorial in the New York Times headed “ Defender Who Doesn’t Attack,” said this about the magazine:
“Judging from the issue now at hand. . . its purposes are to be carried out with a moderation of language and a command of facts that usually are lacking. . . . Suavity not ferocity marks The Commonweal style of exposition and argument, and it refrains sedulously from insult or denunciation of those disagreeing with its ideas. The usual bitterness of theological controversy is missing from this new comer in the weekly field. . . .”
Pretty good call, I’d say. And it looks as if the Commonweal bloggers, to their credit, are managing this site in the same spirit .