Calvinism Seeps Into First Things
Since the theology of the politicized American right is essentially derivative Calvinism (with a heavy dose of Gnosticism and a measure or millenarianism to boot), it is not surprising that Catholics who align themselves with this movement should fall sway to Calvinist arguments. Nowhere is this more clear than with First Things. And I don’t want to go after the easy targets here: Michael Novak’s wholesale embrace of laissez-faire liberalism or Richard John Neuhaus’s selective reading of Catholic social teaching. No, in this post I want to to point to a couple of more blunt instances of appalling theology on the pages of First Things– pertaining to American exceptionalism and health care, respectively.
One of the contributors to to magazine is Stephen Webb, who recently penned a review of Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson’s Heroic Conservatism. He writes the following with nodding approval:
“Gerson shares with the president a providential reading of history. Like Bush, Gerson is convinced that freedom is the goal of history—because he believes that freedom is God’s gift to everyone.”
Who is Stephen Webb? Well, the article links to an interesting book he has written, entitled American Providence: A Nation With A Mission. The book, hailed by Neuhaus, is described in the following terms:
“American Providence makes the case that American Christianity is not an oxymoron. It makes the case for a robust doctrine of providence-doctrine that has been frequently neglected by American theologians due to their reluctance to claim any special status for the United States. Webb goes right to the heart of this reluctance by defending the idea that American foreign policy should be seen as a vehicle of God’s design for history.”
As I’ve noted before, more than any other country today, Americans tend to fuse Christianity with an invented civic religion, and, sooner or later, it all comes back to the idea of American exceptionalism, the notion that America is somehow ordained by God and held to a different standard. And, more often than not, the underlying theology is derivative Calvinism, including a very un-Catholic reading of the Old Testament. For these early American settlers viewed the new land as favored by God, much as ancient Israel had been in Old Testament times. They viewed themselves as the “elect”. And America was their country.
This idea has affected American foreign policy from the earliest days of manifest destiny. Woodrow Wilson, the son of a Calvinist minister, believed that the United States had been chosen by God to teach the world to walk in the “paths of liberty.” John Foster Dulles, a Presbyterian elder, was deeply committed to the notion that America was a providential nation. Ronald Reagan who re-evoked Winthrop’s city-on-a-hill speech, viewing America as pure and the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”. And George Bush, embracing American exceptionalism on steroids, desiring to re-make the world under the tutelage of the United States.
This theology resonates deeply among the American evangelical culture today. There was much outcry over Jerry Falwell’s comments after 9/11, when he was accused of blaming abortion, gays etc. for the catastrophe. But what Falwell really said was that God had withdrawn his shroud of protection from America. That presupposes that God was protecting America in a way that other countries could not access. But this is not consistent with the Catholic faith, and I have no idea why a Catholic magazine like First Things is peddling it.
Exhibit B is slightly older, a essay by Peter Leithart mocking Obama’s concern with health care provision. Lethart blames this “obsession” on secular humanism, which “cannot see how any good could emerge from human suffering” and “worship[s] the body itself”. This then is the reason that “politicians, as well as the media, routinely accord priority to items of health-care policy.” His bizarre conclusion is that “pain may be good for you” and that focusing on health care is misplaced. How does this square with the Catholic teaching that health care is a basic right? It doesn’t, because the theology is again a form of derivative Calvinism. Leithart’s punchline is the following:
“Christianity was founded in an act of expiatory pain, has regarded human suffering as not only inseparable from the nature of life on earth, as a matter of observable fact, but also as a necessary condition in spiritual formation.”
What is wrong with this statement? Well, Catholic faith was not founded in an act of expiatory pain. Jesus founded and taught Catholic faith, which he made effective through an expiatory sacrifice followed by resurrection, overcoming the effects of sin and uniting humanity to himself. We have been saved by sacrifice, not pain. The pain was an incidental evil and a reflection of our sins. By the way, Mel Gibson does not seem to get this either, which is the main reason I did not like his movie on the Passion. Again, really bad theology on the pages of First Things.
Comments are closed.
In fairness to FT, it doesn’t claim to be a specifically Catholic magazine. Although it is predominantly in that vein, it attempts to be, broadly, a journal about religion, culture, and the public square. Hence the articles on non-Catholic subjects, for example, the recent article entitled “No Friend in Jesus.”
“What is wrong with this statement? Well, Catholic faith was not founded in an act of expiatory pain. Jesus founded and taught Catholic faith, which he made effective through an expiatory sacrifice followed by resurrection, overcoming the effects of sin and uniting humanity to himself. We have been saved by sacrifice, not pain. The pain was an incidental evil and a reflection of our sins. By the way, Mel Gibson does not seem to get this either, which is the main reason I did not like his movie on the Passion. Again, really bad theology on the pages of First Things.”
Ok, enough of the armchair theology. Trying to distinguish in a meaningful way Christ’s expiatory sacrifice from expiatory pain is very unconvincing to say the very least.
I have gone after Anglicans and other for their sole reliance on Anselm’s substitutional atonement. That is fair game. But let’s not split hairs.
You obviously don’t like conservative Catholicism. I understand that and can even respect that. But, let’s not make arguments where there are none to be made.
Lastly, if you want to uphold some pure notion that Catholicism has no focus on the sufferings of Christ (aka pain) you are going to have to deny nearly a thousand years of Catholic devotionalism. That would be a mean trick indeed.
The point, Fr J, from what I gather is that it is the whole person of Jesus, the whole incarnation, up to and including the kenosis which led him to the depths of hell and then the resurrection where he breaks open the realm of hades and leads the dead back to God is the key of Catholicism. It isn’t one event, it is the whole Christ event.
It isn’t that suffering has no value, and one can’t share in the suffering of Christ, but it is to ignore the whole work of Christ to make this the core and a reason to ignore acts of mercy — which include helping the sick. After all Jesus healed the sick, and so did the Apostles.
Leithart’s article does say that he is pastor at Trinity Reformed Church, so Morning’s Minion may have correctly identified a Calvinist for once. That the idea of redemptive suffering is somehow specifically Calvinist, however, is harder to maintain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptive_suffering
MM
One of the things I find interesting is that it is correct, God calls us to freedom, but people confuse this from an ontological sense to a political sense. They use it because they know if we deny God wants us to be free, we will enter theological heresy. But they equivocate freedom here. One could take it back to them and use it to justify “free choice” in moral questions. Especially since God gives us free will. But one can see if you bring it back into this territory, they will contradict their own “God wants us to be free” and show how much equivocation is being used to justify political policy and power with freedom.
And it is interesting that the Catohlic Church consistently points out to the just distribution of goods for the dignity of life. Perhaps the problem is not just Calvinism but the inherent anti-body Gnosticism which ignores that God did not come man to free the soul from a pained body, but to heal soul and body and re-establish their integral unity. To dismiss health care as a “worship of the body” is ultimately to demonstrate pure Gnostic rejection of the body itself. (No Jonathan, not eveything is Gnostic or Calvinistic, but when it is, it is).
His bizarre conclusion is that “pain may be good for you” . . . What is wrong with this statement? Well, Catholic faith was not founded in an act of expiatory pain.
Have you ever heard the phrase “Christ and his salvific pain“? What do you suppose it means? It’s certainly not a “Calvinist” phrase . . . . and read the above link to see someone else, not a Calvinist, pointing out that suffering can bring people closer to Christ.
Henry,
That is a huge misread of the entire Catholic and Orthodox theological tradition. Yes, modern theology does seek to downplay the role of the passion and make Christ an ethical preacher. Many even downplay his miracles or sometimes rework his miracles to show that he is a social worker.
Clearly Christ exhibits a preferential option for the poor and so should we. But, the tradition does not support a reading of his preaching as somehow more central or privileged than his work of salvation on the cross.
In fact, the creeds focus on his incarnation and suffering, death and resurrection without any reference to his preaching. Liturgically, the central act of Christian worship has always been the Eucharist and this has been understood in sacrificial terms from the beginning. The passion and crucifixion along with the nativity have been the central themes of Christian art. How many famous works of art show Christ preaching? Baptism, Reconciliation, Eucharist, Ordination, Annointing all have as their central focus the paschal mystery as do funerals.
As for the just distribution of goods. This is an important matter in the modern period best articulated in response to Marxism/Capitalism. Beyond giving alms to the poor, the Catholic Church did not have an articulate framework for discussing socio-economic issues until Leo XIII, as you know. To somehow assert that this modern tradition is as important or central to Catholicism is to ignore 19 centuries of the tradition.
I have no doubt that the Catholic Church’s teaching on the distribution of good is important to you. And, it should be. It should be important to all of us. But, it is not the central theme of Christianity. Let’s keep some perspective.
I know that Gnosticism is the new favorite Christian put-down, but let’s not get carried away. Conservative Anglicans accuse liberal Christians for being gnostic because they reject the Bible’s teachings and think they have some higher knowledge than what is revealed.
Liberal Christians throw the gnostic term at conservative Christians for not being sexually liberated.
And now you are accusing FT of being gnostic for not embracing the modern cult of youth and eternal life in THIS world.
Everybody needs to go back and study gnosticism and get their terms right.
A much more effective term for what you want to say is Jansenist. And, yes, there are some very mildly Jansenist tendencies in traditional Catholicism, which need to be looked at.
Still, I am not sure you can make the charge of Jansenism stick to a reasonable critique of modern attitudes toward health care; even less, the charge of gnosticism.
Fr J
Read my series on Gnosticism. I know precisely what I am takling about here. The whole point of rejecting health care because it is a “worship of the body” and will remove someone’s “expiatory sharing of Christ’s suffering” is what is wrong. It is very clear in CST we are called to the healing of soul and body. The rejection of the body IS gnosticism. We are not talking about sexuality, we are talking about the integral good of the body and the negligence of that fact.
And the whole work on the cross is incarnation and for the body and the transformation of the body. To pit one against the other is the problem. Please, be more careful.
“Yes, modern theology does seek to downplay the role of the passion and make Christ an ethical preacher.” Who is downplaying the passion and making him an ethical preacher? No one. MM didn’t disregard the passion. He disregarded the abuse of the passion which says “you are suffering? good, that’s what you want.”
I find it sad that you have failed to meet my points. I find it interesting that traditional and significant Catholic theology which points to the wholeness of Christ, that it is the incarnation and the whole of the incarnation and not the incarnation in part, is to you entirely wrong. But with St Cyril of Alexandria — I will say — Christ is one.
I agree with this post but maybe can add a couple of clarifying points.
The real symptom of Calvinist influence on Americanist theology is the idea of “freedom” as telos or GOAL of history. Freedom cannot be a telos because freedom alone is not a good. Freedom is the CONDITION of good. I am not saying that freedom isn’t essential in any good relationship between persons, or between persons and God. But freedom is not the POINT of community, or of history, or religion. It is the CONDITION of LOVE, which can only be freely given and received. “Freedom” as GOAL doesn’t make sense. Freedom is the condition for the realization of the true goal, which is love between persons and God. When Americans talk about freedom as the goal of history, they are worshiping an idol, because they are SEPARATING and ABSTRACTING freedom from its ordering to the good of love.
Why do Americans do this? Because “freedom” in the particular American context means a particular political system–democracy and capitalism. It is specifically CALVINIST to FUSE the “church” with a specific, contingent political system. The origin of this way of thinking goes straight back to the Calvinist church-state in Geneva, which was founded on the idea that the theocracy existed to glorify God’s ordering and power.
For Calvin, the theocratic order was not GOOD. It was not, like the church in Catholic teaching, a foretaste of the heavenly city. Nor was the Calvinist theocracy distinct structure that existed, even after Constantine, in some kind of differential tension with the secular state . It was a total political and religious order. And it was also seen to be a stop-gap, a way of PREVENTING the worst sins and holding things in some order before God brought things to their right end.
Calvin, then, accepted an impoverished and authoritarian politics as divinely ordained. The church itself was also the state, and it exerted COERCIVE power in PLACE of the God whose coming was still awaited.
But at least Calvin did NOT say that this cruel state of affairs was the GOAL of history. The goal was still the Kingdom of God, for the elect who were being preserved, by theocratic power, for the coming culmination.
American POST-Calvinism–starting with the Puritan theocracy in Massachusetts– essentially accepts the Calvinist idea of divine, authoritarian church-government. But the Puritans also began to think that the promised GOAL was being realized in their own church-state. So Calvin’s provision–that the authoritarian gov’t was a way of keeping time till God finished history–is forgotten in Puritanism and in American millenarianism. Now the American gov’t is itself not just PROVISIONALLY ordained by God; it becomes the goal of history.
Thus we have religious nationalism in America.
America has always been a mercantilist, capitalist outpost of whites among natives (whether in America or Iraq). It was always seen, in a simplification of Calvin, to be the goal of history. Both Calvin and the post-Calvinist Puritans were wrong, because both had no conception–NONE–of a community founded NOT merely on “free” individuals, but on free Persons in LOVE. But at least Calvin still had some eschatological hope for the coming of an unthinkable new order. The American Puritans forgot about even this.
—-
As for the value of suffering. This is simple. Fr Jr is totally wrong.
The basic idea is summarized in MLKing’s statement that “innocent suffering is redemptive.”
Suffering AS SUCH is NEVER good. Christ’s suffering (and the suffering of all the saints and all Christians ever after) IS good, but ONLY because of the WAY that he suffers–INNOCENTLY. And this means that he suffered without desiring revenge, without being drawn into the network of violence and counter-violence that is human history. He ABSORBED the violence and hate inflicted upon him. That is why Paul says, mysteriously, he was “made to be sin.” It was as if he took the evil into himself and neutralized it by suffering in pure innocence, without a desire for revenge. He loved his enemies. Of course.
That suffering was redemptive. It made possible, first of all, the redemption of those who killed him. Thus the words of Peter in Acts–this Christ whom you crucified is Lord; and you can come to him in love, still. For the resurrection is forgiveness of sins.
It is ALWAYS wrong to say about someone ELSE–that person’s suffering is “good for him.”
Suffering is wrong. Humans were not created to suffer. That is why our suffering is a consequence of the fall, and not of God’s creation.
The redemption of the fallen world is the gift, in Christ, of the power to transform suffering, undergone in innocence, into redemptive love.
So suffering can always be taken on in the spirit of Christ and turned into redemptive love.
But this does not mean that suffering–that is to say, the fall of man–is good.
Fortunate fall arguments were entertained by the Calvinist tradition. But we know they are wrong.
G Alkon — exactly; we have said the same things.
Brief clarification.
The Calvinist theocracy was not (like the Catholic Church even after Constantine) a distinct political structure. It WAS the church and the state at once.
Whereas the true Church was always, even after Constantine, understood as a foretaste of the heavenly city and, therefore, always, in some differential tension with secular order. Even the incorporated Church of late Roman and medieval rule was not the SAME as the state. Therefore, even at its most political, it enjoyed some freedom from the concerns of secular rule. It therefore could temper the empire. As it did, for example, during the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne.
The Catholic church was never wholly DISTINCT from the political (as Luther wanted). Nor was it wholly FUSED with the political–as it was for Calvinist Geneva.
It was a foretaste of heavenly community and therefore a CHALLENGE to the political.
G. Alkon
Glad you did the small change on St Constantine; it is a minor point of what you said and I let it go — for the whole point. Of course, I plan to do something on Constantine sometime here, because I think many people misunderstand him. And so this minor change makes the point better. And as a whole, I agree.
thanks henry–i see that we are making the same points. i will look forward to your posts on Constantine.
Freedom as Telos as found in American political discourse is from the Enlightenment, not Calvin.
G. Alkon:
You have made many, many statements about suffering not being good. But, you have not supported your claims from a single Christian source. Your thoughts embody the spirit of the present age, not Christianity.
G. Alkon,
Please address St. Paul’s understanding of his own suffering. If you do not, then you have missed a major pillar of the Christian understanding of self sacrifice.
Clearly, not all suffering is good. But suffering for the sake of the Gospel is redemptive.
FR J
Are you really trying to suggest that suffering a medical malady because the US Health Care System is deficient is “suffering for the Gospel”? Which Gospel is this? O have good news for you — God’s goal is for you to suffer! That’s not the goal, it is in fact, glorifying a means as an ends, and equivocating means so that the state can justify lack of social care. This is not the Gospel I know.
St Paul’s discussion is of self-sacrifice, willing yes, instead of a state-imposed suffering due to lack of social welfare. You can’t impose free-will self-sacrifice; one comes to it through freedom. And again, the point is not that it is suffering and therefore we should do nothing, but it is how we deal with the suffering while we have it.
Would you have told Christ “stop healing those people; they need to suffer!” ?
Thank you Fr. J. for bringing some reason to this post. I think a more appropriate post might be entitled Calvinism Seeps Into Vox Nova. Another post on this site is Stanley Hauerwas: “Your salvation is in doubt”. It leads off with: Not sure how many Vox Nova readers are familiar with Duke theologian/ethicist [Calvinist] Stanley Hauerwas, but I am sure that more of them should be. Then we are presented with some warnings about our salvation that is all predicated on a decidedly Protestant notion of salvation and sin (though what to make of the sin aspect is difficult – it’s certainly not Catholic). We learn that our salvation is in doubt if there is an American flag in out church or if we celebrate Mother’s Day among other things.
Approval abounds in the comments section:
Morning’s Minion comments: Excellent post!
Henry Karlson approves with modest reservation, showing he can read the cited Calvinist with a degree of charity and discretion he is unwilling to grant to the author cited above: I would always put Moltmann up as another Protestant theologian (in a similar vein) who Catholics should be familiar with and read up on. Sure, as Catholics, we will disagree with him in some of his Protestant doctrinal affirmations; but that is often secondary to the key issues he brings up.
Michael Iafrate, the author of the post replies: Good call on Moltmann, Henry. Frankly, there are TONS of non-Catholic theologians that Catholics should read. But, sadly, many Catholics would never touch the stuff… unless of course the book’s topic was fighting abortion and gay people.
Now here’s the thing. I get what lies at the heart of Haurewas’s comments and why M.I. and M.M. appreciate it. And while I seem to understand a number of things about the faith and our living it out differently than they do, I can’t help but to think they start with a political or ideological predisposition then craft their faith around it. In the case of the Haurewas post, they either have a Protestant view of salvation and sin or they don’t but are willing to ignore the Calvinist bogyman and accept whatever truth might be contained within – especially because it serves their political ideology. I think it’s the latter, however, they seem to be incapable or unwilling to do the same when it comes to something that runs contrary to their preconceived ideologies – often times finding the bogyman where he doesn’t exist or having to craft a prototype or facsimile to handily crush and apply that prototype to others.
I think what the Church teaches us is that the purpose and legitimacy of the state is to serve the natural state of man (for those nit-pickers I don’t mean “male” though that is included, and I don’t necessarily mean “individual”, though that is included as well – primarily I’m speaking of the family). The family is the natural order of things and the state exists to help preserve and assist that natural order. Understanding that the natural order of the family includes its fundamental freedom and associations is far more a product of Natural Law and Catholic thought than Calvinist or Enlightenment. Yet because the Catholic faith is universal in reality and in thought and acknowledges that some freedom of the family may be infringed upon for the common good (a term which lends itself to a lot of subjectivity) , some seem to think that a mandate to dismiss any speak of freedom or liberty as sheer Enlightenment thought and operate under the premise that the state can and should bring about the Kingdom here on Earth (and yes, Michael I., others reject the idea of the state altogether. ;) ) I guess my rambling is to say, that not all that sounds “Calvinist”, “Gnostic” or “Individualist” to certain ears are those things. Truth is truth wherever it is found. As Catholics we have the fullness of truth before us and it is often in ideas or principles – in the substance of a thing rather than in concrete solution on what to do. Every system has some truth, that it may be tainted with some falsehoods doesn’t mean we reject the truth where it is contained.
Rick
You should read my writings sometime. One can note the influence while admitting that not all of Calvinism or Gnosticism or any other such system is erroneous. I have consistently said we need to realize what is good and true in others, dialogue from them, learn from them while understanding the problems and limitations and where those problems and limitations become a burden as it influences us. My posts on Gnosticism specifically point out there is much which is good one can learn even from the Gnostics, and I pointed out the example of Vladimir Solovyov, one of my favorite philosophers, who did just that. Yet it would be foolish to deny Solovyov’s Sophiology has Gnostic influences. He himself admits he went to the Gnostics to learn what they said on Sophia!
Freedom as Telos as found in American political discourse is from the Enlightenment, not Calvin.
Actually, I’d say it is the result of fundamentally confused Aristotelian, Scottish Calvinist and German pietist ideas. Many of Calvin’s ideas gained wide currency in the Enlightenment, especially on account of the prevalence in the same cultures out of which David Hume, Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant emerged.
Thank you Fr. J. for bringing some reason to this post. I think a more appropriate post might be entitled Calvinism Seeps Into Vox Nova. Another post on this site is Stanley Hauerwas: “Your salvation is in doubt”.
No, that post has no Calvinist overtones whatsoever. If anything, it could be said to sound a bit Pelagian.
I’m not sure what the big deal is here. Yes, Calvinism is an ethos, not merely a denomination. It has had a profound and immeasurable effect on the American project. Hence, Michael Novak’s (futile) effort to dismantle Max Weber’s thesis.
I guess my rambling is to say, that not all that sounds “Calvinist”, “Gnostic” or “Individualist” to certain ears are those things. Truth is truth wherever it is found.
Exactly. Which is why I am truly puzzled that you would say that Hauerwas is a Calvinist. Far from it. Anyone who has read him knows otherwise.
Indeed, the views that he expressed about patriotism in the Church, etc, are more catholic than most American Catholics, resisting the sectarianism of the nation-state.
Maybe the problem is that you aren’t distinguishing between “Calvinist” and “Protestant.”
Rick, you might be annoyed at MM’s “that sounds Calvinist” posts and that’s fine, make arguments against it, but I think even more dangerous is your “oooh, that sounds Protestant” approach that over does it on the supposedly traditional Catholic “both/and,” “let’s baptize everything, even American nationalism” stuff.
No, that post has no Calvinist overtones whatsoever. If anything, it could be said to sound a bit Pelagian.
Yes, now THAT is a fair and learned critique of Hauerwas’ project. Unlike Rick’s “that sounds protestant” take.
Is Hauerwas a Calvinist? I thought he was a Methodist with Anabaptist tendencies.
Yes, he is Methodist.
There sure is a lot of posturing going on here. Twisting of words, setting up straw men. Very poor.
I have never said we should not provide health care or promote suffering. It is simply to be understood the Christ’s sufferings and ours when joined to his have a role in salvation. When looking at Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah and at St. Paul, we learned some basic truths: “By his stripe we are healed” and “I make up in my own body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.”
One simply cannot say that the “redemptive sufferings of Christ” is a Calvinist and not Catholic notion. To do so is make vast errors at the service of a very minor point.
Gnosticism has with it a lot of ideas including two equal gods, one evil and one good; the good god is spiritual and the bad god is material; that there are forms of esoteric knowledge only accessible to certain elect; among others.
So, throwing around the “X is a gnostic” is to accuse someone of all kinds of ridiculous thing that you do no mean–or may not even be aware of.
Conversation on such abstract matters requires a common language and precision.
The use of the term gnostic in the above discussion is not really useful.
Did anyone catch the ‘health care is a right according to Catholic teaching’ bit? Where the heck did that come from? I must have missed it in my catechism. I always like St. Paul’s “He who does not work shall not eat” attitude. Work hard to have the best life you can, but to demand ‘rights’ from the state is not in my religious background. It’s clear that that’s the premise of the post: the American people, via the State, will alleviate the suffering of all citizens. That’s just as ridiculous as Bush saving the world through exporting democracy. I am Catholic and I don’t think that it’s Calvinist at all to have some independence from the state and, if required, to give and accept charity from private sources. That’s what makes charity charity – it’s voluntary. The original post sounds like utopian nonsense. Rick Lugari and Fr. J are voices of reason, not Calvinists, aka Rebublicans.
Fr J.
Once again, I would recommend you read my series on Gnosticism. And yes, once we get into a discussion of a disregard for the body, it is clearly Gnostic. To say that this is Gnostic is not to say that someone holds to all teachings of the Gnostics (because, obviously to one who has studied Gnosticism, there is not one Gnosticism). The point is it is a disregard for the body when one begins to say it is worship of the body to try to keep it in good health. Just like iconoclasm held to Gnosticism’s anti-material stand. It’s an authentic criticism given to this kind of talk, and not just by me.
Compendium of Social Doctrine
118. Certain sins, moreover, constitute by their very object a direct assault on one’s neighbour. Such sins in particular are known as social sins. Social sin is every sin committed against the justice due in relations between individuals, between the individual and the community, and also between the community and the individual. Social too is every sin against the rights of the human person, starting with the right to life, including that of life in the womb, and every sin against the physical integrity of the individual; every sin against the freedom of others, especially against the supreme freedom to believe in God and worship him; and every sin against the dignity and honour of one’s neighbour. Every sin against the common good and its demands, in the whole broad area of rights and duties of citizens, is also social sin. In the end, social sin is that sin that “refers to the relationships between the various human communities. These relationships are not always in accordance with the plan of God, who intends that there be justice in the world and freedom and peace between individuals, groups and peoples”[227].
165. A society that wishes and intends to remain at the service of the human being at every level is a society that has the common good — the good of all people and of the whole person [347] — as its primary goal. The human person cannot find fulfilment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exists “with” others and “for” others. This truth does not simply require that he live with others at various levels of social life, but that he seek unceasingly — in actual practice and not merely at the level of ideas — the good, that is, the meaning and truth, found in existing forms of social life. No expression of social life — from the family to intermediate social groups, associations, enterprises of an economic nature, cities, regions, States, up to the community of peoples and nations — can escape the issue of its own common good, in that this is a constitutive element of its significance and the authentic reason for its very existence[348].
182. The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern. To this end, the preferential option for the poor should be reaffirmed in all its force[384]. “This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods. Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without health care and, above all, those without hope of a better future”[385].
447. The Church’s social doctrine encourages forms of cooperation that are capable of facilitating access to the international market on the part of countries suffering from poverty and underdevelopment. “Even in recent years it was thought that the poorest countries would develop by isolating themselves from the world market and by depending only on their own resources. Recent experience has shown that countries which did this have suffered stagnation and recession, while the countries which experienced development were those which succeeded in taking part in the general interrelated economic activities at the international level. It seems therefore that the chief problem is that of gaining fair access to the international market, based not on the unilateral principle of the exploitation of the natural resources of these countries but on the proper use of human resources”.[930] Among the causes that greatly contribute to underdevelopment and poverty, in addition to the impossibility of acceding to the international market,[931] mention must be made of illiteracy, lack of food security, the absence of structures and services, inadequate measures for guaranteeing basic health care, the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation, corruption, instability of institutions and of political life itself. There is a connection between poverty and, in many countries, the lack of liberty, possibilities for economic initiative and a national administration capable of setting up an adequate system of education and information.
Yes, he is Methodist.
Well, that’s closer to Calvinism than a lot of the stuff that gets labeled “Calvinism” around here.
One simply cannot say that the “redemptive sufferings of Christ” is a Calvinist and not Catholic notion. To do so is make vast errors at the service of a very minor point.
Exactly. Not only a “minor” point, but an incorrect one (i.e., MM’s whole point was that First Things published something that is inconsistent with being a “Catholic” magazine, even though First Things is not a Catholic magazine and it regularly prints items by Protestants and Jewish thinkers).
Michael I.,
And even still, to suggest that your post is sounding at all Pelagian is deliberately hyperbolic in the opposite direction of Calvinism. To suggest that your post is Calvinist is fundamentally absurd, which is why I mention to Rick that an easier (but perhaps no less obscure) case can be made that it runs a bit Pelagian. Bottom line, the spirit of Christ, which is supposed to be the spirit of Catholicism, is becoming eclipsed in much of what I read in First Things (among other places). But I suppose a minority of the FT fans will always defend that periodical to their death before they would the New Testament. I am often asked to provide some substance for my claims about FT. Oh, but where to begin! Read the New Testament with open heart…the Fathers…Pope Benedict XVI unfiltered…only then will the sell-out of FT (among others) be manifest.
The point is it is a disregard for the body when one begins to say it is worship of the body to try to keep it in good health.
Leithart didn’t say any such thing. His point was that certain secularists act as if there is no good or virtue whatsoever other than bodily health and happiness. He certainly didn’t seem to be criticizing anyone who tries to stay in good health.
This post is a frustrating conflation of confused theology and politics.
It is a bad argument.
Also, what’s the point?
To demonize political opponents?
Well said, Stuart
Modern secularism sees health and longevity as an absolute good. For Christians it is only a relative good. It really is not that complicated. And it doesn’t take overwrought analyses of Calvinism and Gnosticism to see the difference between Christian and secular perspectives on the matter.
These “Calvinist” and “Gnostic” charges are a smoke screen for liberal Democratic politics masked as Catholic thought, as is the championing of CST at the expense of the rest of Catholic theology. CST is derivative of the rest of Catholic theology, not the other way around.
For the record, Catholicism is neither Democrat nor Republican.
This post is a frustrating conflation of confused theology and politics.
It is a bad argument.
I’ll take a bad argument over an isolated assertion any day. We’re talking politics and theology here, Zach, not political taste.
I go away for a few hours and look happens!
G. Akron– excellent points. You are stating the point I am trying to make, but far more eloquently. Thank you!
And yes, I think Henry’s tie-in to Gnosticism is dead-on. As the the charge that “Gnosticism” is a label that is over-used, I don’t think so. The left-leaning “spriritual but not religious” crowd are Gnostics. The evangelical “I’m destined to go straight to heaven” crowd are Gnostics. The man-made religiosn in the United States (Mormonism, Scientology etc.) are Gnostic. Gnocticism in endemic in the American religious experience. So yes, left does meet right, in a sense.
At some point in a conversation it becomes necessary to assert something that is obviously true.
This conversation is a waste of time and I’m sure most of the posters here know that.
At some point in a conversation it becomes necessary to assert something that is obviously true.
An assertion about an assertion! Now we’re making progress!
When reason fails….
asserting is the manly thing to do.
Well said, Zach, on both points.
“These “Calvinist” and “Gnostic” charges are a smoke screen for liberal Democratic politics masked as Catholic thought, as is the championing of CST at the expense of the rest of Catholic theology. CST is derivative of the rest of Catholic theology, not the other way around.”
This to me seems like the one who is making assertions is the one finding excuses to disregard CST because of “liberal Democrats” (who are these liberal Democrats in this discussion, btw? I don’t see any such person in this thread). And CST is part and parcel of the whole of Catholic theology. It’s odd to try to remove it from the whole of Catholic doctrine. Just like I see it is odd to disassociate the teachings of Christ from Christ.
Zach asked what the point was. Fr. J complained that I had something against “conservative Catholics”. Let me answer both issues together. As I’ve said many times, I have nothing against, and much respect for, modern conservative Catholic thinkers like Anscombe and Macintyre. What I have a problem with is very American psuedo-conservative movement that slips into very non-Catholic modes of thought on everything from the role of America in the world to health care (two obviously non-exhaustive examples). This bad theology usually can usually be traced to a derivative Calvinism, tinged by Gnosticism. Just because secular liberalism is dangerous does not mean we should take cover in the Calvinist tent– that is the key point.
asserting is the manly thing to do.
I’ll inform the women and children.
Well said, Zach, on both points.
Hmmm…Fr. J endorses Zach’s interruptive assertion that this conversation is a waste of time, yet he has been laboring all morning and afternoon arguing against the thrust of the post from which it derives. Perhaps Hume is right after all (the FT crowd loves him): morality and politics is just taste, not reason. No, that couldn’t be right…at least not according to Catholic tradition.
Politics and theology aren’t the same thing.
I’m not sure you know how to make a distinction.
Zach asked what the point was. Fr. J complained that I had something against “conservative Catholics”
I’ll show my cards: “conservative Catholic,” in the American sense of the term “conservative,” is an oxymoron, a castle built in the air. Perhaps no less imbecilic of a concept than “liberal Catholic.”
Politics and theology aren’t the same thing.
I’m not sure you know how to make a distinction.
Right, because I obviously stated that they were the same thing.
Name someone in the “First Things” crowd that “loves Hume”?
Catholics engaging politics must engage them through the teaching of the Church. Theological implications of one’s political positions cannot be dismissed just because “theology and politics are not the same thing.”
That was a response to MM’s post, but you have that problem most of the time too.
That was a response to MM’s post, but you have that problem most of the time too.
Ah, you must be right. See, the whole time I thought taking Pope Benedict XVI as a guide was the smart move. I should pay more attention to non-Catholics and secularists like you. Gotta go burn my Catholic books…
Wow, Henry,
I haven’t been discussing health care, but some really poor theologizing.
CST is “a constitutive element of the gospel.” But, it is still historically late and derivative.
MM, I agree that Catholics should be wary of Calvinist tendencies in American religion and culture. I agree that there is no place in Catholic thought for American exceptionalism. I agree that Gnosticism in all its forms is an error.
I have simply disagreed with some of the analysis foisted upon the original article in FT by the original post. We need to use precise language, clear argument and avoid broad generalizations and recourse to labels that are so variously applied as to become meaningless.
I’m a secularist, and I told you to stop reading Pope Benedict XVI?
News to me.
Fr. J argues that “Modern secularism seses health an longevity as an absolute good. For Christians it is only a relative good.”
True, but the association with “modern secularism” is overly simplified. For example, it is the utilitarianism underpinning liberalism (and I use that word in its accurate sense, not as it is used in current US political discourse) that can lead to euthanasia. If that is too extreme, take the ferocious debate on end-of-life issues that erupted when Terry Schiavo died. At that time, ethicists like Fr. John Paris and Brother Daniel Sulmasy were arguing exactly your point– that staying alive at all costs is not the Christian message. It was the political right that was saying otherwise. This is not to step into that debate, but merely to add some nuance to your statement. When thinking about these issues, it is never useful to frame the debate in secular political terms. Thinking as Catholics means we are not Republicans or Democrats, secular liberals or “conservative” Christians, Gnostics or Calvinists…
Henry,
“Catholics engaging politics must engage them through the teaching of the Church. Theological implications of one’s political positions cannot be dismissed just because “theology and politics are not the same thing.” ”
Now there is a statement I can agree with.
Agreed Zach. The post, like many of the comments, is just a politically-motivated attack hidden beneath a thin veneer of theological discussion/accusation. That these accusations are made against an ecumenical publication gives the game away – it would be self-evidently ridiculous for MM to object to an ecumencial publication including non-Catholic perspectives, if that was MM’s real issue.
Generally I like what Policraticus says, but it is simply silly to assert ‘that if only you’d read the New Testament with an open heart, the Fathers, and Benedict XVI, you’d realize what a sell-out’ the ecumenical journal FT is. We might also suddenly find ourselves in agreement with MM, I suppose.
There are different ways to interpret and understand Church teaching. Dialogue about them could be productive. To assert a priori that reading the documents ‘with an open heart’ would lead someone to agree with you is not an argument. It’s an ad hominem charge of bad faith; and one I don’t think is justified against a journal that is so committed to advancing the pro-life movement.
MM,
The issue with Terri Schiavo was not “staying alive at all costs”.
The issue was not murdering a human being by starvation.
Hauerwas is actually a practicing Episcopalian now. His wife is a Methodist minister (or at least was) and he once said that the only reason he was not a Catholic was because he could not be part of a Church that would not recognize his wife’s vocation. He taught for years at Notre Dame alongside the great Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder, and when the department asked him which Protestant thinkers he would be covering in his ethics courses, he replied that he would rather base his classes on Thomas Aquinas. He has an article in the latest issue of Communio.
Hauerwas simply can’t be reduced simply to whatever tradition in which he practices, whether it’s Methodism or Anglicanism. It’s best to see him as a “small ‘c’ catholic” with “Mennonite tendencies.”
Of course this matters little to people who aren’t interested in really engaging his writings and thought.
Name someone in the “First Things” crowd that “loves Hume”?
Michael Novak argues that the moral and political ideas of Hume and Smith are superior to those of the Scholastics (including those of St. Thomas Aquinas) and are the gateway to thinking about virtue and wealth in our contemporary setting in his book The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, pages 52-80.
If you haven’t read the book (I doubt you have), then I’d be happy to supply you with quotations. Heck, I’ll even do a post on it just for you and all FT fans who don’t realize that they are selling out to liberal Enlightenment values.
Generally I like what Policraticus says, but it is simply silly to assert ‘that if only you’d read the New Testament with an open heart, the Fathers, and Benedict XVI, you’d realize what a sell-out’ the ecumenical journal FT is. We might also suddenly find ourselves in agreement with MM, I suppose.
I appreciate the compliment, Eddie. However, it is not that you will necessarily agree with MM by reading that literature, but you will certainly call into question the intellectual integrity and Christian spirit of the editorial staff at First Things.
…and one I don’t think is justified against a journal that is so committed to advancing the pro-life movement.
Being “pro-life” means that FT is beyond critique?
What exactly do you object to Policraticus? Certainly something more substantial than MM”s ‘theological critiques’?
No, nothing is beyond critique Michael. The assertions was that ad hominem arguments of bad faith should be avoided in general, but especially in an ecumenical journal which does much to advance the pro-life argument.
Thanks for “doubting” that I’ve read the book.
It just so happens that I haven’t read the book.
But believe it or not I have read others!
But even though I haven’t read the book, I doubt Novak accepts without qualification the “moral and political ideas of Hume and Smith” as superior to the Scholastics.
Just for you, I’ll buy it right now and give it a read.
MM,
Modern secularism sees health and longevity as an absolute good.
And the corollary is: Moderns secularism sees poor health as an evil: Hence, Terry Schiavo.
“Thinking as Catholics means we are not Republicans or Democrats, secular liberals or “conservative” Christians, Gnostics or Calvinists…”
Thanks for making the point I have already made.
It is just that it is often the case that those who make CST the central issue of Catholicism at the expense of all others and hurl terms like Calvinism and Gnosticism as epithets, are usually political liberals, especially when they go after a publication like FT for daring to question the presuppositions of a Democratic candidate like Obama.
In fact, this post is discussing a very old article which makes me think that the author searched FT for “Obama” looking for a fight.
He certainly did not find that article by search FT on gnosticism or calvinism, as they are not in the article.
“It is just that it is often the case that those who make CST the central issue of Catholicism at the expense of all others and hurl terms like Calvinism and Gnosticism as epithets, are usually political liberals, especially when they go after a publication like FT for daring to question the presuppositions of a Democratic candidate like Obama.”
It is just that it is often the case that those who disregard CST claim it is because CST is brought up at the expense of the rest of Catholic doctrine, and do so for the benefit of accepting a Republican candidate who disregards fundamentals of CST.
See we can both say things like this. However. where have you found someone on VN using CST to disregard Catholic doctrine?
Michael,
Good to know. I was originally going to say that Hauerwas was an “unorthodox Methodist” but I thought people might get the wrong idea.
And who is disregarding CST? No one here, that I can see.
Zach: as you well know, whether the provision of nutrition and hydration by artificial means to patients in PVS status was to be deemed ordinary or extraordinary care was much-debated until very recently. For example, the Texas bishops said one thing, and the Pennslyvania bishops another. Moralist William May lists this an example of when Catholics can disagree on topics about which the magsiterium has not made a firm judgment. Of course, the CDF has since issued a clarification, and I accept that. But do you think the hordes of evangelicals who seized Terry Schiavo’s cause understood this mode of moral reasoning? Clearly not, and neither did many of their Catholic allies. But this is precuisely point. The right-wing evangelicals do not have a conistent ethic of life. We do.
See we can both say things like this. However. where have you found someone on VN using CST to disregard Catholic doctrine?
Henry, now you bring us back to the issue of suffering and its inherent dignity and value for a Christian.
Do you really want to battle over that one again?
That is a general ‘they’; it makes accusations true, even if not with respect to the current conversation. The probability is always that there is somebody out there that meets the description. It’s a tiresome accusation frequently recycled.
Fr. J: no, that’s not how it happened. I came across the American exceptionalist post by Stephen Webb (which, by the way, I think is the more important of the two examples, and yet is getting no discussion at all) and remembered the Leithart post from a piece I did on my old blog last year. I thought it would be interesting to juxtapose the two. So, sorry, but the Obama link is merely coincidental.
MM,
At least they were opposed to the state-sanctioned murder that took place
I don’t feel the need to gloat about our moral teachings, even though they are more complete.
FR J
Actually, the discussion of suffering was in medical suffering, and the way people justify ignoring the medical needs of people because suffering was expiatory. That was the discussion on suffering. Moreover, it was a discussion of a bad Christology which takes Christology as only the cross and not the complete person of Christ, separating Christ from his message — yet then why is he the Word and Revelation of God if this is the case? Why did he say anything if all he was and all that is important is he was to suffer? Bad theology indeed. The problems which were mentioned came from the fact that the discussion is incomplete.
Seriously MM, what is your point? Evangelicals are too stupid to have done the right thing for the right reason? That claim may or may not be true, but it’s certainly insulting, and I don’t think it speaks well of the person who makes it.
Thanks for “doubting” that I’ve read the book.
It just so happens that I haven’t read the book
Yeah, it was a bit rude and childish of me for stating that. I apologize.
But even though I haven’t read the book, I doubt Novak accepts without qualification the “moral and political ideas of Hume and Smith” as superior to the Scholastics.
Actually, that’s my biggest beef with Novak. His book is rather uncritical and unqualified when it comes to heaping praise on Hume.
Just for you, I’ll buy it right now and give it a read.
Then I stand corrected for assuming you were one who didn’t seek to understand. Again, I apologize. I hope you enjoy the book, and I look forward to our future discussions of it here.
Policraticus –
Thank you. It’s all good.
I suspect that there is little interest in the American exceptionalism point as most Catholics will agree with you. Given our history of suffering (redemptively ;) ) discrimination in the US, there are few Catholics who have bought the exceptionalist idea, which is btw manifestly Calvinist owing to the strange idea of Calvin that any group of Christians can declare a covenant with God–and thereby create a church, a nation, whatever. Very strange and very alien to Catholicism. With that I do completely agree.
Agreed, American exceptionalism is ridiculous. Catholics Unite!
Actually, the discussion of suffering was in medical suffering, and the way people justify ignoring the medical needs of people because suffering was expiatory. That was the discussion on suffering. Moreover, it was a discussion of a bad Christology which takes Christology as only the cross and not the complete person of Christ, separating Christ from his message — yet then why is he the Word and Revelation of God if this is the case? Why did he say anything if all he was and all that is important is he was to suffer? Bad theology indeed. The problems which were mentioned came from the fact that the discussion is incomplete.
I am not sure who you think is advocating ignoring the sufferings of the ill. Certainly not Leithart and certainly not I.
The original post just makes huge jumps and assertions on points that Leithart just didnt make.
Now there is that pesky little issue of Catholic exceptionalism–with which I am in total and utter agreement!!
BTW, this is my first visit here, folks.
Nothing like a dramatic entrance.
Fr. J. wants to be accused of gnosticism (j/k)
BTW, this is my first visit here, folks.
Nothing like a dramatic entrance.
Welcome. Hopefully it won’t be your last.
“Thinking as Catholics means we are not Republicans or Democrats, secular liberals or “conservative” Christians, Gnostics or Calvinists…”
I find such an idealistic imagined sole Catholic Ueberidentity both unrealistic and frankly highly undesirable.
While I have no love lost for First Things I am not shocked that a good number of fine american catholics are rather smitten with the publication.
Most of us do not have split personalities – yes of course our politics influences our religious views and the other way around.
Most of us do not have split personalities – yes of course our politics influences our religious views and the other way around.
This seems right to me from a purely empirical standpoint.
Do we have any evidence that Stephen Webb and Peter Leithart are Catholics? First Things isn’t a Catholic journal. Maybe t here’s some guilt-by-association argument that Catholics are discredited if they associate with or even admire people who are Calvinists, but I don’t see it myself.
Adam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_H._Webb is on Stephen Webb (I know, wikipedia… I know..)
http://www.nsa.edu/community/faculty/leithart.html Leithart is not.
“No, that post has no Calvinist overtones whatsoever. If anything, it could be said to sound a bit Pelagian.”
I’m glad Policratus brings up Pelagianism here. How can an ideology that emphasizes freedom be reconciled with Calvinism, which teaches a gloomy view of man as totally depraved?
Pelagianism would explain the neo-con belief caricatured as “Capitalism will give us our daily bread through hard work and wise investment!” and their enthusiasm for revolutionary war, where Freedom, “God’s gift to man,” is provided not by God but by salvation-working men.
Further, Pelagianism is perhaps more cruel than Calvinism. One of Pelagius’s sayings was the harsh phrase, “Since perfection is possible, it is obligatory.”
Since for the Pelagian salvation is a matter of human effort, he could be even more critical of those who lack health care, blaming them or their parents for laziness.
Granted, Wilson was supposedly a Calvinist, but it could be an odd paradox that Calvinistic heresy is *more* vulnerable to Pelagianism. Otherwise why would Calvinists protest against it so much? How could Calvinism have provoked the reactions of Unitarianism and Methodism, unless it already had Pelagian tendencies?
(Note that these arguments are quick to blame a heresy, a specific intellectual failing, over a more general moral failing. Is Calvinism to blame, or despair? Is it Pelagianism, or hubris? Is it gnosticism, or simply impious sacrilege?)
You’re welcome here any time, Fr. J!!
I liked Webb’s book on vegetarianism: Good Eating: The Bible, Diet and the Proper Love of Animals.
The banner of Webb’s website says it all for me, though. His picture emblazoned over the American flag and the words “American Theologian.”
http://www.stephenhwebb.com
Oooo yeah, that strikes me as a bit iffy to say the least.
I just don’t understand the need for that qualifier. What good will come of knowing that he is in fact an “American” theologian, as opposed to a….”European Theologian?”
Wouldn’t, oh, I don’t know, “Catholic Theologian” make infinitely more sense?
That banner alone seems to serve as exhibit A for MM’s point about American exceptionalism, which I think everyone here agrees is a dangerous play.
Pax Christi,
X – He doesn’t even call himself a Catholic theologian in the “welcome” portion of the site, rather a “conservative Christian theologian.” Just another FT contributer who has more fun taking his (and I do mean “his” – most of the contributors are male – that should speak volumes as well) place in the culture war and defending U.S. empire than using his theological ministry to help Christians be better Christians, i.e. followers of Christ.
I believe Christ commands us to serve the poor, clothe the naked, care for the sick, etc. not so much because it is good for them, but because it is good for us. Insofar as we, individually, sacrifice our luxuries for the sake of others, we help to save our souls. Christ did not seek out politicians and kings to lecture them about their responsibility to care for the poor and the sick. He addressed the common man. You do these things, He said.
This is not to say that health is not a natural good, as opposed to sickness, which is clearly a natural evil. Nevertheless, our primary concern must be for our and our fellow man’s supernatural end, an end available even to the poor and the sick. The command to care for the sick is not meant to be carried out in isolation from the command to preach the Word; indeed, if it is it can become a positive evil with respect to man’s supernatural end. What good is it, after all, for a man–sick or no–to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul?
It is specifically CALVINIST to FUSE the “church” with a specific, contingent political system.
Does anyone else believe that PEPPERING a post with CAPITALIZED WORDS will make it seem CONVINCING enough to where actual FACTS and REASON are no longer necessary? Hmm, apparently not.
So I guess what you’re saying is that the Jesuits of Paraguay – so beloved by Catholic leftists — are crypto-Calvinists. Who would have guessed? And the Sandinista clerics singing Hosannas to Ortega with the liberation theologians humming along – they, too, must be Calvinist dupes. What wicked schemers these Calvinists must be! And I suppose Henry VIII, and the Muslim caliphs, and the Tibetan lamas, and the Shinto priests — all those many fusions of “church” and political systems can “specifically” be blamed on that renegade Genevan, no? (And let’s not even start with the Old Testament Jews and their church-state fusion. In fact, let’s avoid mentioning that troublesome race at all, since according to Morning’s Minion, the whole “Palestine” issue is largely a dispute between Calvinists and our fellow Palestinian Catholics.)
I do look forward to that post of MM denouncing “The Mission”, Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro as part of the vast propaganda machine of derivative-Calvinism or post-Calvinism (or whatever qualifying suffix one attaches to “Calvinism” so as to be able to twist it into anything one doesn’t like).
I believe Christ commands us to serve the poor, clothe the naked, care for the sick, etc. not so much because it is good for them, but because it is good for us. Insofar as we, individually, sacrifice our luxuries for the sake of others, we help to save our souls. Christ did not seek out politicians and kings to lecture them about their responsibility to care for the poor and the sick. He addressed the common man. You do these things, He said.
Nice. The poor have a merely instrumental value in attaining your own salvation. How perverse.
And your opposition of the terms “the poor” and “us” belies an assumption that the poor are not part of the Church. Kind of like the two money collection boxes in the back of one of the Catholic churches here in Toronto. One reads “for the Church” the other reads “for the poor.” How sick.
Woa, wait a sec: is Webb even a Catholic? If so, is he a convert? In a blurb from one of his essays he refers to his “evangelical Protestant instincts.” Things are making much more sense now…
Pax Christi
I believe Christ commands us to serve the poor, clothe the naked, care for the sick, etc. not so much because it is good for them, but because it is good for us.
The poor have a merely instrumental value in attaining your own salvation.
Read the qualifiers carefully. That is not what he is saying.
X-Cathedra
He is Catholic, but indeed a convert (and a recent one).
related video
Christians Debate : Calvinists V. Anglicans on Atonement (versus the Islam-Jewish montheism critique)
Nice. The poor have a merely instrumental value in attaining your own salvation. How perverse.
If you read the New Testament, Jesus told the rich young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor, if he wanted to follow God. Clearly Jesus’ concern here was the rich young man’s soul, not the monetary condition of the poor (if that were God’s main concern, he wouldn’t have created a world in which the normal state of humanity throughout most of history has been extreme poverty).
I see on another site (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20487926&postID=905375253375925910) that Fr. J is complaining that we (he means me, not the Vox Nova borg collective) is busy “trying to impress upon the world that the suffering of Christ is not the point.”
Also he says that we are “well educated, liberal ph.d. types who are so above it all, they refuse to see themselves as liberal”.
Frankly, I’m disappointed that he would write this nonsense behind out backs. At least have courage to say so here.
Let me address the second point, the easier point. As I’m tired of pointing out, like so many others wearing the blinkers of the American political systrem, he simply does not know what “liberal” means in this context.
“Liberalism” is an Enlightenment-era anthropology predicated on the notion of individual liberty as the foundation of society. Society is reduced to a mere social contract between individuals and private liberty always supplants the common good. The common good steps away from obeying God’s law toward satisfying self-interest. Now, this is not all bad. It led us to refine our notions of personhood and inherent human dignity. But it can also lead to ideas like unfettered free markets, abortion, and marriage as the fulfilment of individual wants and desires rather than the bearing and rearing of children. Like it or not, the US is a child of the Enlighenment, and the pathetic “culture war” language of “conservative versus liberal” is merely a fight between siblings. It has no place in Catholic discourse. Those who call themselves “conservative” when they glorify the nation state and the individualism of the free market are in truth no such thing. And we don’t need a Ph.D to figure this out, Fr. J.
On the the more substantive point, which is simply and obviously wrong. This post does not argue that the suffering of Christ is not the point. On the contrary, Christ’s suffering is a direct result of humanity’s sinfulness. He was tortured and subjected to judicial murder as a result of our sins. But by his great mercy, he overcame sin, and bridged the gap between humanity and the divine. The point of this post is to argue that pain is not good. It is not virtuous. Pain is bad, and that is exactly the point.
As for the virtue of suffering with Christ, let me quote Pope Benedict in his latest encylical:
“Hence in all human suffering we are joined by one who experiences and carries that suffering with us; hence con-solatio is present in all suffering, the consolation of God’s compassionate love—and so the star of hope rises….What does it mean to offer something up? Those who did so were convinced that they could insert these little annoyances into Christ’s great “com-passion” so that they somehow became part of the treasury of compassion so greatly needed by the human race.”
Compassion. Mercy. Forgiveness. That’s what it’s all about.
Morning’s Minion,
perhaps Fr. J. finds criticism of the blog here is not exactly welcome, as evidenced by my status as being in need of a moderator/censor…
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.
–Noam Chomsky
Here is a comment that has not yet been deemed fit for consumption by the proletariat:
Matt McDonald Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 23, 2008 at 6:04 am
Why the USA is an exceptional nation, without subscribing to the whole notion of “exceptionalism”:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
The nation and it’s leadership have gone astray in many areas, first and formost in the war on the unborn brought about by the liberal left, however, the nation recognizes a fundamental truth, that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights and that the state is instituted to defend these rights it is not the source of them.
Now, time for someone to extract a Calvinist error in the Declaration of Independance.
Michael I,
you always interpret your interlocutor in the most evil way, when we are called to apply charity to others in interpreting their words. Do you REALLY need someone to explain where the money goes in the box that says “for the Church” as opposed to “for the poor”? As to why we have the poor?
Mark 14:7
For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always.
It goes to the nature of apparent inequality of man. Why did he make some smarter some stronger, some with better skills, and ability to earn? Why did he create some in poverty? Your socialist/liberation theology worldview accosts the true meaning of the Church and the Gospel and replaces it with a materialist lie.
God Bless,
Matt
Clearly Jesus’ concern here was the rich young man’s soul, not the monetary condition of the poor (if that were God’s main concern, he wouldn’t have created a world in which the normal state of humanity throughout most of history has been extreme poverty).
It goes to the nature of apparent inequality of man. Why did he make some smarter some stronger, some with better skills, and ability to earn? Why did he create some in poverty? Your socialist/liberation theology worldview accosts the true meaning of the Church and the Gospel and replaces it with a materialist lie.
Ahhhh… the old “poverty is natural” myth rears its ugly head.
Sadly, Matt, Chomsky was not referring to you in that quote you mention. He was talking about the relatedness of so-called “conservative” and “liberal” positions and the quote actually supports what MM is arguing.
Your socialist/liberation theology worldview accosts the true meaning of the Church and the Gospel and replaces it with a materialist lie.
I suppose this is the way it looks to someone who has fallen for the spiritualist lie.
Michael I,
“Clearly Jesus’ concern here was the rich young man’s soul, not the monetary condition of the poor (if that were God’s main concern, he wouldn’t have created a world in which the normal state of humanity throughout most of history has been extreme poverty).
It goes to the nature of apparent inequality of man. Why did he make some smarter some stronger, some with better skills, and ability to earn? Why did he create some in poverty? Your socialist/liberation theology worldview accosts the true meaning of the Church and the Gospel and replaces it with a materialist lie.”
Ahhhh… the old “poverty is natural” myth rears its ugly head.
What a stunningly reasoned response. Not. I will treat that as a concession.
Sadly, Matt, Chomsky was not referring to you in that quote you mention. He was talking about the relatedness of so-called “conservative” and “liberal” positions and the quote actually supports what MM is arguing.
Did you read the quote? It is not the “left-liberal” position which is being censored here, but opinions which those outside this blogs acceptable range of opinions. It is particularly poignant that the quote comes from one of the blogs icons. It is truly a double edged sword. If you go to Tito’s blog and find yourself censored, it would apply there as well. Except that I am unaware of any attempts he makes to censor anyone. While the liberals constantly accuse conservatives of “censorship” it is far more common on the other side.
“Your socialist/liberation theology worldview accosts the true meaning of the Church and the Gospel and replaces it with a materialist lie.”
I suppose this is the way it looks to someone who has fallen for the spiritualist lie.
What a stunningly reasoned response. Not. I will treat that as a concession.
God Bless,
Matt
Ahhhh… the old “poverty is natural” myth rears its ugly head.
Some people might say “poverty is natural” as a means of supporting the argument “and therefore we should do nothing about it.” I did not make that argument, as even the most casual reader would have noted.
Instead, what I said was that inasmuch as God asks us to care for the poor, it can’t be because he care first and foremost — in and of itself — about alleviating poverty or bad health. If that were the case, 1) he would do it directly, which would be much more efficient and effective, and 2) Jesus wouldn’t have bothered giving the rich young man a choice; instead, he would have just worked a miracle such that there was no such thing as a poor person.
Alternatively, if you think God’s first priority really is to make everyone happy, well-fed, healthy, etc., then the only conclusion is that God is a long ways from being omnipotent, because that’s certainly not the world that exists here.
Again, to prevent misreadings: This is all just a philosophical point about why it’s a good thing to help the poor, not a means of escaping that obligation.
God did not create people to be poor.
The Fall of Man is what brought poverty and other evils into the world.
God is not responsible for the Fall of Man.
Suffering is not God’s desire for us.
We must abandon ourselves to it. But that does not mean that we look at suffering and say this is what God wanted for these sufferers. We must give ourselves over to suffering while at the same time recognizing that suffering, by itself, is not what God wants for anyone.
That is where Christ’s redemptive suffering comes in.
No one here has questioned the centrality of Christ’s redemptive suffering.
I am frankly stunned that Fr J thinks that MM did that in any way. I am not sure what the point of discussion is when this kind of distortion/misunderstanding is possible.
Christ’s redemptive suffering is all there is for human beings in this world. It is the best, the highest, the most beautiful, the most terrifying, the most full, the most harrowing, the most love-filled of all events in the history of God and humanity.
But it is redemptive not BECAUSE it is suffering, but because of the way the suffering is borne.
Suffering innocently borne (suffering borne in the spirit of loving sacrifice, without desire for revenge) is redemptive.
Suffering is not redemptive. Christ’s suffering is redemptive.
What does this mean?
What does it mean to be redeemed in and through suffering?
Does it mean that one says, “I can deal with this, and others should be able to deal with this also” ??
A real question: what is redemptive about Christian suffering?
Can you agree that it is redemptive not because it is suffering, but because it is Christian suffering?
Then what is redemptive about Christian suffering?
PS–for Matt McDonald, Stuart, etc.:
You are of course correct that the purpose of Christian life is not happiness, but salvation. And the purpose of Christian charity is not “better health” but the life of shared love–which can indeed include much suffering.
One can recognize this and at the same time say that the suffering of many millions without healthcare is an unGodly wrong.
One can work against this injustice, as PART of a larger effort to bring about a more loving, Christian society. Healthcare alone, physical comfort, is certainly not a Christian goal. But pursuing it can be part of the pursuit of the larger Christian goal of a society in which people are able to love each other.
The Servant of God Dorothy Day said that she was trying to help build a world where it was a bit easier for people to do good, to love each other.
The amelioration of physical suffering can be part of such a project, can’t it?
Did you read the quote? It is not the “left-liberal” position which is being censored here, but opinions which those outside this blogs acceptable range of opinions. It is particularly poignant that the quote comes from one of the blogs icons.
Yes, I have read the quote many times before, IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTEXT.
The quote has nothing to do with you.
Chomsky is hardly one of this blog’s “icons.” I certainly think highly of his work, but I’m not aware of any other VN contributor who has publicly said so.
As I understand it, your comments are not being moderated because of your political views. If that were true, we’d be moderating about 80% of the wacko commenters that we get here, and that’d be too much work.
Really all that needs to be said about Matt McDonald’s views is to point out his question just now (6:07 pm): “Why did [God] create some in poverty?”
That is, quite simply, blasphemy.
God created man and woman to live a life of joy and abundance and love, in Paradise.
Then the Fall occurred.
Matt: God did not cause the Fall. God did not want the Fall to occur. That is man’s responsibility.
Before man fell, there was no poverty.
Poverty is not a part of the world as God intended it. It is a consequence of human sinfulness.
God did not create human beings to murder each other; to abort their children; to steal from each other; to be greedy and lustful; to die agonizing deaths. And he did not create us to suffer in poverty.
To say that he did is to accuse God of wanting his creatures to suffer. Is that the God you believe in?
G. – Thanks for taking on Matt’s poor theology. I wasn’t even sure where to start. ;)
What’s with the heavy-handed ‘moderating’ of comment threads on VN?
It’s your blog, but I’ve never participated in a blog where this seems to happen with such regularity. I’m not sure what the original comments were (they could have been vulgar, and if so it’s fine ), but still…
Like it or not, the US is a child of the Enlighenment, and the pathetic “culture war” language of “conservative versus liberal” is merely a fight between siblings.
A debatable assertion. If “conservatives” and “liberals” have something in common it is that they accept the nationalist conception of the U.S., rather than a federal one. The latter is not tied to the Enligthenment as much as it is to the English political tradition, which reaches back further.
What’s with the heavy-handed ‘moderating’ of comment threads on VN?
From what I can tell the moderation is not heavy-handed at all.
None
Some people are coming only to disrupt, insult, and not engage dialogue. It’s called trolling. They will not deal with the conversation in honesty, and then will say “see you don’t answer” when all they do is insult.
There seems to be more of it here, because we discuss things which make people angry. They don’t like being exposed to the Church’s teachings on things which contradict their agenda.
Henry,
What are you talking about?
What commentators caused you to think that they reject Church teaching?
What teaching?
Henry, I’ve seen on other web-sites some of the comments that have been ‘moderated’ away on this site.
see, e.g. Darwin Catholic. In my opinion, if he’s a troll, then the term has lost all meaning.
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/02/race-to-bottom.html
Eddie
The first thing he did was to insult. I told him not to insult. Then he posts something which got a discussion going. Then his next response was to go back and include insults again. I told him not to post such insults, but he did. And it is typical of his m.o. from experiences with him — he looks down upon people (he thinks younger than he), and insults them in various ways — and then acts pious and an innocent victim.
Perhaps you would do well to pay attention. He could have.
I’m just urging some restraint. As I said, it is your blog, but accusing people of not wanting to be ‘exposed to the Church’s teachings on things which contradict their agenda.,’ is really a cheap shot.
It sounds more like the words of someone who indeed likes to ‘insult and not engage in dialogue’ as you put it. Everyone has strong feelings about these issues, which is good. There is no need to level accusations of bad faith so quickly.
Eddie
I am urging restraint on you. Quite a few people are posting not for the sake of honest dialogue. They continue the same tactic time and again: focus on side points, insult, beat with multiple things which are offbase but would take considerable time to go through point by point, and then act as if they came out the victor. What they came out is showing they are not interested in discussion (which would be one point at a time instead of machine-gun tactics, the style I see in protestant apologetics; is it no surprise that many of the same people do the same thing when they become Catholic?)
Just look at how Adam Greenwood was abused. The same people. Constantly ignoring the points and then say “you didn’t answer me” when it is clear they are not looking for answers but wild accusations. Again, all it takes is a nice, cool, slow conversation where you deal with the issues one at a time if you want dialogue. And where you listen and accurately represent the other.
This is what is not happening by quite a few people of late. They are not here for dialogue.
Zach
Do you really want to play such games? Just look at how some people find all kinds of excuses to ignore the Pope on — say, torture or the death penalty. They don’t read with the church; like a good protestant, they have proof texts out of context to bludgeon church doctrine. Like a protestant, they will not listen to the church. Like a protestant fundamentalist, they will keep badgering. Like a protestant fundamentalist, people eventually don’t listen to them, since they are not interested in dialogue but in proving how eevryone else, including the church, is wrong.
Zach and Eddie,
There have been a couple of bloggers who have organized to cause trouble. Darwin Catholic is not a member of this group.
To all generally,
As a reminder, no one has a right to comment here. You are a guest here. If this means you want to take your ball and go home, we will miss you, but we need to look out for the best interests of this blog. Commentators whose commentary consists largely of name-calling, insulting without engaging arguments, or otherwise being abusive to other people in the combox will find their commentary deleted. The preference overall is that the content of their comment would be deleted. Commenters who routinely find themselves in this territory will find their comments moderated pending approval of the blog author. There are other flags that place a comment into moderation, so don’t think something nefarious has occured is a comment ends up in moderation.
M.Z.
Yes, I would like to add, there are many things which might put a post in moderation. It might be because it is one individual who has consistently caused a problem has been put on moderation, or it could be catchwords which somehow are seen as being common in spam, or how many links you put in a post. Or other things. To be in moderation is just that; many of us, including many of us who write on this blog, have had posts put in moderation.\
One more thing. There is an e-mail address for the blog. Sometimes people post comments which would be better asked in e-mail. Then they could get some of the answers. Rick’s comments via Darwin Catholic’s were of this kind.
That’s fine. As I said it is your blog, and I think it’s a good blog. You all work hard to maintain it, and it’s a great service. You can moderate your comments as you choose.
I think part of my irritation is that Henry just called me a pseudo-intellectual with no analogical imaginationa and nothing to say on the Guadalupe thread. Then he wrote about how some posters trade in insults….and it seemed to me there was a double standard.
On the whole, though great blog, and thanks for working so hard on it.
M.Z.,
I’m only here for a conversation, if you don’t want me posting here you are free to ban me. I don’t think I’m guilty of any of the “blogging sins” you’ve listed above. I’d be the last person to think I have a “right” to post. That said, I do have fun here and the site is at least intellectually interesting.
Henry,
Who specifically and where does any of that happen? I can’t point to one person who sincerely wants to distort or change Church teaching – even on the hot button issues such as torture and the death penalty. Usually the conversation is about determining the correct application of Church doctrine. I don’t know anyone on this forum who dissents from “Church Teaching” as you would have it. I think you regularly create these imaginary dissenters to bash as a way to avoid a serious consideration of some ideas.
Zach,
You aren’t the type I would have in mind of banning. I don’t engage many of the other folks’ comboxes here, so I’m not familiar with anyone deleting your comments or even having negative things to say about your contributions.
Eddie,
You’re right. There is a double standard at play here, but it is one inherent in the nature of blogging. As a contributor here, if I think some of your comments are insulting or offensive, I can delete them or put you on moderation. If I insult you, on the other hand, you can’t do any of these things. I’ve been on the receiving end of such treatment on other blogs, so I can sympathize with people who feel they have been so mistreated. But that’s the nature of blogging. A double standard? Yes, but not all double standards are bad, and even where they are they are often unavoidable.
I should also note that this is a group blog, and that the opinion of one contributor here that a particular comment is insulting or dishonest or that a particular commenters contributions to the blog are not valuable is not necessarily shared by all the other contributors.
Eddie
You were trying to play a quick “see, commit a fallacy” argument with Michael. That means YOU were the one trying to make the claim of someone else’s reasoning ability. When you abuse the principle, then the response is more than legitimate. It is pseudo-intellectual to “use”" fallacies when they are not be using properly. It’s then an attempt to act like you know more than you do, which is clear in your incapability of using the principle in question. It was an attempt to pure intellectual, but since it was false, it is valid to call it pseudo-intellectual. And it is something very common on the internet. People shooting down the use of Hitler as example thinking if you use Hitler as example you have failed any intellectual pursuit, when the reality is that you must show why the analogy is in error.
Henry, I asked Michael to support his comment that “less than 1% or Catholic soldiers have the ___s to do what is right. This statistic indicates to me that few soldiers take the Church’s teaching seriously.”In my view, that was an unwarranted, uncharitable attack on U.S. servicemen. I quoted the Catechism
2309 “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.”
I noted that the evaluation of the just war conditions belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. He responded by saying that that type of absolutism led to Hitlerism. The analogy to me was inappropriate, and I noted as such.
You then responded, not by arguing that the analogy was appropriate but by embarking on an extended ad hominem, and you haven’t really stopped. Why is the Hitler analogy appropriate here? Do you really support Michael’s comments that U.S. soldiers don’t have the ___s to do what’s right, and that most don’t take the Church’s teaching seriously? Why are you so eager to condemn those that disagree with you?
I noted that the evaluation of the just war conditions belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. He responded by saying that that type of absolutism led to Hitlerism. The analogy to me was inappropriate, and I noted as such.
You are sloppy here. Of course the civil authorities must evaluate situations in light of just war teaching. But the Church makes that judgment too and its authority is higher than the state. When the state abuses its power, as it did in the case of Iraq, the Church’s authority must mean more than the state’s.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Hitlerism.” I said no such thing. What I said is that if one gives ultimate authority to the state rather than the Church, you will have a situation like that of Nazi Germany. That is precisely the way many (most) German Christians (including Catholics) thought. The parallels are obvious, and it is not “inappropriate” to name them.
Michael, we’ll leave it at that for now. We both agree that the state does not have unfettered power to declare war, we both agree that the second invasion of Iraq did not meet just war criteria. We differ about whether once Iraq has been invaded, it’s moral to remain to try and ensure an orderly transition of power. We also disagree about the moral culpability of soldiers in Iraq. There’s not much more to be said I think.
Eddie – Although I don’t think I agree with your summary of what we agree and disagree on… I DO agree we should stop this.
Just swung by here and was surprised to learn that not only is the Stripper Madonna really about the Iraq war, but that Calvinism creeping into FT is also about the Iraq war.
As I said before: “It is the habit of the ideologue to reply to every question with the same answer.”
Well, now it is over. pheeeeeeeew.
Looking forward to seeing how many other unrelated topics are really about the Iraq war.
Fr J
You just want to find a way to disregard the blog and the posts, and so you keep throwing out things to justify it. Please. You can do better.
If you don’t like the posts, don’t read them. That’s the easiest way to dismiss them.
Better than dismissing your blog is to encourage you to stay on topic and generally improve quality. But that is irritating, I realize.