Totally Awesome Speculation
Perhaps the root of this problem can be traced to the desire to rid the world of the word “like” from like every other sentence. This problem is to treat analogy as truth. Examples of this are: “Bill Clinton is the first black president” and “George Bush might just be our first Catholic president.” In each case there in an ideal for which the author is appealing, blackness and catholicity respectively. While the analogy itself may be perfect nonsense, at least if we include the word ‘like’ we are actually going to the trouble of making the analogy. Saying President Clinton is like our first black President conveys that we are going to explain the qualities that would make him black. Claiming President Clinton was our first black President is a flight of fantasy that causes people to wonder what other obvious truths you’ve managed to disregard.
Claiming that President Bush is like a Catholic president invites debate. The idea of him being the first just is a way to denigrate President Kennedy. It shows a certain arrogance, not only a willingness to excommunicate but a willingness to do so long after his death. It is quite a different claim than simply stating there is evidence he disregarded his marital vows. While one can legitimately debate how much of Kennedy’s life should be used for public fodder, one is at least damning him in truth rather than through what amounts to a caricature. I say caricature, because the retort when challenged that Kennedy was the first Catholic President would be to claim that you were just speaking on how policy was effected or rhetoric was used.
So what are we to make of President Bush? I think he like many in the secular world sees parts of the Catholic vision as efficacious in bringing about a more just world. I think he has shown comfort using Catholic terms, particularly the Culture of Life rhetoric. I think it is also manifest that he is comfortable using the ideas of other thinkers. In particular his tax policy seems to have been heavily influenced by Laffer and Reagonomics, not that there is anything wrong with that. On the basis of tax policy are we to argue how he is or is not a Catholic, hypothetical or otherwise? Is not the most likely scenario that he uses Catholic rhetoric when he thinks Catholic rhetoric will persuade others or state his case in the way he believes is best? The most likely explanation is that there is no deeper explanation for why he uses the rhetoric when he uses it. As to the question of “Wouldn’t it be totally kewl if it was true?” I’m not really into such speculation, but I would be down wit the Pres officially being in the church. I would like to have someone with me who also had a few steps left on the journey.
Comments are closed.
Haven’t you heard that George Washington was the first Catholic President?
http://www.catholicism.org/washington-conversion.html
“willingness to excommunicate” … Really? I’ve never heard anything remotely like that about anyone toward JFK. After all, his sins were pretty much private thanks to a compliant press. Also, I don’t think he publicly violated church teaching, unlike his brother Edward who has long committed the ongoing public scandal of supporting abortion in legislation – and the bishops do nothing.
I think it’s wishful thinking on the part of Catholics who like Bush’s stance on abortion enough to gloss over his failure to address other social issues. Not unlike the Catholics who are currently doing that with Hillary or Obama or McCain. It seems many people are incapable of making a qualified endorsement of a candidate.
ben,
:-) Yes, I’m familiar with that speculation.
Greg,
Excommunicating is the placing of someone outside of the Catholic Church. Stating the latter should be the case is implying that the former should be done.
He uses (steals?) Catholic language, for sure. But I find that somewhat offensive when he doesn’t follow through with action, by using naked consequentialism to defend an intrinsically evil act (torture), by twisting the warping just war teaching against the reasoned voice of the universal Church, and by supporting economic policies that are not fuly aligned with Catholic social teaching.
I don’t know why where you and the President agree you would find offense. I can understand finding offense when principles are applied incorrectly, for example a certain theology claiming only the President was competent to judge the justness of a war, but I don’t understand why that offense would be applied to past agreements.
I’m not aware of anyone claiming Bush’s foreign or economic policies are guided by Catholic principles. I could be mistaken on that matter.
I actually think some of that Catholic “language” means something to Bush. I can remember an interview he did on AirForce One during theimmigration debate. I can recall how the reporter afterwards said the President saw the whole issue in such moral terms
“”I’m deeply concerned about America losing its soul. Immigration has been the lifeblood of a lot of our country’s history,” the president said aboard Air Force One. “I am worried that a backlash to newcomers would cause our country to lose its great capacity to assimilate newcomers”
http://www.denverpost.com/immigration/ci_6015650
Bush was thinking about a lot more than just pleasing the American Chamber of Congress
Did we Catholic fail him or did he fail us?
THe PResident has been very good on Stem Cell and Abortion Issues. At least we don’t have a foe there through the use of vetos , executive orders, and action in INternational Assemblies would oppose us.
Did he fail us or Did Catholics fail him by not taking advantage of this even more?
Bush trys to put the spotlight on Africa and their plight and our obligation to help those folks
Did he fail us or did we fail him
There are other issues. Bush as had to fight the fight against Arab phobia and fear of other groups of people..
I find him a very decent man and of faith. We have now heard clues for many years that yes perhaps Catholics and Catholic thought influence him. So there might be some fire to that smoke.
I saw an interesting interview with TOny Blair the other day. He talked about how he really could not or to be more precise felt he was confined about talking about God and Faith in the Public square. It is nice to have a President that does that. That helps us and it’s own small way contributes that Faith is not divorced from the public square.
IN the end the PResident can set the tone and give a platform for various issues. It is up to us to take advantage of it and then set up the political movement for it among the people.
In the end where did Bush and Catholics Succeed on Coomon Goals and who failed to deliver will be of some debate in the future
Part of the Washington Post article that I presume inspired this discussion made a big deal out of the fact that he had an unusually large number of Catholic advisers.
Sure, why not? It’s no secret that white, working-class “Reagan Democrats” — a disproportionate number of whom are Catholic — have become a key GOP constituency. So, like M.Z. said, he appeals to Catholic sensibilities when appealing to Catholic sensibilities is expedient for him. Having Catholic advisers schooled in that sort of rhetoric thus becomes expedient in itself. That doesn’t, in itself, make him better or worse than any other politician, but I don’t see how it’s evidence that he’s on the brink of a personal religious conversion.
When the Vatican delegation came to the US to dissuade them from invading Iraq, they were lectured on Michael Novak’s distorted just war theory. The delegation left in shock.
“There are other issues. Bush has had to fight the fight against Arab phobia and fear of other groups of people.”
Yeah, all that Islamo-fascist talk and indiscriminate reference to people who just hate our freedom really set a stellar example.
Perhaps after Bush leaves White House and has to refill the ole’ coffers on the lecture circuit, he should consider his reputation as one who is strongly against xenophobia as one of his strongest selling points.
Bush has always struck as one who is quite curious about public Catholicism, so his rhetoric has not been problematic in my view. I do not believe he is disingenuous when he uses. I’m just not sure he has a very nuanced view of public Catholicism and its differences from classical and contemporary American political life. I suppose some of his closer Catholic advisors might be blamed for that.
The day Bush becomes a Catholic is the day Morning’s Minion turns into a pillar of salt, his last word being “Cal…vi…nist…!”
The day Bush becomes a Catholic is the day Morning’s Minion turns into a pillar of salt, his last word being “Cal…vi…nist…!”
Are you suggesting that MM would not rejoice over the conversion of another’s heart?
Torture, undermining of democracy, an unjust war that cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives…
Bush is now using Benedict to lend some luster to his tarnished image.
Berlusconi also basks in the papal favor.
“an unjust war that cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives…” ????
Say what? First of all, I don’t think that American soldiers have killed “hundreds of thousands”. In fact I think that it is the other guys doing most of the killing.
Just what are you talking about? Get real!!
Say what? First of all, I don’t think that American soldiers have killed “hundreds of thousands”. In fact I think that it is the other guys doing most of the killing.
He said “an unjust war” has cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, not specifically “American soldiers.” But if it is really honesty that you’re after, those hundreds of thousands have died directly and indirectly on account of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A war is fought on many fronts by many factions, but we know which faction started the war.