Fr. Fessio forgets a few
Via Catholics in the Public Square, I came across a rather fascinating generalization offered by the usually dependable Fr. Joseph Fessio which purports there are no incongruities between Catholic social teaching and President Bush’s social policies. You read that right. Here’s the snippet:
Benedict, who has warned against the increasing secularization of Europe and praised the prominent role of religion in American public life, is likely to appreciate a head of state who is “not afraid to express his faith as a Christian,” said the Rev. Joseph Fessio, a former student of the pope who now runs Ignatius Press, Benedict’s principal English-language publisher.
In the president, the pope finds a key supporter of the Catholic church’s positions on such controversial questions as abortion, stem-cell research and same-sex marriage. Bush’s arguments have frequently echoed Benedict’s appeals to “natural law” and even employ the terms of Catholic social doctrine (despite the fact that the president is a Methodist).
Nowhere has the congruence of their thinking been clearer than at April’s welcoming ceremony at the White House, when Bush cited Benedict’s denunciation of the “dictatorship of relativism,” and the pope noted the importance of American religiosity as inspiration for abolitionism and the civil-rights movement.
To which Bush replied, “Thank you, Your Holiness. Awesome speech.”
“They could pretty much have given each other’s speech,” said William McGurn, Bush’s former head speechwriter and a Catholic, who was present at the ceremony (but did not write the president’s remarks).
Fessio agreed. “In terms of authentic, normative Catholic teaching, I don’t see any area in which the pope and President Bush disagree,” he said.
The most notable case of disharmony between the two leaders was over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger opposed at least as ardently as Pope John Paul II.
“But Iraq is not a matter of Catholic social teaching,” Fessio said.
Likewise, Benedict’s views on economics, taxation and government regulation (which are known to lie to the left of Bush’s) are merely his personal opinions, not doctrine that he holds as binding on the faithful, Fessio said.
Boy that Pope sure spends a lot of time using his supreme office to dictate his “personal opinions”! I suppose Pope Benedict XVI has confused the papal pulpit with the bully pulpit. There’s a lot here that Fr. Fessio cannot square with authoritative Catholic teaching on the extension of papal authority on such matters as economics and political ideology, but let us confine ourselves to a critique of that one curious and seemingly inclusive line: “In terms of authentic, normative Catholic teaching, I don’t see any area in which the pope and President Bush disagree.”
Several things wrong in this statement, not least of which is its imprecision and superficiality. Within its context, it is clear that Fr. Fessio is speaking about authentic, normative Catholic social teaching rather that the full scope of Catholic doctrine. But in a world that prefers the sound bite to the conversation, such a line is subservient to obfuscation.
Is there any area in which Pope Benedict XVI and President Bush do not agree in terms of authentic, normative Catholic social teaching? Well, for starters we can go with torture. Despite the fact that torture has been practiced in the Catholic Church and with the complicit approval of some of its ordinaries (just as in adultery and murder), the normative Catholic teaching is that torture is an intrinsic evil. President Bush’s policies on torture are clear: Last March he vetoed a bill that would ban water-boarding as a mode of torture in interrogation. I note parenthetically that presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama are actually closer to agreement with the Catholic Church on the issue of torture.
What about abortion? The Catholic Church’s normative position is that directly procured abortion is always and in every case intrinsically evil. President Bush, like McCain, supports the right to abortion in the cases of rape and incest, which led to much controversy with and among pro-life conservatives during his 2000 campaign. Don’t forget Bush’s explicit approval of over-the-counter access to Plan B, which possibly induces early abortion.
What about embryonic stem cell research? Bush’s 2001 compromise–despite pleas from Pope John Paul II to ban any sort of federal funding–is well known and need not detain us here. Likewise, the Catholic Church’s rejection of this sort of policy is well known.
I can only assume that, unlike the case of the Iraq War, Fr. Fessio considers Church teaching on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and torture to be “authentic” and “normative.” So why such eagerness to heap such adulation upon Bush’s supposed “Catholic” view of social issues? Has Fr. Fessio stolen a card from Michael Novak’s deck? I mean, it’s fun to pretend and all, but we must be cautious not to mistake fantasy for reality; political persuasion ought never to replace clear Catholic thinking. It is a real shame when the bar is set so low by someone who is held in such high regard as is Fr. Fessio.
Comments are closed.
I’m always willing to make the assumption that the Pope presents the best possible discernible notion of “normative” CST. To suggest, in particular, that the Iraq issue (just war) is excluded from CST is splitting hairs: it seems Fr.
Fessio is defining CST as those places where the teaching lines up with Bush (though kudos, Policraticus, for demonstrating why many of those supposed parallels don’t exist). Let me add to your list of disagreements, however, the following few items: the authority of international institutions esp. the UN, the death penalty (remember Gov. Bush, anyone?) and criminal justice policy generally, the nature of the drug war (see above), health care for children, the value of labor and the minimum wage, arms control, and the environment. At least. I may have forgotten two or three.
Primo post, Policratus!
(Thanks for the alliterative title.)
Iraq not a matter of Catholic social doctrine? Garbage.
Fessio should stick to liturgy and leave Catholic social teaching to people who know what they’re talking about. Better yet, he should learn about Catholic social teaching because as a priest he has a duty to know it and to teach it authentically.
MJI,
Cool it a bit, huh? Now, what Policraticus criticized Fr. Fessio about is valid. Notice that Michael didn’t mention Iraq as an example of **normative** social teaching simply because the rejection of the war by JP the Great was not a dogmatic statement. That’s what Fr. Fessio was speaking about normative social teaching, that is, teachings that you have to give definite assent to. Michael has a good argument on torture and so on. If anything it may be that Fr. Fessio is ignorant on what Bush’s positions are, not Catholic social teaching. Maybe I’m biased because I wouldn’t be where I am now if it wasn’t for Fr. Fessio’s help, but you should at least be charitable in interpreting him.
Apo – To acknowledge that JPII’s specific judgment of the Iraq war is not a “dogmatic statement” (which I obviously acknowledge – “dogma” is a word with a meaning) is not the same thing as saying that Iraq is “not a matter of Catholic social teaching,” which is exactly how the quote reads. It is difficult to misinterpret such a straightforward sentence.
I’ll concede there are some valid points on which one may criticize Fessio (I disagree on Iraq, for reasons Apolonio has already mentioned); on the other hand:
[Michael Joseph]: President Bush’s policies on torture are clear: Last March he vetoed a bill that would ban water-boarding as a mode of torture in interrogation.
Referring to the earlier discussion, I believe DarwinCatholic clued you in on the specific reason President Bush vetoed the legislation (and as he rightly pointed out, it had nothing to do with a desire to keep waterboarding legal).
That said, I agree with McCain’s stance on torture AND abortion, and would prefer him to Obama.
[Michael Joseph]: Don’t forget Bush’s explicit approval of over-the-counter access to Plan B, which possibly induces early abortion.
I understand why some would be disappointed by Bush’s decision to support FDA approval, but I find this curious since at the time when Catholics were registering such protest, a member of Vox-Nova condemned the “ranting and raving over the decision by the Connecticut Catholic Bishops’ decision to allow Plan B” — and Michael himself in chastising American Papist determined:
— care to clarify?
the context is Fr. Fessio speaking about “authentic, **normative** Catholic teaching.”
Referring to the earlier discussion, I believe DarwinCatholic clued you in on the specific reason President Bush vetoed the legislation (and as he rightly pointed out, it had nothing to do with a desire to keep waterboarding legal).
As wonderful as intention may be, he still vetoed the bill, yes? This would indicate, minimally, that his policy decision is out of step with normative Catholic teaching.
and Michael himself in chastising American Papist determined:
I do not see anything problematic from a strictly doctrinal standpoint. The problem as I see it is compounded by additional moral questions: Because we do not yet know scientifically whether or not Plan B is an abortifacient when taken after conception has occurred, should the drug be administered in the interim?
— care to clarify?
What shall I clarify? In my post here, I state: “Don’t forget Bush’s explicit approval of over-the-counter access to Plan B, which possibly induces early abortion.” Note that I do not state what American Papist hastily did (i.e. Plan B is an abortifacient). If you will recall, the decision by the Connecticut bishops was a controversial one in the close quarters of Catholic conservativism. In light of Fr. Fessio’s fawning over Bush, I drew attention to the President’s attitude toward Plan B specifically on account of this controversy. This is not a reversing of my own position but a playing of someone else’s card.
Seems the Pope’s objection to the Iraq War arose from his application of Catholic social teaching to the concrete situation.
Perhaps President Bush vetoed the ban on torture because he objected to a way in which it functioned (McCain, for instance, didn’t want the CIA held to the same rules as the Army); nevertheless, his administration approved torture to begin with. He’s out of step with Catholic social teaching on the matter of torture regardless of his said veto.
What a scandal…
I’d be impressed though if Catholics in the Public Square would actually attempt to critically discuss the shortcomings of Fr. Fessio’s lamentable statements.
Policratus,
Apparently, any public statement by a priest is fair game for criticizing if it doesn’t accord with your view of Catholic teaching. But if the public statement comes from the Pope or a bishop, then it is a sin if one criticizes it. Please explain.
To Catholics of a certain bent, “normative” means “whatever I agree with.” The rest is just splitting hairs or (to use a Catholic metaphor) counting the angels on the head of the pin.
Apparently, any public statement by a priest is fair game for criticizing if it doesn’t accord with your view of Catholic teaching. But if the public statement comes from the Pope or a bishop, then it is a sin if one criticizes it. Please explain.
Uhmm… Maybe because “by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred,” (LG 21)??
I cannot let these comments on torture stand. I cannot allow these NRO-style arguments to go unchallenged. Christopher links to Darwin who defends Bush’s veto of waterboarding. The linked text suggests that the issue is not waterboaring itself, but to allow the CIA to do whatever it wishes, shielded from any oversight. I would point out that these CIA approved techniques — dubbed “enhaced interrogation techniques”, euphamism aslo adopted by the Gestapo– included not only waterboarding but other acts of physical and mental torture and gross violations of human dignity. When did “national security” become a license to engage in instrinsically evil acts? This is consequentialism at its worst. And make no mistake– consequentialism is exactly the excuse given by the Bush administration for engaging in this evil.
I am quite disgusted by attempts to defend the most odious aspect of the Bush administration within Catholic circles. Is this what dealing with the devil entails?
As for Fessio– yet another cafeteria Catholic outs himself. Depressing, really.
Apparently, any public statement by a priest is fair game for criticizing if it doesn’t accord with your view of Catholic teaching. But if the public statement comes from the Pope or a bishop, then it is a sin if one criticizes it. Please explain.
It’s fine to criticize priests, bishops, and popes if their articulation of Catholic social teaching is wrong.
Seems the Pope’s objection to the Iraq War arose from his application of Catholic social teaching to the concrete situation.
Precisely. And just war doctrine IS normative. And in the case of Iraq, it was obvious from the beginning that JPII’s judgment was correct.
Those who think, for some weird reason, that war falls outside the domain of CST clearly haven’t read Centesimus Annus, which contains one of the most passionate denunciations of war from the Church, or anywhere else for that matter.
Reading K-Lo at NRO this morning about cafeteria Catholics was a priceless example of the pot calling the kettle beige.
Morning Minion: I cannot let these comments on torture stand. I cannot allow these NRO-style arguments to go unchallenged. Christopher links to Darwin who defends Bush’s veto of waterboarding.
Um, no — DarwinCatholic pointed out that:
So Michael Joseph and MM berate Bush for his hesitation to approve legislation (on other grounds) which would ban a technique which wasn’t even practiced by the CIA at the time and which was in fact already banned by the CIA in 2007 with the approval of the Bush administration?
But you know, like, don’t wanna let facts get in the way of Vox Nova’s “two minutes hate.”
Christopher,
In all honesty, it is hard to read some of your arguments when one reads Catholics in the Public Square and there is not even a single criticism of Bush and his administration with regard to war, torture, immigration, and so on… I know that not everything is written by you, but still… when one reads statements such as this from your blog:
One has to wonder with what lens are these issues being seen through? Not even a single mention of what the Pope has said about the war or what the Church teaches on torture. The bias is quite clear. I’m not saying that the President should not be recognized by some of his efforts on the abortion side of things, which is noted in your blog, but at least the lens has to be clear for all issues.
Christopher: first of all, waterboarding was part of the CIA’s techniques until shortly beforehand. Second, the Bush administration delibertely refuses to say what is on the CIA’s list of torture techniques (even though every dog in the street knows what they are, but it means that they can pretend they don’t torture– if we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist). So, by executive order, Bush can put waterboarding back on the list and not have to tell anybody about it. Third, other items on that list (stress positions, sleep deprivation, cold cells) are amount to torture.
I love the quip about facts, since you are defending a regime that states quite clearly that it makes up its own facts, creates its own reality. And the “hate” comment is nice– I guess that’s what standing up for the gospel– for the true memory of Christ as contained in the single sacred deposit of faith– is called in some circles.
I don’t try to defend anything Obama has ever said on abortion. I abhor it. If you like Bush so much, why can’t you simply say you support him in spite of his deviations from non-negotiable Catholic social teaching? Why try to actually defend it? That’s what I don’t get.
Kat: that is horrendous, But in fairness, it was written by somebody called Oswald Sobrino. It’s not simply that a statement like this is opposed to Church teachings in a particular instance, it’s that the underlying worldview is more aligned with nationalism-paganism that the Chistian message of hope and redemption. And it is not mirrored in what the overwhelming majority of Catholics outside the US think about Bush’s Iraqi misadventure.
“But in fairness, it was written by somebody called Oswald Sobrino.”
What is that supposed to mean?
His name merits ridicule?
You call yourself “morning’s minion!”
Zach: I was merely pointing out that Christopher did not write it himself. I was only trying to be nice!!!
Just since my name came up, I want to be clear: The veto in question did not explicitly involve waterboarding or any other technique. It was an attempt to apply the Army field manual guidelines to the CIA — something which doesn’t make sense for a number decent reasons.
If congress had had any courage and integrity, it should have passed a very simple bill which banned by name the use of objectionable techniques (including water boarding) which any reasonable person would agree either are torture or are too close to the line of being so. It also should have included basic language stating that the use of torture is immoral, unproductive, and a disgrace to our American ideals. Such a bill would have received wide-spread support, and Bush could have been rightly condemned had he been so foolish as to veto it.
Instead, the application of the army field manual was passed with the express intention of its being vetoed and of well meaning but not very clear thinking people (and also hyper partisans who simply didn’t care) taking it as a “Bush endorses torture” news story.
Unfortunately, that particular incident was nothing other than a publicity stunt — and thus the avoidance of a real opportunity to move the public debate on grave moral issues forward.
The rationalizations, contortions, obfuscations and sidesteppings are incredible, particurarly whenever it comes to simple matters of life and death.
His name merits ridicule?
Gee!!!! Chill!! :)
Yes, MM, that’s why I pointed out that Chris hadn’t written it.
haha sorry. I was skimming the comments and totally missed the context.
i should read them before speaking next time!
Maybe the heat is making us…well, get heated sometimes. I suggest that when we get angry or disturbed by a comment and want to respond, we should treat ourselves with a nice cold glass of beer to cool down a bit first. Maybe then we can respond charitably.
My local LCBO just started carrying one of my faves: Waterloo Dark. Delicious brew.
I think the discussion of what is normative and not-normative Catholic Social Teaching isn’t going nearly far enough. When identifying that “As far as the war goes, well, we need not address this because that is not a normative, dogmatic issue in CST”; when only going this far, one is, in my opinion, probably rationalizing rather than seeking the truth.
What we need are shared standards of judgment. This is what the debate should shift to. All should acknowledge that countless issues in CST including Just War Reasoning are matters of prudential judgment; but we should be able to ask: how are we to judge the judgments of JPII/ Benedict and Bush? Do both of their positions really express the virtue of prudence? Does one’s given political/social context allow for a legitimate fostering of the requisite virtue? What is required to make the judgment? What knowledge, what principles must be adhered to? Do we find these in both judgers? What factors inhibit or potentially corrupt the exercise of prudence in such cases? Without shared standards of judgment, Catholic Social Teaching will be infested and twisted by opposed ideologies seeking to squeeze it into their visions.
Recall that in making prudential judgments, the Holy Father(s) is applying both rational and revealed principles of the deposit of faith to individual situations. In general, in my opinion, the benefit of the doubt lies with Rome in their thorough acquaintance with and devotion to these principles; and any benefit of the doubt given to Bush should be given because he (and any president) are in a position to receive facts that the Church may not which could easily alter the outcome of these important judgments. However, I believe the influences, the inferior (un-Catholic?) reasoning, the political and financial elites/interests, etc. all severely affect how much I am willing to grant to the president at the start. I believe we should, at least now, side with Rome for the status quo, and perhaps modify how we take these prudential judgments if those on the side of the secular authority can thoroughly make the case as to why the Pope’s prudential judgments do not express prudence.
Apolonio:
That sounds like a great idea. Though, around here, I can see it leading to severe intoxication very quickly ;)
Pax Christi,
Michael – I vote for Guinness (but then, I’m Irish…)
Didn’t the real Matt Talbot swear off the stuff? :)
I am in the States with much, much Sierra Nevada in the frig (including some leftover Spring Ale and even a few new Summer Ale/Crisp Lagers). I prefer their regular and IPA brews.
MM – He did indeed. I don’t have that cross to bear, fortunately ;)
Mark – I miss Sierra Nevada.
x-cathedra,
well, if people get intoxicated, i’m guessing they won’t be sober enough to write heated comments.. :-)
i was actually half-serious about getting beer before you comment..lol…sometimes what we need is a reminder that Christ is risen, that life is good, and for me, an experience of a nice drink reminds me of that. heck, i always tell people that for me, wine tastes like Jesus…
“I drink beer whenever I can lay my hands on any. I love beer, and by that very fact, the world.” – Thomas Merton
“Fessio should stick to liturgy …”
Please.
We don’t want him hanging with us, either.
holy !@#$…Thomas Merton said that? Amazing. Christianity is a good life.
MI,
I miss ALL Canadian darks on draft; they were good friends in warm and cold Toronto nights, especially at real pubs, in which real conversation was hearty and the blaring, monotonous music and meat markets were elsewhere. I hope a few of those pubs still exist up there, having escaped the Amerikanization…
Todd — Haha, yeah on second thought I’m not really into his thinking on liturgy either. I guess he should just stick to publishing Henri de Lubac.
Mark – Yep good pubs still exist here. I never knew what a real pub was until I moved here.
The problem with conservative Catholics and the “prudential judgement” option is that suddenly, no standards for morality exist. The “prudential judgement” thing leaves them off the hook when it comes to the moral impact of their concerns, so that only primal needs (survival) come to the fore.
As a consequence, how one gives money to charity (or not) is a matter of prudential judgement. How one supports the poor, considers and advocates for their health, housing and welfare, is all up for grabs, because since its “prudential judgement” that’s reigning, God really is just gonna judge them by what’s in their hearts…
Conservatives use “prudential judgement” as their tool to promote Republicanism. They perceive no truth on matters of peace and justice, outside the Divine Beneficence of the military and Tax Cuts. Prudential Judgement is their version of secular relativism.
“Mmmmmmm. Beer.” – Homer Simpson.
My anti-americanism and pro-Canadianism (when it comes to beer) is an exercise of my prudential judgment.