“The right to life comes first”
A pet peeve of mine in discussions which attempt to “weigh” various life issues for their relative importance is when people use quotes from authoritative ecclesial sources which state that “the right to life comes first” in order to argue that abortion is “the most important” moral-political issue for Catholics. One often cited example is a quote from Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver, a quote which summarizes very well the Catholic view on the right to life, but which is also often misunderstood and abused by Catholics:
The right to life comes first. It precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues. This is why Blessed John XXIII listed it as the first human right in his great encyclical on world peace, Pacem in Terris. And as the U.S. bishops stressed in their 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life, the right to life is the foundation of every other right.
It is important to understand what Archbishop Chaput is saying and what he is not saying, so that we do not misuse his words. Contrary to how many Catholics hear the words, “the right to life comes first” and “abortion comes first” are not equivalent statements. That human beings have a “right to life” is a fundamental moral principle of Catholicism. Abortion is a particular moral issue, a particular instance of the outright denial of the fundamental right to life.
“[The right to life] precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues” does NOT mean “abortion precedes every other social issue or group of issues.” To say that the “right to life precedes and undergirds” every other social issue is to say that the right to life is the fundamental moral principle by which Catholics approach every moral issue. It is the principle which undergirds or supports the Church’s positions on abortion, war, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc.
Because we believe that the right to life is fundamental, that it precedes and undergirds all moral issues, we therefore believe that abortion must always be wrong, because nothing can justify the killing of innocent persons.
Likewise, because we believe that the right to life is fundamental, that it precedes and undergirds all moral issues, we therefore believe that unjust wars must always be wrong, because nothing can justify killing persons without a just cause.
Catholics who use quotes like Chaput’s to argue that abortion is the “most important” issue are absolutely right when they say that “not all social issues are equal.” But when Chaput in the above quote, or when other ecclesial statements insist that “the right to life comes first,” the Church is teaching us that each and every issue in which the right to life is threatened is a priority, and that these “life issues” come before other “social justice” issues which may not directly threaten human life (debates about taxation, for example).
The right to life for all human beings is fundamental, it undergirds all social issues, and as Fr. John Kavanaugh, S.J. wrote in a powerful article in America magazine in 1997, it must be the moral absolute of the Catholic, or else ethics itself is impossible:
There is always a reason, always a desired purpose for every killing: to defend my life, my name, my property, my family, my heritage, my race, my nation, my religion. In each case, a moral “absolute” is invoked: but it is never the absolute value of human life. The value of a person is the one value that is expendable. There is, after all, one thread of logic that unites the mind of Timothy McVeigh, found guilty of the abominable Oklahoma City terror, with those who seek his death: the view that there are acceptable, even commanding reasons to kill.
This is the constant pattern of evil, whether we eliminate a person or exterminate a people. In every case there is a “higher” value that provides exception to “Thou shalt not kill.” Killing in the name of a “higher value,” however, is a subtle killing of ethics itself. For in killing persons, the foundation of moral experience is itself violated.
To do ethics, to be ethical, presumes a radical affirmation of personal dignity. In every moral choice is an implicit yes to personal existence. But intentional killing of humans is a radical no to personhood. It undercuts the ethical universe itself.
[...]
Inviolability of human life is the limit situation in ethics. If we violate it, we violate the moral order and the claims it makes upon us.
Such a moral absolute is, admittedly, a demanding one. This may be why it has always been rejected throughout history when men and women have found it more realistic to declare others dispensable [1].
Let us not emasculate the Church’s insistence that the right to life for all human beings is fundamental and undergirds the Catholic approach to all ethical issues by drawing lines indicating that some lives are more valuable than others, or by falling for the myth that “the Church teaches that abortion comes first.” The Church calls us to something greater. The Church calls us to the fullness of life.
____________________________________
[1] Kavanaugh, John. “Killing persons, killing ethics.” America 177, no. 2 (July 19, 1997): 24. Canadian Reference Centre, EBSCOhost (accessed October 30, 2007).
Comments are closed.
Exactly! Great post!
It’s a basic point that should be clear by now, but ain’t. Not by a long shot.
Excellent post, Michael. What I like about what you did was pointing out the following:
If we take “right to life” as equivalent to “protect the unborn,” then logically we can replace one term with another. However, if we substitute “protect the unborn” for “right to life,” Archbishop Chaput’s statement makes little sense. Protection for the unborn, which you highlight VERY CLEARLY is an implication of the right to life, that is, it follows as an application of the abstract right to a specific moral question. The two terms are not equivalent, but one implies the other (as it also implies other concrete actions).
Let us be very clear before the objections pour in: Michael is not saying that protecting the unborn is any less or any greater a moral obligation than any other action according to the fundamental right to life. What he is saying (rightly) is that Archbishop’s Chaput’s statement has been misconstrued into stating what it, in fact, does not. Essentially, we are dealing here with an ethical principle and its application. It very well could be that protecting the unborn contains greater moral value than other instances of respecting the right to life. Or that protecting the elderly from involuntarily being put to death does. Or that objecting to the deaths of innocent victims during an unjust war does. This is not what is at stake in Michael’s post. Rather, Michael establishes the proper hermeneutic for reading Archbishop Chaput’s statement. Indeed, to understand the right to life is the first real step toward protecting and applying it.
Let us be very clear before the objections pour in…
I fear that, although you are correct in clearly reiterating what I have said and what I have not said, those exact objections will nevertheless pour in.
The truly “good news” about the Church’s teaching is that we do not have to choose which life issue “is more important.” Catholics have the ability to proclaim the gospel of life in its fullness without compromise, but so many (like Donahue) settle for the partisan straightjacket.
Excellent post Michael!!
I think you really cut to the meat of many of the disagreements/misunderstandings that take place in the comboxes.
Thanks for setting it straight and for doing so, with such clarity
Michael,
I took a look at the document that Chaput mentions that is “Living the Gospel of Life,”
It does mention other “Life” issues but most of the document is devoted to abortion
For instance
T”he losers in this ethical sea change will be those who are elderly, poor, disabled and politically marginalized. None of these pass the utility test; and yet, they at least have a presence. They at least have the possibility of organizing to be heard. Those who are unborn, infirm and terminally ill have no such advantage. They have no “utility,” and worse, they have no voice”
“Today, when the inviolable rights of the human person are proclaimed and the value of life publicly affirmed, the most basic human right, “the right to life, is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death” (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae], 18). ”
After talking about ahow the Right to Life is to be found and defend in a broad range of issues the Bishops say
“Yet abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others. They are committed against those who are weakest and most defenseless, those who are genuinely “the poorest of the poor”
Please note that word Preeminent
Elsewhere
“Obviously Roe is only one of several social watersheds which have shaped the America of the late 1990s. But it is a uniquely destructive one”
also
“All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right — the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights. As Pope John Paul II reminds us, the command never to kill establishes a minimum which we must respect and from which we must start out “in order to say ‘yes’ over and over again, a ‘yes’ which will gradually embrace the entire horizon of the good” (Evangelium Vitae, 75). ”
THe document is full of that.
I am sure Chaput endorses a consistent Life ethic. But as the doument the Bishops have produced indicated Abortion is a different sort of threat. Their document is sadly becoming more and more true. As we see the evils of abortion literaaly jump generations in human development and now effect how we view right to die issues
Why I understand the Churches view of Right to Life is far more sophisticated than abortion I think it is quite telling that Chaput cites this document
I concur with Michael that: “each and every issue in which the right to life is threatened is a priority, and that these “life issues” come before other “social justice” issues which may not directly threaten human life (debates about taxation, for example).” We should be examining not just abortion but the full range of “life issues.”
But I’m uncertain about linking Chaput with Kavanaugh’s condemnation that: “There is, after all, one thread of logic that unites the mind of Timothy McVeigh, found guilty of the abominable Oklahoma City terror, with those who seek his death: the view that there are acceptable, even commanding reasons to kill. This is the constant pattern of evil, whether we eliminate a person or exterminate a people.”
Would Chaput agree? — In his clarification of What does the Church teach on the death penalty? , he seems to assert that there are acceptable, even commanding conditions under which life may be taken”:
Thoughts?
jh – Thanks for the additional quotes. I don’t think that they contradict my argument, though.
Those who are unborn, infirm and terminally ill have no such advantage. They have no “utility,” and worse, they have no voice.
Yes, this is true. There is a special concern in these cases, and in others where the victims have no voice. But I don’t think the Church is teaching us that killing people who have no voice is worse than killing people who have voices. That would be absurd.
Today, when the inviolable rights of the human person are proclaimed and the value of life publicly affirmed, the most basic human right, “the right to life, is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.”
Absolutely. The most basic human right, the right to life, is seen for what it is most clearly at the moment of birth and the moment of death. Violations of this right to life that take place at these times are particularly seen as violations at these moments. But I don’t think the Church is teaching us that killing human beings at these moments of existence is worse than killing human beings at other moments of existence.
Yet abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others. They are committed against those who are weakest and most defenseless, those who are genuinely “the poorest of the poor”
Again, yes, there is a special concern in these cases because the victims are indeed defenseless. Victims are defenseless in other types of killing as well, such as when they have bombs dropped on them. But surely the Church is not teaching us that killing innocent defenseless people is worse than killing innocent people who are able to defend themselves.
“Obviously Roe is only one of several social watersheds which have shaped the America of the late 1990s. But it is a uniquely destructive one”
Yes, it is “uniquely destructive” because it puts into law the ability to murder fetal forms of human life. That as issue is “unique” does not make it “more important.”
All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right — the right to life.
“Such as” indicates that there are other issues which are direct attacks on human life. Any direct attack on human life violates the human person’s right to life. This quote also does not tell us that abortion is “more important” than other direct attacks on human life.
Christopher –
I’m not “linking” Chaput and Kavanaugh in the sense that I think they are saying exactly the same thing. Kavanaugh obviously has a more radical interpretation of the Church’s teaching than Chaput, at least in Chaput’s capacity as an archbishop. I think a) people are misusing Chaput and other articulations of Church teaching, and b) that Kavanaugh’s suggestion of the absoluteness of the right to life takes the Church’s teaching to its obvious and necessary conclusion if we are going to take the “right to life” completely seriously.
As for the Chaput quote you cited, I think the more relevant section is one you did not highlight:
Finally, it is not a false equation of related but unequal issues. Catholic teaching on euthanasia, the death penalty, war, genocide and abortion are rooted in the same concern for the sanctity of the human person. But these different issues do not all have the same gravity or moral content. They are not equivalent.
I think his terms are sloppy here. I agree that the issues do not have the same “moral content,” i.e. there are “different things going on” in each case, even though they share the action of taking human life. As such, they are “not equivalent” in that, for example, in the case of abortion a certain type of human being is being killed and therefore it is never justified. In the case of war, there can be different types of killing going on, for a variety of reasons, so we cannot say that war, as an action, is “equivalent” to abortion as an action. There are differences.
But I don’t think he is right to say absolutely that the issues “do not all have the same gravity.” Depending of “what is going on” in the case of war or the death penalty, for example, the gravity can be just as severe as abortion, i.e. in the case of the direct killing of innocent human life. In the abstract, to make distinctions about equivalency is fine, but I don’t see how this is possible in concrete cases where there is direct killing of innocent persons involved. I don’t know how Chaput could say, for example, that the killing of an innocent person through the death penalty is less grave than the killing of an unborn child. I would be baffled if he would say this. part of the problem is that abortion is often thought about in very concrete terms, whereas war and the death penalty are thought of in the abstract (e.g. Chaput’s statement that war “can be” legitimate). The direct killing of innocent human life in any case has to be equally grave.
Of course, I am also against the killing of “guilty” human life, but I am willing for the sake of this conversation to talk only of the killing of innocent human life. I wish more Catholics would at least accept that much of the Church’s teaching!
From what I recall, Chaput affirms very clearly the teaching on the catechism on the death penalty– that the conditions when it is necessary protect society are (in the present circumstances), rare if practically non-existant. I recall him also taking Scalia to task for dissenting on this point, but it’s too late at night for me to go chasing down that source.
Michael,
THe document is here and people can see what I mean by tone
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/gospel.shtml
It just seems to me that the Church gives special significance to abortion and for good reason. As for what Chaput means well I guess we are about to find out in much more detail when he releases his new book on the subject. But the fact that he cites this document and one of his most recent recent quotes on the subject that was widely quoted
“But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”
That quote and the enitre First THings article he wrote gives me that impression
I just get a feeling when Chaput is talking about RIGHT to life he is zeroing in something very specific here.
However as I said his book no doubt will clarify this
That being said I recognize the Church sees a consisent Life ethic but I still think it views abortion and related items as something that is a danger to the whole house of cards.
Leaving the subject of Chaput for a sec
Though the Blessed Mother Teresa was not in a offical teaching position I must say her outlook seems to be one that the Church is proclaiming
She stated:
“I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself”
“”Many people are concerned with children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is the greatest destroyer of peace today- abortion which brings people to such blindness.”
[Michael I.]As for the Chaput quote you cited, I think the more relevant section is one you did not highlight:
The highlighting was unintentional. For some reason when I put something in HTML “blockquote” tags, it always renders the first paragraph in bold. Some quirk of commenting on this blog.
Of course they are not equivalent — abortion and the death penalty (not to mention genocide) are equivocally immoral, regardless of circumstance, while the moral use of armed force (whether in capital punishment or by the military) is judged by specific criteria.
I’d likewise agree that the killing of civilians in war is lamentable and a grave matter — but even so I would have to say that one would have to discern whether it was directly intended.
[Michael I]: Depending of “what is going on” in the case of war or the death penalty, for example, the gravity can be just as severe as abortion, i.e. in the case of the direct killing of innocent human life.
True.
I don’t know how Chaput could say, for example, that the killing of an innocent person through the death penalty is less grave than the killing of an unborn child. I would be baffled if he would say this.
I have no reason to suspect that Chatut would.
[Morning's Minion] From what I recall, Chaput affirms very clearly the teaching on the catechism on the death penalty– that the conditions when it is necessary protect society are (in the present circumstances), rare if practically non-existant. I recall him also taking Scalia to task for dissenting on this point, but it’s too late at night for me to go chasing down that source.
He actually does this in the article I referenced. (I didn’t want to mire ourselves in a death penalty debate which was superfluous to this discussion). But Here’s the relevant quote in which he challenges Scalia:
As I recall, Avery Cardinal Dulles actually took Scalia to task in a more substantial article, subsequently published in First Things.
I have no reason to suspect that Chatut would.
Just to clarify, if there is no reason to suspect that he would say such a thing, then it is puzzling that he would just make a blanket statement that the gravity of abortion and war and the death penalty are simply “not equal,” and leave it at that. There is more to the story, and it seems that he is being misleading by leaving the rest of that story out. Often times, in the concrete, the gravity is indeed equal.
“But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”
A similar scenario could be imagined when we meet victims of war and have to explain to them why we thought their lives were “less important” than the lives of others, right?
I like the Mother Theresa quote. Certainly those Catholics who care nothing for the unborn need to get their act together.
I’m looking forward to Chaput’s book; hopefully he will expound on all these issues in greater detail.
So, the conclusion is that the war in Iraq is on equal grounds with abortion even though the explicit aim of abortion is to kill children and therefore we can get all excited about voting for the US Senator who has the worst voting record in the US Senate in terms of protecting life? Furthermore, we ignore the fact that since the troop surge in Iraq things have settled down A LOT. In other words, things are getting better.
No thanks. Apparently, according to Michael, one has to believe that the Americans in Iraq are purposefully targeting civilians in order to equate it with abortion. Therefore the troop surge must mean that we are purposefully killing more Iraqi children and therefore we need to all vote for the Senator who is against the ban on partial birth abortion.
Unbelievable.
I can understand a person who strongly believes the Church’s teachings on all life matters refusing to vote for members of the Republican party (since the Republican platform is in some ways opposed to Church teaching).
What I can’t understand is how a person who strongly believes the Church’s teachings on all life matters can possibly vote for members of the Democratic party in any fashion.
I can understand why a person would refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, and would instead write in a candidate (or abstain from a particular election).
What I can’t understand is how a person would determine that the Democratic position is the lesser of two evils compared to the Republican position. One supports the killing of 50 million babies, the other opposes the killing of 50 million babies.
LCB,
I have the same difficulty. But, from what he has written here before, I don’t believe that Michael I. is voting for democrats or epublicans.
Too often people mis-construe him as some sort of democratic activist. I don’t think he is. The same thing happens to Mark Shea on the other side. Many people think of his as some sort of neo-con republican, even though he clearly isn’t.
On the other hand, I believe that MM is on record as supporting Obama’s candidacy.
I wasn’t referring to Michael in particular, just many folks in general.
Riding the one-trick abortion pony is easy though :) You ride along, answering everything with “Abortion !” It also serves as a nice alibi for being the kind of Republican who’d throw grandma in the snow. “But he’s pro-life !”
I think waging unjust wars far, far outweighs abortion, not to mention ESCR. A war is something the president starts, abortion is something people may or may not do. Not to mention that even if Roe v Wade fell, which it won’t, abortion would never (and should never) be completely illegal, not even in the most conservative states. Thus, the president’s real impact is rather small. But, it’s a great way to get votes.
Gerald
Also just imagine the kinds of problems in theodicy people would have if their arguments (freedom of choice to do evil= support of evil) were valid.
This is not to say I don’t think there should be no laws; but it is a recognition of the reasoning for them is often fallacious and has all kinds of theological implications, heretical implications even, if they follow through with their logic. The problem is, they are not consistent, and only use the “they support evil” tactic for grandstanding; it could be true, and it is true for some; but for others, no. Morality is much more complex.
Henry, yet many attribute divine intervention/approval to acts based on free will.
My hierarchy of values is based on suffering. It certainly is no absolute scale, but it leads me to mourn the death of a mother more than that of blastocysts, even though they are, in a way, the same. I can’t see something in a petri dish, but I can see this: http://www.geraldnaus.com/?p=10769
Of course, it shouldn’t HAVE to be an either or situation.
I still support McCain over Obama. I simply loathe that vain, pompous man and think he’s in over his head. He was put on third base and thinks he’s hit a triple. He hasn’t done a damn thing in the Senate, heck, he’s never there. I am by nature a Democrat, it’s just that the party has gone off the deep end. Mind you, esp. Southern Republicans have a tendency to make my skin crawl. I’d like to see a gridlock situation, Republican president, Democrat Congress.
Michael,
So you’re ok with people who argue abortion is the most important political issue for Catholics if they don’t attempt to add Magisterial weight to their argument?
Gerald
Right about how people treat God.
I have reasons to believe if people can easily discount the person in front of them, someone easily visible as a human person, and say they are worth less than someone who they can’t see, it is telling me they are not interested in human life but something else (politics). Both are human; one is more obviously so, and that’s the one who is most easily discounted? Something very very very evil there.
As for McCain and Obama, I will say as I always say — I support neither. I think you know why more than many who read the blog (once you figured it out); it always makes me laugh when people accuse me of being a ‘leftist.’
Henry,
I have a quick question. When you write,
“it always makes me laugh when people accuse me of being a ‘leftist.’”
I honestly wonder, why does it make you laugh? Every time you speak about a policy preference of yours, you align yourself with left-liberal political thinkers. You don’t believe in limited government, you don’t think highly of the American political experiment, and you prefer a controlled economy to a free one. Now, you may have not expressly said these things, but in all your political commentary you implicitly advocate for them.
Btw, Putin’s really coddling the (very willing) Russian Orthodox Church. AND he’s for making as many babies as possible (Heck, they have big gatherings promoting that …. in a creepy, Mutterkreuz sort of way). He shows up at all the right shrines. It’s probably safe to assume he opposes abortion (Russia has more abortions than births. In Commie times, 7 abortion average per woman. Stalin outlawed abortion for a while). Now he’s bombing Georgia to shreds. He’s a quasi dictator. BUT he’s pro-life ?!?
In any case, the abortion play of the Right is an American phenomenon.
McCain quipped – “I’ve looked into Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters – a K, a G and a B”.
Henry wants me to become King of the Americas. He will be my Richelieu. I don’t hail from former Habsburg lands for nothin’. Arnold was just the beginning.
Gerald
Actually, I am friends with a Habsburg (and descended from Franz Joseph, but from a daughter, so not as directly in line of succession as others, he is still “up there”). He’s a former Baron, even (abdicated to become a US citizen). But that is neither here nor there. Just an interesting side-note.
Zach
I laugh because the more people say what you just said, the more it shows 1) ignorance of the left and the right (historically) and 2) ignorance of themselves (sort of like Protestants saying Christianity is not a religion). Both the left and the right are for “big government” in relation to SOMETHING. Only ones who are not are philosophical anarchists, and indeed, there is much which ties the true right to the anarchist, knowing absolute power in one often relates to less concern in the common, daily habits of the people, allowing for more anarchic societies (as Tolkien himself knew and understood).
So you’re ok with people who argue abortion is the most important political issue for Catholics if they don’t attempt to add Magisterial weight to their argument?
No, because in fact the “Magisterial weight” indicates that other issues are just as important.
Apparently, according to Michael, one has to believe that the Americans in Iraq are purposefully targeting civilians in order to equate it with abortion. Therefore the troop surge must mean that we are purposefully killing more Iraqi children and therefore we need to all vote for the Senator who is against the ban on partial birth abortion.
In a just war, the killing of civilians is evil. In an unjust war (like the Iraq War), all the killing involved in evil. You don’t need to believe that targeting civilians is taking place (although that would be incredibly naive!) to see that the killing going on in the Iraq war is just as grave as the killing going on in abortion. Both kinds are the unjustified killing of human life, and both are equally grave.
But, from what he has written here before, I don’t believe that Michael I. is voting for democrats or epublicans.
Too often people mis-construe him as some sort of democratic activist. I don’t think he is.
If anyone thinks I am a “democratic activist” they are not paying attention to my explicit statements on the matter. I have voted for democrats, republicans, green party candidates, mountain party candidates (WV’s green party), independents, or not at all. How I vote this time (if at all) in the presidential election will depend on how things shake down closer to Nov. 1st. Might vote independent, might vote Democrat. May not vote at all. Will not vote Republican. For governor of West Virginia, I will vote against the pro-capitalist, pro-death penalty, pro-war Catholic democrat Joe Manchin and vote for the mountain party candidate.
Henry,
You discarded my carefully chosen term, “limited government”, and replaced it with “big government”. You say that left and right are both in favor of big government, but want different parts of the government to be big. This is partly an oversimplification and partly a misunderstanding. The term “big government” contributes to both of these problems.
I said limited government for a reason; on the right, advocates of limited government say the government should have few and defined powers. This is not an argument for “big government”- quite the contrary. On the left, advocates of a government without defined powers say that a government that is limited in capacity is limited in its capacity to give people what they want, and this is untenable. This could turn into an argument for a “big government,” but not necessarily because everything is subjected to democratic whims.
Could you please define more clearly what I am ignorant of so that I might correct it? Also, would you please refrain from calling me ignorant, even if that may be the case? I’m just trying to learn and I don’t think a good teacher will call an interested student ignorant to his face.
Michael,
Here is a point that needs to be clarified so that we might see if we actually disagree:
“… in fact the “Magisterial weight” indicates that other issues are just as important. ”
In what sense are you using the word important? How are the other issues just as important?
Zach,
Why on earth would you think that someone who recently said, “I just cannot accept the market system (er, the slave system),” is a leftist?
Zach – OK,but let’s start with you since you said this:
So you’re ok with people who argue abortion is the most important political issue for Catholics if they don’t attempt to add Magisterial weight to their argument
What do YOU mean by “abortion is the most important political issue for Catholics.” Make sure you elaborate on the words “most,” “important,” “political,” and “for Catholics.”
Zach
Both “left” and “right” are for “limited government” as well, but in different ways – as well. Both accuse the other of being “big” and saying “we are limited.” That again is a way to show how blind you are to the issues at hand. “Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship” kind of delusion.
As for right and left, look to history; look to the formation of the left, and who it was they opposed. You will see the rest – if there is honesty.
SB – haha
Zach
So you think, with SB, Belloc was a leftist?
Henry,
Since you have thrown my honesty into question, I don’t think it’s worth pursuing a conversation with you. To be frank, I don’t think you understand politics at all.
Henry,
I haven’t read much Belloc, and he was a very prolific writer. As I don’t really know what type of political arrangements he favored, I can’t speak to where he would fit on the left / right spectrum. Neither do I have any particular desire to situate him in that context. I’m not sure why you would try to?
Henry, if you’re a distributist, why not just say so, rather than poisoning the well by accusing everyone of blindness and a lack of honesty?
Zach
Because SB quoted, saying it is leftist, is exactly the sentiment of Belloc and Chesterton in relation to capitalism. That’s why. This problem comes from thinking along dualistic lines without seeing or even knowing other options; you claim I don’t know much about politics, when it is quite clear, when I keep bringing basic positions within a Catholic perspective, who is the one who hasn’t really engaged the various possible positions.
Looking beyond the small scale you use to judge positions, one would see both sides have positions which are for big government and for limited government depending upon what issues are under discussion. That’s the thing; you look at the issues you don’t like, say “see, that’s big government” so think “therefore, we must be the opposite.” No, that’s not credible. That either/or thinking which isn’t right (it’s logically invalid). Just because you can show black isn’t the answer doesn’t mean the answer is white.
SB
I gain much from Chesterton and Belloc on economic issues, but I would not say I am a distributionist; they are in agreement with me on the issue you laughed at (so would you call them leftists? curious). There are other options beyond “capitalist,” “socialist” and “distributionist” though I give far more weight to the third, and in many ways I am close to them, but I do think what is suggested by them tends to be too utopian and therefore not my position, either.
Michael,
Sounds good. When I say “abortion is the most important political issue for Catholics,” I mean that, of all the social ills Catholic Americans will be affecting in voting in a presidential election, abortion stands out as the one that should weigh most heavily on a Catholic’s conscience.
This is so for a number of persuasive reasons.
First, because the sheer number of innocent lives taken as a result of the American abortion regime far exceeds the number lost in any other endeavor that the United States will be engaged in.
This is NOT to say that the innocent lives lost during the Iraq war are any less significant than the lives lost due to abortion. Rather, it is recognizing that because we are finite creatures, our potentiality is limited and we have to choose to a path to take, and this path necessarily excludes other possibilities. We can’t do everything at once in politics. If you’re drowning and you have the possibility to save 5 people or 1 person, you’re going to choose the 5 people. You do what you can, and sometimes you can’t do everything.
(I’d also add as a sidenote that I think there is very little possibility of a Democratic president significantly changing our policy in Iraq or elsewhere)
It is also because abortion, or more properly, contraception is the foundation on which the pervasive culture of death is built. Not respecting the lives of the unborn innocent causes us to disrespect life at all stages.
There are lots of other reasons this is the case; this is just a start, and I’m interested to hear what you think.
I think there should be a religion based on Apple. Having just gotten my iPhone 3G, hooked it up to my Mac Pro 8-core, filling it with Apps, I want to worship. There should be a unalienable right to an iPhone. The world would be at peace. All hail Steve Jobs.
I would be inclined to call both Chesterton and Belloc as men of the left, though they are admittedly hard to classify.
Henry,
I’m not sure how you know I haven’t considered the other political options. It’s not true, but whatever.
I’ve heard of distributism, though not as articulated by Chesterton and Belloc. I think it’s a idea largely disconnected from reality. It might be interesting as an academic exercise but I doubt it is implementable in reality (if it is, I’d be interested as to how you bring about the distributist society in America today). I think this because of certain traits in our unchangeable human nature and the necessity of authority in politics.
BA
I think they are “hard to classify” because they break open the false “right/left” dualism. It’s like a solid sphere interacting on a plane.. the sphere will be misinterpreted because a plane is not the way one is to engage it.
I haven’t heard of distributionists, but I wouldn’t call distributists “leftist” in the current American context. That said, if someone goes around saying that he doesn’t agree with the market system, and supporting universal healthcare, and ridiculing anti-abortion groups for not doing more for “born” people, etc., then he shouldn’t be surprised (let alone accuse people of dishonesty) if he occasionally gets mistaken for a liberal or leftist. If he disagrees with that label, it would be much easier and more civil simply to clarify his positions, rather than immediately accuse other people of blindness and dishonesty.
Zach
“Ive heard of…” is not a good way of trying to convince me of your expertise in political matters and differing options. The problem is you limit and understand things only in an American partisan fashion.
As an example, if Policraticus offers criticism for McCain, it’s because “he’s for Obama, and he isn’t willing to admit it.” HUH?! But that is exactly the kind of arguments you present — and that, to me, is indicative of much of the problem of the discussion.
Traditionally, libertarianism has been classified as leftist. Rightests were monarchists by and large and Leftest were egalitarians by and large. Calling Chesterton and Belloc rightest makes sense in such a context. In the American context, libertarianism spans the continuum from left to right. There are two strains of anti-libertarianism today: communtarianism, often identified with the left, and agrarianism, often identified with the right. I would identify Belloc and Chesterton more with the agrarians, but given their paucity of numbers, I can understand the identification with the left in this country.
Henry,
In the first place, I have to say I’m not too concerned with what you think of my expertise in anything. For the purposes of this forum, I’m only concerned that you deal with what I say, rather than what you think I said.
That example you bring up is basically something that never happened. I invite you to show me exactly where/when that example happened. Or to read and comment on the post I wrote on that subject.
But you’re right, to some extent. I do try to limit the conversations we have to the American context, because that is the context in which we live. The context in which we live matters. It’s fine and dandy to come up with a idealized society in your mind, but I’m more interested in how things are going to be implemented in reality. This is what political philosophy is – coming down from the cave and actually having to do something with the people who are still in chains.
I think the rather outlandish ideas of the early 20th century are best left behind. Austria had a Catholic fascist regime that pleased the pope. It incorporated many of the Catholic ideas of the age. No thanks.
In the end, Catholicism is deeply incompatible with the American system, and Western democracies in general. Since it is a total solution, ie encompassing every last aspect of life down to the last small detail, and has an absolutist claim, it is totalitarian and can – at best – enjoy an uneasy co-existence with the American/Western system, where both Catholics and others pretend that the differences aren’t as stark as they indeed are. Within their frame of reference, the popes were correct to resist individual freedoms, democracy etc. The Syllabi of Errors are in fact the creed of most people. When I read them, I had to remind myself that the popes were AGAINST the things listed, that’s how outlandish the old concepts have become.
This doesn’t necessarily speak against Catholicism, it just depends on personal preference.
Gerald,
You’re wrong – Catholicism is not a political system. There is no such thing as a Catholic political system.
Zach:
http://civicsgeeks.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-honesty-of-partisanship.html
And pointing to Policraticus’ post… nice one!
Henry: I’m sorry, did I miss your comments? I don’t see them on the page. And yes, I pointed to his post because at the time, he was exemplifying what I was talking about.
Zach
You were acting like you didn’t criticize Policraticus and suggest he is a secret Democrat, and now I show when you did, you say, “he was exemplifying what I was talking about,” i.e., someone pretending to be for no party but secretly Democrat (pro-Obama).
Take off the 2d specs. The world is at least 4d.
Traditionally, libertarianism has been classified as leftist. Rightests were monarchists by and large and Leftest were egalitarians by and large. Calling Chesterton and Belloc rightest makes sense in such a context.
The terms left and right date originally from the French Revolution. Those who favored the revolution sat on the left side of the French legislature; those who opposed it sat on the right. I don’t know about Belloc, but Chesterton was a fan of the French Revolution, and so was clearly a leftist in the original sense of the term.
Overall, I would characterize Chesterton as being a left-libertarian of a particularly idiosyncratic sort. Belloc is harder for me to classify, in part because I’ve read less of his stuff, and in part because he seems to have shifted ground politically quite a bit over the years (he was both a classical liberal and a socialist early on, and by the end seems to have become something of a quasi-fascist).
Gerald,
To call a religion totalitarian is to commit a category mistake, I think.
Henry,
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. Where do I say Policraticus is “a secret Democrat”?
Although, I’m sure Policraticus would admit that he would be a Democrat if they were anti-abortion.
BA,
I stand corrected on Chesterton and Belloc. Although they each had an affinity for monarchy, they both supported the French Revolution. As you note, both of them had opinions shift later. Belloc became more monarchical toward death. Chesterton sppears to have rejected monarchy. Such is just surmised from a short search though.
Henry,
Take a page out of your book, you might need to work on your reading comprehension.
Zach’s post did not accuse Policratus of being a secret Democrat. He said that most people have some preference for one party over the other, even if they do not explicitly endorse or belong to one party over the other. In the case of Policratus (and to a lesser but still real extent you) I would say it’s moderately obvious that there is a preference from the Democratic party, even though your individual political philosophies differ markedly from the Democratic party’s, and Policratus at least has expressely said that he will not vote for Obama. He also advocated that people be honest about their affinities, even if those affinities do not amount to loyalties. It’s not a bad idea…
More immediately: If you feel you have something valuable to say about possible political philosophies, perhaps you would do well to actually say it. Sitting around playing coy and taunting Zach (who generally seems a rather open-minded guy) that he does not know what you think and is unaware of the possible breadth of political philosophies does nothing to serve either Truth or Beauty, though it does possibly do much to serve the ego.
Darwin — claiming someone secretly has a preference for the Democrats when they have said otherwise (as Policraticus has done) is indeed the same thing under discussion. And this is not the way one who is “open minded” treats others — by declaring FOR THEM what their position “actually” is.
It’s not open minded; it’s accusatory. As is your post. The best thing is to let people say what they say, and not then start accusing them of positions they did not state. To point this out is not wrong. To say “read what I say, instead of presume what I am” is not wrong.
M.Z.
My point with Belloc and Chesterton is that by the time they came on the scene, the “right and left” of the 19th century was no longer an issue, and they come to the discussion on a totally different angle. The 19th century continued with many “dualistic” notions, but in the 20th century, such “one or the either” kind of view imploded from within; the problem is too many people still follow a 2-d worldview. Belloc and Chesterton are neither “right” nor “left.” But I know many American conservatives who like to place them under their mantle, ignoring the great differences Chesterton and Belloc would have with such a placement.
Zach
“By avoiding making a commitment to one set of ideas over another, they are able to avoid difficult and embarrassing conversations, like admitting they prefer the Democratic plan for society over the Republican one.”
To say “read what I say, instead of presume what I am” is not wrong.
Except that wasn’t how you reacted, i.e., all the insinuations of dishonesty and blindness. Even if you think that everyone else is always dishonest towards you, why not take the high road?
Henry,
Yes, that’s one instance of avoiding commitment to one set of ideas over another. I could have made the same point by saying “like admitting they prefer the distributist plan for society over the socialist one”. But that’s not as embarassing to admit, because not everyone has heard of distributism or socialism and thus the person making the statement appears to have superior knowledge.
More generally I’d like to add that expressing a preference is not the same thing as pledging unqualified allegiance, which you seem to think.
Also, why don’t you post your comments about my post on my blog so we don’t continue to clog this post up with our inane conversation. Sure, it doesn’t get as much play as VN, but it’s probably more polite.
Zach
Your post was false; now you play the sophist. We both know you were playing to the crowd trying to poison the well — and it works for many on the blogosphere, but not with me.
Henry,
What? How was my post false? How am I playing the sophist? I’m not trying to poison the well, only trying to make a simple point: It’s better to be up front about political preferences than to pretend they do not exist or that one’s ideas somehow transcend political categories.
Zach
There you go again — telling people they should be “up front” with their “political preferences” — the ones you make for them! By making a claim for Policraticus which he did not make is dishonest. Using labels for people who said it does not fit them is dishonest. But labels are a nice way to put someone in a box and dismiss what they have to say. I get it. The thing is — you don’t.
Hint: if you want to make a general statement, you don’t then link to someone, making an example out of them. Once you do, the example must fit the description you give to them. If it does not, it is a lie. End of hint.
Henry,
Well, I suppose if you want to be adversarial about it, you could take Zach’s post the way you seem to be taking it — but if your interest is primarily in having a conversation and actually enlightening others (or being enlightened by them) you might want to take it in a less accusatory sense, which I suspect is how it was meant.
But rather that going back to a previous conversation, allow me to simply repeat: If you want to make Zach aware of the wide range of possible political and economic view points, how about describing some additional ones (or at least yours) rather than simply taunting him over not being aware of more.
As for whether Zach is open minded and discusses in good faith — I seem to recall that he’s been on a liberation theology reading program in an attempt to further understand Michael I’s ideas, and that as a result of that he’s written some fairly positive things about some of those books on his blog. That would suggest to me that he’s probably open towards other points of view if they’re presented in some substantive fashion, rather than just coyly hinted at.
I mean honestly, given that recent content around here has been at the level of “Cheney = Kevorkian” and “Who do you support” posts, a good presentation of distributist econimics or monarchist politics or what you will, would be a nice substantive change.
[Never mind]
Darwin
Zach’s “liberation theology” post was one where he started with negative stereotypes of liberation theology which he got from sources before actually reading the texts themselves, which means, he was looking for a lens by which he can read liberation theology in an antagonistic mode instead of being open to what it has to say for itself. That’s not open, that’s prejudice. If he went the other way with liberation theology, I would say he is open — he would allow it to speak for itself first instead, and then he would be able to see how accurate the criticisms of others actually is.
Second, Zach began in here with the claim that I didn’t know what I was talking about in politics as a means to dismiss my point to him. Fine. Then he laughed with SB on a position, thinking it was clearly and necessarily “leftist.” Then I pointed out it is the position of Belloc (whose criticism of capitalism I agree with!) — he made it clear he did not know much beyond “having heard of distributionism.” What am I to think of someone who is making claims about me, that I don’t know what I am talking about, when he doesn’t know what I am talking about?
He among others keep claiming I am a leftist (as many do) because I sometimes support “big government” instead of “limited government.” That is another way of trying to make a label to dismiss what I have to say, not from what I say, but from the criticism of that label which has already been made beforehand (and desiring I make a label for myself is a desire I give a way to allow for such a dismissal!). However, I pointed out that such distinctions are invalid because, depending upon the circumstances, the “left” or “right” could take on one or the other (think about the war on drugs; there you will find a “big government” initiative from the “American right” while the “American left” wanted little to no governmental involvement!). Thus it is just another attempt to equate things which are not necessarily related to find an excuse for a label which is unjustified.
Nonetheless, as I have also pointed out many times, if people look at the sources for my political thought (I gave a list to Mark Shea, starting with St Constantine, going through St Vladimir, de Maistre and Pobedonostsev to Morris and Tolkien). This should provide ample opportunity, if one actually knew political tradition, to get a grasp of my own views, even if they might not know positions of select individuals.
Henry,
You are wrong on two facts. First, I never applied a label to anyone. Second, Policraticus has said that he prefers Democratic social policies to Republican ones. Even though I didn’t say this in the post you referenced, I did say that in this thread. I don’t think I am putting words in his mouth. If I am, I recant. I don’t want to misrepresent people. I’m also not trying to dismiss what he says – I’m trying to see more clearly what he thinks, so as to deal with it honestly and see how much of it is true.
Simply: The post was an appeal for the upfront admission of political preferences. This is not limited to the context of American politics, but does include it. To see what I am getting at, I propose the following question:Can you tell me that, within the context of American politics, you do not prefer the governing style of one party over the other?
Zach
Making a link to Policraticus while making a point IS applying a label to someone. If you didn’t want to make an example of Policraticus, you wouldn’t link to him. Your second point is too vague and can mean many things, but once again, you are trying to make Policraticus to be a Democrat. He isn’t. He’s made that clear many times.
If the post was an “appeal for upfront admission of political preferences” as a general rule, then don’t link to anyone as a specific example!
And I can indeed tell you, within the context of American politics, I do not prefer the governing style of one party over the other.
Darwin,
Thanks for the kind defense. It’s lame, but I really am here because all these people seem to be educated Catholics and I would like to learn from them.
And you are right, currently I am reading “A Theology of Liberation” and hope to record some thoughts for reflection in the near future. I don’t have any particular bias against it, contrary to what Henry said. I agree with him on the point that we should accept the good wherever we find it.
I picked up the James Schall book because I love Father Schall and think he is one of the greatest political thinkers we’ve had this century. He also happens to be a Catholic and generally very wise. I don’t think he deals in stereotypes. And God forgive me, I’ve found many secondary sources very helpful.
Henry,
By linking to his post, I wasn’t applying a label. I was trying to provide an example of a particular instance of a tendency I observed in political commentary on this site. I suppose, in order to understand what tendency I was really talking about, you had to read the whole post. This is a flaw in my writing style.
I laughed at SB because it seems like we (me and you, Henry) speak two different languages and I am comforted by someone (SB) who shares my interpretation of the English language and basic human decency.
It was uncharitable to say you don’t understand politics, but you provoked me by calling into question my honesty. I apologize for the incivility.
But perhaps you should write books about your politics, which seem to stand on such an unshakable foundation. I’d like to read them!
I probably shouldn’t have continued the conversation this far, but I find this whole bit a great psychological study.
Also I think general principles ought to have a basis in reality, hence the necessity of an example. But whatever, maybe it wasn’t the best example.
Zach
“I probably shouldn’t have continued the conversation this far, but I find this whole bit a great psychological study.”
Your words say quite a bit, once again.
I wish you wouldn’t claim to know what I’m thinking. If something is unclear in what I write, please ask a question.
To clarify my previous remark: yeah, it wasn’t worth continuing the conversation because I have been unable to help you understand what I was saying. And I think conversations like this are interesting, hence the remark about the psychological study.
Henry,
One can list off a set of great writers as the source of one’s thought (if you want to understand me, you have to read Homer and Plato in light of Augustine and Dante through the modern lens of Hayak and Voeglin) but honestly, that doesn’t give a very clear picture.
Maybe I’ve read way too much Plato, but it seems to me that we think best through expressing our ideas in words and then refining them through answering the questions and objections of others. So if we do indeed hold a political philosophy which is radically different from the standard axis of American politics (and I don’t doubt that you do) it seems to me that it would be a great thing for all involved if you wrote a post or posts about it.
I’m being honest here, hard as that may be to believe. If the folks here have a lot of well thought out ideas on political structures and philosophy “outside the box” of the modern American status quo, I think it would be a major benefit to your readers if you would all write posts about these views. Frankly, I think it would be a much more enriching experience for the blogsphere (and possibly a broadening one) than reading some of the tactical political sniping that at times ends up on these pages.
Or even in depth-discussion of Doctor Who — when we all know that Tom Baker was the definitive Doctor and so there’s no point in going further. :-)
Darwin
There are many things I could say. First, I have written posts on my political thought. They don’t explain all aspects of my thought, but they do present a way by which one begins to understand it. They are there for people to read.
Second, despite how much talk on the blog is political, it’s not the only thing I want to discuss. I have other interests, and indeed, I want to focus on them more than sometimes answer the same question over and over again. I am sure you can understand that. And when people keep asking me — people who I have told them where to begin looking, and they have not, then I think the interest in my position actually was not there (where does one begin if they want to understand my views? my series on utopia!)
Maybe I’ve read way too much Plato, but it seems to me that we think best through expressing our ideas in words and then refining them through answering the questions and objections of others.
This seems to be the very opposite approach of Plato, especially in the Socratic dialogues. When does Socrates first advance his idea and then refines it based upon interaction and debate with others? Putting aside such anomalies of style like Parmenides, Timaeus, and The Laws, Plato’s approach in the Socratic Dialogues and in many of the Platonic Dialogues is to refine concepts through a the dialectic of proposal/objection with others, typically beginning with the opinions of others. Only after a long dialogue do we occasionally get a refined concept (a rarity, indeed, in the Socratic Dialogues!).
Second, Policraticus has said that he prefers Democratic social policies to Republican ones.
I did? Recently?
True, Socrates generally starts with the other’s ideas and works from there, through dialectic, to a more refined (though seldom fully refined) concept. However, he always does this through dialectic and multiple statements — not through simply telling people that they’re not being honest or telling them to go read other long sources.
And some of his most interesting images (Phaedo, Republic 7) are laid our fairly completely in one go.
What I meant to get at, however, is the general point that knowledge is best achieved through dialectic rather than just saying something along the lines of, “If you’re serious about knowing what I think, go read the following authors.” That latter approach can certainly make one sound erudite without committing to any particular opinions, but it doesn’t do much to help others come to knowledge.
In a recent comment thread, Poli said that he “leans social democrat,” and that apart from abortion, “I really like Obama on so many issues.” Why profess surprise that anyone would think that you prefer Democratic policies on “many issues”?
Darwin
Giving a list of authors and sources for one’s thought is a kind of honesty; it points out I am not making things up as I go, but I am looking to others, learning from others. And also the list that one would make would be indicative of the leanings one has. It doesn’t give all the details and how one develops their position from them, but the choices by which one makes trying to develop one’s views says much about them.
First, because the sheer number of innocent lives taken as a result of the American abortion regime far exceeds the number lost in any other endeavor that the United States will be engaged in.
The numbers game here is problematic I think. First of all there are many ways to think about these numbers. When we think of the “moral actors” involved, for example, when it comes to abortion the moral actor is an individual who consents to the killing of a human being. In the case of wars, the moral actor is a government who actively kills enormous groups of people. In the latter case, enormous amounts of money and organization are mobilized for the sole purpose of killing. The effects of those wars continue for decades, killing more and more people who are not counted by initial “war dead” counts. By definition, the total casualties of war are nearly impossible to determine, but they are much much larger than we think they are.
Rather, it is recognizing that because we are finite creatures, our potentiality is limited and we have to choose to a path to take, and this path necessarily excludes other possibilities. We can’t do everything at once in politics.
Opposing war does not exclude opposing abortion, though, not for individuals nor for politicians. Nor does it “take up more time” to oppose both than it does to oppose one or the other, unless an individual Catholic makes the choice to do very active, almost full time activist work on either issue. For the average Catholic, it is entirely possible to actively oppose abortion and war. It is also possible for politicians to do so, but they choose not to for partisan reasons. The fact is that most Catholics (not referring to you, but to many others) who use this argument are anti-abortion but just fine with war, and use this argument as an excuse.
(I’d also add as a sidenote that I think there is very little possibility of a Democratic president significantly changing our policy in Iraq or elsewhere)
Depends on the president, and it depends what you mean by significant. Hillary would not have done anything to end the war, and she likely would have started new ones. Obama seems to have a better plan for ending things, although definitely not ideal. We can be sure that the Republican party is in bed with the weapons industry and so they are quite literally the party of war.
It is also because abortion, or more properly, contraception is the foundation on which the pervasive culture of death is built. Not respecting the lives of the unborn innocent causes us to disrespect life at all stages.
I think we can also look at it the other way around: that there is something to be said about the effect of war on the number of abortions. Not in terms of direct cause and effect, but in terms of living in a generally violent culture that has nurtured the idea of killing to solve problems, resulting in abortion. For as much as people say the “right to life comes first,” understanding that (incorrectly) to mean that we must end abortion before we try to end war, they don’t seem to understand that war existed before abortion did, and that the culture of violence that we live in has its roots in warmaking. That culture is what has produced the idea of abortion as a “solution” to a “problem.” I do think war is a more basic problem of violence in that it is more primal. I think if we resist war and other primal tendencies of violence and truly attempt to forge a culture of peace, the very thought of abortion will be much more offensive to the average person. Not sure if that makes much sense, but that is my feeling on the relationship between the two.
It’s better to be up front about political preferences than to pretend they do not exist or that one’s ideas somehow transcend political categories.
1) Everyone at Vox Nova has been up front about their political preferences. The fact that many of us cannot be placed in this or that box does not mean we are not being up front. It means that it is difficult to place a label.
2) Catholic social thought DOES transcend the political categories of the United States. The thought of individual Catholics should not fit nicely into our political categories.
I picked up the James Schall book because I love Father Schall and think he is one of the greatest political thinkers we’ve had this century. He also happens to be a Catholic and generally very wise. I don’t think he deals in stereotypes.
A noteworthy feature is the absence of very many footnotes referring to liberation theology texts themselves. If he’s not dealing in “stereotypes,” fine, but he doesn’t seem to be dealing with the actual texts, which I find problematic. I look forward to your blog posts on Gutierrez.
Michael,
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
You make good points about the nature of war and the indeterminacy associated with knowing how many deaths of innocents really occur. I largely agree, but I do think it is possible to cap the number at some point, and I think this number, with respect to Iraq, is much smaller than the number 45 million from Roe v. Wade. I would only add that there is incalculable psychological and emotional damage caused by abortion and war that also needs to be part of the equation.
When you write “The fact is that most Catholics (not referring to you, but to many others) who use this argument are anti-abortion but just fine with war, and use this argument as an excuse,” I am in total agreement – people cannot and should not take war lightly, regardless of circumstances. Opposition to unjust war should be principled and fierce indeed. What I was trying to get at is that not all of our goods, our political goals can be enacted at the same time, prudentially. Yes, Catholics can oppose both war and abortion without any problem. What they cannot do is create a candidate who will agree with them and a constituency who will support this candidate. They can certainly argue for one, and should try to convince others of the truth of this position, but sometimes this is not effective. In these cases, we still have to make some choice.
About your take on the foundations of a culture of death – that actually makes total sense to me and I think our two arguments are not mutually exclusive. If people were more repulsed by the violence of war generally, they would likely argue more vociferously for peace. And to this end, I think it is perfectly appropriate to present people the fruits of the Iraq war. If the war is truly just, our consciences should be at ease with what we see. Likely they are not.
I do not think most people at VN have been upfront about their political preferences; perhaps I haven’t either. By upfront, I mean they have presented a clear, concrete description of how they would organize society – who would rule, how they would rule, what the function of the law would be, etc. I also mean a easy to read description of which political party they identify with more – maybe they don’t identify with either at all, but they still have to prefer one over the other. I don’t think you can be neutral on the question. In the near future, I intend to write a brief description of some of the political ideas I think are important. I’ve been meaning to get around to it and this is a good opportunity. (My problem is that I read what other people write and find they always say it better than I could, so I don’t write)
I know Catholic Social thought transcends political categories of the United States. I wrote the other day I thought CST exists primarily to speak truths about the human person and the true nature of community – things that flow directly from revelation. I have not studied it in depth, but from what I know now CST cannot be considered to be, in the first place, political. I say this because it does not describe, in a positive way, how to organize society (this is the first political question).
I’m not asking for our thought to fit nicely into political categories, only that we recognize that other people have thought deeply about the nature of the human political community and some general terms do apply to all political ideas.
Lastly about the James Schall book – His book is filled with references to the liberation theologians themselves. Some of the quotes I posted do not explicitly reference the text but the surrounding material, from which I pulled the quotes, does. Also half of the book I have is essays by other thinkers (including Pope JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger)
Michael:
Regardless of your petpeeves… Per the Catechism on the Fifth Commandment. Abortion has a separate section, as does Legitimate Defense and Intentional Homicide. This tells us something. The act of aborting a child is not able to be mediated as are other forms of killing. This tells us something.
‘Right to life’ is an expression that has taken on a specific meaning in the culture. A bishop like Chaput is aware of this and could have used other verbage to communicate very specifically a broader message, but he didn’t. This tells us something.
From the Catechism:
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Poli,
I was referring to your statement made here: “I am progressive on many social questions”, which I interpreted to mean you agree with the Democrats on many social questions. Perhaps that was a bad inference to make, but I don’t think so. This because you have, in the past, expressed your support for a universal health care system, which is the the chief policy goal of the American Democrats- among other policies.
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
little gal,
It is rarely mentioned in this type of discussion, but studies show that possibly as much as 80% of the time, the lifespan from conception to death is less than a week to 10 days. An enormous number of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and miscarriage in early pregnancy is not rare either. And yet no one speaks of devoting any funds for medical research to attempt to stop what, according to Catholic teaching, is a loss of life far more than that from abortion. One would think, if people truly believed life begins at conception, there would be a massive effort to prevent early embryo loss. After all, if 40 to 80 percent of babies suddenly began dying within a few days of birth, no amount of money would be too much to spend on medical research to stop it. Yet when 40 to 80 percent of “unborn babies” die within a few days of conception, nobody cares. Actually, nobody cares that human babies die in these numbers. Cattle breeders care that this is the case with cattle, and they’re working on the problem. I find it very strange.
What they cannot do is create a candidate who will agree with them and a constituency who will support this candidate. They can certainly argue for one, and should try to convince others of the truth of this position, but sometimes this is not effective. In these cases, we still have to make some choice.
Well, no we don’t have to make a choice between republicans and democrats. We just don’t.
Even if someone feels that he or she has to vote, I am constantly puzzled by the idea that any one life issue should be “the” deciding factor. If we take all the life issues (not all the “social justice” issues, but life issues) seriously, why only pick one? That’s an unneccessary limitation that most Catholics seem to fall for. My opposition to McCain for example is not based solely on war. It’s based on a whole network of interlocking issues that have at their base a core worldview that I oppose.
By upfront, I mean they have presented a clear, concrete description of how they would organize society – who would rule, how they would rule, what the function of the law would be, etc.
I think they have been upfront insofar as any of us can come up with a vision for how we would organize society. As an anarchist, I have certain principles, but this does not mean that I have one set universal vision for how “society” would be set up. Part of my anarchism is that I imagine different communities might look very different from one another. I simply don’t have one universal description. Thankfully, the Church doesnt either and recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all perfect societal vision.
I also mean a easy to read description of which political party they identify with more – maybe they don’t identify with either at all, but they still have to prefer one over the other. I don’t think you can be neutral on the question.
I disagree. If I HAD to choose one of the two, I would choose the democratic party. If I could choose from the third parties, I’d probably go green. But ultimately my answer is none of the above. You CAN be “neutral” when it comes to political parties if you oppose the entire system. That in itself is a partisan choice, though, and it is an upfront choice.
I have not studied it in depth, but from what I know now CST cannot be considered to be, in the first place, political. I say this because it does not describe, in a positive way, how to organize society (this is the first political question).
It is not directly political, but it is political. CST is a set of socio-political principles, but not a program for action. The Church no longer has one vision of the good society, as it did at the time of Rerum Novarum. This is one of the major shifts in CST during the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI. It recognizes different possibilities within the principles to which it witnesses.
Little Gal – It’s important to distinguish the Church’s understanding of terms from how those terms are used in the wider culture. Thank you for the Catachism quote. I agree with it.
Michael,
You’re right, we don’t have to make the choice between Republicans and Democrats. Abstaining from voting is a perfectly legitimate option, as is voting for a third party. If I had to answer your question, “If we take all the life issues (not all the “social justice” issues, but life issues) seriously, why only pick one? ” I don’t think it’s a limitation necessarily, but an acceptance of certain political realities. Further, because it might be the responsible thing to do. e.g. I want to solve some serious problems and I see it is possible to solve arguably the biggest problem if I vote for this candidate A. If I vote for candidate B, there is no chance of this huge problem being solved. It is therefore responsible to vote for candidate A.
It’s funny, my opposition to Democratic politics is also based on “a whole network of interlocking issues that have at their base a core worldview that I oppose. ” The Democrats, I believe, reject objective truth and I think this influence is insidious; this is a highly contentious claim that I’d rather not deal with right now, but I think can be demonstrated fairly easily.
You’re also right that abstaining can be a partisan choice.
And I’m glad you agree that CST is not directly political. I would argue that politics is the science that deals specifically with the program for action – how to organize society. Any thought that deals with social principles or morality is in some sense political, in that morality applies to the polis as well as the soul, but the science of politics is the science of organizing society, of the good community.
I also am encouraged by communal diversity you speak of – I think this is very important and needs to be cultivated. Different circumstances and situations require different communities. In this regard, I like to think of the infinite variety of the good. It therefore makes sense that there will be many manifestations of the good society.
Michael ,
Off topic – are you a fan of Boy Sets Fire?
(the band)
Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(contact info, below)
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 5/07
Come on, Dudley, leave comments, not full articles that you have written that have little to do with the post at hand. Comments are not for self-promotion.
Michael:
Pewsitters, like myself, are not doctoral students in theology or philosophy. Effective pastors (including bishops) communicate the Church’s teachings in the language that the average Catholic can understand. They have to teach to multiple age levels (adult, adolescent and child) & educational levels simultaneously. And everyone needs to understand the message that the pastor is teaching. We all know what ‘right to life’ means. I seem to remember the Holy Father using this phrase in one of his homily’s during his visit to the U.S. as well. It was clear that he was referring to the unborn.
I must say, that although the issue of abortion is debated hotly on Catholic websites, in any Catholic church that I have ever attended, I have never heard a priest say that abortion is just one of many issues that needs to be weighed in terms of voting etc.
Pewsitters, like myself, are not doctoral students in theology or philosophy.
It doesn’t take an advanced degree to understand what the Church is really teaching, although I hope that those of us who are working on these sorts of degrees can help clarify some important issues. I realize that we think we “know” what “right to life” means, but the Church continues to challenge us to think more broadly than abortion. This is a fact. Please read the new Faithful Citizenship document if you haven’t done so already. It’s a good document!
I have never heard a priest say that abortion is just one of many issues that needs to be weighed in terms of voting etc.
That’s unfortunate. I have heard a good many priests say that other life issues need to be taken into account as well. (Please hear clearly what I am saying: not all issues are equal. Abortion is not “just another issue.” What I am saying, again and again, is that all issues that pertain to the direct taking of human life are equally important.) Not enough priests are saying this, mind you. Many of them still do not “get” Catholic social teaching, or they ignore it in favor of other aspects of the faith. This is unfortunate, because it does not help the faithful to make good decisions.
It’s funny, my opposition to Democratic politics is also based on “a whole network of interlocking issues that have at their base a core worldview that I oppose. ” The Democrats, I believe, reject objective truth and I think this influence is insidious; this is a highly contentious claim that I’d rather not deal with right now, but I think can be demonstrated fairly easily.
The question, though, is whether your rejection of the Democratic party is based on CST or some other framework. I’m not saying it isn’t, but I feel like many Republican Catholics reject the Democrats’ approach based on a liberal worldview (small gov’t is better because of “personal freedom,” etc.), not based on CST.
You’re also right that abstaining can be a partisan choice.
Abstaining is often a form of laziness, but if it is principled abstention, then it is indeed “partisan” in the sense of taking sides against the system, not in the sense of allegiance to a U.S. political party. I suppose “partisan” has different meanings and we al throw that word around a lot without noting which definition we mean. I am certainly partisan in the sense of taking sides. I am not partisan in the sense of having allegiance to a U.S. political party. The Church’s “partisanship,” I think, is the same.
And I’m glad you agree that CST is not directly political. I would argue that politics is the science that deals specifically with the program for action – how to organize society. Any thought that deals with social principles or morality is in some sense political, in that morality applies to the polis as well as the soul, but the science of politics is the science of organizing society, of the good community.
Yes, I too would distinguish between “politics” in general and maybe “political science.”
Off topic – are you a fan of Boy Sets Fire?
Not anymore. I have their first two records (This Crying, This Screaming, My Voice is Being Born and The Day the Sun Went Out), and I still really like them, but I thought they started to become really cliched after those. You likey?
I do think my politics are very compatible with CST, and I think my rejection of the Democratic party is largely rooted in principles that can be found in CST. But if I were to make the critique I think the best tools are found first in classical political philosophy and also in some liberal thinkers (I’m thinking here of the Federalist papers and Tocqueville). I hasten to add that my politics does not begin with the ideas of liberal thinkers. I do think there are many things in the liberal tradition worth salvaging. But liberalism certainly has its problems.
I’m also not partisan in the sense of having “allegiance” to a particular political party. It’s cheesy, but I only have an allegiance to the good.
On BSF – I am a fan – I actually agree with your take on them too – the last two records are super cheesy.
On BSF – I am a fan
Careful — I won’t deny the role that subversive music played in opening me up and allowing me to hear the radical message of the Gospels! “Sets fire” indeed!
Little Gal:
Read the voters guides put together by bishops!
Zach
“Democrats reject objective truth” I could say the same about Republicans. I am not saying all Republicans, just as I am sure if pressed you would say not all Democrats. But since the whole political sphere in the US is within the liberal tradition, following the split of the secular from the sacred, and turning everything into a humanistic-only enterprise, the end result is that both sides are looking within a human (and therefore, relative) framework.
Michael and Henry:
Thanks for the recommendation, but I have read the Faithful Citizenship document produced by the bishops. I unfortunately have come to agree with the observation that others have made that many bishops have lost their way*. Not all, but some. I recently read a piece that states that Cardinal McCarrick is very much involved behind the scenes in documents coming out of the USCCB and this is no recommendation to me. I am fortunate to attend a parish run by a religious order which is faithful to the teachings of the Church and there is no ambiguity in what these priests preach from the ambo. It is no surprise that there are many large families in this parish!
*I continue to pray for them though.
I unfortunately have come to agree with the observation that others have made that many bishops have lost their way.
Yikes. Well, I’m not sure whose opinion you are placing ahead of your bishops’ conference. Sadly, this is a pick and choose approach to Catholicism you are describing.
Michael:
Are you forgetting how very many of the bishops handled the sex abuse crisis? What about how American bishops have demonstrated their opposition to Rome–ie., Cardinal McCarrick’s ‘rewriting’ of the guidelines for worthy reception of the Eucharist issued by Cardinal Ratzinger and issuing same. There are plenty of examples to choose from. My own bishop after recognizing the error he made in handling a sex abuse case publically stated that it is the bishops who are destroying the Church (that is a paraphrase, not an exact quote).
BTW,I would be happy to continue discussing this with you, if you refrain from referring to me as a cafeteria Catholic or make other personal comments.
BTW,I would be happy to continue discussing this with you, if you refrain from referring to me as a cafeteria Catholic or make other personal comments.
“Little Gal”: I am perfectly fine discussing the moral failures of our bishops with you, and even the extent to which these moral failures have roots in systemic injustice in the Church. Without doubt they need to be discussed. But when you use THAT as an excuse for dismissing the VERY CLEAR teaching of the Church on the consistent ethic of life, I have no other choice but to call you a pick-and-choose Catholic. Just as you would have the right to call ME a cafeteria Catholic if I were to dismiss the Church’s teaching on abortion simply because of the bishops’ failure with regard to the sex abuse crisis. I hope you learn how to think more clearly on these matters.
Little Gal:
“The sacred synod teaches that the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.” Lumen Gentium III: 20.
“Whence it may not be doubted that this man was guilty of a crime not less than that of the vile Arius, who in like manner perished by the issue of his bowels through the draught. For this too is a heretical belief, that in the Church man may disobey the bishop of God to whom the sheep are entrusted to be fed, and that authority may be usurped by one to whom none has been entrusted, either by God or man.” St. Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, II 23
“The superior is to be obeyed not because he is prudent, or good, or qualified by any other gift of God, but because he holds the place and authority of God, as Eternal Truth has said: ‘He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me.’ [Lk. 10:16].” St. Ignatius of Loyola. Letter on Obedience (#31). 2.
“What difference does it make if God speaks in person or if he speaks through ministers, be these angels or men. ‘But,’ you may protest, ‘men are often mistaken in their apprehension of what is God’s will in cases of doubt, and so may lead us astray.’ And what is that to you, who are more ignorant than they are?” St. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Precept and Dispensation, IX.21.
“I believe it is the devil, who, seeing that there is no path which leads more quickly to the highest perfection than that of obedience, suggests all these objections and difficulties under the guide of good.” St. Teresa of Avilla. Book of Foundations, V.
“…I exhort you: — Be zealous to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place of the Council of the Apostles, and the deacons who are most dear to me…” St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians: VI.
“The signs by which you can recognize the presence of a carnal pride in a soul. [...] troublesome in the matter of obedience except where his own wishes and likings correspond to his duty…” St. John Cassian, Institutes, Chapter XXIX.
“Hence great care should be taken by subordinates, whether clerical or lay, that they dare not to blame rashly the lives of their bishops or superiors [...] lest from their position of reproving evil they be sunk into greater depths through the impulse of elation.” St. Gregory the Great, Epistle XVII.
Michael:
You have alot to learn. BTW, use of upper case letters in internet communications, is considered shouting. Shouting is not a polite thing to do. If you want a congenial exchange with someone, I would suggest that you stop doing this…
Henry:
Jesus warned His first bishops, the Apostles, by saying:
“You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Matthew 5:13)
And, very many of the bishops not only refuse to follow the Bishop of Rome who has teaching authority, they actively subvert his teachings.
You are obviously Michael’s wing man in this situation and from others that I have observed here. BTW,
Judias was one of the original apostles(the bishops being their successors) and he was a traitor–
You both skirt the issue that very many of the bishops refuse to follow the Bishop of Rome who has teaching authority over the bishops. Church history is rife with examples of wrongdoing by bishops. I provided an example on this, but the focus has shifted to me.
You have alot to learn.
Boy, now there’s a great argument.
You are the kind of dissenter that that I critriqued here:
http://vox-nova.com/2008/08/03/magisterium-tradition-and-the-legitimacy-of-dissent/
Your belief that bishops can lose teaching authority because of personal sins is also a sort of crypto-donatism, a heresy.
Seems you have a lot to learn as well.
Little Gal,
I only quoted what the saints had to say about bishops; you see, the more you speak, the more you prove you don’t know what you are talking about, and in this way, it is dangerous for you to suppose yourself as a greater authority than a bishop. The bishop is the authority, we are not; if you question a bishop (which can be done) it must be in respect, and done through proper channels; not “I know better, they are traitors.” That line of thinking is Protestant, not Catholic.
More importantly, you consistently bring nothing to the table but limited use of documents, taken out of context, not understanding how the documents are to be read, nor their relation to a greater teaching beyond them. The Church is more than the Catechism. The Catechism is not a book which tells “everything as it is.” Nor is all that is found in it of the same level of teaching authority. It’s a good book, but meant as a summary, not an exhaustive presentation of Catholic thought. But even then you will find, if you look, the authority and respect to be given to bishops. That is, however, something distinctly lacking in your response. What you think is you are the authority over the bishops, not they you. That’s why you judge them, and they should listen to you; even they they have ordination, and you do not, and theological training, and you do not (which is woefully demonstrated by what you write).
I am amazed at what I have read here and will leave you two doctoral students in theology to instruct all the ignorant pewsitters who visit this blog.
Little gal
I’m not the one who presumes to tell the world that the bishops of the world are traitors.