America on “sectarian Catholicism”
I’m not sure I like the use of the word “sectarian” to describe narrow republicatholic partisanship — their views and tactics certainly are “sectarian” but there are different types of Catholic “sectarianism”! — but the editorial in the last issue of America contains some wise words about the current climate of american Catholicism. Some excerpts:
For today’s sectarians, it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program. [...] Their tactics, and their attitudes, threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States, the effectiveness of its mission and the credibility of its pro-life activities.
The sectarians’ targets are frequently Catholic universities and Catholic intellectuals who defend the richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition. Their most recent target has been the University of Notre Dame and its president, John Jenkins, C.S.C., who has invited President Barack Obama to offer the commencement address and receive an honorary degree at this year’s graduation. Pope Benedict XVI has modeled a different attitude toward higher education.
[...]
The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern. That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.
[...]
Four steps are necessary for the U.S. church to escape the strengthening riptide of sectarian conflict and re-establish trust between universities and the hierarchy. First, the bishops’ discipline about speakers and awards at Catholic institutions should be narrowed to exclude from platforms and awards only those Catholics who explicitly oppose formal Catholic teaching. Second, in politics we must reaffirm the distinction between the authoritative teaching of moral principles and legitimate prudential differences in applying principles to public life. Third, all sides should return to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI that in politics there are usually several ways to attain the same goals. Finally, church leaders must promote the primacy of charity among Catholics who advocate different political options. For as the council declared, “The bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything which divides them” (“Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” No. 92).
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
I agree with much of this, but I find the following suggestion too weak:
First, the bishops’ discipline about speakers and awards at Catholic institutions should be narrowed to exclude from platforms and awards only those Catholics who explicitly oppose formal Catholic teaching.
It seems to me that, given an issue of sufficient moral gravity, such as abortion, it is perfectly proper for a Catholic University to exclude speakers (if they are allowed an uncontested platform) who, while not Catholic, nonetheless are in error about a fundamental moral precept.
What do you mean by sectarian? I understand the basic gist of it, I think, but don’t you mean the people whose sections of sectarianism you don’t like? If so, then, what makes that ‘sectarian’ in any strong sense?
I ask these questions in this way because I fear that words like sectarian, liberal, republican, pro-abort, statist, nationalist, and alike, are really just inside lingo that functions to do something just slightly better than name calling.
You’re right, the word “sectarian” is usually used by Catholics in a pejorative way. Stanley Hauerwas and his students, for example, are often called “sectarian” because they stress the need for a distinctive Christian identity and set of practices (pacifism, for example). Pacifists, too, are called “sectarian” because they “refuse to take responsibility” for the political world, etc. I happen to think that is a good type of sectarianism. Letting our yes mean yes and our no mean no. Being committed to the notion that not everything is acceptable for Christian disciples. It’s what I was getting at in my post about Opus Dei and Erik Prince. Not that these are easy questions to answer (I’m too much of a postmodern for that), but the tendency in Catholicism is “anything goes” — except of course when it comes to abortion and sex.
The “sectarianism” criticized by the article is the “we-want-nothing-to-do-with-anyone-who-does-not-think-like-a-Catholic-Republican” type of sectarianism.
A few questioms:
Is using a slur like “republicatholic” going to get you much ground in arguing for less partisanship?
Where is the citation for these Vatican officials who are supposedly terrified by American Catholicism?
Didn’t you agree that awarding Obama an honorary degree wasn’t a wise decision? If so, then why are you promoting an article that clearly thinks such opposition is a symptom of a disease?
When the writer says ban only those who “explicitly opposes formal Catholic teaching” does he mean that Protestants cannot be honored, as they oppose Catholic teaching? Even so, doesn’t Obama explicitly oppose Catholic teaching on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other issues?
It seems to me that, given an issue of sufficient moral gravity, such as abortion, it is perfectly proper for a Catholic University to exclude speakers (if they are allowed an uncontested platform) who, while not Catholic, nonetheless are in error about a fundamental moral precept.
Thanks for pointing out the word “Catholic” in that sentence. I didn’t catch it. I agree that the prohibition of honoring those who explicitly oppose Catholic teaching should apply to both Catholics and non-Catholics. I don’t think prohibition should be understood as applying to mere speakers.
Is using a slur like “republicatholic” going to get you much ground in arguing for less partisanship?
Why? Does using a humorous term for ultra-partisan Catholic republicans somehow indicate that I am partisan? Are you simply saying that it’s a “turn off”?
Didn’t you agree that awarding Obama an honorary degree wasn’t a wise decision? If so, then why are you promoting an article that clearly thinks such opposition is a symptom of a disease?
I continue to oppose Obama receiving an honorary degree. I continue to be fine with him being the commencement speaker. The editorial does not seem to distinguish between those two aspects. I agree with the problem the essay identifies but I come to a (slightly) different conclusion that the editors do.
Iafrate: You should know by now that I am not one of the things you are talking about in this post—I want that to be clear from the outset. But, like Denton, I wonder what the purpose of something like is could be. I think the sides that divide all too neatly on these kinds of articles are quite decided and things like this just give each side a reason to go to war and fight for what they believe is right. The problem is that very little gets done and, furthermore, more get undone.
I have written my fair share of essays and rants decrying republicans in large scale generalities, but I have to ask myself what I am asking you right now: What am I trying to do? And do I honestly believe that this is what is best?
There is something amiss when violence is justified just because it is cloaked in inflammatory prose. There is a fine line between agonism and antagonism and I fail to see it more than I can say here, but I think that this post misses the former for the latter.
This is regrettable, because all it shows those who are rightly to be castigated for narrow mindedness is that their accusers are narrow minded too.
Its not altogether like the futility of the US promoting peace in the world while it sits on ten of thousands of nukes—something isn’t quite right. Names like republicatholic, sectarian, and more function like atomic weapons that destroy the potential for charity in discourse, I think.
Now I need to take some of my own self-righteous advice.
it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program.
The “particular political program” to which America refers is the legal protection of human beings before birth, which the Catechism says is essential to a just social order (sec. 2273. The “proposal short of that program” is the social agenda of the Democratic party which, it is claimed, may indirectly discourage women from choosing abortion (even though abortion will be free of charge to those who choose it).
OK, why is it sectarian to support the clear teaching of the Catechism of our Church but not sectarian to support a political party’s program that contradicts the Catechism?
Iafrate:
I just don’t find the term humerous. I think it’s an insult. Applicable in some cases, to be true, the way you’re using it is too broad and too uncharitable. Less people fall under that description then you think.
Besides, if people started calling you and Minion “Obamaholics” or “Democatholics, you would not be pleased. I think it reflects better to avoid using such terms.
Out of curiosity, is there any reason you didn’t answer the other questions I asked?
Sam – You wonder about the “purpose” of what? The post? Or the word “republicatholic”? The word “sectarian”?
Surely the word “republicatholic” can be used as a way of name-calling when it’s used in certain ways. I’m not sure what the difference, though, between “narrow republicatholic partisanship” and “narrow republican Catholic partisanship” is. The former is “inflammatory” and the latter is not?
I find it really strange that you imply that this post is “violent.” “Narrow-minded” is also a strange charge. Agreeing with an editorial that points out a group’s narrow-mindedness is narrow-minded how? Did I say something “narrow-minded” in the course of pointing to the editorial?
it should be “humorous” not “humerous” in the above post, lest anyone mistake me for strongly objecting to the notion that the term republicatholic refers to the leg bone.
Besides, if people started calling you and Minion “Obamaholics” or “Democatholics, you would not be pleased. I think it reflects better to avoid using such terms.
There would be other issues if folks called me such names. I am not an “Obama supporter” (I am largely indifferent to him, although I did vote for him) nor am I a Democrat. Such terms in reference to me would simply be factually untrue. No need to evaluate, then, whether or not they would be “insults.” MM can speak for himself.
Out of curiosity, is there any reason you didn’t answer the other questions I asked?
I felt that they were addressed in my responses to other comments. Was there something I missed? To be perfectly explicit for you regarding your last Obama question: Yes, Obama explicitly opposes the most vital aspects of Catholic teaching on abortion and stem cell research. Is that, like, in question or something?
That said, it should be clear to you by now that I do not owe you an answer to every question you ask me.
Iafrate: In one possible sense you’re right. I am capable of reading this post with some sobriety—which means I can ignore to borderline name calling and predictable assumptions—just as I can read every issue of First Things with the same sensibility. In that sense there are readers, and I think there are more out there than we might think there are, that can read polemics without becoming sports fans and immediately rooting for the home team.
Sadly, I am not entirely sure that those who write for the respective teams share this sensibility. And I think it incumbent upon them to write with the sophistication with which they want to be read.
On this blog, the real zinger posts are the ones that brings out the fans to root for their team colors, and that is a sign (to me) of less being accomplished, not more, I think.
I felt that they were addressed in my responses to other comments. Was there something I missed?
You hadn’t addressed the Vatican question anywhere, but I was more interested in the the question you answered in this comment.
To be perfectly explicit for you regarding your last Obama question: Yes, Obama explicitly opposes the most vital aspects of Catholic teaching on abortion and stem cell research. Is that, like, in question or something?
“like in question or something?” This is undue insulting on your part. I wasn’t attacking you. I was trying to understand how the author’s standards for invitations allow for a justified conferring of an honorary degree for Obama. I thought you might have different opinions on how to better tweak the standards, which I think the author poorly expressed.
Not everything I write in response to you is a personal attack on you. Please stop viewing it as such.
To be perfectly explicit for you regarding your last Obama question: Yes, Obama explicitly opposes the most vital aspects of Catholic teaching on abortion and stem cell research. Is that, like, in question or something?
I did say “out of curiosity.” I was consciously not making a demand for your response. Even if you don’t respond to this comment, I will be disappointed, as I seek dialogue, but you don’t have to.
Sam – Had I written “narrow republican Catholic partisanship,” would that solve the “sophistication” problem that you think I have? I’m not sure what other words of mine could be “fixed” to make the post more “sophisticated” and/or “charitable.” The majority of the post is comprised of excerpts from the editorial, not my own words.
Is the word “sectarian” the problem? If so, it’s the editorial’s words, not mine. And the writer is invoking a term that is much debated and has been for some time in Catholic and Protestant ecclesiology and ethics. It’s not a mere “insult.” I also indicated, briefly, an issue I have with the use of the term.
I should also note that I am not on any “team.”
I find the Ameican Op-Ed to be hilarious. In the past Century the American Catholic Church and the Democrat Party was very very linked. THrough labor concerns, civil rights concerns, economic issues and the such. THe old saying that the American Bishops was the Democrat party at prayer was not only funny but true.
THe fact is that on the whole I noticed far more Career “advancement” from people that work for the Bishops conference and other Catholic Social justice bodies to the Democrat party structure than the Republicans
Now that Catholics are actually more of a diverse poltical group and the GOP is no longer just a Protestant party there is all this panic.
I wonder if I looked through the archives of America I would find all this alarm that Catholics were almost entirely democrat. How many people back in the 50′s on the America Staff were wearing “I like Ike” buttons. I bet not many. That was just the religious and poltical reality
I really think that is what is going on here in the background.
First, the bishops’ discipline about speakers and awards at Catholic institutions should be narrowed to exclude from platforms and awards only those Catholics who explicitly oppose formal Catholic teaching.
No. The bishops have no business here. They have no right to cherry-pick their intervention in university affairs. If they want the authority to review speakers to protect human life, then they should take all of the authority to protect human life including when a student falls out a dorm window and dies; let the bishop have the cassock sued off his back for negligence.
But, of course, the last thing they want is legal responsibility for Catholic colleges. They are all very careful to protect themselves legally.
The colleges are juridical persons under canon law. They have the right to make reasonable judgements. Yes, there are appropriate standards, but it is the university that has the right to make the judgment.
jh – I think you missed the point of the editorial.
I have to admit this part is clever
“Randall Terry and the Cardinal Newman Society, push mightily for a pure church quite unlike the mixed community of saints and sinners—the Catholic Church—that Augustine championed. Like the Circumcellions of old, they thrive on slash-and-burn tactics; and they refuse to allow the church to be contaminated by contact with certain politicians.”
So the Cardinal Newman SOciety is linked with Randall Terry. Randal Terry is a viewed as an oddball among many Catholics in this “Sectarian Catholicism” they are targeting. THe brilliance is tied up because all that disagree are tied to a Heresy from the 300′s!!
Again brilliant all because Catholics are opposing the Notre Dame Honoring of Obama.
Who knew we had so many Donanist Bishops
jh,
1. Having checked the Federal Election Commission filings and the papers of the DC Register of Corporations, if find no entity named the “Democrat Party.”
2. As to wearing an “I Like Ike” button at America magazine, I imagine after his bigoted father’s very public reconciliation with him, one of their writers may have endorsed the man his father served as Secretary of State.
Michael I don’t think I missed the point. I think that is what behind all this. I rarely hear calls of concerns of Narrow Sectarian political violence that is about to make the Church explode when it come from the democrat side
Hey it is business as usual
I mean look they even say “slash-and-burn tactics” As Father Z noted that did a great job of fisking this article
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/05/america-magazine-climbing-the-invisbile-ladder/
“[“Slash and burn”…. riiiight. An online petition, letter writing campaign, praying the Rosary, peaceful protests. I suppose Martin Luther King and Gandhi were slashers and burners too. This hyperbole is a perfect example of how the editors of America are failing around in the water as they drown”
Right on. I mean looking at the article one must wonder what has got them so upset about the above factors
Again the comments in the above links I think fairly shows who is being the Sectarian here
Yes Kurt I know there is no thing called “The Democrat” party in the FEC filing I think we know who we are referring too
GOod point on Dulles. Still for the most part it is no secret that for most of last century that Catholics were very Democrat and Church was very linked to them
If that was a good or bad thing that is a matter of debate. Overall I think it was bad for various reasons.
Still that is the history
Again what is America exactly afraid of. WHy is this debate that is going on all over the place a bad thing?
As I have noted elsewhere there was hardly any fuss over the Obama visit to Georgetown where he discussed his economic plan with a Scriptural theme. THe only Fuss was after becuase of events related to things removed. But there was no general sense of outrage he was appearing. If the President came to Notre Dame to discuss lets say a Foreign Policy iniative that he was promoting I suspect there wooud not be a huge amount of fuss either. It would be seen as something proper to a Catholic University
These critical distinctions are for some reason overlooked as to this debate.
I have found that for the large part the discussion has been very civil and productive. See Prof Garnett’s OpEd yesterday in USA today. OR the discussion going on over at Mirrors of Justice.
The people opposing this are nothing like the “Circumcelliones ” violent thugs of the 4th and 5th century.
The whole Op-Ed is overblown.
My discomfort with coining terms like “republicatholic” to describe other people is that it ignores the necessary hierarchy of affiliations. A person may well be both a Republican and a Catholic, but one of the two will take precedence over the other when there is a conflict between them (e.g. “The King’s good servant but God’s first”). Rather than pointing out (perhaps correctly) that a person is reversing the proper order of allegiance, such terms seem to describe their targets as confused at best and self-contradictory at worst.
To use a label like that on oneself might be seen as humorous, but to use it on someone else might be taken as dismissive.
jh – I think that calling the Democratic party “the Democrat Party” is just a way of signifying what team you’re on. It antagonizes people, and does not really help advance the discussion.
Could the Republicans and allies on here please refrain from using that term? It comes off as an attempt at bullying – a classic move bullies make is giving opponents nicknames against their consent. I’d think discussions between Catholics would rise above such tactics.
Now this is interesting, as a result of this thread I am now having to wonder if I am a Republican or ally. Now that is truly something different to think about!
Iafrate: I get your point and after re-reading your post I think you have a real defense. However, not to pile it on, I think you also need to consider the overall impact of your contributions and how they create the general tone of your posts. I do trust that you have no team and ironically we are on the same team—the no team team—but I think we could both do better at admitting that we really do have teams and we want out.
I suspect that some editorial work would greatly aid this blog. One of the chief targets should be names which are used in place of ideas.
Much of the fuss about Mr. Obama and Notre Dame arises from the “honor” to be given to Mr. Obama. It is hard to avoid the impression that there is a certain element of boot-licking going on. Perhaps this impression is mistaken. It would then be incumbent upon the Board of Trustees of Notre Dame to make clear that the honorary degree is not meant to be an honor.
The late Arthur Houghton was given many honorary degrees [in hope of attracting a large donation]. His one specification is that the degree must not be one that he already had. He wanted different initials for each.
However, not to pile it on, I think you also need to consider the overall impact of your contributions and how they create the general tone of your posts.
Perhaps. But it’s also important not to assume that I think about the “impact” of my blogging in the same way that you might think about yours.
If you’d like to talk about the “tone” of my posts, though, I respectfully request that we move that discussion to email. I’d be happy to do that. I’d also appreciate specific examples of whatever “tone” you think is coming across in my posts.
Gabriel: Editorial work would turn this blog into a journal of some kind, I suspect. Which may not be a bad idea, but it would certainly change the nature of the discourse here in potentially good, bad, and really-hard-to-tell-in-advance ways.
I think the reason people would generally consider the term “republicatholic” an insult is because it takes an accusation and assumes it by turning it into a descriptor.
The accusation is, of course, that the person described puts their party affiliation before their faith. This may or may not be true of any given person, often it will have to do with the differing interpretations that two people have of what Catholic teaching demands in regards to application to the political realm.
Clearly these differences will result in a lot of controversy, and we see that controversy here and elsewhere frequently. While one might wish that everyone already agreed with one, the controversy itself is not necessarily unhealthy.
The name calling approach, however, bypasses the controversy and assumes a conclusion: the other person is acting contrary to his faith because of his political commitments. As such, it’s pretty much a conversation ender — or at least an implication that the only people worth discussing the topic with are those who already agree with you.
If that’s what Michael wants, and I must admit it sometimes does seem to be exactly so, then there’s certainly no need for him to express himself differently, though it perhaps behooves the rest of us to leave him to it. If not, perhaps he and Sam will successfully hash out some thoughts on tone via email. (I must admit, I’m encouraged to see another contributor actually bring it up.)
Good thread
Lets face it. America has not been concerned over the years with the various Op-eds from National Catholic Reporter or the Washington Post On Faith blog where one gets a sense that Republican leaning Catholics are not only illegitmate but folks you would not want to babysit you kids
Now we hear of dangerous partisan divides. Where have they been at the last twenty years?
I might disagree with the politics of Mr Infrate’s but I think he is an orthodox Catholic
I not only tolerate Infrates voice but I think it is essential. I might have disagreed for instance when 200 members of the Catholic worker movement disrupted a speech by Karl Rove earlier this year but I reconized they were important. I might disagree with Michael when he promoted a post on delivering ashs to the White House( think it was Michael) but I did not get upset about it
His Catholic pacifist voice must exist among the Archdiocese of the Military of the United States
I have no problem with these divergent voices of Christ Church as we debatete “prudential”matters. But is clear America magazine does.
That is the reason I oppose the silliness in that article. They don’t practice what they preach.
In an article that affected me greatly it was said that the Catholic Church is indeed Israel. That is one that wrestles with GOd. We are wrestling on mnay fronts
That is why I find the America article so stupid. It is telling a segement of American Catholcism to please shut up!!!
Do “progressive Catholics” feel so sure of their position they are ready for that?
The name calling approach, however, bypasses the controversy and assumes a conclusion: the other person is acting contrary to his faith because of his political commitments. As such, it’s pretty much a conversation ender
It’s not a “conversation ender” at all, unless one feels that “narrow republicatholic (or Republican Catholic, if you want to feel that these folks should be more ‘respected’) partisanship” refers to him or her.
The conversation that the post and editorial seek to generate is different than the one you are interested in. The type of Catholics that I refer to in shorthand when I use the term “republicatholic” exist. This is obvious. You admit as much. The point of the post is not to debate who these people are or whether and in what way “the person described puts their party affiliation before their faith.” The point, I think, of the post and the editorial is that, in light of the fact that these people DO exist and the damage that they are doing to the Church, to people’s perception of the Church, and to the pro-life cause as a whole, what are some suggestions for moving forward? Those are given at the end of the editorial and at the end of the post. I think the editor makes some good points and that is what I intended to share for the sake of conversation.
Of course, you and others seem to have missed that and have flocked around the supposed offensiveness of the word “republicatholic.” Whether or not you feel personally involved or insulted by the terms and by folks like myself and America pointing out the problem is not my concern.
— or at least an implication that the only people worth discussing the topic with are those who already agree with you.
Sometimes I think that is, in fact, the case. As a writer with certain clear commitments, I do not write for everybody, or at least I do not write for everybody in the same way.
That said, given the stated purpose of this blog, I am perfectly comfortable assuming that our readers will see my ongoing critique of “narrow republican Catholic partisanship” as precisely in keeping with that stated purpose. I would assume that anyone who takes our mission statement seriously would understand that “narrow republican Catholic partisanship” is indeed a real problem in the Church. We see evidence of it on this blog and elsewhere in the blogosphere. I don’t see much point in beating around the Bush when I discuss it.
I’ve never doubted for a minute that Catholics who are Republicans are legitimate. Such people include some of my best friends.
I would never question the sincerity of their faith based on Party affiliation. I would never sign nor circulate a petition calling for their excommiunication or any other ecclesiastical penalty. I have never have and never would seek to obstruct their access to the sacraments, in fact I would be willing to assist in bringing the Eucharist to one of them.
I remember attending Mass some years ago at St. Patrick’s in DC and feeling quite happy to be a Catholic having just turned to one side to say “Peace be with you Judge Buckley” and then to the other, saying “Peace be with you, Senator Moynihan.”
For that matter, I serve as Democratic Precinct Captain and the Republican captain for the same precinct is Roman Catholic. We go to different parishes, but see each other at the Cathedral on occassion and always give each other a big hug.
She is a wonderful person, a devoted Christian mother, a patriotic citizen, and an individual I count as a friend.
Please note the phrase I used: narrow republicatholic partisanship.
This does not in any way signal an outright questioning of the “sincerity of the faith” of all republican Catholics. The camel/needle image of the Gospels comes to mind, but I also have friends who are good, republican Catholics. I used to be a republican (a republicatholic even!) in fact.
The phrase I used is in reference to a certain way of being a republican Catholic, one that is tremendously widespread in the american Church, but not one that is absolute.
How you phrase your posts is entirely your own business, but I suspect if you had used a phrase like “people who are Republican first and Catholic second”, readers would have a clearer idea of what you meant and would spend more time focused on the actual point of your post. ‘These folks’ do deserve to be ‘respected’, as do you. Or, rather, respected, without the scare quotes.
By the way, what brought to mind the camel/needle image, and what has that to do with the Republican party, apart from the fact that elephants are larger than camels, thus implying a lower needle-passage rate? I suppose a government program could be implemented that would help us avoid (or remedy) the dangerous fate of being rich…but then, we have many such programs already.
JH, I don’t agree with you that the America article is suggesting that Catholics who disagree with Democratic Party positions should “shut up”–just that they should speak to power with a different, more respectful and more prudent tone.
And I DO think that much of the posturing over the Obama degree is pure partisanship and has very little to do with any earnest attempt to engage his Administration in a dialogue regarding how his Administration’s policies might be reconciled with Catholic social justice teachings regarding the “sanctity of life.”
I honestly believe that the same people who are attacking Notre Dame for having invited him to be his commencement speaker would attack HIM if he now turned around and declined the invitation because of the apparent damage it is doing to the unity of a major religious denomination in the country he governs–which is, by the way, what I believe he should do.
I believe that those same people would allege that he was doing it for purely partisan political reasons and to score points against the “Christianists”–to show how “non-partisan” he is, and how inflexible they are.
Be that as it may, they actually ARE that “inflexible”; the Catholic right, who now dominate in all but the most cosmopolitan dioceses and archdioceses of America are at WAR with Obama. His Administration should, therefore, make no attempt to “dialogue” with them, should appoint Kmiec–or nobody–as Ambassador to the Vatican (to signal to the Pope and his curia that they must rein in the bishops who’d use the Eucharist as a political weapon) and should simply refrain from responding to their carping and taunts until, after electoral defeat after electoral defeat, the American laity learn what they are doing to themselves by following an element who wish to winnow the American Church down to “the pure.”
This is, in my opinion, the only way to begin to fashion the “Catholic Party” to promote “subsidiarity,” which is being touted on another post here, and which is, in my opinion, the direction that the American Catholic Church should attempt to go in, politically.
“The point, I think, of the post and the editorial is that, in light of the fact that these people DO exist and the damage that they are doing to the Church, to people’s perception of the Church, and to the pro-life cause as a whole, what are some suggestions for moving forward?”
Okay, so that was the point of the post. The problem is the assumption in the editorial…and thus in the post that the instigators of the protest against Obama’s being honored by Notre Dame must be republicatholics. It cannot be that all of them, most of them, half of them are Catholics who happen to have come down republican during this last election, i.e. Catholics first who after prudential judgments have again decided to vote Republican.
For that matter, it cannot be that the protesters are democatholics or wait… democraticatholics… whatever, who simply believe that Notre Dame should listen to the Bishops when they say, “Don’t honor people who advocate for, increase funding to, and routinely defend the legality of killing innocent babies… and who publicly promise the abortion industry that they will do all they can to make it even more legal… and for God’s sake don’t honor them with a law degree!”
This cannot be the case, why? Well, it is certainly not because America has polled the signers to the protest. It is not because Pew Research asked those who disagree with ND’s decision not only how they voted by *why*.
Of course this is all apart from the other accusation about the “harm” being done to the Church’s public perception and the pro-life movement. Now that is a debate to have. I frankly have never seen the bishops so united over a thing that they didn’t have a direct monetary interest in. Indeed I like the idea that we are being sectarian. More sectarianism the better I say. Let’s get the bishops to start decrying Hollywood, the porn industry, small portions in restaurants, and interleague play.
Seriously though, we all recognize that there are Catholics who put politics, wealth, porn, drink, NASCAR before their faith. That’s not a surprise. We can call them pornocatholics, or wealthocatholics, or autocatholics, or alcoholics . That doesn’t matter, and Michael, for the record, I don’t care that you used republicatholic. They do exist. What is offensive is that America magazine wants to pin these public protests to Republican Catholics, or Republican Faith Partisans (that’s Kmiec’s lovely moniker for those he doesn’t agree with), or republicisticathoholics. What is offensive is that there is the assumption from the “richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition” folk that there is no thinking here. It is just partisan politics. That’s crap. Sorry, but that’s lazy crap to boot. I know America is guilty of it, I don’t know if Michael is guilty of it. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
And who are these Vatican officials who are “concerned” about the Catholic partisans here? Burke? Are you kidding?
I frankly have never seen the bishops so united over a thing that they didn’t have a direct monetary interest in.
Certainly the bishops we have heard from are united. But I hardly think we can point to them, a minority, and say that “the bishops” are united.
Indeed I like the idea that we are being sectarian. More sectarianism the better I say. Let’s get the bishops to start decrying Hollywood, the porn industry, small portions in restaurants, and interleague play.
Hahah!
What is offensive is that there is the assumption from the “richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition” folk that there is no thinking here.
That’s a good point. Another (wrong) assumption is that the “broad tent tradition” would not oppose at least Obama receiving an honorary degree.
I really wanted to like this editorial – but I have to admit this aint it. It feels helpless and dated –
A very unimaginative write up IMHO – aka “Third, all sides should return to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI that in politics there are usually several ways to attain the same goals.”-
Yeah right this will do the trick – please.
I actually think there will be some genuine catholic renewal – but it will not be along the lines envisioned by America.
“And I DO think that much of the posturing over the Obama degree is pure partisanship and has very little to do with any earnest attempt to engage his Administration in a dialogue regarding how his Administration’s policies might be reconciled with Catholic social justice teachings regarding the “sanctity of life.”
Your theory has been disputed many times on many Catholic websites. The “dialogue” you speak of is not an issue. Obama was not invited to Notre Dame to dialogue. He was invited to receive an honorary law degree (ironic because of his intensely pro-choice positions, in case you didn’t catch that) and give a speech, after which he will probably fly back to Washington. There will be no conversation.
And his talk of dialoguing with pro-life advocates is just that: talk. Look at what he’s done so far and there is no indication that he means to compromise with us.
“His Administration should, therefore, make no attempt to “dialogue” with them, should appoint Kmiec–or nobody–as Ambassador to the Vatican (to signal to the Pope and his curia that they must rein in the bishops who’d use the Eucharist as a political weapon) and should simply refrain from responding to their carping and taunts until, after electoral defeat after electoral defeat, the American laity learn what they are doing to themselves by following an element who wish to winnow the American Church down to “the pure.”
Ironic to see a comment like this in a post decrying “Republicatholic” sectarianism. You’re basically saying screw the Church authorities because they refuse to play by Obama’s rules, and you talk about “reining in” our bishops. Now if that isn’t a good example of political identity before Catholic identity…
There will be no conversation.
You obviously haven’t been paying even an IOTA of attention to ANYTHING Obama has been attempting to do since becoming President. I honestly believe it will be HE who at Notre Dame will attempt to commence a “dialogue” with the pro-life spokespeople of the Catholic Right.
However, I also think that his graciousness in attempting to do so will be spurned.
And the “Church authorities” MUST agree to “play by Obama’s rules” if they are going to attempt to influence public policy, because “Obama’s rules” are NOT “Obama’s rules”; they are the Constitutional prerogatives of the office he occupies–that of the duly elected President of the United States. However, I don’t think they should even attempt, at this stage, to influence “public policy”; they should, instead, start “playing politics” only in terms of the principles of “subsidiarity”–building hospices for pregnant, unmarried women, educating their own people in the “Theology of the Body” (which I think has been “dumbed down” in America to only apply to married heterosexual couples who are attempting to “time” their procreativity), to educating folks regarding the connections between capital punishment, rapacious globalist economics, cloning and embryonic stem cell research and abortion. In short, I think that the non-existent Catholic culture of America needs to be constructed BEFORE starting a Catholic Political Party based on the excellent pre-capitalist principles of subsidiarity discussed on another thread here today.
American Catholics seem to have absolutely no take on the intellectual and philosophical connections between the Protestant heresies that the American civil religion is founded on and abortion. American Catholics DESPERATELY need to be educated, before anything else, about how alien their religious tradition is to the whole American liberal tradition.
Digbydolben is exactly right about the posturing.
Look at the conservative sponored National Prayer Breakfast. The Right Wing absolutely twisted itself into knots damnimg Obama for not being there, but then saying he was too evil to be invited, then saying he would have been invited but didn’t express any interest (as if the President, who gets 10,000 invitations an hour goes out looking for more), but then saying if he showed up he couldn’t speak but just maybe sit in the kitchen and eat breakfast there where his kind belong (“his kind” meaning pro-choice/pro-gay rights people, I’m sure!), then saying he should have sent an Administration official, then saying none of the Democrats in the Administration were acceptable.
It was comic.
I agree 100% that American Catholics need to be bettered educated.
As far as your claim that Obama means to dialogue with us, I have yet to see anything that convinces me. In fact I have been paying close attention to what he has been doing; can you cite an example or two of his graciousness towards pro-lifers? Aside from smooth rhetoric, what has he done?
I’m not going to defend “Right Wingers,” as they’re not my concern. I think the politicization of some of these issues is a big problem and is serving as a smoke screen. We decry the pro-abortion policies of the Obama administration, and people pop out of the woodwork and point out that we’re being partisan or sectarian because we didn’t oppose the Bush regime in X, Y, and Z. First off, some of us did. Secondly, they’re not equal issues. The life issue is the foundation upon which so many others are built (I suspect you may agree with me there).
Furthermore, there are no Constitutional perogatives stating or implying that any religion or church cannot attempt to sway or influence policy decisions. The Constitution provides for freedom of worship and defends religion from state interference, not vice versa.
I have been paying close attention as well and as far as I can tell it is the Right to Life Establishment that has refused to dialogue or meet with the new Administration. They elected not to meet with the Transition Team. They did not submit names for the Faith Based Partnership. They have not been willing to work with the Administration on common ground abortion reduction.
The Administration does not support making abortion illegal. That is known. But as far as openness to dialogue, it seems that Obama has an outstreached hand and it has been the Pro-Life Establishment that has refused any attempt at dialogue. Pathetic.