New Pope Elected

[greyhammer90]

An interesting philosophical debate could be had at the paradox of a catholic calling the Pope a parasite.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

An interesting philosophical debate could be had at the paradox of a catholic calling the Pope a parasite.

How "Catholic" can someone like Mullarkey honestly claim to be when she chooses to side with the GOP over the Church?

 

[greyhammer90]

How "Catholic" can someone like Mullarkey honestly claim to be when she chooses to side with the GOP over the Church?

Sounds like the beginning of a thesis.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Considering the palpable weight which falls upon persons who "ascend" to leadership positions in crystallized organizations, this Pope is doing more to get The Church back to its basic charge of caring for the poor, weak, in-trouble elements of God's Creation than I could ever have imagined in my rather imaginative fantasies. He proceeds by NOT ordering much of anything --- he's not a power-wielding thug --- but rather trying to get people {especially his clergy} to get their minds and hearts back on the track of Christ's New Testament Gospel message. He's hoping that everyone still has some goodness and willingness to sacrifice in them.

Some of us welcome that almost with tears of joy --- it has been sometimes hard trying to be proud of my Catholicism when certain behaviors and "values" of the Vatican and the "Magisterium" [what a joke] would come up. Fortunately it was always obvious to me that the Church was the grass-roots not the guys with the pointed hats. THANK GOD Francis has decided to show that it's obvious that he is one of US, rather than the Boys-on-the Pyramid-Top Crowd.

Francis is a Prophet who is trying to prophesy without shaking The Church violently apart. His approach this far has been brilliant. But if some "fellows" in Cardinal Red [like Burke] don't want to read their New Testaments anymore, and stick with an angry Jehovah killing people left and right, I say "don't let the Door to the Sacristy hit you in the Ass." Fearful and greedy people always hate prophets.

 

[wizards8507]

How "Catholic" can someone like Mullarkey honestly claim to be when she chooses to side with the GOP over the Church?

Papal authority isn't all-encompassing. I can't imagine that you'd be willing to burden a Catholic's conscience with guilt for disagreeing with a Pope who says that the sky is orange because the chlorophyll in the cellular structure of clouds refracts sound waves generated by the silicon-based life forms that live on Venus. He can speak to the morality of a thing but he's not free to invent facts or prescribe solutions based on a faulty information.

Example: Legitimate papal authority dictates "a society has the responsibility to help the poor" but it's an overreach for him to continue "...which is best accomplished by State intervention and redistribution of wealth," because the latter clause is factually inaccurate and is an expression of an economic doctrine rather than a theological one.

Another example: Legitimate papal authority dictates "we have the responsibility to care for God's creation" but it's an overreach for him to continue "...which is best accomplished by State intervention and mandatory carbon taxes on business."

While it would be sinful to reject the poor or abuse God's creation, it can't be sinful to follow one's conscience regarding the best method to care for those things. Being a "good Catholic" doesn't mean you have to agree with the Pope on all things. I'm sure he would have loved for Argentina to win the World Cup, but that doesn't make it sinful to have cheered for Germany, because Argentinian football superiority has nothing to do with Church doctrine nor dogma.

 

[connor_in]

Papal authority isn't all-encompassing. I can't imagine that you'd be willing to burden a Catholic's conscience with guilt for disagreeing with a Pope who says that the sky is orange because the chlorophyll in the cellular structure of clouds refracts sound waves generated by the silicon-based life forms that live on Venus. He can speak to the morality of a thing but he's not free to invent facts or prescribe solutions based on a faulty information.

Example: Legitimate papal authority dictates "a society has the responsibility to help the poor" but it's an overreach for him to continue "...which is best accomplished by State intervention and redistribution of wealth," because the latter clause is factually inaccurate and is an expression of an economic doctrine rather than a theological one.

Another example: Legitimate papal authority dictates "we have the responsibility to care for God's creation" but it's an overreach for him to continue "...which is best accomplished by State intervention and mandatory carbon taxes on business."

While it would be sinful to reject the poor or abuse God's creation, it can't be sinful to follow one's conscience regarding the best method to care for those things. Being a "good Catholic" doesn't mean you have to agree with the Pope on all things. I'm sure he would have loved for Argentina to win the World Cup, but that doesn't make it sinful to have cheered for Germany, because Argentinian football superiority has nothing to do with Church doctrine nor dogma.

I am pretty sure it is sinful to root for Germany in soccer/football/fussball (sorry no es-tset on my keyboard).

 

[RDU Irish]

You guys sound like the anti-Kennedy crowd. Oh, my! The pope is going to be controlling the president!!!

I am offended by those that think I am unable to think freely and look only to the church for direction on how I am supposed to think. OMM, I agree with a majority of what you said. I will only add that he should stick to the message of helping the poor, etc and stop trying to blame capitalists for all of the worlds' plights.

Catholic guilt only takes you so far, a positive, proactive mission will draw more people to contribute to the cause than berating them for not caring and implicitly accusing them of exploitation.

 

[wizards8507]

You guys sound like the anti-Kennedy crowd. Oh, my! The pope is going to be controlling the president!!!

I am offended by those that think I am unable to think freely and look only to the church for direction on how I am supposed to think. OMM, I agree with a majority of what you said. I will only add that he should stick to the message of helping the poor, etc and stop trying to blame capitalists for all of the worlds' plights.

Catholic guilt only takes you so far, a positive, proactive mission will draw more people to contribute to the cause than berating them for not caring and implicitly accusing them of exploitation.

It's not just he shouldn't be BLAMING, capitalism, it's that he should be actively promoting capitalism. Capitalism (in its pure form, not the perverted cronyism we have today) has lifted more people out of poverty than any system of government or public program ever has or ever will.

 

[gkIrish]

My perspective of the Pope as a non-Catholic is that he is doing an awesome job of modernizing the faith. I think it's necessary and positive.

That's all I really wanted to say.

 

[RDU Irish]

It's not just he shouldn't be BLAMING, capitalism, it's that he should be actively promoting capitalism. Capitalism (in its pure form, not the perverted cronyism we have today) has lifted more people out of poverty than any system of government or public program ever has or ever will.

AMEN BROTHER!

Just yesterday our parish priest berated parents at a PTO meeting for not digging deep enough in the offertory making a ridiculous claim about the parish subsidizing the school. I got into it with him a bit in the meeting, his numbers were absurd and the school actually just went in the black to the tune of $700k/year with original construction loans being paid off literally this month. At that exact time he shows up claiming we are parasites.

He is your average complete financial moron when it comes to priests, don't blame him. Noodling over it, I start to see the ranks of the inner circle are a ton of libs and apologists. Guy is getting horrible info and being played by parish focused folks that want to view the school as a parasite instead of the wonderful, self sufficient ministry that it is. In the end, they are biting the hand that feeds them. Instead of providing a forward looking mission and goal for people, they use fear and guilt.

I am not sure why I would expect any less of the Catholic Church but they really shouldn't be surprised when people take their money elsewhere in light of piss poor transparency and "just trust me" attitude. Especially at our parish where there was a financial mess six years ago (substantially brought to the forefront by yours truly) in which they went from $2M in the bank to a $2M emergency loan from the diocese due to severely negligent financial management. But hey, just trust us and give more, you don't need to know the details!

Mentality of clergy runs completely counter to pro-capitalism and "Trust but Verify" practitioners. The only reason they butter up to "those people" is to get in their pocket. In our case, anyone of a conservative mindset is being pushed away and not surprisingly tightening their purse strings.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Papal authority isn't all-encompassing.

Who said it was?

He can speak to the morality of a thing but he's not free to invent facts or prescribe solutions based on a faulty information.

When has a Pope done these things?

Example: Legitimate papal authority dictates "a society has the responsibility to help the poor" but it's an overreach for him to continue "...which is best accomplished by State intervention and redistribution of wealth," because the latter clause is factually inaccurate and is an expression of an economic doctrine rather than a theological one.

Another example: Legitimate papal authority dictates "we have the responsibility to care for God's creation" but it's an overreach for him to continue "...which is best accomplished by State intervention and mandatory carbon taxes on business."

So the Pope's proper role is to pronounce on abstract theological and philosophical issues, but he crosses a line when he outlines the obvious policy preferences that flow from those positions? God forbid the Church find fault in laissez-faire capitalism, preventative war, or any other mainstay of the GOP's platform! Doesn't Rome realize we're in the middle of a culture war here?

 

[RDU Irish]

http://cara.georgetown.edu/presidential%20vote%20only.pdf

If anything Catholics trend Democrat. I don't get how they are painted as "theocons" that is more of a wingnut Baptist thing than Catholic.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

So the Pope's proper role is to pronounce on abstract theological and philosophical issues, but he crosses a line when he outlines the obvious policy preferences that flow from those positions? God forbid the Church find fault in laissez-faire capitalism, preventative war, or any other mainstay of the GOP's platform! Doesn't Rome realize we're in the middle of a culture war here?

Get that Rerum Novarium stuff out of here

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I am offended by those that think I am unable to think freely and look only to the church for direction on how I am supposed to think.

Catholics are free to exercise a right of conscience if, following serious prayer and study, they genuinely believe they are being led to dissent from the Church in some way. But many have a reached a point with their dissent where one has to question if they're "Catholic" in any meaningful sense of the word anymore.

It's not just he shouldn't be BLAMING, capitalism, it's that he should be actively promoting capitalism. Capitalism (in its pure form, not the perverted cronyism we have today) has lifted more people out of poverty than any system of government or public program ever has or ever will.

Rerum Novarum condemned communism, affirmed the human right to private property, and basically endorsed capitalism (though not without restrictions). That encyclical has since been affirmed by three different popes.

Though that shouldn't insulate capitalism from criticism. As Churchill once said of democracy, it's a terrible system, except for all the others that have been tried. And since the global economy is now capitalist, identifying and reducing its flaws has become more important than ever. Again, I'd suggest that if you're more concerned with defending an ideology than with morality, your beliefs probably aren't very Catholic.

AMEN BROTHER!

Just yesterday our parish priest berated parents at a PTO meeting for not digging deep enough in the offertory making a ridiculous claim about the parish subsidizing the school. I got into it with him a bit in the meeting, his numbers were absurd and the school actually just went in the black to the tune of $700k/year with original construction loans being paid off literally this month. At that exact time he shows up claiming we are parasites.

He is your average complete financial moron when it comes to priests, don't blame him. Noodling over it, I start to see the ranks of the inner circle are a ton of libs and apologists. Guy is getting horrible info and being played by parish focused folks that want to view the school as a parasite instead of the wonderful, self sufficient ministry that it is. In the end, they are biting the hand that feeds them. Instead of providing a forward looking mission and goal for people, they use fear and guilt.

I am not sure why I would expect any less of the Catholic Church but they really shouldn't be surprised when people take their money elsewhere in light of piss poor transparency and "just trust me" attitude. Especially at our parish where there was a financial mess six years ago (substantially brought to the forefront by yours truly) in which they went from $2M in the bank to a $2M emergency loan from the diocese due to severely negligent financial management. But hey, just trust us and give more, you don't need to know the details!

Mentality of clergy runs completely counter to pro-capitalism and "Trust but Verify" practitioners. The only reason they butter up to "those people" is to get in their pocket. In our case, anyone of a conservative mindset is being pushed away and not surprisingly tightening their purse strings.

I'll be the among the last to defend the incompetence and corruption of the Catholic Church's hierarchy. The American Church in particular is in a terrible state, and I can hardly blame those who lose faith after looking behind the scenes. But the theology is sound, and it kills me when I see someone throw such a priceless patrimony away (almost always without understanding it well) based on the fallibility that one finds in all human institutions.

 

[RDU Irish]

It is very frustrating to see the potential for great things only for short sighted, small minded idiots to obstruct any real conversation. Maybe if I were a better Eucharistic Minister and had more grey hair I would have more street cred with the robed ones.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Lest anyone think I'm shilling for the Democrats, here's a blog post about Catholicism not fitting into the American political dichotomy:

On the animated sitcom, King of the Hill, there’s an awkward but funny scene in the first season when redneck Hank Hill and his friend Bill meet their new Laotian neighbor, Kahn.

Hank: So are you Chinese or Japanese?
Kahn: I live in California last twenty year, but, ah… first come from Laos.
Hank: Huh?
Kahn: Laos. We Laotian.
Bill: The ocean? What ocean?
Kahn: We are Laotian-from Laos, stupid! It’s a landlocked country in southeast Asia. It’s between Vietnam and Thailand, OK? Population 4.7 million.
Hank:…So are you Chinese or Japanese?

With most Americans, trying to explain a Catholic political perspective is a lot like a Laotian trying to explain his nationality to Hank Hill. This is a typical exchange:

Concerned citizen: So are you a Democrat or a Republican?
Me: Well, neither. I’m a Catholic.
Concerned citizen: Huh?
Me: Uh. I fundamentally disagree with the underlying principles of both parties. I’m Catholic.
Concerned citizen: Well I heard that new pope is a communist. Are you a liberal?
Me: NO! I’m a Catholic.
Concerned Citizen: But didn’t the last pope hate gays? Are you some kinda conservative?
Me: Buuuuuuh. Catholic political thought predates these stupid parties by well over a thousand years! Criticizing capitalism does not make you a communist and rejecting communism does not mean you embrace industrial capitalism. Your spectrum is broken because it’s based on faulty Enlightenment thinking. Both parties have disjointed and contradictory platforms because modernity has failed you! Catholicism offers a comprehensive and COHERENT alternative that doesn’t fit on the ridiculous American political chart.
Concerned citizen: …so are you a Democrat or a Republican?
[Disclaimer: This wasn’t a real conversation and that isn’t how I talk.]

And, so it goes. Like poor Hank, who can’t understand that there are other countries in Asia, most Americans can’t imagine something that isn’t either generally liberal-Democrat or generally conservative-Republican. I don’t blame people who think this way. Our mass media is completely entrenched in this dichotomy. We’re constantly told of the “polarization of America” and every idea and political group is pinned somewhere on a left/right spectrum. Anything to the right is conservative and to the left is liberal. The blessed, golden middle of this spectrum is referred to as “moderate.” According to most pundits, the further away you get from moderate, the worse things become until you arrive at the absolute extremes of fascism on one end or marxism on the other (Curiously, Hitler seems to be present at both extremes. Political theorists are still working out why this is so).

The problem with this spectrum idea is twofold. For one, it conflates completely unrelated topics as if they followed the same principles. There’s really no reason people who agree on taxation should also agree on homosexuality. Or that someone who is pro-abortion should also be anti-death penalty. Yet, in this country, we automatically assume that someone who supports environmental protection will also support gun control even though these issues are, in reality, only vaguely related.

Secondly, we become completely oblivious to the origins of our perspectives and unable to imagine or understand the myriad of political ideas that have existed over the millennia and continue to exist today. No where is this more clear than when it comes to Catholicism in American politics. Catholic teaching opposes unjust war AND abortion because our view of human life is explicitly Christian and NOT utilitarian. Catholic teaching supports traditional marriage AND environmental stewardship because of a well developed understanding of what human beings actually are and how they should relate both to each other and the rest of creation. Catholic teaching opposes communism AND capitalism because both of these economic philosophies treat human beings as numbers in an equation and encourage obsession with wealth.

There simply isn’t a political party in America that mirrors Catholic values and teachings. And this isn’t about trying to mount some moral high horse. Nor is it about a general dissatisfactions with politics and politicians in general. This is about the deep, deep philosophical chasm that yawns between ancient, unchanged Catholic teaching and the brand new Enlightenment philosophy that is the foundation of both major parties in this country (and most other countries these days).

Now, on King of the Hill, Hank’s ignorance of world geography may have been annoying to Kahn but it never posed any real danger. But, for Catholics trying to follow the Church’s teachings on political issues, there is a danger beyond extreme frustration. We risk becoming ensnared in the false dichotomy of conservative and liberal and ultimately violating our consciences. For instance, because of the party’s stance against abortion, some Catholics might join up with Republicans only to then adopt their very uncatholic views on immigration, wealth, the poor, etc. And others might see positive streaks of social justice among the Democrats and so sign up only to become apologists for abortion and euthanasia.

I’m absolutely not saying you can’t be a faithful Catholic and vote for a Democrat or Republican. And I’m not saying Catholics who remain unaffiliated are necessarily being faithful to the magisterium. We should absolutely vote! I’m just saying we should also be careful. Voting for someone doesn’t mean you have to endorse every part of their platform. Express your objections loudly, clearly, and often. Know what the Church teaches and make sure your representatives know what you want. You’re Laotian! Be proud!

And don’t forget! Laotian New Year is coming up in April!

Don't be a Republican or a Democrat. Be a Catholic independent.

http://cara.georgetown.edu/presidential%20vote%20only.pdf

If anything Catholics trend Democrat. I don't get how they are painted as "theocons" that is more of a wingnut Baptist thing than Catholic.

"Liberal Catholicism" isn't really a force within the American Church, whereas the theocons definitely are. This article from (ND professor) Patrick Deneen touches on it:

For most casual observers, whether Catholic or not, the main battle lines within American Catholicism today seem self-evident. The cleavage overlaps perfectly the divide between the political parties, leading to the frequently-used labels “liberal” and “conservative” Catholics. We have Nancy Pelosi and Andrew Cuomo representing the Left, and Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback aligned with the Right. Mainstream opinion has classified Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI as honorary Republicans, and Pope Francis as a Democrat (hence, why he is appearing on the covers of Time and Rolling Stone magazines).

This division does indeed capture real battle lines, but more than anything, the divide is merely an extension of our politics, and—while manned by real actors—does not capture where the real action is to be found today in American Catholic circles.

The real action does not involve liberal “Catholics” at all. Liberal Catholicism, while well-represented in elite circles of the Democratic Party, qua Catholicism is finished. Liberal Catholicism has no future—like liberal Protestantism, it is fated to become liberalism simpliciter within a generation. The children of liberal Catholics will either want their liberalism unvarnished by incense and holy water, or they will rebel and ask if there’s something more challenging, disobeying their parents by “reverting” to Catholicism. While “liberal” Catholicism will appear to be a force because it will continue to have political representation, as a “project” and a theology, like liberal Protestantism it is doomed to oblivion.

The real battle is taking place beyond the purview of the pages of Time Magazine and the New York Times. The battle pits two camps of “conservative” Catholicism (let’s dispense with that label immediately and permanently—as my argument suggests, and others have said better, our political labels are inadequate to the task).

On the one side one finds an older American tradition of orthodox Catholicism as it has developed in the nation since the mid-twentieth century. It is closely aligned to the work of the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray, and its most visible proponent today is George Weigel, who has inherited the mantle from Richard John Neuhaus and Michael Novak. Its intellectual home remains the journal founded by Neuhaus, First Things. Among its number can be counted thinkers like Robert George, Hadley Arkes, and Robert Royal.

Its basic positions align closely to the arguments developed by John Courtney Murray and others. Essentially, there is no fundamental contradiction between liberal democracy and Catholicism. Liberal democracy is, or at its best can be, a tolerant home for Catholics, one that acknowledges contributions of the Catholic tradition and is leavened by its moral commitments. While liberalism alone can be brittle and thin—its stated neutrality can leave it awash in relativism and indifferentism—it is deepened and rendered more sustainable by the Catholic presence. Murray went so far as to argue that America is in fact more Catholic than even its Protestant founders realized—that they availed themselves unknowingly of a longer and deeper tradition of natural law that undergirded the thinner liberal commitments of the American founding. The Founders “built better than they knew,” and so it is Catholics like Orestes Brownson and Murray, and not liberal lions like John Locke or Thomas Jefferson, who have better articulated and today defends the American project.

Proponents of this position argue that America was well-founded and took a wrong turn in the late-19th century with the embrace of Progressivism (this intellectual position, closely associated with intellectuals at Claremont McKenna College and Hillsdale College, was briefly popularized by Glenn Beck. It has been developed not especially by Catholics, but by students of Leo Strauss, but has been widely embraced by Catholics of this school). The task, then, is restore the basic principles of the American founding—limited government in which the social and moral mores largely arising from the familial and social sphere orient people toward well-ordered and moral lives. This position especially stresses a commitment to the pro-life position and a defense of marriage, and is generally accepting of a more laissez-faire economic position. It supports a vigorous foreign policy and embraces a close alignment between Catholicism and Americanism. It has become closely aligned with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.

On the other side is arrayed what might be characterized as a more radical Catholicism. Its main intellectual heroes are the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and the theologian David L. Schindler (brilliantly profiled in the pages of TAC by Jeremy Beer). These two figures write in arcane and sometimes impenetrable prose, and their position lacks comparably visible popularizers such as Neuhaus, Novak, and Weigel. Its intellectual home—not surprisingly—is the less-accessible journal Communio. An occasional popularizer (though not always in strictly theological terms) has been TAC author Rod Dreher. A number of its sympathizers—less well-known—are theologians, some of whom have published in more popular outlets or accessible books, such as Michael Baxter, William T. Cavanaugh, and John Medaille. Among its rising stars include the theologian C.C. Pecknold of Catholic University and Andrew Haines, who founded its online home, Ethika Politika. From time to time I have been counted among its number.

The “radical” school rejects the view that Catholicism and liberal democracy are fundamentally compatible. Rather, liberalism cannot be understood to be merely neutral and ultimately tolerant toward (and even potentially benefitting from) Catholicism. Rather, liberalism is premised on a contrary view of human nature (and even a competing theology) to Catholicism. Liberalism holds that human beings are essentially separate, sovereign selves who will cooperate based upon grounds of utility. According to this view, liberalism is not a “shell” philosophy that allows a thousand flowers to bloom. Rather, liberalism is constituted by a substantive set of philosophical commitments that are deeply contrary to the basic beliefs of Catholicism, among which (Catholics hold) are the belief that we are by nature relational, social and political creatures; that social units like the family, community and Church are “natural,” not merely the result of individuals contracting temporary arrangements; that liberty is not a condition in which we experience the absence of constraint, but the exercise of self-limitation; and that both the “social” realm and the economic realm must be governed by a thick set of moral norms, above all, self-limitation and virtue.

Because of these positions, the “radical” position—while similarly committed to the pro-life, pro-marriage teachings of the Church—is deeply critical of contemporary arrangements of market capitalism, is deeply suspicious of America’s imperial ambitions, and wary of the basic premises of liberal government. It is comfortable with neither party, and holds that the basic political division in America merely represents two iterations of liberalism—the pursuit of individual autonomy in either the social/personal sphere (liberalism) or the economic realm (“conservatism”—better designated as market liberalism). Because America was founded as a liberal nation, “radical” Catholicism tends to view America as a deeply flawed project, and fears that the anthropological falsehood at the heart of the American founding is leading inexorably to civilizational catastrophe. It wavers between a defensive posture, encouraging the creation of small moral communities that exist apart from society—what Rod Dreher, following Alasdair MacIntyre, has dubbed “the Benedict Option”—and, occasionally, a more proactive posture that hopes for the conversion of the nation to a fundamentally different and truer philosophy and theology.

While the New York Times (and Fox News) focuses on the theater pitting “liberal” vs. “conservative” Catholics, it has been altogether ignorant of the significant and, arguably, increasingly vociferous dust-ups that have been taking place between these two schools of thought. Recently, for example, Michael Baxter wrote a searing critique of John Courtney Murray, which provoked a vigorous response from George Weigel. Not too long ago, I was asked to write an essay about liberalism for the “other team’s” journal, First Things—entitled “Unsustainable Liberalism“—which provoked not just the two critical responses in the same issue, but a critique by Villanova Law professor Robert Miller and another more recently by Andrew Latham. The article was also criticized by my colleague Phillip Munoz and by Nathan Schleuter, with responses by me, going several more rounds, in the online journal “Public Discourse,” a publication closely associated with Robert George and the Witherspoon Institute. More recently still, a shrill salvo was launched by John Zmirak entitled “Illiberal Catholicism,” accusing the “rad trads” of pining for the reestablishment of Inquisition and hoping for an auto-da-fe of a few Protestants at the stake. His broadside provoked numerous responses, and signalled a considerable ratcheting-up of the battles over the fate of Catholicism in America. Just yesterday, Ethika Politika posted a critique of George Weigel by Thomas Storck, arguing that Weigel has been just as likely to act as a “cafeteria Catholic” as those he criticizes on the Left. One can expect the debate will only intensify as the stakes increase.

If one paid attention only to canned accounts of things Catholic in the mainstream media, you would think that there’s something called “conservative” Catholicism that spends all of its time fretting about liberal “Catholicism.” That debate, such as it is, is merely our well-rutted political division with a Latin accent; the real intellectual action that will likely influence the future of Catholicism in America is being fought in trenches largely out of sight of much of the American public, even those who are well-informed. As this debate develops—and, I believe, bursts into public view, and begins to engage the Catholic remnant—major implications for the relationship of Catholics to America, and America to Catholics, hang in the balance.

It is already evident for anyone with eyes to see that elites in America are returning to their customary hostility toward Catholicism, albeit now eschewing crude prejudice in favor of Mandates and legal filings (though there’s plenty of crude prejudice, too). For those in the Murray/Neuhaus/Weigel school, it’s simply a matter of returning us to the better days, and reviving the sound basis on which the nation was founded. For those in the MacIntyre/Schindler school, America was never well-founded, so either needs to be differently re-founded or at least endured, even survived. The relationship of Catholicism to America, and America to Catholicism, began with rancor and hostility, but became a comfortable partnership forged in the cauldron of World War II and the Cold War. Was that period one of “ordinary time,” or an aberration which is now passing, returning us to the inescapably hostile relationship? A growing body of evidence suggests that the latter possibility can’t simply be dismissed out of hand: liberalism appears to be daily more hostile to Catholicism, not merely disagreeing with its stances, but demanding that they be changed in conformity to liberal views on self-sovereignty (especially relating to human sexuality and marriage) or, failing that, that the Church be defined out of the bounds of decent liberal society, an institution no more respectable than the Ku Klux Klan. Whether the marriage between the (Catholic) Church and the (American) State can be rescued, or whether a divorce is in the offing, depends in large part on the outcome of this burgeoning debate about which most Americans are wholly unaware, but to which those with interests in the fate of the imperial Republic should to be paying attention.

I align with Deneen, McIntyre (also an ND prof), and Schindler much more than the theocons on this question.

 

[johnsben]

My perspective of the Pope as a non-Catholic is that he is doing an awesome job of modernizing the faith. I think it's necessary and positive.

That's all I really wanted to say.

More accurately, he is presenting the faith in a modern context. The faith is unchanging. If Jesus Christ is eternal then too is his teachings. The Church can not and will not ever change its teachings on homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia but can present these teachings in a context for the culture of the times. I thank God that a Pope is expressing the Lord's love for people living a homosexual lifestyle or supporting abortion. This doesn't mean that these lifestyles are condoned.

Concerning the environment and climate change, the Pope's encyclical will most likely walk a fine line between human welfare and care for God's creation. I don't see him coming out with crazy claims of how the ice caps will be gone in 5 years but he certainly can point to facts like the BP oil spill, deforestation and the like where anyone can see the failure of humanity to care for God's creation.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It is very frustrating to see the potential for great things only for short sighted, small minded idiots to obstruct any real conversation. Maybe if I were a better Eucharistic Minister and had more grey hair I would have more street cred with the robed ones.

Most parishes are in desperate need of capable and engaged lay administrators (especially when it comes to economic issues). Please don't give up on it.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Everything the Pope has said in his reign (or whatever you would call it) has been the same that Jesus preached and that the Church has said for centuries. Pope Francis has just done an incredible job of looking compassionate and speaking out on perceived wrongs. Whereas Benedict was more of a writer or philosopher, Francis is a spokesman. Francis has done a great job of spreading Jesus's word. Jesus would not support trickle down economics or destroying the environment. It's clear from the Scripture.

 

[palinurus]

I think there is a lot of confusion here and in the Church, and this pope, sadly, has done a lot to cause that. Failing to correct media reports that take his comments out of context is a serious fault. And I wonder at the arrogance of those, who, while draped in the mantle of self-described Christian love, put the word "Magisterium" in quote marks, all the better to justify their own hubris and unprincipled rejection of Church teaching.

 

[palinurus]

The author here creates a false dichotomy between the pope, as a person, and the Republican Party, as though there is a Republican Party "teaching" or as though Catholics must agree with every word the pope says.

When one rejects what a pope says, what matters is whether what is being rejected is Church teaching -- the Magisterium -- or one man's ill informed opinion in prudential matters. So one can shake their head, if he wishes, at the silliness of this pope's pronouncements regarding economics and yet respect and acknowledge his authority related to Church teaching, knowing that, in the latter, as opposed to the former, the Holy Spirit will not allow error, even while people can disagree with his statements on prudential matters.

 

[irishog77]

"Liberal Catholicism" isn't really a force within the American Church, whereas the theocons definitely are. This article from (ND professor) Patrick Deneen touches on it:



I align with Deneen, McIntyre (also an ND prof), and Schindler much more than the theocons on this question.

On the one side one finds an older American tradition of orthodox Catholicism as it has developed in the nation since the mid-twentieth century. It is closely aligned to the work of the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray, and its most visible proponent today is George Weigel, who has inherited the mantle from Richard John Neuhaus and Michael Novak. Its intellectual home remains the journal founded by Neuhaus, First Things. Among its number can be counted thinkers like Robert George, Hadley Arkes, and Robert Royal.

Its basic positions align closely to the arguments developed by John Courtney Murray and others. Essentially, there is no fundamental contradiction between liberal democracy and Catholicism. Liberal democracy is, or at its best can be, a tolerant home for Catholics, one that acknowledges contributions of the Catholic tradition and is leavened by its moral commitments. While liberalism alone can be brittle and thin—its stated neutrality can leave it awash in relativism and indifferentism—it is deepened and rendered more sustainable by the Catholic presence. Murray went so far as to argue that America is in fact more Catholic than even its Protestant founders realized—that they availed themselves unknowingly of a longer and deeper tradition of natural law that undergirded the thinner liberal commitments of the American founding. The Founders “built better than they knew,” and so it is Catholics like Orestes Brownson and Murray, and not liberal lions like John Locke or Thomas Jefferson, who have better articulated and today defends the American project.

Proponents of this position argue that America was well-founded and took a wrong turn in the late-19th century with the embrace of Progressivism (this intellectual position, closely associated with intellectuals at Claremont McKenna College and Hillsdale College, was briefly popularized by Glenn Beck. It has been developed not especially by Catholics, but by students of Leo Strauss, but has been widely embraced by Catholics of this school). The task, then, is restore the basic principles of the American founding—limited government in which the social and moral mores largely arising from the familial and social sphere orient people toward well-ordered and moral lives. This position especially stresses a commitment to the pro-life position and a defense of marriage, and is generally accepting of a more laissez-faire economic position. It supports a vigorous foreign policy and embraces a close alignment between Catholicism and Americanism. It has become closely aligned with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.

On the other side is arrayed what might be characterized as a more radical Catholicism. Its main intellectual heroes are the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and the theologian David L. Schindler (brilliantly profiled in the pages of TAC by Jeremy Beer). These two figures write in arcane and sometimes impenetrable prose, and their position lacks comparably visible popularizers such as Neuhaus, Novak, and Weigel. Its intellectual home—not surprisingly—is the less-accessible journal Communio. An occasional popularizer (though not always in strictly theological terms) has been TAC author Rod Dreher. A number of its sympathizers—less well-known—are theologians, some of whom have published in more popular outlets or accessible books, such as Michael Baxter, William T. Cavanaugh, and John Medaille. Among its rising stars include the theologian C.C. Pecknold of Catholic University and Andrew Haines, who founded its online home, Ethika Politika. From time to time I have been counted among its number.

The “radical” school rejects the view that Catholicism and liberal democracy are fundamentally compatible. Rather, liberalism cannot be understood to be merely neutral and ultimately tolerant toward (and even potentially benefitting from) Catholicism. Rather, liberalism is premised on a contrary view of human nature (and even a competing theology) to Catholicism. Liberalism holds that human beings are essentially separate, sovereign selves who will cooperate based upon grounds of utility. According to this view, liberalism is not a “shell” philosophy that allows a thousand flowers to bloom. Rather, liberalism is constituted by a substantive set of philosophical commitments that are deeply contrary to the basic beliefs of Catholicism, among which (Catholics hold) are the belief that we are by nature relational, social and political creatures; that social units like the family, community and Church are “natural,” not merely the result of individuals contracting temporary arrangements; that liberty is not a condition in which we experience the absence of constraint, but the exercise of self-limitation; and that both the “social” realm and the economic realm must be governed by a thick set of moral norms, above all, self-limitation and virtue.

Not really sure I agree with Deneen's assessment here. I'm not sure many disciples of Leo Strauss, that are Catholic, believe Catholicism and liberal democracy are compatible. I think they believe the founding of America was quite "Catholic," and America has the potential to be quite Catholic, but progressivism and modernity leads the two further and further apart.

Thanks for sharing this-- it was interesting for sure and I enjoyed reading it. I couldn't help, however, but feel a bit like this was a rather biased and self-congratulatory opinion piece written by Deneen in his own defense. I guess it almost had a hint of the prototypical teenage girl, passive-agressive, ongoing saga, that lasts throughout the school year, cat fight...but dressed up as an intellectual essay.

 

[Rhode Irish]

There is a lot to catch up on here. Boiling this conversation down, are we pro- or con- the Cool Pope?

 

[greyhammer90]

There is a lot to catch up on here. Boiling this conversation down, are we pro- or con- the Cool Pope?

We're neither. We're Catholic the new pope.

 

[Irish YJ]

I'm "spiritual" the new pope.

 

[wizards8507]

Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

 

[greyhammer90]

Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

I see what he's trying to say but attempting to liken two men on the street getting into a fight over insults with one large religion killing people who do not follow their rules is a stretch at best and manipulative at worst.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I see what he's trying to say but attempting to liken two men on the street getting into a fight over insults with one large religion killing people who do not follow their rules is a stretch at best and manipulative at worst.

I mean, he's completely right if you add one phrase, which I think is implied

"It's normal. You cannot provoke without consequences. You cannot insult the faith of others without consequences. You cannot make fun of the faith of others without consequences."

Free speech protects us against government intrusion on our rights to certain categories of speech. It does not do anything to shield us from the consequences of that speech (though the criminal law most certainly does in cases like this.) I'm very much a pro-draw Muhammaed type of guy, but I don't think that offensive is always necessary or appropriate.

Also, "one large religion" did not kill anybody. 2 criminals did.

 

[greyhammer90]

I mean, he's completely right if you add one phrase, which I think is implied



Free speech protects us against government intrusion on our rights to certain categories of speech. It does not do anything to shield us from the consequences of that speech (though the criminal law most certainly does in cases like this.) I'm very much a pro-draw Muhammaed type of guy, but I don't think that offensive is always necessary or appropriate.

Also, "one large religion" did not kill anybody. 2 criminals did.

I didn't get that implied statement out of it. Even so it's a dangerous analogy to make in my opinion. Punching a guy on the street who insults your mother is a far cry from taking some machine guns to an office that publishes things you don't like and killing civilians. The attempt to normalize the extremist behavior is something I have a problem with.

 

[wizards8507]

I didn't get that implied statement out of it. Even so it's a dangerous analogy to make in my opinion. Punching a guy on the street who insults your mother is a far cry from taking some machine guns to an office that publishes things you don't like and killing civilians. The attempt to normalize the extremist behavior is something I have a problem with.

Agree completely. It rationalizes the behavior by coloring it as a retaliation rather than instigation. "Sure, it's wrong to kill someone for speaking freely... BUT HE STARTED IT!"