A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
This post won't be for everyone, but from time to time here on Ricochet the papists among us have engaged in some wonderfully spirited and probing conversations. For my fellow Catholics among the Ricochetoise--and for anyone else who may have been following our efforts to work out the practical political implications of Church teaching--I offer this item.
It comes from a friend, Stephen Schmalhofer, a recent graduate of Yale (which will please Rob) who played defensive tackle (which will please nearly everyone else). Stephen writes:
On the website of First Things today, George Weigel reminds us that the "Church's concern for the poor does not imply a 'preferential option' for Big Government."
Catholic social doctrine, as Weigel argues, has always supported a free society populated with intermediating organizations: individuals, partnerships, corporations, trade unions, charities, the Church and churches, private foundations, think tanks, cultural institutions, and academies in coordination with local, state and national governments. For those who argue that adherence to the Church’s social teachings means adherence to the policy preferences of the Democratic Party, a few questions:
These questions strike me as relevant:
Item: How do we justify central bank attempts to keep nominal interest rates below market levels, facilitating a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers?
Item: Is there a parallel between corporate accounting frauds such as Enron and the government’s unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare? Or overly optimistic investment-return projections for state pension funds?
Item: How do we reconcile the treatment of General Motors’ bondholders in light of the Church’s consistent moral teaching on the binding nature of licit contracts?
To the laity, the Church gives economic life, the sum of those spontaneous and constant attempts to address scarcity, a consequence of the Fall. If the Church were to usurp this role, as John Zmirak has noted, it would “need much more than infallibility; popes would require omniscience.” In Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited, the ridiculous figure of Rex Mottram imputes just such omniscience to the pontiff:
"Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: 'Just as many as you say, Father.' Then again I asked him: 'Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said 'It's going to rain', would that be bound to happen?' 'Oh, yes, Father.' 'But supposing it didn't?' He thought a moment and said, "I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.'"
It might be tempting to end hunger with de fide pronouncements or to improve standards of living with motu proprios. Instead we are rightfully told:
“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.”
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
This problem runs very deep. Paul Johnson refers in his A History of Christianity to the "radicalization of the orders," a phenomenon I have witnessed firsthand as a Catholic schoolteacher: a nun guest-teaching a unit about immigrants and Christian duties regarding the issue of immigration preached that my students and their families should welcome and aid illegal aliens in avoiding the authorities and in continuing to violate American sovereignty, until I pointed out to our principal that her advocacy of violating federal law could endanger free- and reduced-price lunch program and Title I money flowing into our school.
The Church has always preferred dealing with powerful central governments: it gives the Holy See and the Jesuits a chance to play the conversion game to their strengths, competing with the orders that target the poor and less powerful. My experience suggests that the institutional Catholic Church in America has cast its lot with Democrats except for life issues, and most individual American Catholics have cast their lot in that direction completely anyway. You and I and our politically conservative Catholic brethren are a vocal but beleaguered minority, whether we know it or not.
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
True enough. The only program, in my judgment, that offers any hope? Prayer, fasting and talking back.
May '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
If the Bible isn't a testament to tough love, I don't know what is.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Anyone who has followed the activities of their parish Social Justice ministry, or read the pronouncements of the USCCB over the past few decades, knows that the Church leans left on nearly every issue except abortion and marriage.
What surprises me is how few on the left seem to realize this, and how they still see the Church as an enemy rather than an ally.
Jan '11
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
I'm not a liberal Catholic, so I'm just sneaking in here for a quick comment: Weigel's article is a must-read. Outstanding clarity.
I suspect that there are few truly liberal Catholics here on Ricochet anyway. But Peter's post is simply too good to waste on liberals. Suppose we take for granted that the "preferential option for the poor" doesn't mean following the Democratic Party agenda. That's easy, everyone can agree to that. But ... then ... what does it mean?
Sep '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Anyone who has followed the activities of their parish Social Justice ministry, or read the pronouncements of the USCCB over the past few decades, knows that the Church leans left on nearly every issue except abortion and marriage.
If you thought Allan Bloom was depressing, try The Mass and Modernity by Fr Jonathan Robinson of the Toronto Oratory, former head of the philosophy department of McGill University in Montreal, product of University of Glasgow and Hegel scholar. Marxist and Liberation theology had a source, a taproot, a wellspring and it was Hegel.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
One bit of wisdom I heard in RCIA is, when you're "giving alms," if you're never pulled outside your comfort zone, if you never risk rejection, you're not doing it right. That implies some personal involvement, some risk--not just sending Uncle Sam a bigger check. And when you turn the task over to others, you lose all control of it, and what's more, you lose the grace that you need for yourself.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Joseph Stanko
Anyone who has followed the activities of their parish Social Justice ministry, or read the pronouncements of the USCCB over the past few decades, knows that the Church leans left on nearly every issue except abortion and marriage.
P.S. Abortion and marriage are the two leading "social con" issues that provoke a lot of debate here. It just occured to me that if you're one of the Ricochet libertarians who supports SSM and thinks abortion should remain legal, then you'd probably oppose the USCCB on just about every major political issue of the day.
Sep '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
And one more thing: before the growth of the welfare state it was Church run (and I include Catholic and Protestant in that) hospitals, schools, libraries and orphanages as well as non-profits that formed the backbone of the support for the poor. The growth of government as intermediary leviathan is recent, worrying and something the first Christians would have been extremely suspicious of.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Well for one example I think it does suggest a generous policy towards poor immigrants who seek to legally enter this country to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. I would strongy disagree with the nun Louie Rhett mentioned, Catholics have an obligation to obey current immigration laws on the books, but I do tend to agree with the USCCB that we need a more open and welcoming immigration policy.
Apr '11
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Peter Robinson
True enough. The only program, in my judgment, that offers any hope? Prayer, fasting and talking back. · Jun 1 at 10:38am
It's a deal. I'm on it.
Sep '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Exactly. And when the Church does social work it gives people more than just food or shelter. Assuming the Church outreach is run by actual Christians (and that is clearly not a given), the good works should be bringing the word and Spirit of the Lord to the poor.
Also, unlike the welfare state, most church groups are not going to create financial incentives to encourage illegitimacy.
Apr '11
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
KC Mulville: I'm not a liberal Catholic, so I'm just sneaking in here for a quick comment: Weigel's article is a must-read. Outstanding clarity.
I suspect that there are few truly liberal Catholics here on Ricochet anyway. But Peter's post is simply too good to waste on liberals. Suppose we take for granted that the "preferential option for the poor" doesn't mean following the Democratic Party agenda. That's easy, everyone can agree to that. But ... then ... what does it mean? · Jun 1 at 10:46am
Canon I
Can. 222 §1. The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.
§2. They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources.
If Americans, or even only the Americans who call themselves Christians, seek ways to direct their own resources directly to the benefit of the poor, then we need no welfare state. Note that "social justice" is undefined.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
I read the archdiocese newspaper here in Portland, Oregon recently for the first time in years. It would make The New York Times blush. That I was distraught couldn't describe it fully.
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Excellent question, KC--just excellent.
Care to go first?
Jun '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
"....but I do tend to agree with the USCCB that we need a more open and welcoming immigration policy."
But we simply can't handle the crush of unskilled immigrants here now....emergency rooms are being shut down, law enforcement is overtaxed. By not enforcing our laws we encourge the human smugglers & those businesses that exploit the illegals.
It reminds me of the sanctimonious churches in NYC who used to allow the homeless to camp out on their steps in the winter. Rudy Guilliani would round them up to get them into shelters & he was criticized as heartless. He'd explain that it was far from an act of Christian compassion to encourage a human being to spend the night outdoors in freezing cold facing the elements.
Jan '11
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Peter Robinson
Excellent question, KC--just excellent.
Care to go first? · Jun 1 at 12:05pm
I would, since this is a topic near and dear to my heart. But 200 words ain't gonna do it. I've spent the better part of thirty years mulling these ideas in my head, and in prayer, and I really don't want to disrespect the topic by blathering off the top of my head.
Let me do what I should do more often ... think ... before I embarrass myself.
May '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
Peter Robinson
Excellent question, KC--just excellent.
Agreed.
I recommend starting by defining "poor". Does that teaching refer only to the financially poor or also / primarily to the poor in spirit? If it refers to financial poverty, how should we define that? Relatively (compared to the richest or average of a particular society) or objectively (unable to secure basic needs... in which case "needs" must be defined)?
Saints seem a natural source of guidance on the subject. They provided to the hungry, the sick, the homeless, etc... but their focus was always on souls. The Church acknowledges charity as a necessary role of the faithful. But charity without reverence for God and Christ's presence within each person is insufficient.
All should be for the glory of our Lord.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
StickerShock: "....but I do tend to agree with the USCCB that we need a more open and welcoming immigration policy."
But we simply can't handle the crush of unskilled immigrants here now....emergency rooms are being shut down, law enforcement is overtaxed. By not enforcing our laws we encourge the human smugglers & those businesses that exploit the illegals.
We absolutely should enforce our laws; we need secure, controlled borders. I'm against any amnesty that would reward people for breaking our laws.
That said, just as drug prohibition creates a black market and all the crime and lawlessness associated with it, so too restrictive immigration policies lead to human smuggling, exploitation, etc. The current approach of tight quotas plus lax enforcement is the worst of both worlds.
I think we need a work visa program tied to the number of actual jobs available. If a farm wants to hire 200 temporary workers for the summer, they should be able to apply to the INS to create 200 6-month visas. To get a visa, you need a sponsoring employer with a job lined up for you. No job, no visa.
Nov '10
Re: A Few Questions for Liberal Catholics
As I have said before, an aging cohort of sanctimonious boomer activists --the 68-ers, I calls 'em-- continue to be influential in education, the press, and the middle management of the Church. Their chief legacy is the generation or so of the faithful damaged by appalling catechesis, of which their reduction of social justice to the expansion of government is only one component, but a telling one: it highlights their craven need for validation by the secular left. Like most here, I could tell you stories. . . but instead, I'll pass along a little good news: their time is passing, as most of the upcoming vocations are of a distinctively conservative type. And common sense suggests they would be: only someone basically conservative would even be interested in religious life; those on the left have been schooled not to value commitment, or the Church. And orthodox groups are growing, for similar reasons, while the liberals languish, for who would want to make a lifetime commitment to an ambiguity?