Response to Professor Rahe
The following is a response to Professor Rahe’s post, "American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil."
The whole topic of the church's mission in a mostly secular and mass media world is worth a slew of articles and books, but that's for some other time. Let me focus on a couple ideas that spring up from the Professor's acute criticism.
My argument: The American Catholic Church, especially in a country with “separation of church and state” can’t (and shouldn’t) operate the same way as it does in Latin America or medieval France. We can’t go to the pulpit and re-direct or influence the ship of state. That’s not our role.
The Roman Catholic Church has played an important role in public life, but in each country, the role differs. In Soviet Russia, the church adopted a different role than it did in Renaissance Italy. The Catholic role differs by country and culture, and although its mission never changes, its method does.
In America, in the mid-nineteenth century, the American bishops gathered to plan out the American mission. They soon decided that the best way to serve their parishioners, who were overwhelmingly immigrants, was to guide the immigrants into the mainstream. The way they chose to do it was through schools and institutions. And let’s face it – by and large, the strategy worked! Catholics are as American as anyone else. Unfortunately, those same Catholics are now as prosperous as other Americans, don’t feel the sting of discrimination, and have forgotten how much they owe to the church for the prosperity they now enjoy.
All of that was happening under the shifts of culture and politics, where Catholics were becoming part of the mainstream. For one thing, before World War II, American Catholics learned about their church from the church itself, because that was the only news source available. But these days, most Catholics learn about church issues through the non-Catholic media. That changes how you do things.
And the church was, and still is, an urban-oriented institution. The church’s home is the city. For most of Western civilization, you only had two antipodes: city and rural. But in the aftermath of World War II, the formerly poor Catholics all moved out into the affluent suburbs. To be blunt, the American Church isn’t well-structured for an affluent suburban population.
You should know, if you already didn’t, that the American hierarchy is well aware of these changes, and when they have their national conferences, the need for a new American mission is a frequent topic. The Church is now saying, "We once had a mission to mainstream the immigrants. We succeeded. Now what?" And now, whatever the plan is, we have to carry it out in a very different environment in a very different world. The vast majority of American Catholics aren’t sheep to be led blindly. We’re college-educated, media-trained, and most Americans form their moral perspective with little involvement from the church … just like every other American.
Consider artificial contraception. Why doesn’t the church just demand that everyone stop using it? They did. The church did exactly as Professor Rahe suggested, and what happened? They were laughed at and scorned.
Consider Roe v. Wade. Professor Rahe claims that if the American hierarchy really wanted to oppose abortion, they’d have had it overturned long ago. But that’s a fantasy. I can’t see how anyone can argue, with a straight face, that the American bishops haven’t strongly opposed abortion. The problem is that the issue of abortion isn’t controlled by a branch of government that is required to respond to opposing viewpoints. The issue is in the hands of the Supreme Court, and so long as it stays there (it shouldn’t be there, but that’s for another thread), there’s simply a limit on what anyone can do about it.
This current fracas over the contraception mandate is different from the previous political skirmishes precisely because the issue isn’t really a Catholic-only debate. The Catholics may be at the front of this battle, but we’re hardly alone. This issue is an American issue, and that’s why the bishops are getting prominent play and attention … because in this case, they’re not speaking for Catholics alone, but for everyone who cherishes religious liberty.
The fact that the American Catholic hierarchy doesn't operate with the same influence as it does in other countries, or with the revered authority that it is presumed to have, is not a sign that American Catholics have moral defects and political cowardice. There's no question that the hierarchy squandered a huge percentage of their moral capital when they didn't stop (and sometimes abetted) the pedophiles in the church. But to weave that into a composite condemnation that accuses the hierarchy of moral corruption is simply wrong and grossly unfair.
If the Professor's post suggests that once the church "embraced" the entitlement state, they sold their souls to the devil, and the pedophile scandal was just one symptom of a deeper cause, that's simply an accusation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That connects assumptions that are themselves flawed (e.g., that because a woman who wasn't even Catholic but hung out with Catholics joined FDR's cabinet and designed Social Security, somehow represents Catholicism's embrace of liberalism), and the conclusion is invalid (that Frances Perkins proves Catholicism's pact with the devil). That's a leap to a conclusion that not even Carl Lewis would attempt.
Look, I hate the pedophilia scandal, and I strongly oppose liberalism. But when it comes to the clergy of the church, many of whom I know and respect, those two aren't connected. Again, I think it's a terrible disservice to those vast majority of the clergy, men and women, who aren't nearly as political as the whackos who get face time on TV. Most of them pay attention to politics, but focus their day-to-day attention on the people in front of them - and shouldn't be swept together with the liberal whackos.
- Comment (45)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
KC, I think that you are dreaming. The church had enormous influence prior to 1973, and it exercised it -- dissuading FDR from backing the Spanish Republic, lining up Catholics behind the New Deal, persuading legislators to outlaw conception in Connecticut. I could go on.
In and after 1973, they had a choice. They could break the alliance with the Democratic Party (which was very tight) and fight abortion tooth and nail -- or they could treat is a relatively minor matter. They chose the latter, and they continued to give clear support to Catholic Democrats who were pro-abortion. In 2002, to take just one example, when Jennifer Granholm first ran for the governorship in Michigan, the bishop in Lansing (now, thankfully, retired) had the diocesan magazine put her on the cover and tout her as one of our own. She was at the time an open supporter of "abortion rights."
The like happened all over the country. I remember the Cardinal-Archbishop of Washington meeting ostentatiously with John Kerry on the eve of the 2006 Presidential election. Did you notice what Notre Dame did vis-a-vis Barack Obama -- a supporter of partial birth abortion?
Jan '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
It's tough to have a rollicking back and forth on topics today because of the upgrade glitches ... but, I'm a database guy, so I have a lot of sympathy for the misery that The Logo and Blue Yeti (and all others) are likely going through right now. Been there. So, we'll make do.
As for the topic ...
Professor, surely you must acknowledge the impact that the Catholic church has had in this current firestorm. The Church hierarchy is doing exactly what you wish it would do.
But that doesn't mean that it can do the same thing, in general, or on every issue. This particular set of circumstances is unique in that while it focuses on Catholics, the strength of the support is on an American principle (religious liberty).
And for every meeting with John Kerry, I'll raise you a strong move from Archbishop Chaput when he was in Colorado, or Burke in St. Louis, or Nancy Pelosi's bishop publicly reprimanding her for botching church teaching. Cardinal O'Connor in New York was no slouch. I could go on.
Jan '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
The Church's connection with the Democratic Party had as much to do with the Democrats' stranglehold on urban politics as anything else. I'm sure you're aware that the liberal whackos hardly consider the Catholic Church to be an ally. They hate the church ... as this recent attack on the church's liberty proves.
Liberals think the Catholics are bought and sold to the Republican Party.
Jan '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
I'll tell you why I don't buy the argument that the Catholic Church treats abortion as a relatively small matter.
Me.
I'm a vigorous opponent of abortion, and I've given money to anti-abortion causes, and I've been a consistent letter-writer to congressional representatives and whoever else I can find.
Who taught me to do that? Who urged me to do that? The same Church you claim isn't doing very much! My church - from the parish to the diocese, and I'll argue to the American Synod as a whole, not to mention the church as a worldwide organization - has been where I was first made aware of the atrocity of abortion. The Church gave me plenty of teaching for why it was wrong ... not just as a command from on high, but as a step-by-step process of rational and moral theory, leading to a coherent picture of the whole.
Do you think that I dragged the church into a fight, or that they empowered me? Surely, my church empowered me.
Jan '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
I must also point out that we live in a country with freedom of religion. And that, especially these days, that freedom goes both ways. We can't just bully politicians, and we shouldn't, even if we could.
When the bishops wander into politics, they get hammered. Peter Robinson pointed out the foolishness of the bishops' support of the nuclear freeze movement in the mid-1980s (can't embed the link). Peter was right. When the bishops dilettante their way into real politics, the result is always disastrous.
They have a moral responsibility to encourage policies that reflect sound moral teaching, but experience has taught them to stay out of direct advocacy (or direct opposition) to political agendas.
The hierarchy doesn't lead charges up the hill ... and I'm glad of that. I don't want them advancing a political agenda. They may have been powerful political influences before, but I don't want them to do that now.
Instead, I want them to empower lay Catholics to play their proper role in civil society ... and in America, that includes respecting the religious liberty of everyone else. Frankly, I think they're doing that.
Feb '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
The question of religious liberty and the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception gives rise to the question: Why does the Church oppose contraception?
Far too many Catholics are unable to articulate any kind of response. Far too many Catholics see this as a weird side-bar to Catholic thinking, a relic and holdover like novenas or mantillas or something, that no longer needs to be part of being Catholic.
Or worse, they dismiss it as being ill-thought-out and part and parcel of the Church's dismissal of women as second-class citizens.
And far too many bishops and priests clearly think that the needs of millions of married Catholics to understand and believe this essential part of Catholic teaching is not essential. Although contraception is antithetical to Catholic understanding of marriage -- they cannot coexist -- more people have never even been exposed to Catholic teaching on this matter than agree with it.
We will never succeed in making the case that Catholics should not be forced to cover contraception when so many Catholics simply don't believe it to be so.
Jan '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
Mama Toad:
We will never succeed in making the case that Catholics should not be forced to cover contraception when so many Catholics simply don't believe it to be so.
My argument is that all of this is because the American Catholic Church adopted the mission of getting Catholics into the mainstream.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because that's exactly what we've got - Catholics who get their teachings and moral instruction from the media. Catholics often don't know what their own church teaches, and certainly don't appreciate the moral arguments at the heart of most doctrine.
That has neutered our traditional role as alternative authorities in society.
The Church used to be an alternative source: of information, of opinion, of social service, of charity, etc. In El Salvador, in 1989, Salvadoran thugs came in the middle of the night to murder Jesuits and they made sure to bash their heads in - as an unmistakable threat to intellectual opposition.
Civil governments don't like rivals. The Catholic Church has been, throughout western history, the main rival to secular government. I believe that even in America, the civil state wants to eliminate the competition.
Sep '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
"As I have recently said, and have repeated on several occasions, our Church is a Faith institution. A home to Christ's people. It is not a criminal enterprise. It does not condone and cover up criminal activity. It does not follow a code of silence. My remarks, which some bishops found offensive, were deadly accurate. I make no apology. To resist grand jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church."
Former Governor of Oklahoma Frank Keating
Jun '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
Saul Alinsky's Rule No. 4: "Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Obama and his team have made a careful calculation with the HHS mandate. They know that Catholics are divided on the Church's teaching on contraception. They know that many Catholics are Democrat. They also know that virtually all American Catholics were shocked, appalled and disgusted by the priest pedophile scandal and the cover-up by some bishops and cardinals who hid these despicable offenses. The scandal is only related to the HHS mandate in that Obama and his team believe that American Catholics have become disenchanted with the American Catholic hierarchy because of it; and it has shown the vulnerability of the bishops' moral authority. It remains to be seen whether rank-and-file parishioners - not simply the Catholic intelligentsia - will align themselves with the Church hierarchy and in a sense "come home". Obama wins this battle if it's solely centered around contraception. He loses it if it's focused primarily on abortion.
Feb '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
Very well said, Brian. I am afraid you are right.
Nov '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
Catholics as a Democrat voting block is related to Catholic intellectuals, I believe. There is a very long history of this- almost all Christian history I would argue. When I read their articles I agree with many things, but they are so often obsessed with how many angels fit on a head of a needle that they end up saying (believing) either nothing or both. As with most intellectuals the elegance of the idea tends to win, not the evidence or even the Bible. That being said, I could praise the Catholic church forever for keeping the abortion issue forefront, and now the overall issue of human value.
Aug '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
KC, I am mostly concerned that the hierarchical religious organizations will abandon the fight at at religious affiliation level and not support individuals or organizations (without religious affiliation) who oppose this rule as a matter of conscience.
It would surely suck if the last big name court battle involving the Catholic Church has to do with pedophilia and not the individual conscience vs government intrusion.
May '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
KC - You have the argument backwards.
Separation of Church and State is a invention of the SCOTUS, first used in Reynolds v US (1878) and then again in Everson v Board of Ed (1947). It is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. It was quoted as authoritative proof as to what the framers had in mind for the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately, Jefferson was in Paris at the time and wasn't even part of the debate.
The intent of the Establishment Clause is to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around. In your world no church leader should have led the way in abolition or civil rights since it wasn't their place to "re-direct or influence" official policy.
Edited on February 13, 2012 at 4:38amJun '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
Great post KC. I see this argument from both sides.
Many of the Professor's contemporaries have very powerful frustrations with the Church and the problems in the Church in the US through the latter half of the 20th century... an abandonment of the Latin Mass, abandonment of education, moral teaching, and proper catechesis. We have suffered mightily for that. We don't have a word yet for what happened, but future historians will have to name it.
I do think the Professor goes a bridge too far, and I like how KC gives some perspective. The Catholic Church in America has been staunchly pro life, staunchly pro family and hasn't backed away from defining marriage properly. She is the last great bastion of sanity and is being surrounded by the forces of relativism who desire to dispatch Her in order to have free reign over all thought and discourse. That's why Obama and his progressive goons are targeting the Catholic Church specifically.
There's one institution standing between our citizens and total relativism and that's the Church... we'd do well not to forget that, for it is at the front of King Barack's mind.
Jun '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
KC Mulville
The Church used to be an alternative source: of information, of opinion, of social service, of charity, etc. In El Salvador, in 1989, Salvadoran thugs came in the middle of the night to murder Jesuits and they made sure to bash their heads in - as an unmistakable threat to intellectual opposition.
I sure do wish we had some of them around today. Instead, today's Jesuits are probably somewhere in Saruman's tower, huddling around the seeing stone where the benign King Barack will reveal to them what he will.
May '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
EJHill: KC - You have the argument backwards.
The intent of the Establishment Clause is to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around..... · 16 minutes ago
Edited 14 minutes ago
Don't think so. The intent was to prevent the Federal Gov. from interfering with the religions of the states. The states could do what they liked about religion. Massachusetts had a state religion until 1833 and its constitution still allows the towns and cities to have established churches.
Nov '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
Does anyone find it just a little curious that what Scripture calls the body of Christ is being called a bureaucratic institution in this and other associated commentary? Is the wheat even recognizable among the tares?
Edited on February 13, 2012 at 9:03pmFeb '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
There is a resurgence of Catholics seeking out the teachings of the Church, but as Mama Toad eloquently states, too many "Catholics" have no clue about the Church's teachings on contraception, other than they know that the Church disapproves of their use. I think many would have their eyes opened if they sought answers to these questions of morality and natural law. Many believe that these are simply rules made up by men with pointy hats in Rome.
There is a dearth of well catechized American "cradle" Catholics (myself included ). This makes it difficult to assume that the faithful will align themselves with the Church on issues of civil governance. Many of those who identify as being Catholic faithful all too often have no idea what the church teaches or how it arrived at these lessons.
Edited on February 13, 2012 at 5:30amFeb '11
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
Progressive secularists like to use this segment of Catholic populace to undermine the teaching of the Church, and it makes an easy "Alinsky target" as mentioned in post 9. This indeed is unfortunate, and more reason for Catholics to renew focus on education. A well educated Church would be more reliable in defending liberty, and not so blind to attacks cloaked in charity ("women's health, healthcare by fiat, patronage")
May '10
Re: Response to Professor Rahe
When I say keep the state out of the church, state is used as a reference to the national government.
As Madison's first draft of the amendment read thus:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." (1 Annals of Congress 452)
National religion. Like the Church of England.