Back in the 1940's Paul Blanchard wrote a book entitled "American Freedom and Catholic Power." The thesis of the book was that the Catholic Church did not believe other religions had a right to exist, but when Catholics were not in a majority they would allow other religions to exist and propagate their views, until the Church gained sufficient power. He cited endless sources to this effect on the grounds that "error has no right to exist."
Now I am not interested in a detailed discussion of Blanchard's book, but it did come to mind as I have traveled catholic blogdom and the writings of Wiegel, Novak, etc. There position seems to be that the U S is a tradionally christian country, catholicism is the most 'informed' and best christian religion, ergo, the U S should should model its laws to conform to catholic teachings and that laws which do not reflect catholic teaching are not laws that catholics should follow.
I have stated this boldly because, even if this overstes Wiegel etc position, blogdom is aflame with this argument. One bloger insisting that the goal of the Church is to make this a "catholic country." This, of course, centers around the abortion issue. Wiegel claimes that any politician who does not support pro life views(anti-sex views) has severed his relationship with the church. And this applies to judges as well i,e. their decisions should not be based on the constitution and laws and the interpretation of such, but on catholic moral views. This would, of course, amount to the total corruption of our democratic system.
These bloggers and Wiegel etc suggest that all catholic social teaching, except on abortion, are not binding, but that the pro-life position is the only binding catholic social teaching. In addition Wiegel claims that mainline protestant religions should not be considered seriously,but only "evangelicals" with pro-life positions, not associated with mainline religions should be considered. In fact the Catholic Church can be aligned politically with the most anti-catholic churches, provided these churches support right to life. Methodist, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians,e,tc. who have a favorable opinion of catholicism are not to be respected because they are not pro-life enough.
I have stated before that our church, as far as many adherents are concerned, is simply a branch of the pro-life movement. I have seen a few catholics argue the "proportionality" view, but considering that all social teaching of the church have no finality except on the abortion issue proportionality has no meaning. I might add that Wiegel and Company have open scorn for the American bishops who they apparently see as weak sisters in the face of aborrent views.
Any views on this subject will be appreciated. Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that a good bit of Catholic bloggers don't see any defense for voting non-Republican, and make the case that abortion is the most important issue. I don't mind it when they stick to arguing for that position; I do mind it when they start implying that anyone who disagrees with them is less Catholic or should be denied communion, or some such.
I think the best thing to read on this topic is, again, what the bishops have written together: Faithful Citizenship. Some quotes:
“Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and
require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.”
“A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.”
“These themes from Catholic social teaching provide a moral framework that does not
easily fit ideologies of “right” or “left,” “liberal” or “conservative,” or the platform of any
political party.”
When the document came out, the conservatives sort of liked it, because it talks about giving a priority in politics to issues of life, but I heard complaints that the bishops “didn't put more clearly” that it was not acceptable to vote for a pro-choice politician. In fact, the bishops basically said that it could be done for morally grave reasons, if the intent was not to support abortion. Obviously, some people think that there is no other cause that is grave enough to make it worth voting for someone who is pro-choice; but other Catholics DO think there are other causes that are grave enough.
I kind of liked Archbishop Chaput's comments on the topic:
“8. So can a Catholic in good conscience support a “pro-choice” candidate? The answer is: I can’t and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics — people whom I admire — who will. I think their reasoning is mistaken. But at the very least they do sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And even more importantly: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up their efforts to end permissive abortion; they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can support “pro-choice” candidates if they support them despite — not because of — their “pro-choice” views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.
9. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”
There's nothing like the idea of looking a victim in the face to make you think more seriously about your own motives. Maybe the bloggers you complain about should think about looking in the faces of the Iraq war victims.
At any rate, on this topic, I think the bishop's combined paper is more worth reading than most individual bloggers' take on it.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, You actually seem to agree with me. Catholic social teaching is reducible to one maxim: Pro-life. Others issues should be "considered" but are strictly optional.
ReplyDeleteThe main focus of this post is whether catholics should be bound to any law which does not follow catholic moral teaching. In its starkest form:are judges to follow the constitution and laws under that consttitution or should they not follow these laws because the Church does not like them?
Your cited quote says "not optional" but should be considered. What does that mean?
Can you give me a case where an American bishop has denied communion to any leader on the social justice grounds other than having pro-choice views.
I have dealth with the Bishop's argument on the pro-life (anti-sex) issue before so will not repeat here. Jack
Anna, this may be wrong place but quote from catholic answers with imprimatur: The chaste celibate man meets a HIGHER standard than a respectable married man.
ReplyDeletePoor Ken and I. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteCatholics are not permitted to do evil just because the law requires them to. So if the constitution or a law actually required someone to do something against catholic moral teaching, they would be obliged to disobey. But as far as I know, there aren't many cases like that around. The closest thing I can think of is doctors who are required to perform abortions.
Now, that is very different from saying that judges should not follow the laws “because the Church does not like them”. There are many laws, like laws allowing abortion, which the Church “doesn't like”, but which don't actually require Catholics to do something immoral. Do you see the difference? Judges are not obliged to pretend abortion is illegal, or anything like that. On the contrary, the Church calls us to have respect for law and order and obey anything which does not require us to act immorally.
Your cited quote says "not optional" but should be considered. What does that mean?
It means that, even if Catholic doctrine doesn't dictate a particular solution to a problem, that that doesn't mean it is ok to ignore the problem completely. As I dare say some of those exclusive-pro-lifers you complain about may do.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I just noticed your comment. Good as usual. I just put up a new post. You might take a look. Do you agree with Weigel that any judge who follows Roe v.Wade should absent himself from communion. Is not Roe the law at this time? Jack
ReplyDelete