The "Political Dimension"

Rob asks (below) whether the "divergence in emphases [suggested in Vince's and my earlier posts] also underlie the political split between left-leaning and right-leaning Catholics?" and also "does the Republican wing of the Catholic Church tend to emphasize anthropology first, action second, while the Democratic wing tends to emphasize action first, anthropology second?" I guess, for what it's worth, I'd say "no" to both questions.

I agree with Rob that President Bush often uses the language of subsidiarity, etc. And, this is good (I think). Still, each political "side" has -- as Vince pointed out -- "anthropological difficulties" (after all, both major parties inhabit our culture, and Catholic anthropology seems, increasingly, counter-cultural). Each party's platform arguably presents inviting targets for action (i.e., each party supports things we might oppose). And, each party's platform arguably contains or calls for some "actions" that a citizen hoping to act in a manner consistent with CST could support. For some of us, the sanctity of unborn life, or the fragility of religious freedom, might push in one direction; for others, questions about the use of military force or the just levels of social services and poverty relief might push in another. In any event, it is not at all clear that an emphasis on "action," or "confronting injustice," would necessarily push one to one party over another.

My original point about "moral anthropology" was certainly not to endorse navel-gazing quietism. Instead, the suggestion was (and is) simply that, if we are trying to think about a Catholic legal theory, as opposed to (for now) a program of political action, we might start with questions about what the person really is, and why it matters.

Rick