Catholics and American Politics: A Quibble

As Mark predicted when we launched this blog, the group of us disagree strongly when it comes to translating, applying, and (perhaps) rank-ordering the principles of Catholic Social Thought in the rough-and-tumble of political life. Although I am, I admit, a hopeless political junkie, I do not plan to post (after this) on the Bush v. Kerry / Election 2004 matter. A few quick thoughts, though, "for the record":

In my view, Mark's statement -- "the Republicans are usually wrong about everything else (i.e., other than abortion) we care about as Catholics" -- leaves out (at least) two other crucial issues where, in my judgment, the Republican position is to be preferred by Catholics: Educational choice and religious freedom. The Democrats' current implacable and total opposition to school choice (and the hostility to religious schools that often underlies that opposition) is, to me, much more scandalous than, say, the Republicans' support for lower taxes. On my reading, Catholic teaching is unambiguous on this point: parents have the right to choose religious schools for their children, and governments ought to assist poor parents in exercising this right. In addition, on the question of the autonomy, independence, and integrity of religious institutions, hospitals, associations, schools, etc., I think the Republican platform is, on balance, to be preferred. The recent Catholic Charities case, and the efforts underway to require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, provide, I think, some support for my belief.

Also, and in candor, I do not recognize the "overall political project of the Republican party" -- which is said to be "extremely hostile to a Catholic worldview" -- in the descriptions and discussion provided by my friend and colleague Vince (any more than, I expect, he and I would recognize the "overall political project of the Democratic Party" if someone were to describe it as a project of relentless secularization, social atomism, political statism, and moral relativism). It is far from obvious to me that it is distinctively part of the Republican project (rather than a fault with American culture generally) to celebrate the "aggressive pursuit of wealth," to support a "consumer culture driven by materialism and in which success is measured by how much money you make," or to direct "public money . . . to the business of favored campaign contributors."

I hope my colleagues agree that informed, thoughtful, conscientious CST Catholics can conclude that, at the moment, the Republican package is to be preferred, and that those who come to this conclusion do not dislike the elderly, are not indifferent to the poor, and believe that wars should be rare and must be just. We believe -- reasonably, even if not correctly -- that human dignity and the common good are, on balance, better served, and Catholic Social Teaching better actualized, by programs that emanate from commitments to de-centralized and limited government, to a public square that welcomes and protects religious argument and activity, to moral realism in foreign policy, and to -- where and to the extent appropiate -- cost-benefit and results-oriented analysis in economic and social-welfare policy.

In any event, I hope this exchange between disagreeing friends will confirm for "Mirror of Justice" readers that Catholic Social Teaching is a rich resource for anyone hoping to live faithfully as an engaged citizen. I certainly believe that my colleagues have that goal, and I hope they believe just as strongly that I share it.

Rick

UPDATE: A Notre Dame law student (with a blog) disagrees with my statements above about school choice. She writes:

I agree that parents should across the board be able to choose religious schools for their children; but I cannot concede that voucher programs are the best way to do that. . . . I am fortunate that my parents were in a position to make an authentic faith choice to send me to Catholic schools. . . . I don't feel as though I endured any detriment for that choice; but I know too that poor parents in our nation's most volatile places don't have the same choice my parents had. And for that reason, I can't really accept the band-aid solution of school vouchers, even as a temporary measure. An educated populace is essential not only to out nation's continued survival and progress but also to its security. Our commitment to education as a right and a necessity is not served by an active acknowledgement that sometimes the only good decision is flight from public schools. While school vouchers may enable some parents to make a faith choice to send their children to religious schools, they are essentially a herald that public schools are too often dangerous and ineffective. Parents should certainly be able to make a faith choice -- but they should not be forced to make a quality choice."

I very much appreciate this student's thoughts. In my judgment, though, these are not convincing arguments against school vouchers for low-income parents who believe that their children are not being well served in the government-run schools (I also think that, for what it's worth, the CST tradition weighs heavily against these arguments). Still, I encourage readers to check out this student's blog and post.