Autonomy and Separatism

This is a response to Rob’s post, Religious Education as Sex Abuse. I wholeheartedly agree with Rob’s statement that there is a “sinister undercurrent” in the agenda of Ghassan Rubeiz and his fellow travelers.

Where I disagree with Rob is in the response to the growing totalitarian trend among certain defenders of liberalism. Rob says that this “underscores my previously expressed view that religious voices may need to focus more on carving out spheres of community and individual autonomy for themselves, rather than seeking to impose their vision of the common good on a society-wide basis.”

I am extremely uncomfortable with this proposed remedy for two reasons. First (and pragmatically), if this brand of intolerant liberalism takes hold and dominates, it will not (indeed, cannot) allow those of us who claim that a particular religion is objectively true the space to raise our children in our religious faith. See my Producing Trousered Apes in Dwyer’s Totalitarian State.

Second (and more importantly), our Catholic faith calls us to engage the world, not bargain for separation from it. It is not that we seek to “impose” our vision of the common good on the rest of society. Rather, our task, as I see it, is to “propose” our understanding of the nature of the human person and our vision of the common good. Since we believe that good Catholic anthropology corresponds to the deepest needs of the human person for truth, beauty, and justice (Giussani), our vision ought to attract some fellow travelers and we can begin to build a Culture of Life, much of which will reside in the civilization at large and some of which will come to be reflected in our laws.

Maritain, in the Person and the Common Good, noticed an intolerant and totalitarian tendency in secular liberalism. And, if, despite our prayers and our best efforts, the vision of Dwyer, Rubeiz, and the like take hold, then we will have to seek the courage to brave that world the best we can. Fortunately, we are not to that point.

Michael