Andrew Sullivan notes with horror that someone as unbalanced in his views as Pat Robertson ran for President a couple of times and did quite well. If Robertson is still seriously in the loop for Republicans on political issues, that's bad. But there is a recognizable type in American politics, the person who runs a credible campaign for President and then goes loony and squanders all credibility afterwards. Here in Minnesota we have produced two of the great specimens, Harold Stassen for the Republicans and Eugene McCarthy for the Democrats -- both of whom ran a series of increasingly bizarre campaigns for office after their initial credible runs for the presidency.
Actually, this is all leading up to my recommending a fascinating book that I read early this summer, Eugene McCarthy and the Rise and Fall of Postwar American Liberalism (by Dominic Sandbrook, Anchor Books 2004, paperback ed. 2005). Some readers may already know, but I didn't, that McCarthy started out as a Catholic intellectual, teaching political theory at my own University (then College) of St. Thomas (after dropping out of an abbey and seminary) before going into politics. The author traces the varying effects of Catholic social thought on McCarthy, his first political incarnation (Catholic-inspired) as an anti-Communist liberal, and then the later permutations into anti-war candidate in 1968 and eventually, from the late 70s on, quack. The thesis of the book -- that, as suggested by the title, McCarthy's rise and decline are representative of the fortunes of American liberalism in the same period -- is enlightening, especially the idea that McCarthy 1968 marked a decisive shift of Democratic Party energy away from working-class issues and toward the reform emphases of upper-middle-class intellectuals. But the thesis that McCarthy is representative also sits awkwardly with the book's portrayal of McCarthy as unusually mercurial and anti-social, and concerned less with issues than with personal status and slights. At any rate, I commend the book to anyone interested in Catholic social thought and its relation to 20th-century American liberalism, the Democratic Party, etc.
Tom B.
I've added SSRN links to a few new papers (see the right-hand side of the screen), "American Conversations with(in) Catholicism" (a review of John McGreevy's wonderful book), and "Changing Minds: Proselytism, Religious Freedom, and the First Amendment." Comments and reactions are always welcome!
Rick
In response to Susan's question, I haven't studied the Compendium in depth, but my use of it thus far has led me to consider it an invaluable tool for quickly ascertaining the Church's social teaching on a given issue -- especially an issue with which we might be unfamiliar. Given its all-encompassing scope, however, it necessarily treats subjects with less depth than other sources, and its format would require a lot of skipping around from section to section to give students a sense of the necessary relationship between different components of the social teaching. As such, I'd be hesitant to substitute the Compendium for a papal encyclical in the classroom environment, although it could be valuable in providing students with a sense of the broader social teaching. The Compendium is helpful in communicating the social tradition; encyclicals (and other sources) are more helpful in allowing the reader to enter into the line of reasoning that has helped form the tradition. For students who come to these topics prepared to disagree with the Church, exposing them to the richness of the encyclicals is especially crucial, as they essentially enter into a seamless story, rather than encountering the social tradition as one might encounter the Restatement in Torts class. Students might still disagree with the Church's positions after reading an encyclical, but at least they will have experienced the foundations of those positions in all their fullness.
Rob
Mike's Scaperlanda's most recent post contains some suggestions by Kevin Lee for the Catholic Legal Theory booklist. One of Kevin's suggestions is the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which as he observes provides a nice comprehensive overview of the Church's social teachings. Kevin suggests that "[a] close reading of [the Compendium] might make for a course on Catholic Social Teaching all by itself." On the other side, I have also heard some critical views expressed of the book.
I'm curious about people's assessments of the Compendium both generally and specifically with respect to the following. Last spring, when I taught my seminar in CST in the Law I assigned either the entirety of or portions of vaious encyclicals and other church documents, requiring the students to purchase the O'Brien and Shannon collection and posting links for them to other documents not included in that collection. As we all know, many of these are not the easiest readings for students. I'm wondering whether, when I teach the course again in the spring, I ought to consider having them purchase the Compendium instead, using primarily that rather than the original documents. I have mixed feelings and would be grateful for the thoughts of those who have evaulated the Compendium.
PAT ROBERTSON URGES U.S. TO COVET CHAVEZ’ WIFE
Televangelist Breaks Second Commandment in Two Days
One day after Pat Robertson called for the U.S. to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the televangelist raised the ante again today, urging the U.S. to covet President Chavez’ wife.
In so doing, Mr. Robertson appeared to contradict two of The Ten Commandments in as many days, having flouted “Thou shat not kill” on Monday.
Speaking on the television program he hosts, “The 700 Club,” Mr. Robertson lashed out at the Venezuelan strongman once more, telling his audience, “It’s high time that the United States coveted Hugo Chavez’ wife.”
Warming to his topic, the opinionated preacher added, “And while we’re at it, we should covet his house, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox and his ass, for that matter.”
Mr. Robertson indicated that all of the coveting he referred to would not require a war, arguing that it could be all done through the use of covert operatives within Venezuela.
“We could send some special ops guys down there, and bang-bang, covet all of that stuff,” Mr. Robertson told his audience.
Speaking to reporters after the program, Mr. Robertson was unrepentant about having broken two of the Ten Commandments in two days, telling them, “I fully intend to obey the other eight, and eight out of ten ain’t bad.”
But the televangelist seemed to waver from that position slightly, telling reporters that the U.S. should “bear false witness against Hugo Chavez and dishonor Hugo Chavez’s mother and father.”
[From the Borowitz Report, 8.24.05.]
