More from Robert George

I received from Professor George another contribution to the conversation about the public witness of Catholics -- on the political left and political right -- on issues like the abuse of detainees, same-sex marriage, and abortion:

Michael Perry is puzzled that I would propose a joint statement by Catholic scholars across the political spectrum affirming and defending the Church’s teaching on torture, the death penalty, abortion, and sexual morality. I’m puzzled that he’s puzzled.  His perplexity arises from my inclusion of Catholic teaching on sexual morality.  This teaching, he says, “lacks credibility” for most American Catholics. “Robby knows that very many of us cannot in conscience affirm that teaching.”  Indeed, I do know (and regret) that.  But I also know (and regret) that a great many American Catholics cannot in conscience affirm the Church’s teaching on the death penalty.  They, too, observe that the teaching they reject lacks credibility for most Catholics in the United States.  I also know (and regret) that there are many American Catholics who in conscience oppose the Church’s teachings on abortion, regarding it as a woman’s right.  And I know (and regret) that there are many Catholics who in conscience oppose the Church’s teaching on torture, regarding torture as licit and possibly even required where resort to it is the only way to obtain urgent life-saving information from terrorists.  Catholics who dissent from the Church’s teachings in any of these areas could say what Michael said:  “Robby knows that very many of us cannot in conscience affirm the Church’s teaching on [fill in the blank], so why would he propose to include that teaching in a joint statement?”

There are Catholics—conservatives and Republicans as well as liberals and Democrats—who hold that it is permissible for them to dissent even from what the magisterium of the Church proposes as authoritative Catholic teachings.  Michael is one.  For him, the Church’s teachings on sexual morality are merely “official,” not authoritative.  William F. Buckley, Jr. is another.  For him, the Church’s developed teaching on the death penalty, for example, is “prudential” but not authoritative.  He dissents.  Despite the wide ideological gulf separating Michael and Bill, they are in the same camp in denying that Catholics are responsible to form their consciences in line with norms of morality proposed by the magisterium as binding (whether infallibly proposed or not).  (This is not to suggest that the Church’s teachings on the death penalty are on the same plane of authority as her teachings on marriage and sexual morality.  The latter teachings have been clear, firm, and constant over the centuries. Germain Grisez and others have argued that many of them are infallibly proposed by the universal ordinary magisterium pursuant to the criteria set forth in Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.  This is plainly not true of the developed teaching on the death penalty.)  But there are Catholics—liberals and Democrats as well as conservatives and Republicans—who take a different view.  We understand the norms of Catholic faith as demanding from us assent of intellect and will to teachings proposed by the magisterium as binding.  For most who share this understanding, assent is intellectually unproblematic, however much it may detract from our popularity in the social environment we inhabit or the “political circles” in which we travel.  We are open to the teachings and find their point and justification intelligible and persuasive.  We are not surprised to find them rationally defensible, since these are matters that the Church herself teaches can be understood by the light of natural reason, and we believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in ways that enable her to teach reliably on such matters.

Now there is no point here in rehearsing the argument between people in these two camps.  That argument is interesting and important, to be sure, but it is beside the point of this discussion.  (Anyone wishing to examine what has been said by leading theologians on the competing sides would do well to look at writings by Francis Sullivan and Germain Grisez.  For those who prefer reading the works of law professors, John Noonan and John Finnis have written on the subject from opposing vantage points. In the course of analysis, they offer competing understandings of the development of the Church’s teaching on slavery, usury, religious freedom, etc.)  The important thing here is simply to note the fact that there are two camps, but they do not divide along partisan or ideological lines.  There are liberals and conservatives in both camps.

I don’t think it would add much value to our national politics for a group of Catholics including those who regard themselves as free to pick and choose among the authoritative (as I said, Michael would reject this term in favor of the term “official”) teachings of the Church on issues dividing secular liberals and conservatives to issue a joint statement.  I do think, however, that Catholics who understand and affirm what I referred to as the “seamless garment” of Catholic moral teaching—that is, those who believe, as I believe, that the teachings across the spectrum of issues from those that vex most secular liberals to those that trouble many secular conservatives derive from the Church’s profound understanding of the dignity of the human person—can add something important to the national debate by laying aside partisan and ideological differences to affirm what we regard as the moral wisdom of the Church, regardless of whose partisan or ideological ox is being gored.

I’m sorry that those Catholics—conservatives and liberals alike—who regard themselves as entitled to dissent from the Church’s moral teachings on the death penalty, sexual morality, or whatever would in conscience be unable to join the effort.  But to try to bring them in would be to render the effort pointless.  Either the statement would say nothing very interesting, or the list of signatories would read like the list of justices in a fractured Supreme Court ruling:  Professor Jones joins the statement on torture and the death penalty, but not on abortion and sexual morality; Professor Smith joins on abortion and sexual morality, but dissents on torture and the death penalty; Professor Wilson joins on torture and abortion, but declines to join on sexual morality and the death penalty; and so forth.  What good would that do?

The distinguished political scientist and public policy scholar John DiIulio (himself a Democrat) has argued that what is needed from Catholic intellectuals, be they Democrats or Republicans, is fidelity across the spectrum of issues on which the Church authoritatively teaches.  Conservatives should form their consciences in line with the wisdom of the Church even where, in terms of contemporary politics, that leads to judgments generally regarded as “liberal.”  Liberals should form their consciences in line with the wisdom of the Church even where that leads to judgments regarded as “conservative.”  (Professor DiIulio’s teaching is much in the spirit of the late philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, who to the annoyance of many on the right condemned the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Cold War strategy of nuclear deterrence, and who to the annoyance of many on the left spoke out against contraception, abortion, fornication, and sodomy.)  Like me, Professor DiIulio believes in the seamless garment of Catholic moral teaching.  If we are right, then there is everything to be said for joining together across the lines of partisan and ideological division to confront what passes as wisdom in the world (or, perhaps I should say, in the worlds of secular liberalism and conservatism and in the Democratic and Republican parties) with what we are convinced (though we are aware that not all of our fellow Catholics share our view) is the wisdom of Christ alive in His Church.  Many secular liberals would, to be sure, be scandalized by what they would regard as the “intolerance” of Catholic liberals who joined our act of witness.  Many secular conservatives would, no doubt, be annoyed by what they would view as the “soft-headedness” of Catholic conservatives in our group.

We Catholic liberals and conservatives could all be “fools for Christ” together.

I should say -- with respect to Professor George's posts and also Michael's and Eduardo's -- that I am grateful for the forum that Mirror of Justice provides for thoughtful scholars, citizens, and Christians to work through these questions and debates.  As I imagine we all know well, such forums (I don't like the word "fora") are too rare.