Thanks to Steve—a reply to his posting

I am grateful for Steve’s recent response to my previous posting. I take this opportunity to respond to him, and I will do my best to answer his questions and make a few comments about his perspective on some very important issues.

I begin with his observation that I was silent on the matter of whether the doctrinal perspective (of the Church) is consistent with American democracy. Steve and I are not the first to address this question. As I recently mentioned, Senator John Kennedy’s address to the Protestant ministers frames this issue in one context. Another context was raised by John Courtney Murray in his foreword to “We Hold These Truths—Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition.” [1960, pp. ix-x] I believe that Fr. Murray offered a vital insight when he said this: “The question is sometimes raised, whether Catholicism is compatible with American democracy. The question is invalid as well as impertinent; for the manner of its proposition inverts the order of values. It must, of course, be turned round to read, whether American democracy is compatible with Catholicism.” It might also be worth taking into account which came first: Catholicism or American democracy.

What does this mean in the context of the discussion between Steve and me? I think it means this: there are two facets of the Catholic doctrinal perspective regarding the context of American democracy—the first is the theological perspective; the second is the moral teaching. In regard to the first category, I consider the “theological” as that corpus of doctrine that is constitutive of the Catholic faith, e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine of the resurrection; the teachings on sin and grace; etc. The second facet takes account of the moral teachings of the Church which have a more ecumenical, even universal, application, e.g. Pacem in Terris (John XXIII) and Populorum Progressio (Paul VI), both of which were addressed not only to members of the Church but also to “all men of good will.” As I also mentioned in my previous post, both President Kennedy and the Department of State thought there was something to consider from the encyclical Pacem in Terris.

I agree with Steve that if a Presidential candidate, who is Catholic, were to publicly endorse and (my view) to promote the theological doctrine in seeking office, he or she would likely encounter great difficulty. Moreover, there would, I think, be problems with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in this regard. However, I hasten to add that if the Catholic candidate were to promote not the theological but the moral teaching that is of general application, I do not see a Constitutional impediment, nor do I envisage any prudential problem that would make the Catholic candidate unelectable for exhorting this moral perspective in his or her campaign. By way of illustration, let us consider the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Surely, this important development in our nation’s political life had a strong connection with faith communities that were asserting civil rights on the basis of moral teachings that emerged from faith communities.

Moreover, I would add that there appears to be little if any problem when people in public life, be they office holders or not, promote concerns about the environment, public support for educational initiatives, care for the elderly, and access to medical care, etc., that are also founded on principles from the moral teachings of the Church. Why should moral arguments dealing with abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research be any different? Any effort to arrest this discussion would be reflective of the circumstance John Paul II identified as thinly disguised totalitarianism; moreover, it would lead to the crossroads where democratic institutions stand or fall on the basis of the values that they embody and promote. (Evangelium Vitae, NN. 20, 46, and 70) Christopher Dawson made similar observations much earlier in the early twentieth century.

While I do have theological positions on doctrinal matters, I also hold positions on the moral teachings of the Church. The latter are the views upon which I rely in these postings. It appears to me that Steve and I might also be examining in our discussion the idea of the freedom of the citizen, both Catholic and other. Freedom is a vital component of our Nation and a value cherished by its members. But, I promote the view that there are two kinds of freedom involved here. One follows a more Lockean view of “freedom from”; this is an understandable view that I think many Americans, including some Catholics, hold. But it is an incomplete understanding of freedom, for there is also a “freedom for”, which includes a freedom to accept into one’s life the moral teachings that, I think, are crucial to the success of American democracy. “Freedom from” contributes to the notion of citizen as the autonomous and isolated individual; “freedom for”, on the other hand, promotes the idea of citizen as the involved member of society who pursues justice and right relationship not only for the self but for everyone else.

Indeed, all citizens, and for that matter, all members of civil society have rights, but they also have responsibilities to others. This is essential to the success of the American proposition. For, if the American experiment in democracy is based on the notion of “freedom from”, I think it will ultimately fail; however, if it is based on “freedom for”, it will succeed. Pessimism is fueled by “freedom from” but optimism is born from “freedom for.”

I share Steve’s view that “the Church can play a prophetic role; it can be influential; it can speak truth to power.” I also realize that the Church, regardless of whether it has internal division, exists in a pluralistic and often pragmatic country. But, this realization is no excuse that the Church and its members who exercise a public life must be silenced from participating in our national society when they speak from and contribute on the basis of the Church’s rich moral teachings. That would be a capitulation not to a country dominated by a Protestant mentality but to one in which moral relativism has become absolute.

Finally, it strikes me that other contributors to MOJ as well as its readers might like the reference to John Courtney Murray’s discussion of conscience and freedom to which I previously referred. Fr. Murray’s notes appear in “The Documents of Vatican II—with Notes and Comments by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Authorities” edited by Fr. Water Abbot, S.J. and Monsignor Joseph Gallagher. The specific footnote upon which I relied is footnote 5, which appears on page 679 of the hardback and paperback editions of the Abbot/Gallagher work. However, you may also want to look at footnote 58 on page 694-95, which further develops Murray's thoughts on freedom and conscience.

Once more, I extend to Steve my sincere gratitude for providing the opportunity for this useful exchange.    RJA sj