Here is a speech our own Mark Sargent gave, a few weeks ago, as he received the Saint Thomas More Award from the Saint Thomas More Society of Philadelphia. The speech is a very thoughtful reflection on the thickly Catholic culture of the past, on the reasons for and effects of its dissolution, and the current state of things in the Church. Congratulations, Mark, and well done.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Mark Sargent's Thomas More speech
A thoughtful--and, to me, compelling--comment on the election by J. Peter Nixon at dotCommonweal
"Put Not Your Trust in Princes"
November 9, 2006, 9:38 pm
A rather enormous amount of digital “ink” has been spilled over the last couple of days analyzing the election. I can’t imagine there is any discernable trend—Catholic or otherwise—that hasn’t been thoroughly analyzed by smarter people than me.
After the election I felt the same way that I felt after my gall bladder surgery: relieved that something unhealthy had been removed, but not exactly ready to jump for joy. I think I need a few days in bed with some Vicodin to recover.
By “unhealthy,” I don’t mean that the Republican Party itself is a font of contagion. But 12 years in power is a long time. The system of checks and balances had clearly broken down. Control of one branch of government corrupts and control of two branches corrupts absolutely. For all kinds of reasons, it was time for a change.
Will the Democrats be any better? For a time, it may be so. Certainly there are aspects of the common good that might be better served by a Democratic Congress. But there are also issues where Catholics and the mainstream of the party have often been at odds. Those of us inclined to be pleased at last Tuesday’s result have a special obligation not to mute our prophetic voice simply because our political allies now hold the reins of power.
Let me close with two final points. The first is we need to take a hard look at the way that politics is affecting how we relate to one another within the Church. There are practicing Catholics active in both of the major political parties, and that is a good thing. But there are dangers here too. One danger is that our partisan affiliation becomes more predictive of our stands on certain issues than the fact that we are members of the Body of Christ. The second danger—one well highlighted by Cathy below—is when we import into the Church the kind of bitter, partisan discourse that has become all too common in our political campaigns. Our bishops, in particular, need to provide leadership in these areas.
My last point is that we need to place politics in its proper place within the apostolic life to which we are called. I believe deeply that Catholics are called to collaborate with all men and women of good will to achieve a more just and well-ordered society. But I don’t believe that the fundamental transformation of society to which Christians are called is something that is primarily accomplished through the coercive power of the state. Our primary focus must be Christian formation rather than political mobilization, trusting that well-formed Christians will have the virtues necessary to contribute effectively to the common good.
Having said these things, I hope you will join me praying for our elected officials.
_______________
mp
Thursday, November 9, 2006
The New Evangelicals
In Newsweek, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson lays out the agenda for the "new evangelicals" and the problems they pose for the GOP (not to mention the Dems). You should read the whole thing, but here's a taste:
Republicans will find it increasingly difficult to appeal to the new evangelicals with tired symbols like school prayer or the posting of the Ten Commandments. And candidates like Senator McCain will need to be more creative in their outreach than an uncomfortable speech at the Liberty University commencement. These activists will expect serious proposals on an expanded moral agenda—as President Bush has delivered on human trafficking and global AIDS. And they will not respond to a crude libertarianism that elevates the severe pleasures of cutting food stamps or foreign aid over the pursuit of the common good.
Joe Knippenberg is encouraged, but skeptical, hoping that "Republicans and conservatives can find a way to converse with these folks, providing some of the soundly practical ballast that Democrats and liberals who can appeal to their decency and moral energy can’t necessarily provide."
"Soundly practical ballast" is needed from the same party that has brought us trickle-down economics and a "mission accomplished" in Iraq? As for me, I see the new evangelicals as just what we might need to make our Seamless Garment Party a reality.
Rob
Decreasing, Harmonizing
Not that they can nearly compete with Rumsfeld's exit, the election results, or "Culture of Life/Death vs. Deus caritas est," but I thought I'd at least mention that I have just posted two new papers. "The Decreasing Ontological Density of the State in Catholic Social Doctrine," a sexy title if ever there were one, benefited from the incisive comments of fellow-MOJers Rob Vischer and Rick Garnett and Mark Sargent. The other, "Harmonizing Plural Societies," engages some of Rick's and Rob's ideas as they bear on "school choice." Comments will be gratefully received.
The election and the culture war
Certainly, there is much to endorse in the Commonweal post, by my colleague Cathy Kaveny, to which Michael links here. A few thoughts, by way of friendly amendment:
We should not forget that culture-war rhetoric, a "Manichean world view," and a "take-no-prisoners-and-admit-no-doubt strategy" is at least as prevalent on the left as it is on the "Religious Right." It could well be that this election saw "the middle" move from the GOP to the Democrats in part because of what they perceived (with the help, of course, of a media not bothered by the Democrats' rhetorical extremism) the Republicans' rhetorical excesses and policy overreaches. Still, the Democrats' base has long been and remains as animated by loathing, by "good and evil" talk, and by "admit no doubt" as any right-wing pundit or blogger.
Cathy suggests -- and I wish I could agree -- that this election shows that "the viewers" are saying that "[a] delight in demonizing the opposition" has to go. Certainly, it *should* go. But, this delight is at least as prevalent among Democrats as among Republicans, among "liberals" as among "conservatives" (read both "The Nation" and "The National Review"; both "Kos" and "The Corner"), and so it is not clear why a move to the Democrats entails or reflects any sweeping rejection of the "demonizing" strategy. (It reflects, I suspect, war fatigue, and disgust with Foley and Abramoff. Sadly, it probably does not reflect moral revulsion over excessive interrogation tactics.)
While I would not want to abandon the power (both rhetorical and descriptive) of John Paul II's "Culture of Life," I can certainly join Cathy in hoping that people and politics are animated in the future by a careful engagement with "Deus caritas est." That said, it is not clear to me that such an engagement will or should lead reasonable, thoughtful, nuance-seeing Catholics to abandon or mute efforts to protect unborn children from abortion and to correct the constitutional-law errors that, at present, hinder such efforts.
I agree entirely that Mary Ann Glendon’s Abortion and Divorce in Western Law is a powerful work, one that, were it read by all citizens and policymakers, would dramatically improve things. But, I would be surprised if Professor Glendon did not prefer the Republicans' approach to abortion over the Democrats'. And, again, the "humane" and "gradualist" approach endorsed in that book requires for its success -- indeed, requires for its initiation -- the correction of the Court's removal of abortion from the arena of dialogue, persuasion, and compromise. Let's agree that our approach should include carrots as well as sticks, that it should be sensitive to nuance, that it should not be tainted by demonization -- can we also agree that a necessary first condition for all this is for those on the abortion-rights side of our politics to repent of having enshrined in the Constitution their own exclusionary demonization of pro-life citizens?
UPDATE: Here's something else, by Ryan Anderson, who blogs at First Things:
And that is a lesson to take away from this election. Mud-slinging, attack campaigns, partisan politics, and the blame-game work in a handful of cases in the short term, but making positive, clear, consistent, defensible arguments, with charity and prudence, will prove more successful long term. (It should be noted that George Allen in
did the former and not the latter. He also lost.) Catholic bishops can lead the way. It isn’t a question of Republican or Democrat; it’s a question of certain moral truths and the common good. The clear principles of Catholic social thought and the rationally accessible—and highly persuasive—lines of argument from natural-law philosophy provide better grounds for discussion of how to order our lives together. Morlino, Chaput, and Sheridan know this. The electorate seems to be listening and responding. Virginia
This is also why a Republican like Michael Steele was able to perform so remarkably well in the blue state of
. Moving into the future, particularly the 2008 election, this will be the trend. Politicians from both political parties will be more conservative, including Republicans, who, during their two-year exile, will sober up and embrace more fully the basics of political conservatism. They will lead the way with clear, positive, and rationally persuasive arguments making the philosophical case for a principled conservative polity—and social issues will play a central role. Maryland
What Are Neuhaus, Weigel, Novak, et al. Saying at this Point in the Iraq War? Does Anyone Know?
[Phillip Carter, the author whose piece is referenced below, is an attorney and former Army officer, writes on
legal and military affairs. He recently returned from a year advising
the Iraqi police in Baqubah with the Army's 101st Airborne Division. What follows is from the Opinionator, New York Times online:]
[A]t Slate, Iraq war veteran Philip Carter details the impact of Rumsfeld’s disastrous tenure on Iraq and the larger the war on terror. “Rumsfeld’s failures transformed the Iraq war from a difficult enterprise into an unwinnable one,” Carter writes. “Make no mistake: These were not tactical failures, made by subordinate military officers. Rather, these were strategic errors of epic proportions that no amount of good soldiering could undo. Blame for these strategic missteps lies properly with the secretary of defense and his senior generals, and, ultimately, with the White House.”
Perhaps most important, Carter says that after Sept. 11, 2001, “The Rumsfeld Pentagon failed to articulate a successful strategic vision for the war.” Carter continues:
Consequently, America’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, and East Africa since Sept. 11 have lacked strategic coherence. There is no sense that the sum of these small victories would equal a larger victory over al-Qaida [sic] or terrorism generally.
Indeed, Rumsfeld’s dominance of the cabinet and the Bush administration may have guaranteed that America chose the entirely wrong paradigm for the past five years. Notwithstanding the spectacular violence of the Sept. 11 attacks, America might have done better had it not chosen a war paradigm to fight terrorism and instead chosen to employ a comprehensive array of diplomatic, intelligence, military, and law enforcement approaches.
Andrew Sullivan, unsurprisingly, puts things more bluntly:
Rumsfeld has blood on his hands — American and Iraqi blood. He also directly ordered and personally monitored the torture of military detainees. He secured legal impunity for his own war crimes, but that doesn’t mean the Congress shouldn’t investigate more fully what he authorized. He remains one of the most incompetent defense secretaries in history (McNamara looks good in comparison). But he is also a war criminal: a torturer who broke the laws of this country. The catastrophe in Iraq will stain him for ever. His record of torture has indelibly stained the United States.
Lifted from dotCommonweal
The Election and the (Culture) War
November 9, 2006, 11:33 am
What does the 2006 election mean for Catholic participation in American
political life? I think this country is sick of endless war – literal
war and metaphorical war. Political commentators say that the midterm
elections were a referendum on the war in Iraq, which is spilling the
blood of both Americans and Iraqis with no clear political objective
and no clear exist strategy. In my view, it is also a referendum on the
culture wars: the take-no-prisoners-and-admit-no-doubt strategy of the
Religious Right, which ended up being nothing more than a pathetic
mirror image of the same strategy used by the secular Left twenty years
earlier. I hope that the resounding defeat of Rick Santorum signals the
end of this way of rhetorically framing controversial moral and social
issues in both the Catholic Church in America and in American political
life more generally. The way the theocons framed and defended the Iraq
War was strikingly consonant with their framing of controversial
domestic issues. I think – I hope – the viewers are saying that it’s
this prophetic (and perhaps apocalyptic) frame that has to go.
1. A Manichean world view: it’s Good v. Evil, the forces of light v. the forces of darkness. And by the way, WE are GOOD.
2. A delight in demonizing the opposition: who could see anything good in the forces of darkness? How could the forces of darkness have any point worth considering whatsoever?
3. An inability to recognize hard questions, and to acknowledge good faith disagreement about difficult moral and political issues. To Catholic culture warriors, the question of stem-cell research, or the Terri Schiavo case, weren’t even hard questions. The very suggestion that they are hard questions proved your moral turpitude.
4. An ends-justifies-the-political-means mentality. If what it takes to rid the world of Saddam is prevarication on WMDs, so be it. If what it takes to save Terri Schiavo is to violate settled principles of federalism, so be it.
5. An inability to see nuance, or to take into account anything but one moral principle at a time. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Nothing else needs to be said. Therefore it should always be illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. If you think the question of the woman’s consent to sex is at all relevant to the legal status of abortion, you’re the enemy.
6. A preference for the stick rather than the carrot – after all, you can’t fight a war with a carrot. Support marriage by banning gay marriage; don’t provide married couples with the social support and other resources they need to make their commitment stick. Be pro-life by banning abortion, not by voting for social services that will prevent unwanted pregnancies.
You can’t argue someone out of a culture war mindset – on either side. You can’t make someone see nuance if they don’t want to see it. It’s a waste of time to try and do so. But maybe social conservatives who aren’t culture warriors – who see distinctions, who see some good in their misguided political opponents — might find a way of working together with social progressives of the same ilk.
For Catholics, I suggest the following:
1. The theological model should be Benedict’s Augustinian Deus Caritas Est – not John Paul II’s “Culture of Life v. Culture of Death.” The culture of life v. culture of death language too easily feeds Manichean tendencies present deeply present in our culture.
2. The legal model on abortion and marriage issues should be Mary Ann Glendon’s Abortion and Divorce in Western Law. It also should be the rhetorical model. It is humane, gradualist, and more concerned with the role of law as a teacher than law as police officer. I quote my colleague Don Kommer’s blurb on the back of my copy of the book:
“This book is dynamite. It blows to bits the often-heard contention that compromise on abortion policy is impossible in a divided society. The experience of other nations equally sundered along religious and moral lines shows that it is possible to craft an abortion policy marked by compassion for pregnant women and respect for unborn life. The argument of this book is graceful, elegant and persuasive. One reason for its persuasiveness is the author’s sympathy for the commitments and concerns of both sides for the abortion controversy.” She appeals to their deepest convictions, as well as to the general values of American society, to show that somewhere between the extreme positions of abortion on demand and no abortion at all a sensible and sensitive policy favored by most Americans is to be found.”
The book was written nearly twenty years ago. I am not sure that Professor Glendon still endorses its approach. But I think it is worth taking a second look at.
1. A Manichean world view: it’s Good v. Evil, the forces of light v. the forces of darkness. And by the way, WE are GOOD.
2. A delight in demonizing the opposition: who could see anything good in the forces of darkness? How could the forces of darkness have any point worth considering whatsoever?
3. An inability to recognize hard questions, and to acknowledge good faith disagreement about difficult moral and political issues. To Catholic culture warriors, the question of stem-cell research, or the Terri Schiavo case, weren’t even hard questions. The very suggestion that they are hard questions proved your moral turpitude.
4. An ends-justifies-the-political-means mentality. If what it takes to rid the world of Saddam is prevarication on WMDs, so be it. If what it takes to save Terri Schiavo is to violate settled principles of federalism, so be it.
5. An inability to see nuance, or to take into account anything but one moral principle at a time. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Nothing else needs to be said. Therefore it should always be illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. If you think the question of the woman’s consent to sex is at all relevant to the legal status of abortion, you’re the enemy.
6. A preference for the stick rather than the carrot – after all, you can’t fight a war with a carrot. Support marriage by banning gay marriage; don’t provide married couples with the social support and other resources they need to make their commitment stick. Be pro-life by banning abortion, not by voting for social services that will prevent unwanted pregnancies.
You can’t argue someone out of a culture war mindset – on either side. You can’t make someone see nuance if they don’t want to see it. It’s a waste of time to try and do so. But maybe social conservatives who aren’t culture warriors – who see distinctions, who see some good in their misguided political opponents — might find a way of working together with social progressives of the same ilk.
For Catholics, I suggest the following:
1. The theological model should be Benedict’s Augustinian Deus Caritas Est – not John Paul II’s “Culture of Life v. Culture of Death.” The culture of life v. culture of death language too easily feeds Manichean tendencies present deeply present in our culture.
2. The legal model on abortion and marriage issues should be Mary Ann Glendon’s Abortion and Divorce in Western Law. It also should be the rhetorical model. It is humane, gradualist, and more concerned with the role of law as a teacher than law as police officer. I quote my colleague Don Kommer’s blurb on the back of my copy of the book:
“This book is dynamite. It blows to bits the often-heard contention that compromise on abortion policy is impossible in a divided society. The experience of other nations equally sundered along religious and moral lines shows that it is possible to craft an abortion policy marked by compassion for pregnant women and respect for unborn life. The argument of this book is graceful, elegant and persuasive. One reason for its persuasiveness is the author’s sympathy for the commitments and concerns of both sides for the abortion controversy.” She appeals to their deepest convictions, as well as to the general values of American society, to show that somewhere between the extreme positions of abortion on demand and no abortion at all a sensible and sensitive policy favored by most Americans is to be found.”
The book was written nearly twenty years ago. I am not sure that Professor Glendon still endorses its approach. But I think it is worth taking a second look at.
by Cathleen Kaveny (Permalink)
Support for Complementarity
My colleague Elizabeth Brown brought the following study my attention. This seems so self-evident to me that it's difficult for me to understand why (as Elizabeth pointed out) most corporate boards today still only have one woman on them. I've often wondered if the Church might have handled the sex abuse allegations differently if there had been more women in higher administrative positions in the Church (whether or not they were ordained priests) hearing these stories. I wonder if the perspectives of people who might have been able to more easily identify with the victims than the alleged perpetrators might have contributed to a different institutional approach to the problem.
Board Composition
Study Finds Enhanced Governance
With Three or More Women on BoardA fundamental change in the boardroom and enhanced corporate governance can result from three or more women serving on a corporate board, according to a report released Oct. 25 by the Wellesley Centers for Women.
The report, "Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance" is based on interviews with 12 chief executive officers, 50 women directors, and seven corporate secretaries at Fortune 1000 companies. It finds that corporations with three or more women on their boards tend to benefit most from the women's contributions, which include:
providing different perspectives,
The report notes that a woman's presence on a board "can and often does" result in "substantial contributions ... [but the] magic seems to occur when three or more women serve on a board together." It concludes that "having three or more women on a board can create a critical mass where women are no longer seen as outsiders and are able to influence the content and process of board discussions more substantially." According to Vicki Kramer, one of the study's authors, "This study strengthens [women's] case for the importance of moving beyond tokenism."The report authors conclude that "diversity is an issue of governance and that increasing the representation of women on every board is a good governance issue."
The study, funded by the TIAA-CREF Institute as well as several foundations and individual contributors, is the first research study that tries to determine whether it makes a difference how many women served on a board.
More information on the report is on the WCW Web site at http://www.wcwonline.org/n-pr.html#womenonboard.
Lisa
Ectopic Pregnancies: Intent v. Knowledge
Julian Velasco responds to Karen Stohr's most recent comment on ectopic pregnancies:
Karen Stohr asks, “What grounds are you using for saying that the craniotonomy/salpingostomy constitutes the physical act of killing the baby, whereas a hysterectomy/salpingectomy does not?” She then adds, “In order to argue that the former are grave moral wrongs, you would *also* need to argue that they are intentional killings, that death is the aim.” I disagree with this method, but let’s play it out.
As for her first question, she seems not to appreciate the import of the use of the term “physical act” and uses it as she might use the term “act.” As I read it, however, “physical act” means the uncontextualized act undertaken by the actor. I would say (with Richard, I think) that there is a difference in the physical acts between the craniotonomy/salpingostomy and the hysterectomy/salpingectomy based on the directness of the action's impact. The former, which action is taken on the baby and directly leads to the baby's death, is killing. The latter, which action is taken on the mother and only indirectly leads to the baby's death, is merely letting the baby die. (In order to argue that a salpingostomy is merely letting the baby die, you would *at least* have to remove the baby perfectly intact from the mother. I do not see how the argument can be made for a craniotonomy at all.) But even if the argument on her first question fails, then we are left with the conclusions that both are killing (not that neither is), and that both are immoral if intentional.
So we move on to intention. I think that one need not establish that “death is the aim” (i.e., end, goal, desire, etc.) in order to establish an “intentional killing.” That is the whole point of the principle of double effect. One might have a perfectly noble aim and still be limited in the means they may choose to achieve it. In a craniotonomy/salpingostomy, one is intentionally killing the baby for the sake of the mother. The intent to kill is there, albeit an intent with respect to means, not an intent with respect to ends. In a hysterectomy/salpingectomy, on the other hand, one is not intending the death, either as the means or as the end. One merely knows that the death will result. Without more, knowledge is not enough to impute moral culpability.
So even using Karen’s method, a craniotonomy/salpingostomy constitutes an act of killing that is intentional. The death may not be desired, but there is a morally significant difference between “not desiring” and “not intending.” On the other hand, a hysterectomy/salpingectomy at most constitutes an act of killing (and that is disputed), but certainly not one that is intentional.
Rob
The God Gap
The CNN exit polls to which Eduardo links do not appear to support Amy Sullivan's conclusion that "the God Gap" has disappeared in American politics. According to the CNN polls, of the 17% who said they attend church "more than weekly," the GOP enjoyed a 60-38 edge; of the 28% who said they attend church "weekly", the GOP was up 53-46. And, of those who said they "never" attend church, the Democrats won 67-30.
That said, the Catholic numbers were interesting. It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that running candidates who profess to depart from the Democrats' positions on "social" issues (in the context of an unpopular war, congressional corruption, and popular minimum-wage ballot initiatives), is a good way for the Democrats to retain more Catholic voters, including Catholic voters who attend Mass.
I noticed that, in Missouri, the "God Gap" seemed slightly more pronounced, and the GOP Senate candidate won among Catholics. At first, I wondered if Amendment 2 -- which creates a constitutional right to create cloned embryos for research purposes and which was promoted by a dishonest, but very well financed effort -- had an effect. Apparently not. According to this article, Catholics split evenly on Amendment 2. And, of course, the Democratic candidate, Claire McCaskill, who is Catholic, nevertheless strongly supported the Amendment -- and, this support clearly helped her win the Senate seat.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
