Some in the Catholic academic community, both here on Mirror of Justice and elsewhere, tend to describe the liberal wing of Catholicism as that which upholds the Preferential Option for the Poor as enshrined in Catholic Social Thought, while the conservative wing of Catholicism cares only about moral and cultural issues but neglects the persistent problem of poverty.
One answer to that inaccurate caricature (although one focusing on the contrast between religious conservatives and secular liberals) may be found in Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks's new book titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (which will be available in bookstores later this week).
In an article about the book and Professor Brooks on Beliefnet, Frank Brieaddy writes:
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.
In the book, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
About Brooks's book, Brieaddy further writes in the Beliefnet article:
The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
[In this regard, I am reminded of the old saw that liberals truly are more generous -- but with other people's money.]
As a point of common-ground, Catholics of whatever political persuasion should agree that Catholic Social Thought is much more than a platform for governmental programs. Aside from politics, we should heed the words of Pope Benedict that charity, as an act not merely of justice but more importantly of love (caritas), is an essential element of the Christian life and that "Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies." Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est para. 31b
On Friday and Saturday of this past week the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace hosted a conference in Rome entitled “The University and the Social Doctrine of the Church—working together towards an authentic and integral humanism.” The participants who attended come from a wide range of academic fields and work around the globe.
As I was on my way to Saturday’s session, I took along a copy of a news story about the hopes of some Americans to slowly but surely “get back on track” with certain human rights claims that the new Congress must tackle when it convenes in January. I was struck with the realization that most of the claims discussed in the report were for the advancement of the autonomous self rather than the promotion of the interests of every person who bears the image of God. The article failed to acknowledge that the human person is also a member of many communities (family, city, state, nation, and the world) where the relationship between rights and responsibilities—a core element of Catholic social doctrine—was conspicuous by its absence in this report I read.
Two of the claimed “rights” discussed in the report involved some perennial favorites: abortion and medical research (the code name for embryonic stem cell research) to mention but a few. While some human rights advocates stress the need for fortification of these “rights” and programs and strengthening the legal regimes that protect them, I realized all the more how these claims reinforce the demands of the autonomous individual at the expense of the human family and the common good as it is understood within the social teachings of the Church. Ultimately the claims asserted by those interviewed for the article I was reading undermine the dignity of the human person and, therefore, cannot be advanced as authentic human rights. Nonetheless, there are those who are intent on “getting back on track.”
And what is the response of the Catholic university and its intellectual community to all this? The answer is for us committed to Catholic higher education to formulate, but I hasten to add that it would or should be an alternative to the positions of the “human rights advocates” mentioned in the news report I read on the subway ride to conference. Theirs is a world guided by subjectivism rather than by the transcendent moral order taught to us by the one who came to save us. But there is a temptation—sometimes a strong one—to reflect the ego-centric culture that surrounds one’s self. I recall a year ago reading another news report about a demonstration that was taking place at an institution that uses the moniker “Jesuit.” The news reporter covering the event asked one of the students involved with the protest why he would be supporting a cause that conflicted with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The student avoided the question by replying that Jesuits are all about advocacy, and he, the student, was advocating for a cause in which he passionately believed.
All about advocacy! Advocacy for what? As a Jesuit with more than a remote interest in the work of the academy that claims to be Catholic and Jesuit, it strikes me that some odd contentions have been asserted in the past—distant and recent—where “rights” claims have been asserted at the expense of someone else’s human dignity. If indeed the Catholic university is a place to cultivate advocacy, the advocacy proclaimed should be in accord with the social doctrine of the Church and not that of a secular and, sometimes, relativistic culture that may claim to defend “human rights” but, in fact, does otherwise. It is this doctrine of the Church that, in a rigorously intellectual and scientific way, can be studied, taught, and learned so that one day, perhaps even in our lifetimes, it may be more of the rule and less of the exception.RJA sj
Thanks to Rick for the ref to the TOUCHSTONE article on Christian Democratic parties in Europe, a topic of great interest to me. The description the article provides of those parties' ideological premises sounds accurate. It is important to recognize, however, that there were important national variations. Of particular interest, I think, is the peculiar Italian variation. For over 40 years the Italian state and the Christian Democratic party (CDP) were almost synonymous. No government was possible without it, and wielded enormous power. To be sure, it had a strong infusion of Catholic ideology. It had a kind of Catholic Social Thought wing which emphasized the importance of moderating the effects of capitalism and the other premises Rick summarized; Azione Cattolica, the most important Catholic org in Italy, was a crucial source of both political strength and ideas. Other ancillary organizations had a strong Catholic character, such as the Coldiretti, a group that represented the interests of peasant farmers, and emphasized the family as the primary component of society (still around),
as well as Catholic business and agricultural cooperatives and workers' unions). The CDP also, for much of its history, reflected Catholic views regarding divorce and popular culture. Unfortunately, the CDP, particularly after the economic boom of the late 1950's and 1960's, became a deeply corrupt organization, totally distorted by its own enormous power. The virtual identification of party and state, particularly in the South, accentuated the inherent weakness of Italian civil society, turned clientalism (long an Italian specialty) into an endemic disease, and turned the party-dominated state corporations into black holes. Ironically, the greater strength of the Communist Party in Italy than in any other Western European country, had the effect of maximizing CDP power and ultimately corruption, because millions (especially serious Catholics) turned to it as the principle bulwark against communism. Anti communism was one of the party's dominant ideologies; but fear of the Communists' real power, especially in Sicily fueled an unholy alliance with the Mafia. The endless series of corruption scandals at the highest levels of Italian government and society over thye last 50 years resulted from a variety of social and civic pathologies in Italy, but they all involved a Christian Democratic party that had lost its Catholic soul, despite its rhetoric. The CDP's heir today is Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia! party ("Let's Go, Italy!"), which doesn't even pretend to be inspired by the Catholic social thought tradition. Ony Italy's profound left/right division would allow such a party continuing influence (even though it --barely-- lost the last election. Those interested in these matters should see two marvelous (and angry) books by the historian Paul Ginsborg, A HISTORY OF CONTEMPORARY ITALY, 1943-1980 and ITALY AND ITS DISCONTENTS (continuing the strory after 1980). Alexander Stille's recent book, THE SACK OF ROME shows how Berlusconi picked up where the CDP left off, and his earlier EXCELLENT CADAVERS tells the sad story of the Christian Democratic Party's deep involvement with thye Sicilian Mafia.
But Rick raises an interesting question -- other European CDPs, and the Italian one in its better moments, represented a distinctive Christian/Catholic view of politics that never had any traction in the US. Why? A subject for another post....
"The Decreasing Ontological Density of the State in Catholic Social Doctrine" Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2006-23 Villanova Law Review, Scarpa Symposium, Vol. 52, 2007
ABSTRACT: Over the last century-plus, Catholic social thought has gradually reduced the ontological density of the state, to the point that the state now appears to have only a tentative grasp on the natural law basis of its legitimacy. During the first part of the twentieth century, Catholic social doctrine tended to view the legitimate state as a participant in the divine rule; although draped in a sacred mantle, the state was subject to the limits imposed by the divine and natural law. In response to the totalitarian states' transgressing of those limits at mid-century, Catholic thinkers reduced the scope and stature of the state's place in man's life in society, while insisting that the state remain tethered to the natural law. Today, however, Catholics and others face a laicized state that utterly denies its obligations under the natural law. While Pope John Paul II eventually responded to this denial by emphasizing the natural law limits on the state, Pope Benedict has instead summoned leaders and citizens to acknowledge and develop a state that is committed to "reason," even if this means inviting unbelievers to act "as if God exists." As understood by Pope Benedict XVI, the state, a servant of individuals and diverse societies, is to receive its content and direction from, among other sources, the Church; it is to receive reason purified by faith.
CNN is promoting an upcoming Sanjay Gupta special on "Happiness and Your Health" with a teaser article that made me think of the Wesley Smith column about growing support for euthanizing disabled newborns that Rob brought to our attention recently.
Smith discussed, among other things, NYT columnist Jim Holt's suggestion that " the decision to kill ill or disabled babies should be governed by “a new moral duty,” namely, “the duty prevent suffering, especially futile suffering.” Holt writes: "To keep alive an infant whose short life expectancy will be dominated by pain — pain that it can neither bear nor comprehend — is, it might be argued, to do that infant a continuous injury."
I think that experience with abortion decisions based on prenatal diagnosese of disabilities clearly shows that Smith is right in observing that "The concept of suffering is not limited to pain, but must also take account of “quality of life,” as more liberal advocates of infanticide would surely point out." Which brings me to the CNN article on happiness. Although it's light and frothy, it references some serious research that's been done on how people actually living with disabilities are just about as happy as the general population. Why are these kinds of findings persistently ignored by people trying to justify euthanasia or abortions based on disabilities?
I'm a big fan of Touchstonemagazine (although I wish they would put more of the magazine's content online!). The latest issue -- see if you can find it, or just subscribe! -- has an essay that will be of interest to all those who all those intrigued by the "seamless garment party" idea that gets kicked around on this blog sometimes. In "The Long Culture War: The Christian Democratic Response to Modernity and Materialism," Allan Carlson presents and analyzes the rise and history of Christian Democratic parties in Europe. (Nutshell -- Christian Democratic politics were a response to the French Revolution and the Kulturkampf, and aspired to be a distinctly Christian response to modernity.) Christian Democracy, he describes, opposed "economic materialism", "stood for organic society", embraced "the spontaneous structures of human life" and sought to protect them from "the leveling tendencies of modernity", viewed the family "as the vehicle for the regeneration of all society", and so on.
Carlson notes "there has never been a serious Christian Democratic party in America," in part -- interestingly -- because of our "more complex, or perhaps more confused, relationship with the legacy of the French Revolution."
There's a lot more. If you can find the article, check it out.
Notre Dame's Jean Porter has a good essay, "Protecting Individual Rights: A Deeply Catholic Tradition (really)", in Commonweal. Although I would probably quibble with some of her claims about nature and scope of the "Executive Power" which our Constitution vests in the President, the piece offers some very timely theological reflections on "due process" and its Christian pedigree.
I'm reminded, by the way, of an excellent conference, just held at St. Thomas, "The Relevance of Faith Traditions to Jurisprudence." One of the presentations was by Judge Diamuid O'Scannlain, "Must a Faithful Judge Be A Faithless Judge," who discussed the very important, and -- as the debates surrounding recent judicial nominations revealed -- misunderstood, question whether a judge who takes her faith seriously, and integrates it into her vocation, will for that reason be a judge who subordinates the commands of the positive law to her understanding of morality and Church teaching. As the Judge explained, there are very good, Catholic reasons for insisting, not that "morality is not relevant to civil law" but that "it is moral for judges to uphold the rule of law by not judging willfully."
The Bishop's statement is at http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf. I am confused by it. If a person persistently refuses to accept the Bishop's position on birth control (even without engaging in birth control), are the Bishops saying that the person should not receive communion? The statement refers to "issues" that are not accepted. Is one issue enough? E.g., abortion. If not, would a failure to agree on birth control plus homosexuality mean that a person should abstain from communion? Suppose the person accepts the position on abortion, but believes in an exception for rape? The statement, to me, reads as setting quite high standards of belief and acceptance. Am I wrong? How significant is the footnote on Canon Law?
I'm just starting through Noonan's book, A Church That Can and Cannot Change (2005). So far, so good. Early on, I came across a very interesting paragraph that I thought I'd throw out for discussion (and with a request for suggestions of further reading on this topic). Noonan stakes out the position that we ought to be able to discern authoritative doctrine from the conduct of popes and "spiritual persons," and not just from the hierarchy's self-consciously authoritative teachings. He says:
If we may distinguish these four large categories -- bad deeds, undefended; controversial deeds, sometimes criticized, sometimes vindicated; unchallenged practice, publicly engaged in by the popes; and conduct by spiritual persons that is unambiguously good -- we may conclude that at least the third and the fourth types of activity have a pedagogic function. They need to be taken account of in the development of moral doctrine.
Any thoughts on this? Any other discussions of the propriety (or impermissibility) of discerning authoritative teachings from the public (and uncontested) behavior of popes?
