An MOJ Reader Responds

William Junker writes:

David Gibson's misrepresentation of the encyclical resides chiefly in
his claim that “what is clear, whether one reads every word or just
excerpts, is that the pope is a liberal, at least in American
political terms.” This is the mistake that Reese also makes. It is
true, of course, that the specific economic policies preferred by the
Pope and articulated in CV are more progressive and redistributive
than any of those on offer in America. But it is also true that the
specific social views outlined by the encyclical–pertaining to
abortion, marriage, contraception, euthanasia, and reproductive health
technology–are much more “conservative”–I place this in quotes to note
that these are really positions demanded by the natural law–than any
on offer in America.

I am aware that Gibson chose to focus on the economic aspects of the
encyclical, and it is true that if these are taken in isolation from
the anthropology that subtends them, the Pope looks something like
what in America we call a liberal. My point is simply that they cannot
be so taken, that the Christocentric anthropology on offer from the
Pope extends from conception, through the activities and structures
constituting social life, till natural death, and consequently that
the principles and policy prescriptions that follow from this
anthropology cannot be reduced--as they are reduced in Gibson, Reese,
and Weigel--to the conceptual categories of liberalism.

The ideological liberalism of these  authors disintegrates what in
reality is a seamless whole: Weigel sees the "real" Benedict in those
portions of the encyclical that seem to align with conservative
liberalism, while Gibson and Reese see the "real" Benedict in those
portions that seem to align with liberal liberalism.  What they all
miss, of course, is precisely the fact that the thought of Benedict--
the thought of the Church--cannot be so parsed: not because it
constitutes a reconciliation of these forms of liberalism but because
it refuses to be bound by the dictates of liberalism itself.  It is
therefore quite possible that what commentators are beginning to
describe as the encyclical's disunity, its apparent inconsistency in
tone, language, and argumentation, is less a reflection on the
encyclical itself than on the interpretive assumptions of its readers.