In my view, Casey Khan's arguments about Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and cooperating with evil are not very persuasive. (Full disclosure: I have donated money to the Thompson exploratory effort and intend, at present, to support him if he runs.) For starters, although I also like the views, and respect the persons, of Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, neither will ever, ever be the President, and so it strikes me as a bit close to empty moral preening to insist that pro-life Catholics need to support them in the primaries to avoid culpable cooperation with evil. They are as likely to be the President -- indeed, they are as likely to be the Republican nominee -- as, say, Cardinal George or Dorothy Day.
Like Rob, I was disappointed by the news that Thompson lobbied, more than 15 years ago, for a few hours, on behalf of an abortion-rights group -- one of his large law firm's clients -- trying to lift the so-called "gag rule." I would have -- I hope -- refused to do this work, and I wish Thompson had refused. And, I was also disappointed by his organization's initial not-straightforward response to the news. (Yuval Levin has a good post about the issue, here.) Still, it seems to me that (a) there is no "seamless garment" candidate and so, all things considered, the common good and religious freedom are better served by an executive branch staffed by a Republican administration, and by judges nominated by a Republican president, than by the Administration of any of the three or four plausible Democratic candidates (as I have always said on this blog, I understand and believe that pro-life, reasonable, faithful Catholics -- and also Tom Berg! -- can and do disagree about this), (b) at present, the only plausible Republican candidates are Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson, (c) Thompson's voting record, during the years he spent in the Senate -- as opposed to the few hours he billed lobbying to lift the gag-rule -- is, like Sen. McCain's, quite good on abortion and stem-cell research.
Khan's cooperation-with-evil argument seems to assume that a voter needs to worry about whether a vote for Thompson is culpable cooperation with Thompson's (let's assume) immoral act of lobbying to lift the gag-rule. But, it seems to me, this is not at all the question. Thompson is not running as the "lift the gag rule" candidate; quite the contrary. When it comes to abortion, voting for Thompson (or McCain, or Romney) would be voting for an Administration that would support reasonable regulations of abortion and nominate judges more likely to uphold reasonable regulations of abortion.
Here is a long post, over at the always-interesting Vox Nova blog, on the question whether it makes sense to think of the Faith in "liberal" and "conservative" terms. Here's a bit:
It is my conviction--and Pope Benedict XVI's many writings on law, society and politics confirm this--that Catholic perspectives on culture, society and politics will relentlessly challenge a world that has been interrupted by the advent of salvation in Jesus Christ. Something unexpected, something unanticipated, something foreign ought to be perceived by the world when Christians engage it with agape-caritas instead of conventionality-duty. And let me be frank: before a Christian can carry out such a glorious task, a Christian's mind and heart must be initially and continually transformed and renewed by the very same agape-caritas that is to be present to the world through that Christian's actions. This is a daunting and frightening prospect for the Christian, even after conversion, for this transformation and renewal never ceases as we plunge deeper and deeper into the mystery of divine love. Agape-caritas challenges our prevailing notions of love and, when extended into our actions in society, it challenges our prevailing notions of justice, shattering the simplistic reasonings and categories we cling to in our outlook of mundane tasks such as politics.
In this piece, from the Chicago Tribune, the author discusses the Democrats' "abortion quandary." Here are some snippets:
In sometimes subtle ways, Democratic Party leaders and political professionals are grappling with how to address abortion, an internal debate that turns on questions of emphasis, political positioning and how far to go in accepting as a public-policy goal the view that abortion is a moral tragedy to be avoided.
While there is no serious discussion of moving away from the party's long-standing support of abortion rights, some moderates have pressed the party to more aggressively press a message that Democrats would work to reduce the number of abortions. But the party's pro-abortion-rights constituency is wary of too strong an identification of abortion as a social ill, fearing that would provide political momentum for legal restrictions. . . .
It is a quandary, indeed. If party party leaders and candidates agonize about even acknowledging that abortion is a "social ill", or a "moral tragedy to be avoided", then is there any hope at all for a place in the party's policy-conversation for "seamless garment" types, or even run-of-the-mill "troubled-but-pro-abortion-rights" Americans?
I came across this today, in Maritain's Man and the State:
Let me say, as the testimony of one who loves this country, that a European who comes to America is struck by the fact that the expression “separation between church and state,” which is in itself a misleading expression, does not have the same meaning here and in Europe. In Europe it means, or it meant, that complete isolation which derives from century-old misunderstandings and struggles, and which has produced most unfortunate results. Here it means, as a matter of fact, together with a refusal to grant any privilege to one religious denomination in preference to others and to have a state-established religion, a distinction between the state and the churches which is compatible with good feeling and mutual cooperation. . . . There's a historical treasure, the value of which a European is perhaps more prepared to appreciate, because of his own bitter experiences. Please to God that you keep it carefully, and do not let your concept of separation veer around to the European one.
There's a lively discussion going on, around the blogosphere (or is it "blogsphere") about the new Barna study of American Catholics. (Click here for J. Peter Nixon's helpful Commonweal post. And, click here for a relevant, recent John Allen column on assimilation and distinctiveness.) A very thoughtful former student of mine -- who, as it happens, came into full communion with the Catholic Church from an Evangelical background -- sent me some thoughts, and kindly permitted me to blog them:
. . . It's hard to tell what Catholics are being compared to. At >one moment Catholics are compared to "people aligned with other faith >groups," but at others they are being compared to "other Americans." > >Insofar as the study seeks to compare Catholics to "other Americans," >I think it is important to recognize that non-active Catholics are >almost certain to identifying themselves as Catholic, but >non-active Evangelicals are likely to consider themselves *former* >Evangelicals (as part of their heritage from the Radical Reformation - >only the true believers are part of the church). I would be more >interested in studying the results of a survey comparing the >attitudes, beliefs, and practices of active Cathoilcs to society at >large. > >In so far as Barna wants to judge what portion of Catholics are "real >Christians," it concerns me that some of the metrics he uses pertain >more to Evangelicals more than to Catholics. For example, Barna >defines "active faith" as reading the Bible, praying, >and attending a church service during the prior week. But, it seems >to me that someone might have an active Catholic faith even if he >didn't pick up a Bible during the past week. Did Barna ask whether >that person had prayed the rosary during the week, attended mass other >than on Sunday, or read Bible *passages* during the prior week (a >Catholic could, for example, read Scripture in a lectionary or in the >liturgy of the hours)? > >One more example: Barna determined whether Catholics are "born again" >based on whether they have made a "personal commitment to Jesus Christ >that is still important in their life today" and who said that "they >believe that when they die they will go to Heaven *because* they had >confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior." But >these are almost exclusively Evangelical categories that ignore the >traditional Christian faith. > >Catholics don't generally use the term "born again." But a Catholic >would respond when asked that he was born again not "at the hour I >first believed," but at his baptism. Only once does Christ in the >Gospels talk about the necessity of being "born again." And there >Christ requires not that someone strike up a personal relationship >with him, but being born of water and the spirit, a clear reference to >baptism (see http://www.catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp). > >Again, only an ill-taught Catholic would say that he believes he will >go to heaven because he had confessed his sins and accepted Jesus >Christ as his savior. Catholics, like Calvinists, believe that the >"perseverence of the saints" is very important. Catholics believe >that, as Christ taught in the parable of the Prodigal Son, it is >possible to be our Father in heaven's child, yet forsake our place in >his family and walk away. At that point, we are dead to our Father >until we return to Him, repent, and ask to be restored to forgiveness. >The father of mercies will never say no, but he also does not forgive >us until we have decided that we would rather live in our Father's >home than eat pig slop. > >So, in these significant ways, Barna is not measuring how many >Catholics are dedicated to their faith, but rather how many Catholics >are dedicated to Evangelicalism. > >But, leaving aside these methodological complaints, there is a lot >that is troubling in this study. And there certainly is a lot to what >Barna says about how Catholics have in essence traded their >distinctiveness for success and acceptance in American society. It >saddens me to see that Catholics have lost their "saltiness" in so >many ways. These statistics are grim. But, it should be said, this >is not news to Catholics. Many Catholic laypeople, bishops, and >priests have been making similar observations for decades. > >And their analysis differs significantly from Barna's. Yes, the shift >from urban blue-collar immigrant communities to middle class suburbia >has been an imporant one. But you can't understand what has happened >to American Catholicism in the past 50 years without looking at >Vatican II and how it has been received (and abused) in our culture. >I believe that Vatican II was a great gift to the Church, but too many >Catholic leaders thought this was their green light to remake the >Catholic Church in the image of liberal Protestantism. As a result, >millions upon millions of Catholics have been deprived the opportunity >to learn of the beauty of our faith by priests and nuns captive to an >alien, liberal ideology. Thank God, things have been getting better >and better over the past 20 years. But, the post-conciliar turbulance >has taken a great toll. > >All that said, you asked me not about my reactions to this survey, but >about my experience since I converted. I've seen a lot of lethargy >and complacency among Catholics, both at Notre Dame and in parishes. >It saddens and amazes me that so many people come to mass and are not >(so it seems to me) struck between the eyes by the Gospel. It >disappoints me that parishes generally lack the roll-up-your-sleeves, >can-do volunteerism that mark the best Evangelical congregations. And >it confounds me that there is such a divergence between what the >majority of American Catholics believe and what the Catholic Church >teaches. > >That's the downside. But there is a lot of upside as well. I have >met a lot of wonderful people and deep, deep Christians. There are so >many great priests, and I am so thankful for the two we have at our >parish. I have learned so much - about the Bible, about our Christian >heritage, and about what it is to be a Christian man, husband, and >father. More importantly, I think I've grown a lot, through my >reading, through Christian fellowship, and through the sacraments. I >love being a Catholic. It is so satisfying to be part of a Church >that cares deeply about doctrine and about history. And the spiritual >resources are endless. I have no doubts that this is where God has >called me, and that this is where I will remain. > >All the muckedy-muck that Barna writes about the mediocrity of so much >American Catholicism, it doesn't affect me that much. And here's an >important difference between Catholicism and Evangelicalism. The >Catholic Church is not a democratic institution. If the majority of >Amercan Evangelicals, readers of Christianity Today, professors at >Gordon-Conwell, or some other Evangelical institution come to believe >that women can be pastors . . . then that's what Evangelicalism will >become. There's no real stopping it. But the Catholic Church is very >different in that regard. The Church itself is unwavering and it is >strongly counter-cultural. It is a great failure that so many >Catholic clergy and laypeople have strayed from the Church's faith. >But none of that creates any confusion for anyone who cares enough to >read the Catechism and listen to papal teaching. And I think that any >study of committed Catholics would bear that out. So I find it's >rather easy to "tune out" all that noise and focus on what's good, >beautiful, and true.
The Chicago Tribune reported the other day that the leading candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination had "pledged support for wide access to abortion" (i.e., more public funding, among other things):
Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion.
Edwards was joined by Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at the group's political organizing conference in addressing issues at the core of the political clash between cultural liberals and conservatives, including abortion rights, access to contraception and sex education.
Now, I suppose that the political reality is that a candidate opposed by Planned Parenthood simply has no chance of winning in the Democratic primaries. Still, it seems unfortunate that, of the plausible nominees, not one is really positioning him- or herself as a "Democrat for Life."
Rob is right, of course, that "Protestant ministers engage in sexual abuse or in sexual activity with minors, too" is hardly the most important thing to be said about the clergy-abuse scandal in the Catholic context. And, just to be clear, please insert here ________ the most unyielding and furious denunciation one can imagine of those priests and bishops who have engaged in or mishandled the abuse of children. Still, it seems to me that the following are true, and troubling:
(1) Non-Catholics have, in my experience and reading, too often indulged the temptation to smugness, as if there were something particularly "Catholic" about the conduct at issue ("Ah, that celibacy thing . . . ", or worse.). There just isn't.
(2) The press has -- and no, to point this out is not to blame the press for the sins and errors of priests and bishops -- systemically (one might even suspect "gleefully") presented this issue as (almost) entirely a "Catholic" one and has, in addition and in many ways, mis-reported the issue in unsurprising but still irritating ways.
(3) The sex-abuse-litigation to date, and the reporting about that litigation, has been Catholic-centric in part, I suspect, because Catholic institutions, leaders, and dioceses are more attractive defendants for big-money purposes.
In today's New York Times, I read here about the huge (more than $600 million) global settlement to which the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed in about 500 abuse-allegation cases. (How much is that for Mr. Raymond Boucher, "the lawyer who is representing 242 of the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles cases"?).
Then, over in the book-review section, I read this glowing review (one of many the book has received) of Andrew O'Hagan's "Be Near Me," a sensitive and sympathetic portrayal (I'm told) of a depressed, middle-aged priest, who misses his glory days as a university aesthete and who gets intimately involved with a working-class, not-so-innocent 15-year-old boy. After the priest is caught, we are told by the reviewer, he falls victim to the town's "anarchic spite", its "brief spasm of righteousness", and we are (apparently) left wondering "[s]o why are two people alone, in a rectory, murmuring over a nice potage, finally not enough?"
Strange times.
UPDATE: Read our own Steve Bainbridge, on the L.A. settlement, here.
This Call for Papers might be of interest to some MOJ readers and bloggers:
AALS 2008 Annual Meeting Section on Law and Education Call for Papers
The Section on Law and Education seeks 3 to 4 papers and panel participants for the 2008 section meeting, co-sponsored by the Section on Law and Religion, on the topic of religious speech in public K-12 schools. Selected papers will be published in the Journal of Law and Education. The title and a brief description of the program are below.
"Faith at the Schoolhouse Gate: Analyzing Religious Speech in Public Schools." Because students and educators necessarily bring their beliefs and convictions with them through the schoolhouse gate, clashes inevitably occur between deeply held religious values and the values of others in the school community. Those clashes can arise when school officials attempt to enforce hate speech policies against what they see as offensive or hurtful religious speech, to restrict the distribution of religious literature, or to respond to students' religious expression in broadly framed assignments or activities. They arise in a host of contexts that pit students and their families against school officials, and school officials against one another. They pull into sharp conflict competing constitutional freedoms and competing national values. Panelists will examine the complex theoretical tensions these conflicts present and the implications of the courts' continually evolving approaches to those tensions.
Abstracts (100-250 words) should be submitted by email by July 31, 2007, to Daniel Weddle at [email protected]. Please put "Education Law Section Program" in the subject line. Questions can be directed to Daniel Weddle at 816-235-5654.
Here's a good post, by Peter Nixon, over at Commonweal. He's commenting on a recent study of American Catholics, conducted by the Barna Group, which "concludes that Catholics are more or less indistinguishable from the general public with respect to many social and cultural attitudes." (See also Ron Sider's "Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience".)
Peter is concerned, but skeptical, and -- I think (notwithstanding my strong concern for Catholic distinctiveness) -- with some justification:
I'm not trying to ignore the massive amount of evidence out there that there has been a marked decline in Catholic religious practice in the last half century. The evidence--from many sources other than Barna--is overwhelming. The finding that concern for the poor is not more evident in the Catholic population than in the general population is certainly cause for concern, as are some of Barna's other findings.
But the overall tone of this document irks me, as it seems to suggest that Catholics are not good Christians primarily because they don't think and act like Evangelical Protestants. . . .
