I've been reading The New Republic for almost 25 years. I guess I always figured it kept me honest, and kept me critical, reading the work of smart people whom I regard as reasonable but (on some things) wrong. That said, I've long been disappointed by the fact that there is little that appears in the magazine about things Catholic that isn't snarling, smug, silly, or superficial. This piece, by Damon "Theocons!" Linker, "Cross Purposes: The Pope's Real Enemy," does nothing to unsettle this view. Read it for yourself, and see what you think.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Linker on Benedict. Europe, Christianity, and Islam
Mark Sargent's Thomas More speech
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.
Thursday, November 9, 2006
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
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.
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
"A Secular Faith"
Darryl Hart's new book, "A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State," has been attracting some attention. Certainly, I agree that Christianity favors the "separation of Church and State," properly understood. It sounds like, though (see this review), Hart understands "separation" fairly broadly. That is, he contends not only that Christians should favor the independence of the Church from the State (i.e., the Freedom of the Church), but also that Christianity is "essentially a spiritual and eternal faith, one occupied with a world to come rather than the passing and temporal affairs of this world," one that "has very little to say about politics or the ordering of society." Still, the book sounds like it is worth checking out.
Monday, November 6, 2006
Law and Religion at Emory
I am just back from a roundtable conference -- the third annual meeting of a five-year project on Christian Jurisprudence -- at Emory's Center for the Study of Law and Religion. It was a great time. In a nutshell, the project convenes two dozen or so scholars (including MOJ-ers Michael Perry and Kathy Brady) -- lawyers, historians, theologians, philosophers, and political scientists -- from the Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic Christian traditions for meetings and workshops aimed at, eventually, producting two dozen or so new monographs on "the contributions of modern Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox figures to fundamental questions of law, politics, and society."
Emory's John Witte is the ringleader for the project. He is, of course, a force of nature.
I presented this paper, on the Freedom of the Church, which will -- I hope -- eventually be part of a book about religious freedom and the separation of church and state, properly understood. It received a helpfully, but quite forcefully, critical response.
"The Cross and the Crescent"
A must-read for folks interested in, well, the future of the West: Here is John Allen on relations between Catholicism and Islam, in a piece called "The Cross and the Crescent." Allen writes:
The heart of my argument in that lecture is that Pope Benedict XVI may well be the last, best hope for serious dialogue between the West and the Islamic world, because he is the lone figure of global standing in the West with the spiritual and theological credentials to address Muslims from within their own thought world. Hence when Benedict challenges Muslims to embrace reason and to respect religious freedom, he does so from within a shared space of commitment to religious truth. . . .
The fundamental “clash of civilizations” Benedict sees in the world today is not between Islam and the West, but between belief and unbelief – between a culture that recognizes the supernatural and a role for religion in shaping both public and private life, and one which does not. In that struggle, Benedict regards Muslims as natural allies. He has said repeatedly over the years that he admires their moral and religious seriousness, and he believes the West has something to learn from Muslims about resisting secularization. He believes that the Church and Islam can also be partners in the social, cultural and political arena. . . .
In the wake of Regensburg, the climate for Muslim/Christian exchange, I would submit, has been made more poisonous. If many Muslims harbor unresolved resentments about the pope’s language, many Christians and others in the West are experiencing a kind of fatigue about Muslim outrage. Seeing images of the pope burned in effigy, of Muslims irrationally associating Benedict XVI with the foreign policy of President George Bush despite the Vatican’s long track record of opposition to both Gulf Wars, and of violent attacks against churches and missionaries, many in the West may be tempted to conclude that dialogue with these people is impossible, that the best we can hope to do is to prepare for the cataclysmic showdown that seems to be looming.
If Benedict XVI is to lead us out of this blind alley, that project will require the energy and imagination of committed women and men of good will, including all of you in this room tonight. It is a challenge that all of us together must face – but one we must pray, along with Pope Benedict, that all of us together can face
Bess to deliver Schmitt Lecture
MOJ-friend and Catholic new urbanist Philip Bess has the honor of delivering this year's Schmitt Lecture, sponsored by the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture. The lecture is called "After Urbanism: The Strange Bedfellows of Neo-Traditional Architecture and Town Planning." If you are around South Bend on Nov. 15, check it out.
By the way, Philip's new book, "Till We Have Built Jerusalem," is out and available.
Gallicho reviews "Deliver Us From Evil"
The documentary film, "Deliver Us From Evil," which deals with the sex-abuse scandal, has been getting lots of (positive) press. Here is Grant Gallicho's (of Commonweal) thoughtful, critical review.
Michael's correspondent
I imagine that each one of us regrets the tone of and sentiments expressed in the e-mail that Michael received from an angry reader. And, I'm sure I'm not the only MOJ blogger who has received similar e-mails (though mine come more from the "left" than from the "right").
The cranky missive Michael received serves as occasion to remember, it seems to me, that Mirror of Justice is a public conversation among friends / lawyers / scholars about what the Faith means for "legal theory." And, it is a conversation among people who disagree strongly about many things and who might -- this side of Heaven -- understand the Faith differently. We have never promised that all of our posts will be sensible, let alone orthodox. But, I hope readers know, we are doing our best. No matter how misguided I have thought some of my fellow bloggers' views and conclusions were, I have believed from the beginning of this enterprise that the conversation was worth having -- and worth having in public -- if only to "model" for students and fellow citizens what good-faith searching-in-community might look like. (This is not to say, of course, that all views are equally correct, or to pretend it does not matter whether or not we get it right.) So, I hope our readers in Omaha will not be swayed by the crochety complaining of Michael's correspondent.
And, of course, someday I will succeed in convincing Michael Perry to agree with me about those few matters where he persists, at present -- no doubt just to keep things interesting -- in disagreeing with me. Stay tuned. . .