Thursday, July 26, 2007
Amy Welborn has a bunch of links relating the the Church in China, the Pope's letter on the same, etc., here. And, here are some of Adam Minter's latest thoughts. Sandro Magister writes:
The letter written by Benedict XVI to the Catholics of China dictates exactly the conditions for leading back to unity – in the fidelity of all to Rome and in accord with the state authorities – the Catholics of this country, healing the fracture between the official Church and the clandestine one.
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.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
I have followed some of the earlier MOJ discussion on the Pope’s recently published book, Jesus of Nazareth. I am reading the same volume now, although in Italian—so my progress is slow. I am not sure I have any answers for the questions that Michael Scaperlanda has posed, but I would like to suggest an insight that can help with how this work of the Pope assists the CLT project. Obviously the Pope is addressing a type of authority: Biblical. But he is putting it in the context of another authority: the Magisterium. As a Catholic, he is much affected by these sources of authority, which he (and I) consider good. But as a German, he was much affected by another authority: that of the totalitarian state. And in this context, he witnessed the dangers of a godless authority that was subjective and based on the whim of the totalitarian state. I have read the Pope’s short autobiography, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977. From this book, I have been able to make some relevant connections between Joseph Ratzinger the Catholic, the theologian, and the pastor and the proper role of authority in Christian life. As Rick Garnett says, check it out (i.e., Milestones). You may find that having Milestones as a background and point of reference will place Jesus of Nazareth in a more accessible context that has a bearing on applying Pope Benedict’s new book to our CLT efforts. RJA sj
Regarding my post on Fred Thompson, MoJ reader Casey Khan comments:
Thompson's action of lobbying for lifting restraints on abortion counseling is an act of formal cooperation with evil. Thompson essentially made the the act of pro-abortion counseling his own. Thompson is in a state of manifest grave sin (add Romney and Giuliani to the list for similar reasons).
The question for the voter is would a vote for Thompson constitute cooperation with evil. If one votes for Thompson based on his pro-abortion views or actions would engage in formal cooperation with evil which is never justified. However, one can materially cooperate with evil if there is some other proportionate reason justifying it. . . . The difficulty here is what constitutes a proportionate reason. . . .
The bigger problem with Thompson is we don't know what, if anything Thompson really stands for. So I can't figure out what proportionate reason a Catholic should be voting for Thompson, especially during the primary elections. There may be a proportionate reason in picking the lesser of two evils in the national election against Hillary Clinton, but at this early stage, that argument doesn't fly.
I think Catholics have a number of other options which I think present potential proportionate reasons if the candidate is a pro-abort. These would fall on the Democratic side with the anti-war candidates of Kuchinick and Gravel. If the Catholic views the Iraq war as unjustified and destructive of the common good in the Middle East at our own government's hands, voting for a politician which the voter thinks will bring about a just resolution to this pressing matter may present a proportionate reason. Of course, on the Republican side there are choices that one could pick which does not in anyway cooperate with the evil of abortion. These candidates are naturally in the lower tier (big media is a part of the culture of death). Huckabee, Brownback, and Paul are three notable second tier candidates which Catholics could get behind. I think the Catholic who thinks that both abortion (per se) and the Iraq war (in this particular situation) are unjustified, does not have to materially cooperate with evil in either instance and strain to find proportionate justifications in voting for a presidential candidate. As such, I'm backing Ron Paul. The primary stage is the time for idealism, particularly for the Catholic who wants to see an end to the culture of death.
Rick is right to point out how far the Democrats have to go concerning abortion and how daunting the challenge is to pro-life Democrats. Without denying or minimizing that challenge, I would respond with a couple of comments why pro-life Democrats should soldier on. First, the presidential race, at the primary stage, is the place and time at which the abortion-affirming wing will be strongest among Democrats, because the process aims at the one highest position and the activists have so much influence. But as the article linked by Rick notes, the issue overall is under debate in the party, and the pro-life position will be more successful in moving things its way in some other contexts, such as Congress, governorships, and state legislatures. Thus, in the 2006 midterm elections, a number of congressional candidates favoring measures against abortion, led by Bob Casey in the Senate, were nominated by the Democrats and won. Second, the hard-nose abortion-affirming wing of the party has been empowered this cycle by, among other things, the widespread sense that the Democrats could win on "values" issues without having to move on abortion, simply because the Bush administration has flunked so many moral issues: the justice of the war in Iraq as initiated and executed, the half-hearted attitude toward renouncing torture, the acceptance of scandal and overreaching, etc. One can't put the weight of blame for Democrats' positions onto Republicans; nor am I claiming equivalency among all these issues. But as a practical matter, it would help those Democrats trying to push their party on abortion if the competing party provided a less morally flawed challenge.
Tom
Does news of Fred Thompson's lobbying work on behalf of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (in which he reportedly tried to lift federal restraints on abortion counseling) mean that pro-life Catholics should think twice before voting for him? I'm not equating his lobbying work with the policy positions of the leading Democratic candidates, but his decision to accept that client raises questions about his dedication to the pro-life cause, doesn't it?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
I consistently try to make the point with friends that traditional Christianity's opposition to same-sex marriage and parenting cannot be equated with homophobia, though I admit that the articulation of that opposition often bears a striking resemblance to homophobia. If Christians are to maintain the position that the children of same-sex parents are worse off than the children of opposite-sex parents, they will have to be careful to ensure that the differences are not due, at least in part, to the social hostility toward those families to which Christians are prone to contribute. More particularly, what justification does the Gospel provide for Christian churches to picket against a group of children on vacation with their gay parents?
Howard Friedman has a helpful round-up of the religion-related answers given by the candidates at last night's Democratic presidential debate, including Senator Obama's reassurance that he does not think that "people of any faith background should be prohibited from debating in the public square." I trust that this is not the extent of his outreach to religious voters.
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.
Monday, July 23, 2007
I enjoyed Tom Berg’s post about the good Samaritan. In my church (the Cornell Catholic Community), Father Robert Smith (among other things) also found a challenge beyond inclusiveness. He observed that the priest and the Levite did not help the victim in order to maintain ritual cleanliness. From this perspective, this resonates with the message Jesus often presented of the perils associated with too strict following of rules. But before we liberals triumphantly ran with that theme, Father Smith came to the heart of his homily in which he asked us to reflect on the rules or self imposed limitations we have that prevent us from helping others more often, on the attention to worldly affairs that distracts us from the presence of Christ within us and from living a life in which we see others through the eyes of Christ.
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
