In response to the discussion about Mark's proposed “Seamless Garment Party,” I wanted to expand on Michael Scaperlanda’s point and Michael Perry’s doubts – I too wonder if the real challenge is not so much to come up with the perfect political platform – but rather with a process for 1) appreciating and encouraging the ways in which current platforms contribute to the common good – and 2) critiquing and challenging current platforms for the ways in which they do not…
It seems like political variety is built into the very dynamic of Catholic Social Thought – for example, some will be drawn to emphasize subsidiarity over solidarity; and others the reverse – but this is not necessarily a bad thing – in fact, perhaps it is in this very dynamic of exchange, of the capacity to listen to the other, and to appreciate how a diversity of viewpoints can enrich political discourse and problem-solving – that we can find the deepest hope for the renewal of political life.
Following up on thoughts about the Christian Democrats and other European models – it’s interesting to note that some of the very latest discussion in Europe is focused not on beefing up the Christian identity of one particular party, but rather on how a Christian spirit of love can increase understanding and animate collaboration for the common good between politicians and citizens of different political parties.
For example, this past May several of the Catholic Ecclesial Movements gathered in Stuttgart, Germany with their ecumenical counterparts to showcase a “Europe of the Spirit.” In the address, “A United Europe for a United World,” Focolare founder Chiara Lubich described the modus operandi for politicians animated by a spirit of Christian love:
“The choice to become politically active is an act of love by which [politicians] respond to a personal calling, or they provide an answer to a social need, to a problem in their city, to the sufferings of the people, to the needs of their times. Believers discern that it is God Himself who calls them; those with non-religious convictions respond to a human need that awakens their conscience: in both cases, they are motivated by love. They become aware of the fact the root of politics is service, love; this leads to understanding that political opponents too might have made their choices out of love. Consequently, they must respect them – indeed, the politicians of unity are also interested in bringing their adversaries’ good projects to fruition. In fact, if such projects answer an authentic need, they are an integral part of that common good which can only be built together. Furthermore, these politicians are not satisfied with loving on their own; they seek to lead others to love, allies or adversaries, because politics is relationship; it is shared projects.”
Her next point emphasizes Vince’s point about the international dimensions built into Church teaching and perspectives:
“A further expression of fraternity in politics is to love the country of others as we love our own. In fact, humanity’s greatest dignity would be to no longer feel that it is a collection of peoples living side by side and frequently in conflict with one another, but rather, through mutual love, it is a single people enriched by one another’s diversity in unity, safeguarding each one’s identity.”
This – I think – sets out the real challenge for the renewal of political life. (I touch on this a bit in my Spirituality of Communion piece as well).
Amy
Monday, October 4, 2004
I wanted to agree with both Mark and Michael about the fundamental failings of American political parties, and the particular failings of the Republican Party as it relates to Catholic social teaching. I don't know why more American Catholics don't see how many key Republican positions are in direct conflict with Catholic teaching. I'll offer an additional one that has not yet been mentioned. The Bush campaign is going out of it's way to label Kerry as an "internationalist" who would subject American foreign policy to a "global test." Although the "global test" attack is merely a simplistic distortion of Kerry's comments in the last debate, it would be a good idea for Catholics to think more cogently about the implications of Republican unilateralism and the party's hearty support of pre-emptive war. These positions fly in the face of Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church is extremely internationalist, and Catholic social teaching rejects isolationist models of nationalism and unilateral exertions of force in defense of notions of national sovereignty that have long been discredited by the unrelenting violence and abuse of human rights that marked most of the 20th century.
The Republicans champion an "America first" economic and foreign policy that views war as a legitimate tool in the effort to remake the globe in America's image. They also panders to a vulgar jingoism and nativism that has a long and ugly history in American culture (if you don't believe me, spend an evening watching the Fox News Channel). Sure, a lot of people will suffer and die in the short term as a result of these policies, but in the long run, those foreigners will be better off (and the world will be much more receptive to American cultural and economic expansion). This is simply an imperial agenda in the 21st century clothing of "democracy and freedom." Catholics should view it with the jaundiced eye it deserves.
Vince
I wonder if those developing the SGP meme would be willing to contrast their vision of the good political party with the well-established European models variously known as Christian Democracy, Christian Demcratic parties, and Catholic Socialism?
Last month's issue of First Things is now available online and there are a couple of law-related items therein to which I would particularly draw the attention of our readers:
- Paul Carrese's thoughtful and somewhat sympathetic critique of Randy Barnett's book Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. Longtime readers of my personal blog* will not be surprised to learn that I share Carrese's view that Barnett's "bold new constitutional theory ... reinforces what our bold courts have been doing for decades." Yet, one must also concur with Carrese that Restoring the Lost Constitution deserves praise "because it emphasizes the right questions and issues, and because it fundamentally respects the rule of law."
- Jay Budziszewski's piece on capital punishment, which is in large measure a reply to an earlier First Things article by Avery Cardinal Dulles. Taken together, these two essays shed considerable and invaluable light on the state of the debate over capital punishment within the Catholic Church.
*Speaking of personal blogs, I hope I may be forgiven for using this opportunity to plug my new wine and food blog
Professor Bainbridge on Wine.
Today the Supreme Court denied cert in Catholic Charities v. California.
Rob
After a long slumber, I am back with a short note in response to the posts by Rob, Mark, Michael, and Rick regarding Catholics and Political Parties, including the SGP. Even if the thought experiment succeeded and the SGP party was birthed, I suspect that within a matter of a few years it would adopt some position antithetical to Catholic teaching.
The way I see it, our roots are in a relationship - a relationship with the Living Word made flesh - and not in any particular idea-ology. Political parties, on the other hand, are formed, more or less, around sets of ideas, which may be more or less friendly to the Truths proclaimed by the Church. In short, isn't it the necessary lot of Catholics to live uneasily within the secular world of politics?
Michael S.
Sunday, October 3, 2004
Two comments--and a question.
1. I'm very drawn to the SGP, as Mark sketches it. But I doubt many--or, indeed, any--Catholics who (like Rick?) are Reps would be drawn to it: The socio-economic agenda is in the same neighborhood as the socio-economic agenda of left-Dems (not to be confused with the centrist-Dems who presently control the Dem Party).
2. Mark's critical comments about rights-talk are misguided. There is nothing wrong with rights-talk per se--though there is often something wrong with particular rights-claims. I have spelled this out in chapter 2 of my book, The Idea of Human Rights (1998), in commenting on Mary Ann Glendon's critique of rights-talk. See pp. 48-56. A couple of years from now, I hope to have a new book out called Human Rights as Morality, Human Rights as Law, in which I return, at some length, to the matter of rights-talk. For the moment, listen to Jurgen Habermas: "Notwithstanding their European origins, . . . [i]n Asia, Africa, and South America, [human rights now] constitute the only language in which opponents and victims of murderous regimes and civil wars can raise their voices against violence, repression, and persecution, against injuries to their human dignity." Come to think of it, JPII is a fan of rights-talk (i.e., human-rights-talk), isn't he?
Now, the question for Mark: What does the Platform of the SGP say about discrimination against gays and lesbians? In particular, what does it say, if anything, about civil unions, same-sex marriage, etc.? Not that a party platform need take a position on every major issue of the day.
Michael
