Thank you Rob for clarifying your position. And, I agree with much of what you say, especially: “Catholic teaching's transformative power is most clearly evidenced within the human person, not the legislative corridors. So far from proposing that we separate from society, I propose that we invest ourselves more deeply in it -- we should be targeting the hearts and minds of our neighbors, not with the aim of capturing the mechanisms of collective power, but with the aim of changing lives.”
I want to tease out the arguments and their implications a little further.
First, Rob suggests that “that we seek to turn intolerant liberalism into a conception of governance more in keeping with value pluralism.” This language of “value pluralism” strikes me as a concession to cultural relativism – you have your values and conceptions of the good (common or not) and I have mine, but we mutually agree to give each other a sphere of autonomy to develop our non-privileged conception of the good. This public (as distinct from “state”) viewpoint can allow only a very thin conception of the individual, and ultimately, as I argue elsewhere, cannot, in the long term, support a system that respects the dignity and freedom of the human person. What is needed, IMHO, is a publicly recognized thicker conception of the human person, a realistic anthropology of the human person that will also support a system that respects the dignity and freedom of the human person. Joseph Carens, in his book, “Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness, makes a case (at least in my reading of the book) that liberalism develops (and can develop in healthy ways) within cultures that have thick conceptions of the human person so long as a respect and a measure of freedom is provided to those with different visions of the good.
Second, addressing Rob’s points three and four, I agree with him to a large extent. In Paragraph 17 of Gaudium et Spes, the Church says: “It is, however, only in freedom that man can turn himself towards what is good. … For God willed that man should ‘be left to his own counsel’ so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him. Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward towards his goal by freely choosing what is good.” Like Rob, and for the same reasons, I view attempts to use state power to limit and/or prohibit abortion as fundamentally different from attempts to use state power to criminally prohibit same-sex sodomy (or contraception, etc).
Third, so often discussion of imposing or proposing Catholic perceptions of the common good center narrowly on whether to seek state sanctioned punishment of specific acts that constitute individual moral weakness or failure. But, as Rob implicitly articulates, there is so much more to the Catholic proposal. In fact, his vision of subsidiarity, grounded in Catholic anthropology, is a proposal that he desires, if I understand him correctly, to have adopted or at least respected by juridical authorities. In his recent post, Vince writes: “Why does American culture see human beings as disposable? Why do we worship material comfort and personal perfection, and damn those who can't keep up or who are inconvenient, to marginalization, despair, and in some cases, death?” Much of the work needed to turn this situation around and build a Culture of Life involves, as Rob points out, non-legal prophetic speaking aimed at changing hearts and lives. But, there is a limited role for Catholic legal theory to propose structures, institutions, and particular laws that will make it easier to see the humanity of others. Se for example, Rick's recent post on the possibilities of the New Urbanism and the unintended effects of suburbanization.
Michael
Thursday, June 24, 2004
This is a response to Rob’s post, Religious Education as Sex Abuse. I wholeheartedly agree with Rob’s statement that there is a “sinister undercurrent” in the agenda of Ghassan Rubeiz and his fellow travelers.
Where I disagree with Rob is in the response to the growing totalitarian trend among certain defenders of liberalism. Rob says that this “underscores my previously expressed view that religious voices may need to focus more on carving out spheres of community and individual autonomy for themselves, rather than seeking to impose their vision of the common good on a society-wide basis.”
I am extremely uncomfortable with this proposed remedy for two reasons. First (and pragmatically), if this brand of intolerant liberalism takes hold and dominates, it will not (indeed, cannot) allow those of us who claim that a particular religion is objectively true the space to raise our children in our religious faith. See my Producing Trousered Apes in Dwyer’s Totalitarian State.
Second (and more importantly), our Catholic faith calls us to engage the world, not bargain for separation from it. It is not that we seek to “impose” our vision of the common good on the rest of society. Rather, our task, as I see it, is to “propose” our understanding of the nature of the human person and our vision of the common good. Since we believe that good Catholic anthropology corresponds to the deepest needs of the human person for truth, beauty, and justice (Giussani), our vision ought to attract some fellow travelers and we can begin to build a Culture of Life, much of which will reside in the civilization at large and some of which will come to be reflected in our laws.
Maritain, in the Person and the Common Good, noticed an intolerant and totalitarian tendency in secular liberalism. And, if, despite our prayers and our best efforts, the vision of Dwyer, Rubeiz, and the like take hold, then we will have to seek the courage to brave that world the best we can. Fortunately, we are not to that point.
Michael
Friday, June 18, 2004
Thanks to my friend Robert McLauchlin for passing along Archbishop Burke's statement yesterday on Catholic politicians and the bishops, including further elaboration on the centrality of the Eucharist in the life of the Catholic and exclusion from holy communion for Catholic politicians who promote the right to abortion.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
This from Zenit (6/16/04):
“[Denver] Archbishop Chaput wrote. ‘[A]bortion is the central social issue of this moment in our national history -- not the only issue, but the foundational issue; the pivotal issue. For Catholics to ignore it or downplay it or 'contextualize' it would be an act of cowardice.’”
Do you agree with Archbishop Chaput?
And, here I am NOT talking about electoral politics or this election cycle but more broadly about building a culture of life consistent with Revelation and natural law.
My own conclusion is yes, it is the foundational issue at this moment in our national history, just as slavery was a century and a half ago. If we fail to protect the weakest and most defenseless members of the human family, isn’t our house built on sand?
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Can't the doctrine of double effect be used to justify the death penalty in the same way it can be used "to justify lethal acts of self-defense, lethal acts of combat in war, and the like"? Just as in the case of war, an inevitable consequence of the death penalty will be death. But if the intent of the war or of the use of the death penalty is to preserve and protect the community, then doesn't the doctrine of double effect apply equally to both situations?
It is instructive, I think, that the Catechism's discussion of the death penalty is placed in five paragraph section (2263-2267) under the subheading "Legitimate Defense." (although note that the on-line edition of the Catechism has a separate heading for Capital Punishment). Paragraph 2263 begins: "The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing." Quoting St. Thomas, it continues, "The act of self-defense, can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. ... The one is intended, the other is not." 2265 says that "legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm." This grave duty seems to apply to self-defense, defense of family, war, police action, and the death penalty. Therefore (and again with the admission that I haven't yet read Brugger's book), it seems to me that the Church teaches that the use of the death penalty far from being morally forbidden may actually be a "grave duty" of the state, albeit under circumstances that rarely if ever arise today.
On a personal note, I was somewhat ambivilent about the death penalty until the day Timothy McViegh was sentenced to death. My sense was that far from bringing peace and closure, the sentence actually fanned the flames of hate burning (understandably) inside of many in the Oklahoma City area. Bud Welch, a humble gas station owner, stood as a sign of contradiction. Racked by the pain of losing his only daughter, Julie (to read more about Julie and two other young Catholics who died in the bombing, click here or here), this former supporter of the death penalty has devoted his life to reconciliation - visiting Timothy McVieghs father - and to seeking the abolition of the death penalty. Through Bud's example, I have come to understand why the Church teaches that the use of non-lethal means of punishment "are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person."
