“The real Jesus did not hesitate to condemn the rich, to warn the powerful, to denounce in vehement language the very leaders of the people. His love and goodness were chiefly for the poor, the simple, the needy. And his love for them was not a limp, indulgent love, like that of a silly, frivolous mother.
Except for the Andy Griffith Show which portrayed religion in Sheriff Taylor's town of Mayberry, most situation comedies of the 1950's and early 60's were not overtly religious, they were quite secular. Yet the producers and writers of these shows had a profound sense of respect for their audience and never offended Judeo-Christian sensibilities. In fact most of these shows such as Donna Reed, Father Knows Best, I Love Lucy, Make Room for Daddy as well as Andy Griffith had an implied Judeo-Christian context built upon loving relationships, they were short morality plays. In other words our secular culture of the 1950's had an implied religiosity although religion was seen as a private, personal enterprise by the secular world. But the secular world would never offend religiosity. And relgious people tried not to offend the sensibilities of this kind of secularism.
For example, my father was a very religious person, but he never sent religious greeting cards to family or friends at Christmas. He only bought secular Christmas cards. Why? He didn't want to offend anyone with his religiosity! (My father was born in 1910 and died in 1987, so that gives you a time context.)
In the 1950's and 60's Catholicism was quite a private, personal matter. One did not have to wear one's religion on one's sleeve for society was imbued with high standards of public behavior and polite company did not entail discussing religion or politics although everyone was political and religious!
Today it is open season on Christianity and religion in general and Catholicism in particular in entertainment and in politics. All the more reason for the new evangelization that equips Catholics to share their faith in word and actions. We must become apologists for the faith in a culture that is no longer imbued with Judeo-Christian sentiments and where in entertainment there are few producers and writers (like Andy Griffith and his company) who respect those they entertain and provide morality plays for the building up of society.
One of the best Catholic apologists we have in the Church today is Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia. Pray that he keeps his sanity as he strives to rebuild the Church there. He has some keen insights into what is going on in America and the Church that has brought us to the point in American History and Catholic History where threats to religious liberty, freedom of Conscience and the very foundation of the Church are immense. Read the whole thing. It is very insightful and I have highlighted what I consider truly insightful:
REPAIR MY HOUSE: RENEWING THE ROOTS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Philadelphia
I’ve known Greg Erlandson as a friend for many years. So I was very happy to accept his invitation to join you tonight. And I’m very glad to speak on the theme of religious liberty because events in our country have made it an urgent concern. I can sum up my remarks tonight in five simple points.
First, religious freedom is a cornerstone of the American experience. This is so obvious that once upon a time, nobody needed to say it. But times have changed. So it’s worth recalling that Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson – in fact, nearly all of the American Founders – saw religious faith as vital to the life of a free people. Liberty and happiness grow organically out of virtue. And virtue needs a grounding in religious faith.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, the historian, put it this way: The Founders knew that in a republic “virtue is intimately related to religion. However skeptical or deistic they may have been in their own beliefs, however determined they were to avoid anything like an established Church, they had no doubt that religion is an essential part of the social order because it is a vital part of the moral order.”[1]
Here’s my second point: Freedom of religion is more than freedom of worship. The right to worship is a necessary but not sufficient part of religious liberty. Christian faith requires community. It begins in worship, but it also demands preaching, teaching and service. It’s always personal but never private. And it involves more than prayer at home and Mass on Sunday – although these things are vitally important. Real faith always bears fruit in public witness and public action. Otherwise it’s just empty words.
The Founders saw the value of publicly engaged religious faith because they experienced its influence themselves. They created a nation designed in advance to depend on the moral convictions of religious believers, and to welcome their active participation in public life.
Here’s my third point: Threats against religious freedom in our country are not imaginary. They’re happening right now. They’re immediate, serious and real. Earlier this year religious liberty advocates won a big Supreme Court victory in the 9-0 Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC decision. That’s the good news. Here’s the bad news. What’s stunning in that case is the disregard for religious freedom shown by the government’s arguments against the Lutheran church and school.
And Hosanna-Tabor is not an isolated case. It belongs to a pattern of government coercion that includes the current administration’s HHS mandate; interfering with the conscience rights of medical providers and private employers, as well as individual citizens; and attacks on the policies, hiring practices and tax statuses of religious charities and ministries.
Why is this hostility happening? A lot of it links to Catholic teaching on the dignity of life and human sexuality. Catholic moral convictions about abortion, contraception, the purpose of sexuality and the nature of marriage are rooted not just in revelation, but also in reason and natural law. Human beings have a nature that’s not just the product of accident or culture, but inherent, universal and rooted in permanent truths knowable by reason.
The problem, as Notre Dame law professor Gerry Bradley points out, is that critics of the Church reduce all these moral convictions to an expression of subjective religious beliefs. And if they’re purely religious beliefs, then – so the critics argue – they can’t be rationally defended. And because they’re rationally indefensible, they should be treated as a form of prejudice. In effect, 2,000 years of moral tradition and religious belief become a species of bias. Opposing same-sex “marriage” thus amounts to religiously blessed homophobia.[2]
There’s more. When religious belief gets redefined downward to a kind of private bias, then the religious identity of institutional ministries has no public value -- other than the utility of getting credulous people to do good things. So exempting Catholic adoption agencies, for example, from placing kids with gay couples becomes a concession to private prejudice. And concessions to private prejudice feed bigotry and hurt the public. Or so the reasoning goes. This is how moral teaching and religious belief end up getting hounded as hate speech.
Here’s my fourth point: Unless we work hard to keep our religious liberty, we’re going to lose it. It’s already happening in other developed countries like Britain and Canada.[3] The U.S. Constitution is a great document -- historically unique for its fusion of high ideals with the realism of very practical checks and balances. But in the end, it’s just an elegant piece of paper. In practice, nothing guarantees our freedoms except our willingness to fight for them. That means fighting politically and through the courts, without tiring and without apologies. We need to realize that America’s founding documents assume an implicitly religious anthropology – an idea of human nature, nature’s God and natural rights that many of our leaders no longer really share. We ignore that unhappy fact at our own expense.
Here’s my fifth and final point: Politics and the courts are important. But our religious freedom ultimately depends on the vividness of our own Catholic faith – in other words, how deeply we believe it, and how honestly we live it. Religious liberty is an empty shell if the spiritual core of a people is weak. Or to put it more bluntly, if people don’t believe in God, religious liberty isn’t a value. And that’s the heart of the matter. It’s the reason Pope Benedict calls us to a Year of Faith this October. The worst enemies of religious freedom aren’t “out there” among the legion of critics who hate Christ or the Gospel or the Church, or all three. The worst enemies are in here, with us – all of us, clergy, religious and lay – when we live our faith with tepidness, routine and hypocrisy.
Religious freedom isn’t a privilege granted by the state. It’s our birthright as children of God. And even the worst bigotry can’t kill it in the face of a believing people. But if we value it and want to keep it, then we need to become people worthy of it. Which means we need to change the way we live – radically change, both as individual Catholics and as the Church. And that’s where I’d like to turn for the rest of these brief remarks.
A year ago I was serving happily in Denver, laughing at rumors I was getting moved anywhere. That turned out to be a mistake. Since then I’ve been asked many times how I like Philadelphia. The answer is pretty simple. I don’t “like” it. I love it – or rather, I love the people and clergy of Philadelphia because they’re easy to love. They’re now my family, an intimate part of my life. And I hope that each passing year will draw me deeper into the life of the community because Philadelphia is really more than just a great city. It’s the birthplace of our country and a jewel in our national legacy. It’s also an icon of the American Catholic experience. So it’s a joy and a blessing to serve there as bishop.
“Joy” may seem like an odd word to use, given events in Philadelphia over the past 16 months. Obviously the abuse tragedy has burdened the life of the local Church in a very painful way. Our laypeople are angry, and they should be. Their frustration shows in the pews. In Denver about 40 percent of registered Catholics attended Mass weekly. In Philadelphia, barely 18 percent do. The scandal has caused terrible suffering for victims, demoralized many of our clergy, crippled the witness of the Church and humiliated the whole Catholic community.
That’s the bad news -- at least some of it -- and it’s not simply “bad,” it’s also bitter and damaging for everyone involved, beginning with victims and their families, but rippling throughout the community. As a bishop, the only honest way I can talk about the abuse tragedy is to start by apologizing for the failure of the Church and her leaders -- apologizing to victims, and apologizing to the Catholic community. And I do that again here, today.
There is also good news. Even now, after all the challenges of the past decade, the Church in Philadelphia plays a very large role in the life of the region, and in many quarters, she still draws -- and still earns -- great respect. I think the staff Cardinal Rigali assembled last year after the second grand jury report to reach out to victims and prevent abuse in the future is strong by any professional standard. And from what I’ve experienced over the past 10 months, the Church in Philadelphia today has a much deeper understanding of the gravity of sexual abuse and a sincere zeal for rooting it out of the life of the Church and helping anyone hurt in the past.
One reason the Church has survived at all in the current crisis is the extraordinary reservoir of good will and fidelity among the clergy and people of the diocese. Pennsylvania remains a largely faith-friendly environment. Our people have strong prolife and pro-family instincts, respect for religious ministries; we have a history of saints and excellent Catholic schools. The habits of Catholic culture run very deep in the Philadelphia region. Our Catholic health and social services, and our Catholic school system, are among the largest and best in the United States. The Church contributes in a substantial way to the welfare of the general public, and most people on some level understand that.
But the abuse crisis, as grave as it is, masks other problems that also run very deep, and they belong to the same troubled Catholic culture. They began building decades ago. And while they may be especially sharp in Philadelphia, I’d wager that some version of these problems touches many of the dioceses you belong to across our country.
Here’s an example. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia is currently owed about $60 million by our own parishes for insurance premiums, assessments and other expenses shared by the whole local Church. Much of this can’t be recovered because the parishes simply don’t have money. More than two-thirds of our 267 parishes have operating deficits. About 100 are in some form of financial distress. More than 90 parishes minister to fewer than 400 families. And the archdiocese itself has struggled with frequent budget deficits for about 15 years. We’ve reached a point where – if we did nothing to fix the problem – the gap between our projected expenses and our projected income for Fiscal 2013 would exceed $17 million.
Now that’s not going to happen -- it will end. The Church is finally a family, and no family can survive for long if it spends more than it takes in. In the first nine months of Fiscal 2012, the archdiocese of Philadelphia spent more than $10 million on legal and other professional fees. But as crushing as that sounds – and it is – the real problems of the Church in Philadelphia are more subtle than money and more chronic than a habit of bad budgets. They’re not even financial. And they’re not at all unique to Philadelphia.
We need to look honestly at the arc of Catholic history in our country. The lessons may not be comforting. American Catholics began as an unwelcome minority. The Church built her credibility by defending and serving her people. She developed her influence with the resources her people entrusted to her. A vast amount of good was done in the process. We need to honor that. But two other things also happened. The Church in the United States became powerful and secure. And Catholics became less and less invested in the Church that their own parents and grandparents helped to build.
I think it’s fair, in part, to blame Church leaders, like bishops, for a spirit of complacency and inertia, clericalism, even arrogance, and for operating off a model of the Church – often for well-intentioned reasons -- rooted in the past and out of touch with reality. But there’s plenty of blame to go around. Too many ordinary Catholics have been greedy to lose themselves in America’s culture of consumerism and success. Too many of us have been complicit in the dullness -- the acedia -- that has seeped into Church life, and the cynicism and resentment that naturally follow it.
These problems kill a Christian love of poverty and zeal. They choke off a real life of faith. They create the shadows that hide institutional and personal sins. And they encourage a paralysis that can burrow itself into every heart and every layer of the Church, right down to individual Catholics in the pews. The result is that Philadelphia, like so much of the Church in the rest of our country, is now really mission territory – again; for the second time.
Now my point is this. We live in a world of illusions when we lose sight of who Jesus Christ really is, and what he asks from each of us as disciples. One of the novelist Ray Bradbury’s characters once said this: “I wonder if God recognizes his own son the way we’ve dressed him up, or is it dressed him down? He’s a regular peppermint stick now, all sugar crystal and saccharine.”[4] Father John Hugo, a friend and counselor of Dorothy Day -- a priest of the diocese of Pittsburgh -- put it even more forcefully when he wrote of our “falsified picture of Jesus [with his] eyes perpetually raised to heaven, soft, even girlish in beauty, [the] very incarnation of impotence.”
And then Fr Hugo went on to say this, “The real Jesus did not hesitate to condemn the rich, to warn the powerful, to denounce in vehement language the very leaders of the people. His love and goodness were chiefly for the poor, the simple, the needy. And his love for them was not a limp, indulgent love, like that of a silly, frivolous mother. To his friends he preached poverty of spirit, detachment, the carrying of the cross. No more did the kindness of Jesus spare his followers, than the kindness of God the father spared his son. We are to drink of the same chalice that he drank of.”[5]
My dear friends, what Fr Hugo describes is our vocation. That’s a life of honesty, heroism and the sacrifice God calls us to as a Church and as individual believers. And in our eagerness to escape it, to tame it, to reshape it in the mold of our own willful ideas, we’ve failed not only to convert our culture, but we’ve also failed to pass along the faith to many of our own children. Just look at your own families.
Emerging American adults – in other words, young people in the 18-23 age cohort – are not only skeptical of organized religion in general and Christianity in particular, but they often lack the vocabulary to engage in, or even identify, issues that require basic moral reasoning. As a group they have unusually high rates of intoxication, loneliness and sexual alienation. They also, contrary to popular belief, have very little interest in public affairs or political engagement, and have a lopsided focus on materialistic consumption and financial security as the guiding stars of their lives.[6]
Of course, tens of thousands of exceptions to what I just said are walking around right now -- some in this room. We all know some of them. These are young adults of faith and strong moral character, determined to do something worthy with their lives. Just this week Our Sunday Visitor did a portrait of Catholic young adults who live the Gospel with really wonderful passion and joy.[7] Their lives will touch hundreds of other lives. And that should give us enormous hope, because God never abandons his Church or his people.
But their good witness only brings us back to the conversion that you and I and the whole Church in the United States need to undergo.
Notre Dame scholar Christian Smith and his colleagues, whose research on emerging adults is so compelling, wrote that “most of the problems in the lives of youth have their origin in the larger adult world into which youth are being socialized . . . [One] way or the other, adults and the adult world are almost always complicit in the troubles, suffering and misguided living of youth, if not the direct source of them. The more adults can recognize and admit that fact, [the] sooner we will be able to address some of young people’s problems more constructively.”[8]
I suppose that’s obvious to most of you. But if it’s really so obvious, then who let it happen? And what are we going to do about it?
We’re becoming a nation where, as Ross Douthat describes it, “a growing number [of us] are inventing [our] own versions of what Christianity means, abandoning the nuances of traditional theology in favor of religions that stroke [our] egos and indulge, or even celebrate, [our] own worst impulses.”[9] And it’s happening at a time when the Church is compromised by her own leaders and people from within, and pushed to the margins or attacked by critics without.
Tomorrow we start the Fortnight for Freedom. It’s a moment for each of us to be grateful to our bishops for doing the right thing – the important and urgent thing – at the right time. If we don’t press now and vigorously for our religious liberty in the public arena, we will lose it. Not overnight and not with a thunderclap, but step by step, inexorably. And each of you as a Catholic media professional plays a key role, a really vital role, in that effort because our prestige news media, with very few exceptions, simply will not cover this issue in a fair and comprehensive way.[10]
But we also need to remember with Pope Benedict that resistance is “part of the task of the Church,”[11] and with Henri de Lubac that it’s “not our mission to make truth triumph, but to testify for it.”[12]
Scripture says, “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things shall be yours as well” (Mt 6:33). We work best for religious freedom by first opening our hearts to God’s will instead of our own; and loving our country and our Church; and renewing the witness of the Church with the zeal and purity and obedience of our own lives. That freedom, that joy, no one can ever take from us.
From the cross at San Damiano, Jesus said to St Francis: Repair my house, which is falling into ruin. Those same words fill this room tonight. How we respond is up to us, and I hope you respond. Thanks so very much.
[1] Gertrude Himmelfarb, One Nation, Two Cultures, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1999, p. 85
[2] Gerard V. Bradley, “What’s Behind the HHS Mandate?”, The Public Discourse (www.thepublicdiscourse.com), June 5, 2012
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1951, 1995, p. 77
[5] David Scott and Mike Aquila, editors, Weapons of the Spirit: Living a Holy Life in Unholy Times; Selected Writings of Father John Hugo, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, IN, 1997, p. 108-109
[6] Christian Smith, et al, Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood, Oxford University Press, New York, 2011
[7] Emily Stimpson, “The Next Generation,” OSV Newsweekly, June 17, 2012, p. 9-12
[8] Smith, p. 11
[9] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics, Free Press, New York, 2012, p. 4
[10] The website www.getreligion.org has done several analyses of the lopsided mainstream news coverage of the HHS mandate and related religious liberty disputes. See for example Mollie Hemingway, “Grading coverage of religious liberty,” May 4, 2012, and “Plotting about ‘religious liberty’,” May 30, 2012, among others
[11] Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2002, p. 357
[12] Henri de Lubac, S.J., Paradoxes of Faith, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1987, p.72
22 comments:
Great speech.
Thank you, Father, for posting this speech. Archbishop Chaput is proving to be God's man, an articulate, clear, and orthodox voice for these troubled times.
In the last couple years, "The Andy Griffith Show" has left a bad taste in my mouth for two reasons. First, Ron Howard came out as a bigot against Catholics with his "Da Vinci Code" movies. Second, Howard and Andy Griffith did a commercial for Obama's election campaign. Since those two events, "The Andy Griffith Show" (and "Happy Days") has been soured for me.
"Jesus did not hesitate to condemn the rich..." "Jesus' love was chiefly for the poor...."
Ya' know, as a student of Biblical theology all my life and grad degrees to back it up, I am a bit weary of pop theologians and off the wall Catholic Priests glibly saying how Jesus condemned the rich and only (or chiefly loved) the (now mythic) poor. This is bad Biblical theology, pastorally irresponsible and...did I mention stupid.
In OT usage, wealth is primarily associated with power. In fact, the Hebrew word that is most often used for wealth has as its root, the word for power. Israel's apostasy often had to do with her seeking to be a power among nations. Part of the reason Amos and Hosea hated the Monarchy is because Israel became a settled state among others and was a power in her own right. They warned that Israel's true strength was in her total dependence upon JHWH and longed for the days when she wandered in the Wilderness with only God's guidance and sustenance. However, in Proverbs, Leviticus, and other books, wealth is praised as a sign of reward for righteous living and faithfulness in God's promise. It is the abuse of wealth in the reach for power that is condemned.
In the NT, it is not the rich, per se, that are condemned. It is the attitude that riches can bring and the insulation from others' suffering that it allows. Jesus ministered to many publicans, Luke and Matthew could not have been poor by the standards of the day, nor could Zaccheus have been, with whom Jesus chose to leave the crowd of poor thronging Him and have dinner. And, given her profession, Mary Magdalene was probably not poor, either...cont'd
cont'd
Jesus did indeed teach that dependence upon riches makes it difficult for one to properly understand what it means to be totally dependent upon God. His understanding of wealth is consistent with that of the OT, except that he places more emphasis upon its spiritual dangers. The rich young ruler found his enthusiasm for eternal lifed dampened when Christ told him to give all he had to the poor. Jesus believed that it was particularly difficult for men of great wealth to escape being dependent upon it. He even personifies riches as "Mammon" to stress the demonic power that riches may hold over us.
But, Jesus was not talking economic reform in any modern sense; he was simply warning of the power of riches to enslave men and destroy their ultimate trust in God. He never asked the publicans or the wealthy to quit working, not did he condemn possessions as such. He did place very stringent demands upon his disciples, some of whom were wealthy.
Neither did Jesus commend poverty as such. The poor widow was not blessed for her poverty, rather for the freedom with which she readily gave all she had to God. Jesus praised anyone, rich or poor, who understood the spiritual freedom that Christ gives to place one's riches secondary to serving Him.
Now, it may be that the poor are in a better position to understand "total dependence" upon God. Christ used the poor as an analogy for a spiritual state of dependence,a state of mind emptied of material dependence and therefore open to deeper understandings. However, this spiritual state is not the exclusive province of the poor. cont'd
cont'd
As I have said before, Jesus taught a highly individualistic "ethic" of attunement to God's will and obedience to His call. Naturally, He focused on those things which might most likely interfere with that spiritual mindset.
As for the Church,it is laughable for her Priests and Bishops to condemn the rich per se, for it is they who have buttered the Church's daily bread for centuries and supported her with their lives and fortunes. How well would the Church bear a Divine scrutiny with dependence upon wealth as the focus? Or, better, subtract the wealthy and their contributions of time, talent, and treasure and see how she does with the widow's mite for a few centuries.
So, some perspective is in order, and this ridiculous worship of the poor has become almost a sacrilege among some misguided folks.
Jesus was not a political or economic reformer. He was not Che or Caesar Chavez. Get over it!
That is very well put, Gene. I have a couple of questions:
(1) Is Archbishop Chaput in fact saying anything different when he quotes Father Hugo, if one reads the language you cite in context, especially the emphasis upon “poverty of spirit”?
(2) I agree that Jesus “was not a political and economic reformer” but a “spiritual reformer.” However, when people experience the “metanoia” He was trying to effect, and especially when people switch their allegiance from Mammon to God and no longer “lose themselves in America’s culture of consumerism and success,” what follows from this in concrete terms? In particular, what happens when the very wealthy do so? Presumably, this then permits a true love of God and neighbor, which may express itself in acts of charity.
But what happens when basic needs are still not met? Should the Church be passive in the face of remaining suffering and poverty or is it appropriate for the Church to support efforts, even those undertaken by governments, to alleviate it? Of course, there is much to explore about the best means of achieving the end of alleviating suffering and poverty (market-based solutions or government-based solutions, or some mix of the two), but I am asking about ends and not means at this point.
Gene, I have a third question:
(3) You mention the Old Testament prophets. How should we interpret the many passages in the Old Testament Prophets that seem to condemn how the wealthy are indifferent towards or oppress the poor? Random examples I just quickly found include Isaiah 3: 13-15 and 10: 1-2, and Amos 8: 4-6. I understand that these may be examples condemning the “the abuse of wealth in the reach for power” as you put it, but treatment of the poor by the rich and powerful seems to be a highly relevant measure in the judgment of Israel by these Prophets. Similarly, what are we to make of the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16: 19-31 and its reference to Moses and the prophets? These questions are not intended to be challenges, but such passages puzzle me as I wonder what they teach us about our situation in America today.
Anon2, I am swamped with kids and grandkids today. I want to answer in more detail later, however, be reminded that nothing I have said negates our obligation to provide for the poor and the weak. My statement was intended to correct a major theological misunderstanding...no, I think they know what they are saying in many instances...to correct a theological distortion.
I have the same issue as Pin with this and cringe at the envy it breeds. Pin covers this at the theological level better than I do, but I can say that I am not at all convinced that the 'poor' are simply the economic poor. This week's second reading (OF) struck me as addressing this directly:
"For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that though he was rich, for your sake he became poor,
so that by his poverty you might become rich.
Not that others should have relief while you are burdened,
but that as a matter of equality
your abundance at the present time should supply their needs,
so that their abundance may also supply your needs,
that there may be equality.
As it is written:
Whoever had much did not have more,
and whoever had little did not have less."
To sum it up, it seems to me that if a person simply gathers 'power' and doesn't use it to help others who don't have it, he is not doing God's will.
He said "Blessed are the poor in spirit"
He didn't say "Blessed are the poor."
~SL
Let’s cut to the chase here. Despite the very important theological points that have been made, what this conversation is really about, I believe, is a very practical and political point.
Assuming for the sake of argument that, applying the principle of subsidiarity, government can be shown to have an appropriate role in achieving the end of alleviating suffering and poverty, and assuming that government remains within the proper constitutional bounds of respecting religious liberty, can a Catholic conscientiously support the relevant government policies and measures even if the government itself and other supporters of those policies and measures are motivated not by religious reasons but by secular reasons, even so-called “socialist” ones? I can think of prudential arguments pro and con, but that I believe is the critical issue of principle at issue here in our contemporary circumstances. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.
Anonymous 2, consider your question reversed and you may have a way to your answer. If you had a government operated in accordance with Church teachings would you be justified in disagreeing with it on any grounds? The answer is, of course, yes. Governments behave in many ways as other social groups, that is not very different than individuals. Take the parable of the Samaritan for example, Jesus did not tell the Jews to follow Samaritan religious practices but that following the right one of the True God did not alone save them, nor did the innocent mistake of being born into the Samaritan society condemn you. Turning that around I am sure that had the Samaritans invaded Jerusalem and tried to force the Jews to worship falsely, Jesus would have preached some form of resistance.
Thanks, rcg. But I am not sure I follow you all the way here. First, I built in an assumption that the government must remain within the proper constitutional bounds of religious liberty (which I trust prevents any “Samaritan” attempt to make Catholics “worship false gods” – this is being tested in the challenge to the healthcare regulations, for example). Second, like it or not, we do not have a government run entirely on Catholic principles, and are unlikely to have one any time soon even if the Republicans win the next election (although I realize that may come as a shock to some).
So, we have to live in the real world and do the best we can as conscientious Catholics in the public square, much as Catholics had to learn to live within the pagan Roman Empire, and decide what they could and could not support (fighting in the Roman army, for example) or as they have to do within any polity today in which they have a minority membership. But that just brings me back to my original question of principle (as I mentioned, I recognize there may be prudential reasons pro and con, including “lesser of two evils” arguments where they seem appropriate).
I realize I am asking a difficult question that puts us on the spot but I think it is a necessary one if we are to face up properly to the tough practical decisions that must be made in the real world and not lose ourselves in theological points, important though they are for our own inward disposition (indeed it is the practical consequences of that inward disposition that I am seeking to explore), or in colorful and amusing parodies of particular political parties.
But perhaps I am missing something in your analogy.
A2,all I was trying to demonstrate is that you can't expect a government to be right and just to individual satisfaction all of the time. This means the government should be extremely reserved in its actions, limited in current terms, so as to avoid leading the population into serious error. Just War is the easiest example, Right to Life is a little more nuanced, but equally True, and Social Justice is actually so risky it can't be done by a Government, but must be facilitated through bounded freedom.
I think that Socialism endangers the soul of the population it governs by robbing people of free will to chose Good. I think of the Prodigal Son and the rejoicing of angels that cannot occur in a cradle to grave nanny state. It is another face of the abuser who has been entrusted with the care of a person. It is the the nurturing of the other person to their full God-given potential we are chartered to support.
Naturally, and I mean within nature, we will and should destroy a government or society that seeks to restrict or control those freedoms.
Rcg, You say that “It is the the nurturing of the other person to their full God-given potential we are chartered to support.” Of course, I agree completely.
However, to reframe my question: Can a Catholic conscientiously support a role for government in doing that? I believe you would answer this question, and my original one, in the negative, because it seems you regard government as necessarily inimical to such nurturing, at least if it is a “socialist” government, and perhaps even unless it is a Catholic government. In fact you seem to be saying that “social justice” is beyond the proper role of government, presumably even if pursued by a Catholic government (perhaps you would even regard such a government as no longer Catholic) . Have I understood you correctly? I want to characterize your position fairly.
If I am to be able to go along with you all the way in this, I have to be able to answer the associated questions (2) and (3) I asked in my 9:24 p.m. and 1:08 a.m.post on July 5 and July 6 above. I also have to get around the apparent support for an appropriate role for government in Pope Benedict’s “Charity in Truth,” for example, and my respect for the teaching of the Magisterium on these matters. Can you help me with these points? I am also still waiting for Gene to weigh in.
Until now I have assumed that government does have an appropriate role but I must retain an open mind on the subject and be open to persuasion. This issue is too important for all of us because it goes to the very heart of our role as Catholics in the public square. Of course, not all Catholics will end up agreeing I suppose but exploration of the relevant arguments will help us advance understanding of, and perhaps even modification of, our own and others' positions on the issue.
Anon 2, I have what my colleagues have called a "radical view" of Church and State. Surprised? My paradigm for this is based upon Christ's response when Satan offered Him "all the kingdoms of the world...." He never questioned Satan's right to offer them...his ownership of them. I couple this with Christ's response regarding the tribute money...it is almost dismissive: "Whose picture is on the coin...then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."
Now, when you put these together with Christ's teaching that His Kingdom is not of this world and that this world is passing away, along with Paul's blatant warnings about the political evil, especially Eph. 6, I believe there is a pretty strong argument that any positive role of government, any government, is purely coincidental, anecdotal, and epiphenomenal. Now, I may be treading on dangerous ground here but, I dare say, there is a stronger theological basis in Calvinism for putting government in its place than there is in the Catholic tradition. There is an inherent distrust in Reformed theology (Total Depravity, Unconditional Salvation, etc.) of human institutions and human initiatives regarding evil and injustice in the world. The Catholic Church has been far less sceptical of these human initiatives as long as She had some hand in shaping them. But, now that the Church's hand has been pretty much slapped away, nothing remains but failed programs, a failed but still insistent secular humanist social philosophy and, where government and Church initiatives intersect, a tacky kind of Pelagianism/Gnosticism. So, I have little use for government or government programs other than for the State to go about its regular and proper business of keeping us from devouring one another or being devoured by other states.
A2, considering Pin's post above it seems that we can say that God, in any of his persons does not stoop to endorse any specific form of government. So this would form an answer to you question #2 replying that a government that facilitates the individual expression of God's gifts to the people is a good and just government. If, as in you follow up question, it does not meet this basic need as a result of intended policy, then it is a poor government and should be resisted or aggressively changed. I presume to define 'need' to exclude simple physical requirements because I believe one can show those to be artifacts of other behaviors.
I think your question #3 has been answered, but it might be useful to say that condemnation of the 'rich' as a class seems to be a recent subversion of these teachings because the same books contain lauds for good kings and leaders. When one considers 'rich and powerful' together then it seems that many who are considered poor in this country are actually 'rich and powerful' because they have been able to demand redirection of national wealth to themselves through their collective vote and influence over the government. That they live in squalid conditions only means they have been able to take more than they can manage.
Gene and rcg, Many thanks for your thoughtful and helpful responses to my questions. I must ponder them some more before I would be able to formulate a full and intelligent reply. But here are two quick thoughts:
(1) Gene, I might want to conjure a bit with the notion that government has a proper role in preventing us from “devouring one another.”
(2) rcg, Yes, of course, it is so-much socialist twaddle to condemn the wealthy as such. As we discussed earlier, it is the_abuse_of wealth that is the problem, as to which see point (1) about “devouring.”
A2, One last comment. How would you feel if Barak Obama was your Governor or Mayor? That is, if he was as ardent supporter of abortion clinics on the local level? Would you be inclined to go to, say, the state or Federal government for help? Just a thought.
That is an interesting question, rcg, but of course Barack Obama is not my Governor or Mayor. He is the President and therefore I must look at the_federal_context to see how I should weigh the various issues. I was, of course, asking a question of basic principle about the proper role of government (if any) in alleviating suffering and poverty. Your question introduces an additional element that must be weighed in the balance as well. In undertaking that weighing, as I have mentioned in earlier comments, I would look to how effective Obama’s support for abortion would be in practice. For example, if Republicans could block any pro-choice nominees to the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration support for Roe v. Wade would be effectively negated. Of course, I would also need to know more about other actions the Administration could take in this area without having to face such Congressional obstacles.
I think Gene, and perhaps you, may consider my approach to be too complex. But that is because I see complexity where many others don’t. And this brings me back to the original question of principle I raised in my questions. On that, you have probably guessed by now that I am something of a Thomistic Aristotelian in my general approach to things. And since this seems to be the official approach of the Church, I am quite comfortable with my approach as being compatible with my Catholic faith.
Thus, together with the Magisterium (and also in keeping with traditional conservatism), I abjure ideologies of the Left and of the Right. The Left worships the state and government. The Right worships the free market and the individual. In my view both ideologies involve the worship of false gods. So, here again, my approach, and the approach of the Church as I understand it, is to pursue a middle course between the Scylla of the Left and the Charybdis of the Right. But, how can this be done in practice? Once again, Aristotle teaches us that we must have regard to the particular circumstances of the reality we confront and must exercise practical wisdom in responding to those circumstances.
(continued)
In an ideal world, we would need only minimal government (the government protects against the “devouring” Gene talks about, understood literally, and perhaps does a few other things necessary to coordinate efforts for the common good). In that ideal world individuals and groups of individuals (especially corporations, including multi-national corporations) would all act morally, justly, and responsibly, with a proper sense of their obligations towards each other and towards the communities that nurture them. The earthly teleology driving this behavior would be the full development of the person (we Catholics would also say that this development entails the use of God-given talents and gifts), and of course there must also be freedom of religion so that the heavenly teleology can also be recognized.
The problem, as Aristotle well knew, is that we_don’t_ live in an ideal world, and so “the best possible state in theory” is not an option for us. Therefore, we must try to achieve “the best practicable state” because we have to live in the real world. And in the real world, as it is given to us at our particular point in space and time, individuals and groups do not always act morally, justly, and responsibly, with a proper sense of their obligations towards each other and towards the communities that nurture them. Often they “devour” one another and their communities, where “devour” is now understood metaphorically as also including the type of behavior condemned by the Old Testament prophets.
And that is why I asked the question of principle: Can a Catholic conscientiously support government policies and measures designed to alleviate suffering and poverty (I might also add: and to effect prudent regulation of the free market) even if the government itself and other supporters of those policies and measures are motivated not by religious reasons but by secular reasons, even so-called “socialist” ones (I say “so-called” to distinguish them from real socialist/communist ones)? Again, the Catholic’s motivation for doing so would be to support measures that promote the full development of the person. And again, we would also need to weigh in the balance the ways in which the government impeded that development by, for example, promoting dependency and the vice of envy, although this might suggest the importance of crafting_appropriate_government policy, not that there should be no such government policy at all.
My inclination is still to answer the question of principle in the affirmative. I remain open to persuasion that it should be answered in the negative but have not yet been persuaded. The conversation is, however, a very helpful and illuminating one, so I appreciate you and Gene engaging with me about this question.
But let me be clear here. I do not yet know how I will vote in the election this year. For me, it will, of course, depend on the circumstances, and I still have much to learn between now and then.
Post a Comment