A reader asked for specifics about the gap between Rick Santorum's public policy stances and "mainstream" Catholic teaching. Specifics below:
I include in that “mainstream” not only the majority of rank and file Catholics, but also the majority of Catholic clergy, as well as the broad spectrum of official Catholic social doctrine.
That doctrine led US bishops to join nearly all other bishops around the world opposing the US invasion of Iraq. They found the invasion a clear violation of Catholicism’s just war theory, but Santorum was indifferent to their concerns and voted to support the invasion.
Catholic social teaching also condemns unequivocally all forms of torture, including the “enhanced interrogation” practiced by the United States. Santorum has publicly endorsed such torture despite clear church teaching.
On immigration, US bishops have supported Catholic teaching that migration is a basic human right, and have bravely promoted efforts to protect immigrants’ rights and facilitate their path to citizenship. Asked about the bishops’ efforts, Santorum told the Des Moines Register:
“If we develop the program like the Catholic bishops suggested, we would be creating a huge magnet for people to come in and break the law some more, we'd be inviting people to cross this border, come into this country and with the expectation that they will be able to stay here permanently."
He also told the register:
“I'm for income inequality. I think some people should make more than other people because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risks, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality."
This stands in direct conflict with Catholic teaching against such inequalities, which are far greater in the US than in any other advanced industrial democracy. Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 social encyclical Caritas in Veritate joined a constant chorus when he decried “the scandal of glaring inequalities” and called for government measures to redistribute wealth more fairly. Santorum’s position also ignores Catholic social teaching’s call for a “preferential option for the poor.”
CrossCurrents readers saw my recent coverage of Wisconsin’s attempts to curtail union rights, in conflict with consistent Catholic social teaching that unions are an essential element of just societies. Santorum, by contrast, is on record favoring the abolition of all public sector unions.
The debate on climate change reveals a similar contrast. While Santorum told Rush Limbaugh that man-made climate change is a “beautifully concocted scheme” that he regards as “patently absurd,” Catholic social teaching in recent years has clearly contradicted him. Readers will recall me reporting in CrossCurrents that the Vatican itself took concerted action to become the first carbon-neutral state in the world.
Clearly Santorum‘s faith embraces public policy perspectives that are dramatically at odds with a wide range of church teachings.
I think what most distinguishes Rick Santorum's politics is his outspoken personal and political beliefs regarding sexuality: efforts to curtail abortion, opposition to gay marriage, and personal belief that artificial birth control is sinful.
ReplyDeleteMany other conservative politicians express support for efforts to curtail abortion and opposition to gay marriage, but few emphasize these issues as much as Santorum.
I suspect that Santorum's beliefs regarding sexuality are much more strongly associated with his religious convictions than his beliefs regarding economic policy, military policy, immigration, environmental policy, etc. I suspect that most Americans would associate the phrase "fundamentalist Christian" with Santorum's beliefs regarding sexuality and few would strongly associate the phrase with particular beliefs regarding economic policy, military policy, immigration, or environmental policy.
I strongly respect your commitment to the Church and your efforts to strengthen parishes, but I am concerned that some aspects of your perspective on Catholic social doctrine may be unnecessarily divisive. I think it is important to avoid assuming that people who don't share your views regarding government economic policy also don't share your concern for the poor. Catholics may share concern for the poor but yet disagree with respect to what economic policies are best.
I think it is reasonable for Catholics to conclude based on knowledge of economics that government measures to directly redistribute wealth may be more harmful than helpful with respect to improving economic conditions for the poor. I think it is reasonable for Catholics to support labor policies that enable local governments to base employment decisions on performance rather than seniority.
If you have not already done so, please read Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose". The book may not convince you that conservative economic policies are best, but perhaps it may help you understand that not everyone that supports conservative economic policies is motivated by selfishness and greed.
I think it would be very bad for American Catholics to split over politics, with conservatives suggesting that liberals disregard Catholic teaching regarding sexuality and liberals suggesting that conservatives disregard Catholic social doctrine.
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Catholics do more harm than good if they waste time on liberals bashing conservatives and vice versa. I’ve not considered myself a liberal since 1968, and my general view is that Catholic social teaching cannot the fitted into the usual liberal-conservative spectrum of American politics. In fact, many Catholic social teachings lie either to the left of the Democrats or to the right of the Republicans. This is because Catholic social teaching is rooted in a general vision of the world that does not depend on arguing about the size of government; it is, rather, a vision centered on promoting the common good (and it favors whatever government actions promote that). With this in mind, I think it is important to avoid dodging the implications of Catholic social teaching.
First, we should not if confuse principles with policies. It is true that Catholic social teaching does not dictate specific policies, so we can respectfully degree in many cases. But some policies contradict our principles, and therefore must be excluded. One example: if migration is a human right, no policy that violates that right is acceptable. The state has a right to protect its boundaries, but it cannot do so with policies that violate basic human rights.
Second, we cannot avoid Catholic principles by imagining harmful effects of policies that have already worked elsewhere. Income distribution is much fairer in almost every European country than in the United States, not by accident but by policy--yet Americans choose either to ignore Europe’s success or dismiss it as irrelevant. US inequality is a scandal because it is unnecessary.
Third, we must acknowledge a fundamental clash of principles, inasmuch as we live in a capitalist society rooted in the belief that the individual pursuit of self interest will automatically (by the working of an “invisible hand”) serve the common good. Catholic social teaching has long since rejected this fiction, since it makes selfishness a virtue. Catholicism consistently teaches that the common good can be achieved only through sacrificing self interest.
The argument here is not about conservative vs. liberal; it is really about a fundamentally different vision of the world. I cannot name a single politician of either party that reflects the Catholic vision in any consistent way.
A capsule of this vision comes from Benedict XVI:
“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.... A just society must be the achievement of politics, not the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.”
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.
ReplyDeleteI am also uncomfortable with many prominent conservatives' priorities with respect to immigration. I fondly recall one part of Reagan's farewell address: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here."
It deeply troubles me when politicians who agree with my perspective regarding general economic policies pander to people's fears regarding emigrants. Such fears are often seem based on the notion that if an immigrant has a job, there must be an American unemployed. To me, this is not unlike the notion that if someone is wealthy, there must be someone else who is poor.
I suspect for many Catholics with conservative economic perspectives, suggesting that, with respect to Catholic principles, European policies are clearly better than US policies would be perceived as "liberals bashing conservatives". Many conservatives abhor the notion that the United States should become more like Europe. They don't all share a disregard for the well-being of the poor. They may think that free market principles are best since free market principles will lead to greater overall prosperity and greater overall prosperity will help the poor more than government efforts to reduce disparities in distribution. They may think that redistribution may best be handled through voluntary actions and organizations, including Church programs, than through government. Some may even contribute a substantial portion of their income to their parish and to various other charities.
The "invisible hand" notion is recognized by conservative economists to require more than individual pursuit of self interest. In particular, the notion requires that interactions are strictly voluntary. The "invisible hand" doesn't make selfishness a virtue, but, with appropriate government action to address third-party effects, it does nicely mitigate the impact of selfishness. Of course, Catholics should all work to promote a society in which we care for each other, but perhaps there may be some legitimate differences of opinion regarding whether this care should be exercised through voluntary action or through government action.
I think that American politics are highly polarized based on attitudes regarding economic policy and size of government. I suspect that in a presidential election, if the choice is between two candidates, one advocating conservative economic policies and the other advocating liberal economic policies, over 30% will vote for the conservative and over 30% will vote for the liberal regardless of the positions of the candidates on all other issues and regardless of the candidates' characters and abilities. I suspect that many conservative and liberal candidates position themselves on other issues based on their perception of what would most help them win elections given their base of political support and attitudes of their electorate.
In this environment, I think we do best within our Church to be careful to avoid rhetoric that is strongly associated with political affiliations: "family values", "fair share", etc. I think we also often do best to focus on aspects of Catholic teaching that challenge ourselves rather than aspects of Catholic teaching that we feel should challenge others.
Ironically, while Europe is now less Christian in its public life then the US, their social policies show better respect for Catholic social principles (except for our First Amendment). They also have longer life expectancy, better public services, better health care, more equality, less crime, and use a fraction of the energy we use. To think the free market system will better help the poor amounts to nothing more or less than BLIND FAITH in a country where the have-nots have been falling further behind for close to 40 years, regardless of the party in power. Ironically, Catholic social teaching by comparison depends less on faith and more on facts. And happily, Catholic social teaching also avoids most of the rhetoric you correctly say we need to avoid.
ReplyDelete