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.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
354: What Kind of Catholic?
EXCERPT:
Rick Santorum’s decision to quit the presidential race last week offers a lesson about American Catholicism. Put simply: Santorum’s strength as a candidate is that his Catholic faith gives him an aura of conviction and authenticity that attracts many voters. His weakness is that not many of those voters are Catholics.
The lesson comes when we answer this question: how can Santorum’s Catholicism help him with voters but hurt him with Catholics?
The short answer is (1) Santorum’s faith is an authentic expression of the “Catholic right”--an extreme version of Catholicism that often resembles evangelical Protestantism. And (2) the Catholic right does not match the faith of most Catholics. Santorum’s appeal does not work on the mainstream of Catholic voters.
…
Some of this is undoubtedly rooted in Santorum’s conservative politics. But what sets Santorum apart from his rivals is not his politics--it is his faith. Even in this era when religion looms so large in our elections, Santorum stands out. Mitt Romney has been much quieter about his Mormon faith, Newt Gingrich soft-pedals his own Catholicism, and Ron Paul’s faith remains mostly unnoticed by voters.
Santorum, by contrast, always puts his faith front and center. He is as comfortable talking about theology as he is talking about policy.
…
Santorum also presents himself as a champion of religion, especially by decrying other politicians’ failure to protect religious values.
…
So why wouldn’t Catholics want to support a Catholic politician who clearly integrates his faith with his politics and also loudly defends the place of religion in public life?
The answer is that Santorum’s version of Catholic faith is so far outside the mainstream of American Catholicism, most American Catholics do not share common ground with him.
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.
…
Clearly Santorum‘s faith embraces public policy perspectives that are dramatically at odds with a wide range of church teachings. Why is this instructive about US Catholicism?
Because the truth is that Santorum does not stand alone. Not only does he speak with an authenticity rooted in personal conviction, he also speaks for other American Catholics who share his version of Catholic faith. …
…
Such Catholics are, like Santorum, well outside the mainstream of the majority of American Catholics as well as Catholic teaching. And this affords insight into the current state of Catholicism in America.
Clearly “American Catholicism” now includes two kinds of Catholics—those who embrace a quasi-evangelical Catholicism, and the vast majority of mainstream Catholics. Such quasi-evangelical Catholicism often combines personal devotion with fundamentalist theology.
As Karen Armstrong explained in her book The Battle for God, fundamentalism may appear in any religion, and it always takes the same basic form: people who find the “modern world” too threatening seek to defend themselves by concocting a distorted version of their faith tradition which protects them from the values and movements they fear. The upside is they feel safer and more certain of the values they live by; the downside is they embrace a fraudulent version of their own faith.
In my parish work I meet such people quite often, though they nearly always represent a small number. They can be found at all levels of church life, and even in public life. They seldom enjoy wide public support among other Catholics, but they find allies among evangelicals and they can create the impression that Catholicism is simply one form of fundamentalist Christianity.
They also tend to consider themselves the only true Catholics, and have been known to refer to the rest of us as CINO (Catholics in name only).
…
Of course, one irony of fundamentalism is its pretense of clinging to “traditional” values, when in fact fundamentalism is a recent invention dating from the early 20th century. What Rick Santorum’s candidacy reflects is that such fundamentalism now infects Catholicism. What his defeat suggests is that most Catholics remain immune to fundamentalism’s appeal.
Rick Santorum’s decision to quit the presidential race last week offers a lesson about American Catholicism. Put simply: Santorum’s strength as a candidate is that his Catholic faith gives him an aura of conviction and authenticity that attracts many voters. His weakness is that not many of those voters are Catholics.
The lesson comes when we answer this question: how can Santorum’s Catholicism help him with voters but hurt him with Catholics?
The short answer is (1) Santorum’s faith is an authentic expression of the “Catholic right”--an extreme version of Catholicism that often resembles evangelical Protestantism. And (2) the Catholic right does not match the faith of most Catholics. Santorum’s appeal does not work on the mainstream of Catholic voters.
…
Some of this is undoubtedly rooted in Santorum’s conservative politics. But what sets Santorum apart from his rivals is not his politics--it is his faith. Even in this era when religion looms so large in our elections, Santorum stands out. Mitt Romney has been much quieter about his Mormon faith, Newt Gingrich soft-pedals his own Catholicism, and Ron Paul’s faith remains mostly unnoticed by voters.
Santorum, by contrast, always puts his faith front and center. He is as comfortable talking about theology as he is talking about policy.
…
Santorum also presents himself as a champion of religion, especially by decrying other politicians’ failure to protect religious values.
…
So why wouldn’t Catholics want to support a Catholic politician who clearly integrates his faith with his politics and also loudly defends the place of religion in public life?
The answer is that Santorum’s version of Catholic faith is so far outside the mainstream of American Catholicism, most American Catholics do not share common ground with him.
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.
…
Clearly Santorum‘s faith embraces public policy perspectives that are dramatically at odds with a wide range of church teachings. Why is this instructive about US Catholicism?
Because the truth is that Santorum does not stand alone. Not only does he speak with an authenticity rooted in personal conviction, he also speaks for other American Catholics who share his version of Catholic faith. …
…
Such Catholics are, like Santorum, well outside the mainstream of the majority of American Catholics as well as Catholic teaching. And this affords insight into the current state of Catholicism in America.
Clearly “American Catholicism” now includes two kinds of Catholics—those who embrace a quasi-evangelical Catholicism, and the vast majority of mainstream Catholics. Such quasi-evangelical Catholicism often combines personal devotion with fundamentalist theology.
As Karen Armstrong explained in her book The Battle for God, fundamentalism may appear in any religion, and it always takes the same basic form: people who find the “modern world” too threatening seek to defend themselves by concocting a distorted version of their faith tradition which protects them from the values and movements they fear. The upside is they feel safer and more certain of the values they live by; the downside is they embrace a fraudulent version of their own faith.
In my parish work I meet such people quite often, though they nearly always represent a small number. They can be found at all levels of church life, and even in public life. They seldom enjoy wide public support among other Catholics, but they find allies among evangelicals and they can create the impression that Catholicism is simply one form of fundamentalist Christianity.
They also tend to consider themselves the only true Catholics, and have been known to refer to the rest of us as CINO (Catholics in name only).
…
Of course, one irony of fundamentalism is its pretense of clinging to “traditional” values, when in fact fundamentalism is a recent invention dating from the early 20th century. What Rick Santorum’s candidacy reflects is that such fundamentalism now infects Catholicism. What his defeat suggests is that most Catholics remain immune to fundamentalism’s appeal.
Friday, March 23, 2012
#353: Endless War—part I
EXCERPT:
This time my intention is to focus on a long-term tendency in US foreign affairs. Here, the very parties who are gridlocked on so many domestic issues show little if any disagreement on what strikes me as the central and abiding feature of US foreign policy.
That feature is what I call “Endless War.”
My analysis built on two key facts: (1) The Roman Catholic Church has in the last 50 years transformed itself into a “Peace Church” opposed to nearly all modern warfare; (2) during those same 50 years the US (under both parties) has been incapable of conducting its foreign affairs without nearly continual recourse to war.
The “Peace Church.” Over the centuries Catholic Social Teaching acknowledged three approaches to the morality of war. There was pacifism, rooted in the teaching and practice of Jesus and his early followers. There was the just war theory, elaborated first in the 5th century by St. Augustine and developed further by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, the Spanish Jesuits in the 15th century, and a number of prominent 20th century theologians. And, beginning in the 11th century, there was crusade (or holy war).
Pacifism committed to nonviolence in all cases, and rejected all armed conflict as a morally unacceptable option. The just war theory laid out key criteria that must be met in order for any recourse to arms to be “just” -- that is, morally lawful. Crusades depended on believing that war for a “great and noble” cause (such as recovering the Holy Land from the infidel, or eliminating heresy) could not only be justified, but could reap spiritual and material rewards (for example, indulgences and property) for the warrior.
By the mid 20th century, crusade was largely discredited, and for Vatican Council II (1962-1965) the just war theory was the dominant approach, with pacifism still an option but crusade rejected.
Thus, during the Vietnam War, the US Bishops made it clear that Catholics could claim conscientious objection against the war, or judge it by the criteria of the just war theory, but could not approve it as a crusade against communism to be won by any means necessary. Since Vatican II, Catholicism rejects the holy war notion that anything goes as long as one’s cause is just.
Moreover even the “just war” criteria are now more difficult to meet given the conditions of modern warfare, with its “total war” strategies and its weapons of mass destruction. Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the most conservative bishop of Vatican II, stated that the conditions of modern warfare made a “just war” impossible.
Vatican II reserved its sole outright condemnation for the manufacture, sale, stockpiling, threat, and use of nuclear weapons. And Pope Paul VI clearly put Catholicism on the peace platform in 1965 when, addressing the United Nations, he cried his famous plea “No more war! War never again!”
This time my intention is to focus on a long-term tendency in US foreign affairs. Here, the very parties who are gridlocked on so many domestic issues show little if any disagreement on what strikes me as the central and abiding feature of US foreign policy.
That feature is what I call “Endless War.”
My analysis built on two key facts: (1) The Roman Catholic Church has in the last 50 years transformed itself into a “Peace Church” opposed to nearly all modern warfare; (2) during those same 50 years the US (under both parties) has been incapable of conducting its foreign affairs without nearly continual recourse to war.
The “Peace Church.” Over the centuries Catholic Social Teaching acknowledged three approaches to the morality of war. There was pacifism, rooted in the teaching and practice of Jesus and his early followers. There was the just war theory, elaborated first in the 5th century by St. Augustine and developed further by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, the Spanish Jesuits in the 15th century, and a number of prominent 20th century theologians. And, beginning in the 11th century, there was crusade (or holy war).
Pacifism committed to nonviolence in all cases, and rejected all armed conflict as a morally unacceptable option. The just war theory laid out key criteria that must be met in order for any recourse to arms to be “just” -- that is, morally lawful. Crusades depended on believing that war for a “great and noble” cause (such as recovering the Holy Land from the infidel, or eliminating heresy) could not only be justified, but could reap spiritual and material rewards (for example, indulgences and property) for the warrior.
By the mid 20th century, crusade was largely discredited, and for Vatican Council II (1962-1965) the just war theory was the dominant approach, with pacifism still an option but crusade rejected.
Thus, during the Vietnam War, the US Bishops made it clear that Catholics could claim conscientious objection against the war, or judge it by the criteria of the just war theory, but could not approve it as a crusade against communism to be won by any means necessary. Since Vatican II, Catholicism rejects the holy war notion that anything goes as long as one’s cause is just.
Moreover even the “just war” criteria are now more difficult to meet given the conditions of modern warfare, with its “total war” strategies and its weapons of mass destruction. Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the most conservative bishop of Vatican II, stated that the conditions of modern warfare made a “just war” impossible.
Vatican II reserved its sole outright condemnation for the manufacture, sale, stockpiling, threat, and use of nuclear weapons. And Pope Paul VI clearly put Catholicism on the peace platform in 1965 when, addressing the United Nations, he cried his famous plea “No more war! War never again!”
Monday, March 12, 2012
#352: For God and Country?
EXCERPT:
It’s a little too early to tell, but I will not be surprised if the elections of 2012 end up featuring more controversy over religion than in any time since John Kennedy fought to break the Catholic barrier in 1960 (witness the inflammatory remarks by former senator Santorum regarding JFK’s Houston speech on church and state).
If so, it will be for many converging reasons: the continuing national divide over Roe v Wade, the divide among Republicans between social conservatives and traditional business-oriented Republicans, the presence of a Mormon and two Catholics in the Republican race, the determination of the Obama Administration to push against legal exemptions for church-based institutions, and the equally determined resistance of evangelical leaders and the US Catholic bishops.
I have no quarrel with introducing religious beliefs and values into our public life, and even into our political campaigns. But I object when anyone exploits faith as a political tool.
Too often I find that people’s first allegiance is to their own party--and then they selectively invoke whatever religious beliefs and teachings reinforce their own politics. To my mind, politics should be the vehicle for promoting our religious values and beliefs--not the other way around.
Too often, I fear, even bishops and other Catholics have embraced the Republican Party (perhaps in the wake of Roe v. Wade) and then strained very hard to push the Republican camel (oops--I mean elephant) through the eye of the Catholic social values needle. It’s a very tight squeeze, and does violence to both the elephant and the needle.
…
A personal disclaimer: I have never registered with a party. I’ve voted for Republicans, Democrats, independents, write-in candidates, and “none of the above.”
I begin by presuming that Catholic social values constitute a well-rounded vision that cannot be fit into the square left-or-right pigeonholes of American politics. In my view, it is impossible to side with Democrats or Republican all the time.
…
I never expect to find candidates who reflect Catholic views on all these questions, even when the candidates are themselves Catholics! Instead, most candidates bring their personal political preconceptions to any discussion of public principles, and then invoke “Christian values” only when it is convenient. But it pains me when Catholic church officials do the same thing.
And it saddens me that too few Catholics are trained to employ their faith as a lens to spy whatever bits of wisdom might be imbedded within the vast silliness of today’s political rhetoric.
It’s a little too early to tell, but I will not be surprised if the elections of 2012 end up featuring more controversy over religion than in any time since John Kennedy fought to break the Catholic barrier in 1960 (witness the inflammatory remarks by former senator Santorum regarding JFK’s Houston speech on church and state).
If so, it will be for many converging reasons: the continuing national divide over Roe v Wade, the divide among Republicans between social conservatives and traditional business-oriented Republicans, the presence of a Mormon and two Catholics in the Republican race, the determination of the Obama Administration to push against legal exemptions for church-based institutions, and the equally determined resistance of evangelical leaders and the US Catholic bishops.
I have no quarrel with introducing religious beliefs and values into our public life, and even into our political campaigns. But I object when anyone exploits faith as a political tool.
Too often I find that people’s first allegiance is to their own party--and then they selectively invoke whatever religious beliefs and teachings reinforce their own politics. To my mind, politics should be the vehicle for promoting our religious values and beliefs--not the other way around.
Too often, I fear, even bishops and other Catholics have embraced the Republican Party (perhaps in the wake of Roe v. Wade) and then strained very hard to push the Republican camel (oops--I mean elephant) through the eye of the Catholic social values needle. It’s a very tight squeeze, and does violence to both the elephant and the needle.
…
A personal disclaimer: I have never registered with a party. I’ve voted for Republicans, Democrats, independents, write-in candidates, and “none of the above.”
I begin by presuming that Catholic social values constitute a well-rounded vision that cannot be fit into the square left-or-right pigeonholes of American politics. In my view, it is impossible to side with Democrats or Republican all the time.
…
I never expect to find candidates who reflect Catholic views on all these questions, even when the candidates are themselves Catholics! Instead, most candidates bring their personal political preconceptions to any discussion of public principles, and then invoke “Christian values” only when it is convenient. But it pains me when Catholic church officials do the same thing.
And it saddens me that too few Catholics are trained to employ their faith as a lens to spy whatever bits of wisdom might be imbedded within the vast silliness of today’s political rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)