I’ll say one thing about the nomination of Rep. Paul Ryan for the vice-presidential slot: it has produced some of the most telling exchanges about the details of Catholic thought, especial Catholic social thought, that we have seen in a long while. The fact that the WSJ feels the need to publish not one but two pieces defending Ryan on Catholic grounds is fascinating in itself.
Michael Sean Winters has put together quite a blockbuster response to the latest attempt at defense. Winters crisply articulates what could be a manifesto for getting beyond left/right polarization:
as someone who strives, and strives mightily to submit his mind and his will to the teachings of the Church, to never be a “cafeteria Catholic,” I will say unequivocally that I am as appalled by Ryan’s dissent as by Biden’s and for the same reason: The libertarianism of the right on economic matters, like the libertarianism of the left on sexual ethics, offends the most central dogmatic claim of the Christian Church, the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, which reveals that at the heart of all Reality, the source of all Creation, is not an autonomous individual known as God, not an abstract, impersonal Unmoved Mover, but a God who has revealed Himself as relational.
His editorial is also notable for pithily summarizing the whole intrinsic evil/prudential judgment issue:
To be clear, and to repeat: The moral obligation to help the poor is absolute. The moral obligation to protect human life is absolute. How we achieve such help and such protection, in the world of practical political and legal realities, requires prudential judgment in both instances. If Mr. Ryan were saying, “My way of helping the poor is better than yours,” that would be one thing, but he has offered no way of helping the poor just as Mr. Biden has offered no way of protecting the right to life of the unborn.
Finally, he takes us what I think is the underlying issue in the debate: the errors of theological anthropology explicitly in a vision of the world inspired by Ayn Rand and Austrian economics:
I do not object to anyone reading Ayn Rand. I do not even object to someone liking Ayn Rand, provided that someone is a college freshman, raised in a strict conservative Christian home, living on their own for the first time, and feeling alienated by college life. By sophomore year, hopefully such a student will have discovered friendship, or an area of study, or a devotion to culture, or the life of the Spirit, that will lead to understand that Rand’s hostility to altruism, which is heart of her economic and political views, is profoundly hostile not only to a Catholic worldview but to any humane worldview.
Several recent discussions here have evidenced that there is a lot of room for real discussion about the practical merits of various economic policies and choices. Great. What is missing, it seems, is a recognition that pure market solutions – that is, a kind of ideological faith that markets are better, for everything, every time – do not reconcile with even the principles of CST, and they are animated by a profoundly misguided theological anthropology. What is of the most concern is the Ryan budget is shaped by a theological anthropology, which is fundamentally at odds with the Church. Here is John Paul II in his most “pro-market letter”, Centesimus Annus:
can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? … The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. … Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces. (no. 42)
Here is Pope Benedict XVI, stating the kind of hybrid market-state-corporatist vision of Caritas in Veritate:
When both the logic of the market and the logic of the State come to an agreement that each will continue to exercise a monopoly over its respective area of influence, in the long term much is lost: solidarity in relations between citizens, participation and adherence, actions of gratuitousness, all of which stand in contrast with giving in order to acquire (the logic of exchange) and giving through duty (the logic of public obligation, imposed by State law). In order to defeat underdevelopment, action is required not only on improving exchange-based transactions and implanting public welfare structures, but above all on gradually increasing openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion. (no. 39)
Certainly these kinds of descriptions leave ample room for a discussion about whether Medicaid should be left to the states, or whether Medicare should be a more market-driven voucher system, or any of a host of other wonkish issues. What they don’t seem to leave room for is an ideological assumption that federal programs, regulations, and mechanisms are inherently bad, nor for an assumption that we should make significant tax cuts to already-wealthy persons as a step toward fiscal responsibility. Both these assumptions are deeply rooted in a Randian worldview, and at the very least, it would seem that Rep. Ryan should come out and explain how he now has come to recognize the errors in this view that he previously endorsed. Perhaps to make this more clear: while CST allows for obvious and necessary prudential judgment in explaining the balance of state, market, and “gratuity-inspired enterprises,” it authorizes a proper mix of these things, because it is based on a theological anthropology of human solidarity.
The persistent inability of both Catholic politicians (of both parties) and even some Catholic bishops to recognize this fundamental problem in theological anthropology needs explaining. What is apparently the case is that some believe the Church has complete and total competence to pronounce on the nature of human SEXUAL dignity, but that when it seeks to connect this dignity to fundamental claims about the nature of human community, of technology, of the economy, and of ecology, the Church suddenly loses this ability to speak authoritatively. The ascribing of authority to only one realm of human experience would seem to explain why Rep. Ryan would (presumably) abhors Rand’s sexual ethics, while somehow embracing her economics. The (false) dichotomizing of intrinsically-evil acts and prudential judgment is meant to mask this incoherence. It is easy enough to identify absolute statements – both positive and negative – on economic and environmental issues, and the Church has recognized “inviolable” rights to food and water, as well as to religious freedom and property.
Fortunately, the Magisterium of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have manifested an ever-more integrated reflection, in which the nature of life, sexuality, economy, ecology, and technological progress are subordinated to limits and to a partially-realized eschatology of love, manifest as much in the world of marriage and of business and of nature, as it also is manifest in holy poverty, chastity, and obedience. As Pope Benedict writes:
The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society. (CV, no. 51)
But this unity stretches back further still. I still remember reading an article by my now-colleague David Matzko McCarthy (“Procreation, The Development of Peoples, and the Final Destiny of Humanity”), which demonstrated the unity of vision of Pope Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio and Humanae Vitae (Communio, 26 Wint 1999, p 698-721) . We can and must debate details of this teaching, but hopefully we grasp the unity of the sexual and social vision found in this theological anthropology… and not pretend that one part has an “authority” that the other part does not have.
Thanks for the great reference to the McCarthy article in Communio. I’m going to check it out. I think this idea of the interconnection between various issues and teachings, which are so incompatible in contemporary political culture, is one of the most compelling aspects of Catholic social teaching. It’s a great reminder that the Church is not a party and has no party, and that each of us must constantly renew our committment to be — before we’re a member of a party or even a citizen of a nation — disciples of Jesus Christ.
This big conversation that we, the Catholic community, is having in public these days about the content of our social teaching is a fascinating thing. I think it might prove to be a very nourishing thing for us, long after the media and the folks in DC will have forgotten about it and moved on to something else.
I appreciate very much your reflection here and the sentiments expressed in Michael Sean Winter’s post. Both sides are guilty of “cafeteria catholicism” and Catholics have every right to feel frustrated this political season. If we vote (and I think we should) it should be with a deep sense of tragedy that neither party represents our moral values or has vowed to work on what the bishops identify as the most pressing issues this political season.
I wonder then what you think of a group like Catholics for Obama, which has lots of prominent Catholics representing it.
http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/index.php
I can understand why thoughtful Catholics might, when weighing the issues, decide to cast a reluctant vote for Obama, but I can’t understand the enthusiastic campaigning for him. I fear that at the root, Catholics for Obama have the same single-issue mindset that their opponents have in voting for Romney. Concern for the poor is for the left what abortion is on the right. In the words of Faithful Citizenship, Catholics are not single-issue voters.
Behind both parties is a worldview fundamentally at odds with the Catholic Church’s, as you acknowledge here. On the left, it is radical autonomy and reproductive libertarianism, and on the right it is the excessive trust in the market. As the two parties stand currently, I can’t understand how Catholics can be “for” either.
Thanks for this reflection. And I couldn’t agree more with Beth Haile’s comment that “[a]s the two parties stand currently, I can’t understand how Catholics can be ‘for’ either.” I’m a member of Democrats for Life of America, which seeks to be, at a minimum, a balancing voice in the DP on life issues. But when the platform committee of the DP (again) prohibits DFLA-sponsored language on finding areas of common ground on the abortion issue, it’s tough to sustain one’s commitment to a party that trumpets itself as concerned about the defenseless among us. The RP has little attraction for me, so more and more I feel disconnected as a Catholic from both parties. Time to begin a third party, open to all people of good will, that more fully reflects Catholic moral values?
Bill – I have been wondering about third parties for some time. I think the two-party system is doing a large disservice.
Thanks for the comments, all. I am still enough of a Dukie to recognize that expecting America to offer us a party that genuinely “fits” is unlikely, even if we had a better mechanical set-up for third parties to gain force. The fact is that for most of modern American history, change happens WITHIN parties, and often in reaction to what is happening in society. That is, real “realignments” come when certain factors combine to cause a movement within a party that shift its fundamental base. That happened to the Democrats in the period of 1900-1932, when it was constantly losing b/c Repubs decried it as the “party of the rebels” (“waved the bloody shirt”). It took figures like Bryan, the growth of progressivism in cities, the shift to immigrant (Catholic!) votes, and (of course) a Depression and the novel figure of FDR to shift things, and it did so in a way that pulled Repubs along…. for a while. The Goldwater/Reagan/1994/Tea Party trajectory has been a similar shift – combing particular figures, demographic shifts, and changing sentiments.
The problem now, frankly, is not to form a new party, but to form social practices (of Catholics) that can eventually be decisive enough to shift things. However, we exist in an increasingly managed, “sorted” political environment, where a few voters in certain states (like Ohio!) tend to be the decisive ones for the whole thing. I remember Reagan’s landslide in 1984 (barely) – can you imagine ANY Democrat losing a bunch of the big states now? Unfortunately, it is likely that no realignment can happen short of some kind of major crisis of some sort, which is depressing.
“The problem now, frankly, is not to form a new party, but to form social practices (of Catholics) that can eventually be decisive enough to shift things.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with this sentiment, David, but I do worry about what “eventually” may mean in political time. The pro-choice grip on the Democratic Party that began in the early 1970’s is now a stranglehold, ably (and sadly, IMO) assisted by 13 of the 15 Catholic Democrats in the Senate. (Only Casey of PA and Murchin of WV have any pro-life cred to speak of.) I don’t see this death grip, or the alignment of Catholic Democratic senators, changing anytime soon. You mention that some political seismic event (“a major crisis”) may have to take place to shift things. Why not the formation of a third party premised on Catholic social justice principles? I don’t underappreciate the difficulties of starting and maintaining a third party in American politics, but perhaps the launching of such a party, and the hoped-for defection of significant numbers of Catholics from both major parties, would be an event that would shift the tectonic plates on which the platforms of the DP and RP now currently rest. If nothing else, such a bold move might serve notice that the Catholic vote can’t be counted on by either of the major parties. It might also awaken the 13 Catholic pro-choice Democrats in the Senate (and the two Catholic pro-choice Republicans—Collins of ME and Murkowski of AK) to the fact that they cannot comfortably rely on the Catholic vote. IMO, discomfort among such lawmakers is a good thing.