November 3, 2005
WELL, HE IS OUR FIRST CATHOLIC PRESIDENT (via Daniel Merriman):
Brain Trust (Franklin Foer, 11.03.05, New Republic)
There's no clearer example of evangelicals dressing themselves in Catholicism than George W. Bush's 2000 campaign. His speeches were rife with talk of "solidarity" and "common good," the language of the social teachings. And the authors of Bush's Faith Based Initiative--the hallmark of his feint toward compassionate conservatism--traced the program to papal encyclicals. Marvin Olasky, the original face of the Bush program, once credited Catholicism with "provid[ing] a structural framework." And, in the end, the campaign was an object lesson in the new alliance. By defending his positions on abortion with phrases drawn from Catholics--"expand the circle of freedom" and "protect the weakest member of society"--Bush simultaneously reassured the hard right and avoided the impression of a Bible-thumping radical.That's not to say that scandal of the evangelical mind inevitably leads Republican presidents to appoint Catholics. But sociological and political factors have combined with the intellectual to ensure that Catholic lawyers continually dominate the pool of Republican candidates for the bench. For starters, there are so many of them. During the early twentieth century, law provided Catholics with an important vehicle for traveling into the middle class. While Catholics couldn't enter top law schools, they could attend places like Fordham and Villanova. "There was a vast culture of Catholic DAs, lawyers, and judges," says John McGreevy, the author of Catholicism and American Freedom. Even when discrimination against Catholics faded, the law's prestige among white Catholics persisted. After the cultural tumult of the 1960s, and with the rise of the abortion issue, many of these Catholic lawyers wended their way into the arms of conservatism. (Evangelicals have only recently begun to attend elite schools in great numbers and have just begun reinvesting in institutions capable of producing top-shelf intellectuals.)
Then there's the obvious political appeal of tapping Catholics. By nominating a small army of Scalitos, Republicans clearly hope to ply more Catholics from their attachment to the New Deal coalition--a prime GOP project since the days of Richard Nixon's "silent majority." These appointments could also effect a broader change in Catholicism's approach to government. At the same time Catholic conservatives joined the evangelicals in battle, they have simultaneously waged a war against their co-religionists in an attempt to alter the Church's traditional preference for a strong state--a preference that led Catholics en masse to FDR's party and yielded a generation of Democratic politicians (see the Kennedys and Tip O'Neill). Led by Neuhaus and the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Novak, these conservatives want to realign papal teaching with support for an unrestrained market. As Neuhaus, the editor of First Things, has put it, "Capitalism is the economic corollary of the Christian understanding of man's nature and destiny."
Of course, this requires some impressive intellectual gymnastics, since the last Pope and many of his predecessors were potent critics of capitalism.
Already won that fight, just as it was Americans who made the Church see that it could abide liberal democracy. Of course, now Catholic scholars offer the best analysis of how liberal democracy can, and will, do itself in unless it remains moored in Church teachings. With all the synergy, there's less and less reason for the lost flock not to return to the shepherd. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 3, 2005 5:05 PM
Centesimus Annus, ECCT, Solidarity, Third (aka Via Media) Way, End of History, etc., etc. And so many lessons to learn from the piles of wreckage produced from worshiping the idols of the last century. What a time, what an opportunity, what a test.
Posted by: Luciferous at November 3, 2005 5:47 PMLuceferius nailed a lot of it for us, so I may go on to Evangelicalism.
Bible-based Christianity is essentially Catholic, i.e. Athansian, as opposed to Arian, Gnostic or any other evolutionary dead-end variant. This is because the Bible, as it has come down to us, is the book of the Catholic Church, without whose efforts all the bizarre, heretical rantings of the early heretics would be on equal footing with the canonical Bible the Evangelicals revere.
This recognition is a difficult adjustment on the part of Evangelicals, who have historical connections to minor sects which were roughly handled by the Church in the past.
There are plenty of indications that both kinds of Catholics, the Roman and the Evangelical are aware of their connections. Politically, we have all wised up to the reality that we must hang together to avoid being fed to the lions separately.
On another point, The popes, particularly JPII, have not been opponents of capitalism, only of unrestrained, inhuman, ideological capitalism. John Paul II has written extensively of capitalism as the engine driving what he called "solidarity"--what we are calling the third way.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 3, 2005 6:10 PMOJ and Lou have both pointed it out, but I'm still astounded that folks like Foer can still say with a straight face that JP2 was a "potent critic of capitalism" -- as if the man hadn't put his name to Centesimus Annus, a document which could have been written by Novak and Neuhas.
As for "ply[ing] more Catholics from their attachment to the New Deal coalition", well, jeez, how many are left in that coalition at this point? I mean, the so-called coalition itself is a shambles, and the vast majority of church-going Catholics are long gone. What's left is a handful of geriatrics who haven't got the news that FDR and Harry T are no longer with us, and their boomer children, most of whom don't go to church and reject almost all the teachings of the church.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at November 3, 2005 7:28 PMSo at the End of History we'll all be Roman Catholic, train riding, witch persecuting Third Wayers who share a deep distrust of anyone foolish enough to believe that Eric and Julia Roberts are different people.
I, for one, look forward to it.
Posted by: jefferson park at November 3, 2005 9:03 PM"This is because the Bible, as it has come down to us, is the book of the Catholic Church"
Parts of it.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 3, 2005 9:41 PMJefferson Park: LSHCFOMN
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 3, 2005 11:56 PMJefferson:
Yes, as well as monarchists with a soft spot for nuclear war and a knack for including anyone who agrees with us in the Anglosphere.
Robert: Two points. :-)
Posted by: Peter B at November 4, 2005 6:34 AMAnd double headers every day....
Posted by: oj at November 4, 2005 6:41 AMOf course theology is intellectual gymnastics, it isn't easy making changes to unchangeable objective truth. This kind of stuff requires a good descriptive oxymoron: how about "adaptive objectivity".
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 4, 2005 1:59 PMThe objective truth is always the same, men are just poor at perceiving it.
Posted by: oj at November 4, 2005 2:04 PMSo y'all is just making it up as you go along. Funny, that's what you accuse secularists of doing.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 4, 2005 2:07 PMNo, secularists make up their own truths to live by. Jews and Christians struggle to bring their ideas and institutions into accord with the Truth.
Posted by: oj at November 4, 2005 2:27 PMBut you have no idea where to find "the Truth" so you're just blindly searching. How will you know if/when you finally stumble across It? We're all in the same boat.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 4, 2005 2:32 PMOf course we know the Truth, God told us. We just have a had time organizing our societies aropund it and behaving according to it.
It's you who deny that Truth who are in the sinking boat.
Posted by: oj at November 4, 2005 5:32 PMHow do we know that the Buddhists haven't come closest to behaving according to The Truth ?
Because Christians have a lot more nukes ?
And big homes and fancy cars ?
"Might makes right" is a useful, utilitarian way of looking at life, but are you sure that you want to embrace it as a means of choosing the "correct" God ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 5, 2005 5:00 AMWill no one rid us of these turbulent rationalists?
Posted by: Peter B at November 5, 2005 6:00 AM