Skip to main content

The Social Doctrine And Me

I've been political my entire life. The truth is, I love politics because I love people. It's a noble profession, especially here in America. Yes, I said "especially" and I meant it. America is still a great place, and no one could say otherwise. We have a lot to do, but our history and heritage gives us all we need to do it, whether intellectual or spiritual.

The great gift of America to the world is the recognition of the dignity of the human person, uniquely in regard to people and their government. That the citizen is a participant and co-ruler is the logical conclusion of the belief that legitimate authority is not limitless; every authority and everyone bound by it owes a first duty to the One who sanctions it in the first place.

I mean no disrespect to avowed atheists; though this is a Christian space, this is not an attempt to explicate religious doctrine. Rather, I ask every person to recognize that even the most expansive view of personal license must grant that a virtuous neighbor is better than a vicious one. It is precisely when true force must be applied: when reason and ethics fail.

The good person is predictable; the bad person creates chaos, because there is no limit to his ideas for self-enrichment at any cost. Let me be plain: A large chunk of our politics misses the truth of the social benefit of virtue, and the social cost of vice.

We are witnessing a bizarre play where our two basic outlooks both believe the same lie, at the extremes: That what a person does has no impact on anyone else; the "liberal" believes that wealth alone is the sum of human existence. Some have too much, and others, too little. It's the government's job to fix it. Somehow, sex isn't anybody's business, unless you don't have enough money to have the kind you want. Then, the government can steal the money to pay for it. Subsidized free love is for the good of all? Since when?

Since when did the biological reality of when human life begins become a religious belief? The only religious belief I have heard articulated is the right to an abortion. An entire political party seems to have no dogma but that one. I'd put the federal minimum wage at $13 an hour in exchange for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. I dare the Democrats to take the deal.

The "conservative" at the extreme believes the lie, also. Money is the sum of human existence. No one should dare tell us that maybe our system encourages firms to merge, buying favors from the government. We do have faultless poor in America, and it is the government's responsibility, to the extent that some deficit of justice has occurred. We have federalism in fact so that the government does not interfere with self-determination, economic or otherwise, in its zeal to express solidarity with the less fortunate. We do worse than this: The government expresses solidarity with the most fortunate, and any protests of this outrage are shouted down with cries of "Socialism!" The mere presence of an increasing number of highly wealthy people is not constituitive of economic justice.


The failure of the liberal welfare state owes not to its existence, but in the push to destroy the mores and values that would make it function properly. Let me be direct: Only married people should receive any social assistance for the care of children they create. The state is not in the marriage business because a dark cloud of theocracy is descending; the state cares about marriage because--when we strip away all the politically-correct nonsense--only opposite sex pairs create new people. That's why you can't re-define it, and that's why any attacks against marriage, defined as a permanent sexual union between a man and a woman, should be highly discouraged, and by government, when necessary. This is what unites a social conservative and an economic one: economic freedom cannot flourish in an amoral society. No liberties at all survive in the absence of virtue.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un