Skip to main content

A Loss Of Identity, But A Liberation

I think it no longer wise to identify with any political party. As a Catholic, I am duty-bound--and joyfully hold to--the teachings of the Catholic Church. In regard to, "You shall not commit adultery," and the teachings of our Catechism, it had never been difficult to identify as a Republican, because at least regarding public policy on these questions, progressive ideology has almost nothing to offer. Abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, divorce, contraception, and a host of other evils are actively promoted.

We also know that vicious totalitarianism of a socialist nature gripped large portions of the world in the twentieth century, and the United States spent much of its time and treasure combating both the ideology, and the nations promoting it, for good and ill. Socialism that manifests especially in atheistic materialism has been roundly condemned as contrary to the dignity of the human person by the Church since the late 19th century. I think the postwar ascendance of the United States, and the consensus of the Greatest Generation that occasioned a brief time of good feelings in domestic politics--that happens to coincide with most Americans getting very rich, especially relative to the rest of the world--has blinded us to the ways that capitalism--not distortions or misuses, mind you--degrades the human person: personally, in the family, in community, and in regard to other nations. I have only scratched the surface of the encyclicals that comprise our social teaching, but the longstanding Catholic suspicion of market ideology and the individual accumulation of great wealth only intensified when the implications of classical liberalism came into view.

To be crude about it, if all you're worried about is not being "those commies," you're going to miss a lot of instruction from holy mother Church.

Wasn't the main problem of European Christian social democracy that it failed to be Christian?

Americans and Catholics typically uncritically accept libertarian critiques of government excess as though there is no distinction between an imprudent decision by government at any level, and one motivated by malice, incompetence, and the usurpation of individual rights. Yet an ideology that makes the existence of government as such contingent upon individual whim cannot be Catholic. The individual is not the focal point of a Christian account of human purpose and destiny. There is no real subsidiarity, if the common good--and social groups dedicated to it, including government--is denied. Needless to say, solidarity is also a fiction, if so.

I think I personally have spent most of my life playing at politics, as if it were a sport, instead of the serious matter it is. There was "them" and "us", and the ends of theories and particular policies--as well as real conversations about what we're supposed to be doing--never really took place. Maybe it's too late for that, but I hope not.

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