I have mentioned in the past that I enjoy the political blogging of Steve Benen, currently at WashingtonMonthly.com. Although I do not always agree with him, I like his wit and appreciate that he clearly does make an effort to read what his political opposites have to say. Also, although it may seem counter intuitive, his history in working on Church/State separation tends to make him a bit more 'Faith savvy' than most political commentators.
I also follow Stephen Bainbridge's blog. I feel like I have to make an honest attempt to hear different points of view. And, while Bainbridge often sounds like a Fox News transcript, he does occasionally show the coherent reasoning skills one would expect from a law professor. More importantly (or at least more entertaining to me) he is not utterly without self realization. That is, he periodically seems to grasp that his political ideology, which is very Evangelical Protestant in nature, sometimes clashes with his Catholic faith. He can never seem to express these realizations with a generous and humble heart. Inevitably, the language includes the presumption of membership in an unarguably more devout and righteous group. But at least the thoughts are acknowledged an expressed. A perfect example would be this recent post.
"It’s worth remembering from time to time that cafeteria Catholicism is not soly the province of the political left..."
Yes, Luke 18:9-14 does seem to suggest that we should be mindful of our own moral failings. But I think that we have heard the tale so much that we no longer perceive "Pharisee" as Jesus' first audience did. Pope Benedict has pointed out that the same lesson can be found in Luke 15:11-32, which Benedict has suggested we refer to as a parable of two sons, not one. The same lesson seems to appear in its starkest form in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:1-5). In that light, "soly" (sic) is probably not a word I would choose.
Please don't misunderstand, I am just as much a flawed, inconsistent sinner as any. It is just that my failings differ from Bainbridges. I freely acknowledge that I am a 'cafeteria Catholic', but while I see us all as cafeteria Catholic's (hence the words "Lord I am not worthy to receive you..." at every Mass), Bainbridge seems to believe that "cafeteria Catholicism" is something separate from himself, which can identified and admonished.
Bainbridge's musings on faith do not normally get picked up on by other political blogs, especially a more left leaning blog like Benen's. But recently Bainbridge discussed Douglas Kmiec's possible selection as ambassador to the Holy See.
Benen then wrote a piece commenting on the issue, essentially stating that he was baffled by the objections. In response, Bainbridge updated his article with the following comment:
Please don't misunderstand, I am just as much a flawed, inconsistent sinner as any. It is just that my failings differ from Bainbridges. I freely acknowledge that I am a 'cafeteria Catholic', but while I see us all as cafeteria Catholic's (hence the words "Lord I am not worthy to receive you..." at every Mass), Bainbridge seems to believe that "cafeteria Catholicism" is something separate from himself, which can identified and admonished.
Bainbridge's musings on faith do not normally get picked up on by other political blogs, especially a more left leaning blog like Benen's. But recently Bainbridge discussed Douglas Kmiec's possible selection as ambassador to the Holy See.
Benen then wrote a piece commenting on the issue, essentially stating that he was baffled by the objections. In response, Bainbridge updated his article with the following comment:
Did Benen even bother to read--let alone try to understand--the argument? Nowhere did I say that voting for Obama is a deal breaker. Obviously, Obama is going to appoint someone who supported him.There are a lot of problems with this. Perhaps first, and foremost, Benen specifically states that he finds Bainbridge's arguments "quite odd". So the first question seems answered, yes, he read it, no he did not understand it in the sense that he found it to be coherent and compelling. Benen then simply gives his reasons, principally, large Catholic support for Obama (50% of regularly practicing Catholics, 54% of Catholic overall) and Kmiec's long standing as a conservative Catholic who is in public agreement with the Church on high profile issues like abortion.
The question is whether this specific Obama supporter ought to be chosen. The point has been that Kmiec presents a unique combination of facts that I find problematic.
All I can say, is that the Washington Monthly has gone way down hill since Kevin Drum left. Although I rarely agreed with Drum, at least he was willing to have an intellectually honest discussion. benen is just shoddy.
Second, much as the Pharisee needed to look to his own spiritual well being, not the Publican's, when it comes to to being "intellectually honest" and avoiding the "shoddy", Bainbridge's piece leaves a lot to be desired. For example, Bainbridge uses a snippet from Rome's Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Public Life. He is using this to argue that abortion has special status. But if we look at the entire paragraph, and the paragraph that proceeds it, the meaning is quite different.
Presumably, Bainbridge justifies his own vote for a Presidential candidate with an intrinsically evil position on abortion as an application of "limiting the harm", but the proceeding paragraph in the doctrinal note specifically warns about elevating a teaching at the expense of others:
"In this context ["limiting the harm"], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action."
The paragraph that follows, from which Bainbridge takes his snippet, is where the Church gives 9 examples of the sorts of "fundamental contents of faith and morals" we are talking about. Yes, abortion is in that list, but so are things like Peace, societies protection of minors, religious freedom, and a commitment to a socially just economy. We know that this list is "not negotiable" because Pope Benedict specifically says so in Sacramentum Caritatis (#83). The USCCB points out this same connection in its document on Faithful Citizenship.
To bolster his interpretation, Bainbridge next uses a quote from a fragment of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the US bishops which has never been officially released. Even so, there is strong reason to believe that, again, the quote is being used deceptively. Bainbridge's interpretation would require the presumption that Ratzinger was disagreeing with the Doctrinal Note, which not only was also written by Ratzinger, but approved for distribution by Pope John Paul II. The more common interpretation is that, in the section quoted, Ratzinger is referring to the subject at hand, which was a question from the Bishops on rather or not communion could be denied to politicians who supported the war in Iraq or the death penalty. In this context, Ratzinger is not discussing elevating of specific teachings, but the proper application of Canon Law (specifically CIC 915).
Although Bainbridge links to only a fragment of the leaked letter, this interpretation is bolstered by more complete copies. Ratzinger goes on to discuss the distinction of direct support of an intrinsically evil position through voting, and an application of "proportionate reasons" where connection to the evil is remote. The specific case he gives is a Catholic licitly voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
But ultimately I think the problem rests not with Bainbridge's shoddy research and twisted quotes of Church and unofficial documents, but with something my father once referred to as the "true test". Basically, my father contended that the only principles we truly hold dear are the ones we stand by when they cost us something. He was talking about 'free speech' at the time, but it strikes me as a universal concept.
Law professor thinking and self justification make it inevitable that Bainbridge acknowledge the legitimacy of 'proportionate reasons' voting. The USCCB expressly explained the concept, and many individual US bishops have commented on it, including the very conservative Archbishop Burke. Just as important, the concept must exist, or Bainbridge himself would be voting in opposition to the Church on "fundamental and inalienable moral principles", including abortion (McCain's position on abortion is not licit).
But while Bainbridge can bring himself to acknowledge the existence of the principle, he cannot bring himself to accept any application other than his own. Aside from a little twisting of Church teaching, his argument fundamentally boils down to, 'I found these particular circumstances especially compelling in my voting.' This is fine, he can apply proportionate reasons and he must follow the certainty of his own moral conscience - CCC 1790. But he needs to read CCC 1790 in it's entirety. We are to always remember that our moral conscience is fallible. Just because Bainbridge and some other voices in the Church find something overwhelmingly compelling does not mean that they are, in fact, unarguably the most compelling factors for all Catholics.
The USCCB seems to go so far as to recognize this as a strength. We cannot all be involved in every issue important to the faith. But, although we are all answering different individual calls to faith, collectively this means we are more broadly answering Jesus' call to service.
Bainbridge appears to see this differently, there are "serious and loyal" Catholics, like himself, and the rest of us. If you reject that fundamental premise, that there is a subset of unarguably more righteous Catholics to which Bainbridge belongs, his entire argument appears to become moot.
To bolster his interpretation, Bainbridge next uses a quote from a fragment of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the US bishops which has never been officially released. Even so, there is strong reason to believe that, again, the quote is being used deceptively. Bainbridge's interpretation would require the presumption that Ratzinger was disagreeing with the Doctrinal Note, which not only was also written by Ratzinger, but approved for distribution by Pope John Paul II. The more common interpretation is that, in the section quoted, Ratzinger is referring to the subject at hand, which was a question from the Bishops on rather or not communion could be denied to politicians who supported the war in Iraq or the death penalty. In this context, Ratzinger is not discussing elevating of specific teachings, but the proper application of Canon Law (specifically CIC 915).
Although Bainbridge links to only a fragment of the leaked letter, this interpretation is bolstered by more complete copies. Ratzinger goes on to discuss the distinction of direct support of an intrinsically evil position through voting, and an application of "proportionate reasons" where connection to the evil is remote. The specific case he gives is a Catholic licitly voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
But ultimately I think the problem rests not with Bainbridge's shoddy research and twisted quotes of Church and unofficial documents, but with something my father once referred to as the "true test". Basically, my father contended that the only principles we truly hold dear are the ones we stand by when they cost us something. He was talking about 'free speech' at the time, but it strikes me as a universal concept.
Law professor thinking and self justification make it inevitable that Bainbridge acknowledge the legitimacy of 'proportionate reasons' voting. The USCCB expressly explained the concept, and many individual US bishops have commented on it, including the very conservative Archbishop Burke. Just as important, the concept must exist, or Bainbridge himself would be voting in opposition to the Church on "fundamental and inalienable moral principles", including abortion (McCain's position on abortion is not licit).
But while Bainbridge can bring himself to acknowledge the existence of the principle, he cannot bring himself to accept any application other than his own. Aside from a little twisting of Church teaching, his argument fundamentally boils down to, 'I found these particular circumstances especially compelling in my voting.' This is fine, he can apply proportionate reasons and he must follow the certainty of his own moral conscience - CCC 1790. But he needs to read CCC 1790 in it's entirety. We are to always remember that our moral conscience is fallible. Just because Bainbridge and some other voices in the Church find something overwhelmingly compelling does not mean that they are, in fact, unarguably the most compelling factors for all Catholics.
The USCCB seems to go so far as to recognize this as a strength. We cannot all be involved in every issue important to the faith. But, although we are all answering different individual calls to faith, collectively this means we are more broadly answering Jesus' call to service.
Bainbridge appears to see this differently, there are "serious and loyal" Catholics, like himself, and the rest of us. If you reject that fundamental premise, that there is a subset of unarguably more righteous Catholics to which Bainbridge belongs, his entire argument appears to become moot.
No comments:
Post a Comment