In his latest Washington Post column, E.J. Dionne considers the newly surging candidacy of Rick Santorum. It is not a particularly memorable or insightful column–in other words, par for the course–but there is one paragraph that makes one’s hair stand on end:
Santorum is a Catholic of a certain kind, and it’s the most important thing about him. He’s on one side of a long-standing debate in the church about how to build a decent society. Social-justice Catholics (and I’m one of those) represent an older American tradition. We agree with more conservative Catholics on the family as an essential social building block but see capitalism as in need of regulation and correction if it is to serve the common good and protect the family itself. Many of us — and here we depart from the church’s official teaching — see gay marriage not as undermining fidelity and commitment but as encouraging them.
Dionne tells us here that he is a “social-justice Catholic” whose “American tradition” is “older” than the wing of the church in which he would peg Santorum (who, in the next paragraph, he calls a “social renewal” Catholic). He declares his agreement with “more conservative Catholics” (again, this presumably included Santorum) about the importance of the family. So far so good.
But then Dionne says that “we” (in the “older” social-justice tradition) “see capitalism as in need of regulation and correction if it is to serve the common good and protect the family itself.” Now, is there anything in that statement with which Rick Santorum would disagree for a split second? If Santorum and Dionne would like to get together and debate the best way to interpret Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus, I am sure they would have differing conclusions about how exactly to apply those great encyclicals’ principles to our current situation. But Dionne can have no legitimate claim to be more devoted to the principles than is Santorum.
It’s the final sentence of this paragraph, though, that explains why so many of us in the church find ourselves out of sorts with Catholics of the Dionne type, and why the expression “cafeteria Catholic” is such a just appellation for them. “Many of us,” he writes–that would be many of the “social-justice” Catholics who belong to that “older American tradition”–”see gay marriage” in a positive light. I don’t know whether to praise Dionne’s honesty, or blame his blithe arrogance, for the parenthetical in that sentence: “and here we depart from the church’s official teaching.”
You bet your bippy you do, E.J. Others have said this so much better than I, but here goes one more time. The Catholic Church has developed a social teaching that is supposed to guide voters and statesmen alike, with respect to principles of public or distributive justice and the maintenance of various social goods. But the church is not in possession of a tax code, a budget plan, or a one-size-fits-all solution to modern woes like the cost and availability of health care. Catholics can legitimately reach different conclusions about such things.
The church does, however, have categorical moral standards with respect to questions such as the sanctity of life (when was the last time Dionne wrote a resolutely anti-abortion column–ever?), and the preservation of marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman. Dionne’s honest observation that “here” he “depart[s] from the church’s official teaching” is a damning admission that he is in an adversarial relationship with the church to which he claims to belong. The magisterium has an unequivocal moral teaching that he unequivocally rejects. To this extent, he is a bad Catholic–or no Catholic at all.
How does this not vitiate absolutely everything he wishes to say on behalf of the “older American tradition” of the “social-justice Catholics”? How does he feel entitled to make any claim to be a better Catholic than Santorum (for that is what he’s implicitly claiming) on questions that the church rightly leaves to the prudential judgment of voters and public officials, within broad boundaries, when in the next breath he confesses his complete failure to be any kind of Catholic at all on a question on which the church speaks with categorical moral authority?
January 6th, 2012 | 12:01 pm
Another variation on the “Real Catholics are so Catholic we know when to disagree with the Church about what it means to be Catholic” theme. I don’t know if they learned this from the Southern Baptists (they of “Baptist doctrine teaches that everyone can figure out for themselves what Baptist doctrine is”), or vice versa.
January 6th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
Good for you Matthew for having the patience to point out the inconsistencies of Mr. Dionne’s statements.
As far as I can tell, those with similar views do not pause to respond to the obvious inconsistencies of their position, or acknowledge the difference between those principles calling for prudential applications (which permit for a variety of approaches) and those that admit of no exceptions, such as teachings on the nature of marriage. At least I have never heard them explain how their views comport with these obvious category distinctions.
I don’t believe they could be ignorant of the distinction between the two sets of principles, but acknowledging the difference would make it impossible to characterize their views as Catholic. Therefore they pretend that there is no difference between the two sets of principles, and characterize their views as choosing chocolate over vanilla, rather than accepting Catholic teaching and rejecting it.
By confusing the categories (exceptionless norms vs. those admitting of prudential variations) Dionne makes it sound like accepting gay marriage is similar to disagreeing with Catholic teaching on preferable tax structures. I don’t believe he is blameless in confusing these categories, and he will have to answer for the extent to which he misleads people about the truth.
January 6th, 2012 | 12:42 pm
I’m not convinced that I’m going to find a perfect theology with either Mr Dionne or the run-of-the-mill conservative Catholic. Face it: everyone tastes of cafeteria–it’s a simple fact that no one person can be all things in all ways at all times.
As a liberal, I wouldn’t phrase my approach to same sex unions in quite the same way Mr Dionne does. I just don’t see them as at all relevant to the elevation of the family, of the domestic church, as a prime unit of both sacred and secular societies.
My own sense is that many conservatives and liberals alike are a bit thin on responsibilities, as they trumpet the importance of “rights” for their favored constituents.
And as far as economic justice goes, I think some bankers, lobbyists, and finance people should be prosecuted, and if convicted, be jailed for their role in the wholesale theft, conspiracy, and fraud perpetrated on citizens individual and collectively.
No politician, not even Mr Santorum, seems to have the cujones to advocate for law and order. Where’s Richard Nixon when you need him, eh?
January 6th, 2012 | 2:14 pm
Some valid points, but this is more of a rant than a meditation.
January 6th, 2012 | 3:37 pm
Shorter Dionne: “Liberalism is a religion that is a lot like Catholicism, only better, so I embraced that.”
Todd: People who commit crimes should be prosecuted. Yes. Yet you pretty clearly suggest that some folks should be targeted for doing entirely legal things that you just think are wrong somehow, and it is only cowardice and hypocrisy that keeps people from doing it. Consider the remote possibility that you may be emoting rather than thinking. Hard to believe, I know, but you would at least be in friendly company – most political liberals.
January 6th, 2012 | 3:38 pm
Well, of course at least one lobbyist has been imprisoned and whenever a violation of criminal law occurs bankers and brokers should not be exempt from prosecution. I’m certain Mr. Holder’s Justice shares this view and is on the trail of the Goldman, Sachs gang. You remember those desperadoes who were so generous to the Obama campaign fund. But maybe it’s some others you have in mind. To get back to our friend Dionne, I’d like to know exactly when in the the old American Catholic tradition these traditionalists came to support homosexual marriage, as long ago as, say, 2005?
January 6th, 2012 | 4:50 pm
AVI, a few things. First, when people steal, lie about it, or hide it, it’s generally conceded to be a crime.
There’s nothing wrong with a little emotion. It works for TeaCrazy. Speaker Boehner does well with it.
January 6th, 2012 | 7:06 pm
this whole “homosexual marriage will encourage fidelity among homosexuals” isn’t necessarily wrong but it’s incredibly reductionist as to what marriage is, or the other issues surrounding its normalization. is every homosexual “hardwired” that way and therefore there’s no problem with teaching young students about it and encouraging them to self-identify if they feel certain attractions at the age? is male homosexuality more hardwired than lesbianism (our whole gender-equality mindset makes it more difficult to talk about possible differences between male and female sexuality?) isn’t there value in supporting the idea that kids should have, even if not a mother and father, at least a primary mother or father figure if who’s raising them can’t provide that?
the liberal thinking on this goes: people are born of a certain race so we can’t discriminate against them. homosexuals are (mostly) unable to help their attractions so we can’t discriminate against them. they never seem to be able to think accepting something as innate does not end the argument.
January 6th, 2012 | 7:14 pm
No, Dionne tradition is not very deep at all, he needs to accept polygamy. That is the older American tradition. And what about the need for a selective 100% tax on the capitalist Washington Post profits to instill regulation and correction in the older American tradition?
January 6th, 2012 | 9:15 pm
Todd: I’m not convinced that I’m going to find a perfect theology with either Mr Dionne or the run-of-the-mill conservative Catholic. Face it: everyone tastes of cafeteria–it’s a simple fact that no one person can be all things in all ways at all times.
I agree that it is impossible to perfectly accord oneself with the will and laws of God. Everyone is a sinner. There is a difference, however, between those who acknowledge that fact, and make confession, and those who attempt nonsensical justifications such as references to something called “official teaching.”
There is no such thing as official and unofficial teaching. There is simply the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, promulgated in accordance with Matthew 16:19. If you are unwilling to submit your mind faithfully to the indoctrination of your bishop, then you should not offer yourself for communion, and should probably be going to a protestant church. If you sincerely believe that your bishop is misguided, having obtained, perhaps, a doctorate in theology, then perhaps you might respectfully attempt to prove, in a rigorously logical way, why your bishop is mistaken. But to invent a distinction between “official” and “unofficial” doctrine is a sign of intellectual laziness. The Roman Catholic Church never has and never will have any such demarcation between rival doctrines.
“There is and always has been the Church, and various heresies
proceeding from a rejection of some of the Church’s doctrines by men who
still desire to retain the rest of her teaching and morals. But there
never has been and never can be or will be a general Christian religion
professed by men who all accept some central important doctrines, while
agreeing to differ about others. There has always been, from the
beginning, and will always be, the Church, and sundry heresies either
doomed to decay, or, like Mohammedanism, to grow into a separate religion.” (Belloc: The Great Heresies, Chapter 7, “The Modern Phase.”)
Anyone who would utter the phrase “official teaching” is clearly “in the dark” as regards the Catholic Church. If such people do not accept Mt 16:19 then they commit venial sin each time they present themselves for communion, since they are not, in fact, in communion, and are essentially asking the “official” Church to pick up their slack. Just saying.
January 6th, 2012 | 9:54 pm
Emoting is a new conservative issue that seems to afflict only liberals. Really? Glenn Beck taught conservative that all they need is anger and their limbic cortex. Rush has promoted only emotion for a generation now.
Emoting is actually the entire existence of the conservative. Thought is less common, anger and frustration seem to be the likely response, and become enfuriated by cool-headed conservatives like Brooks.
Conservatives actually are the emoters.
January 6th, 2012 | 10:34 pm
It astonishes me to read such nonsense, from the likes of Dionne, over and over, without their having taken trouble to notice that the Church’s teachings on “social justice” spring from the Church’s teachings on all the virtues, in particular the virtues of family and community life. In other words, you cannot pretend to talk about social justice while you uphold customs and policies that vitiate the family. What is so difficult about this? I mean — is it not obvious that the sexual revolution has been disastrous, especially for the poor and the working class? And we wouldn’t even be talking about the logical and biological nonsense that homosexual pseudogamy represents if it hadn’t been for the sexual revolution, first.
January 7th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
“I mean — is it not obvious that the sexual revolution has been disastrous, especially for the poor and the working class?”
You could say the same for capitalism run amok. I think we’re talking about the dangers of extremism, of the desire to apply a fringe philosophy and lose track of the core of the Gospel. For every Matthew 16:19, there’s a John 9:41.
January 8th, 2012 | 8:04 am
Tony Esolen,
Parts of the sexual revolution have been socially beneficial. The intellectual abilities of women and their many various capabilities in the workplace are understood and appreciated as never before. Physical and psychological violence against women are no longer tolerated. While the sexual revolution has destroyed many families, it is not the only culprit. The family has never been especially strong among the poor. It was not especially strong in the industrial working class until
January 8th, 2012 | 8:09 am
Until working conditions improved. The weakness of black families long precede the sexual revolution, though the later certainly accelerated it. So the changing nature of capitalism has to be held accountable as well as the sexual revolution. The growing (and healthy acceptance) of homosexuality has nothing to do with the breakdown of the heterosexual family.
January 8th, 2012 | 1:59 pm
The very idea of ‘same-sex marriage’ suggests a serious social breakdown, because it elevates adult desire above everything else. Of course, if adult desire is all that matters, it is unclear why group marriage or incest is unacceptable, either.
January 8th, 2012 | 10:49 pm
“… because it elevates adult desire above everything else.”
Not quite. Marriage is about commitment, permanency, and stability. Adult desire is elevated by many aspects of heterosexual conduct: promiscuity, fashion, alcohol and drug abuse, prostitution, the mythology of pre-marital male experience, advertising, sexual repression, and inequality between women and men.
The social breakdown of heterosexual couples and the family unity can be blamed on a lot of things. Probably not what gay people are doing.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact