Friday, June 08, 2012

The Problem With E.J. Dionne

We've cited Patrick Deneen several times.  Here he takes on E J Dionne's mis-construal of the Catholic Church.  By co-incidence, I heard Dionne yesterday when Hewitt interviewed him.  It was clear to me that Dionne does not grasp Catholicism very well.  Deneen agrees.

...I have grown increasingly distressed by his tendency to define the Church and its activities in terms of American partisan politics. By doing so he diminishes the Church and threatens to make it merely an extension of modern politics and even the State. 

... In one recent column, “The Battle Among the Catholic Bishops,” Dionne divides the Bishops between “moderate and liberals” and “conservatives,” and points to the vast majority of dioceses that did not file suit against the HHS mandate as proof that there is a silent majority of liberal Catholics. He points with particular delight remarks by Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, CA, who “broke the silence on his side” to express reservations about the lawsuits.

Yet, while Bishop Blaire expressed concern about tactics, he stated robust agreement with his fellow bishops who “very strongly support whatever action has to be taken to promote religious liberty.” That is, Bishop Blaire’s concerns are prudential, not categorical. Such differences do not suggest the fundamentally opposed worldviews of “liberals” or “progressives” against “conservatives.” They are properly and appropriately Catholic, in which there are properly and appropriately differences that are prudential in nature...

Here's the guts of it:

 ...By describing discussions within the Church in terms of American partisan labels, he threatens to instruct his readers that there is no difference between internal Church discussions and debates in American politics. Dionne portrays a Church whose internal discussions are simply an extension of contemporary political debates.

The labels themselves are inappropriate, particularly that of “progressive Catholic”—a combination that is fundamentally a contradiction in terms, yet a label that Dionne uses again and again to describe his approach to the Catholic faith. The Progressives were theologically millenarian, even Arian, believing that salvation could be achieved through human effort and especially through the twin avenues of science and politics. In the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century Progressives such as John Dewey, Herbert Croly, and Walter Rauschenbusch were self-described critics of the past and hostile to tradition. John Dewey equated Christianity and democracy, believing that democracy had become the new means of ongoing revelation, and in which the teacher should seek to bring about the kingdom of God—progress advanced in the classroom could accelerate the coming of the millennium on earth

Yah, that's worked out real well...

G.K. Chesterton wrote that “the fatal metaphor of progress, which means leaving things behind us, has utterly obscured the real idea of growth, which means leaving things inside us.” Catholicism is an accumulation of tradition, including a magisterium that does not waver from the fundamental truth as divulged in the teachings and life of Jesus. It is a faith that traces itself back through apostolic succession to its point of origin with Jesus' commission to his apostles to go forth and spread the Word. It is a faith that is populated by constant remembrance of the cloud of witnesses, the communion of the saints, who are remembered in every Mass during the Eucharistic prayer. While Catholics look forward to the future with hope, they do not invest their hopes in perfection of the City of Man. If Catholics are anything, they are not “progressives,” and to import the political term for the description of Catholics is to collapse the Church into a political program that cannot be reconciled to the Catholic worldview...

Just ask the Wisconsin "Progressive" Republicans why the Catholics vote(d) Democrat for 60+ years.

...Dionne’s other preferred form of self-description—“Social Justice Catholic”—appears only to endorse the Church’s charitable work on behalf of the poor, with a heavy preference for government’s role in that effort. But is the Church’s efforts on behalf of the dignity of every human life—born or unborn—any less a part of its commitment to social justice? Is not the defense and preservation of the family a central focus of social justice? Should not we understand the Bishop’s opposition to the HHS mandate, and preservation of the Church’s ministry without needless interference by the State, also to be a part of social justice? Dionne seems to define social justice to be activities that conform solely to the platform of the Democratic Party, but, here again, American partisan positions map poorly onto the Church’s rich tradition of Catholic Social Thought. His portrayal of “Social Justice Catholics” as distinct from “conservative Catholics” is a disfigurement of the fullness of Catholic teaching...

Oh, yes--just like the Left-O-Lemmings at Marquette University, and G'town who "think" just like Dionne.

And there's a lot more to Catholicism than "liberal" or "conservative" politics.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Funny how Dad29 links to an article that calls for NOT labeling Catholics as "liberal" or "conservative"...yet he finds himself engaging in that behavior repeatedly.

Anyhoo, Dionne is spot on with his commentary given the nature of politics and the media in today's society. Interpreting the Bible has been, and will always be, a "temporal matter" in that men, with their ideological underpinnings at their disposal, will interpret the Good Book in a matter that religious values will manifest itself into political ideology and social policy. That is, if a person is religious, he/she will hold political views predicated on those beliefs and values. Based on those political leanings and religious doctrine, the laws that govern a society are created.

"You either are Catholic, whole and complete, or you should refrain from identifying yourself as such."

This position is EXACTLY why Catholicism today is undergoing a paradigm shift. No longer are the Dark Ages upon us in which the RCC was the sole political and religious institution in which a majority of people had to follow exactly its own interpretations on spiritual matters. As nation-states developed, and leaders crafted laws which separated the religious from the political, groups debated and fought over that very definition of what is meant to be "Catholic". The Bible itself is replete with contradictions and discrepancies. Ever try living EXACTLY as the Bible says one should live? I would argue everyone who is Catholic has violated its tenets in some way, shape, or form as it was originally intended.

"Of course, those who too closely equate the Church to the Republican Party (though such individuals rarely seem prone to self-describe as “conservative” Catholics, as far as I can tell) should be similarly called to task."

Note how the author deftly steers away from chastising his own brethren. Fox News comes to mind with their commentators who are well-known for champion their cause as "Conservative Catholics". "Individuals rarely seem prone..." I think NOT.

"However, Dionne bears a particular responsibility for distortions and confusions, given his status as among the only few distinguishable Catholic voices and spokesman in one of the nation’s mainstream news publications, a position that burdens him with special responsibility to be careful in distinguishing the politics of the City of Man from the positions of the Church."

So says the author of the piece. The political and religious realm of the RCC has always been contentious, with each aspect playing off one another. To say one can separate the two parts is being delusional. Traditional Catholics state that abortion is a sin and want political assurances that this practice is illegal in the society in which they live. Humans by their very nature are political animals who seek to dominate their surroundings through laws and policies. Influenced by a particular faith, they seek to embed those values into the foundations of our society. In particular, the RCC has called for its members to NOT vote for politicians who support abortion. A Catholic living in our society has to determine whether that issue ought to be of primary importance, or whether it is one of many things he/she must consider when making a political decision as a member of a faith. Indeed, politics and religion are intertwined today compared to any point in our world's history.

Anonymous said...

"...I have grown increasingly distressed by his tendency to define the Church and its activities in terms of American partisan politics. By doing so he diminishes the Church and threatens to make it merely an extension of modern politics and even the State."

This describes you ole boy. Pot meet kettle.

Dad29 said...

Anon One:

Interpreting the Bible has been, and will always be, a "temporal matter" in that men, with their ideological underpinnings at their disposal, will interpret the Good Book in a matter that religious values will manifest itself into political ideology and social policy

Doesn't apply to Catholicism, which operates with both the Scripture AND Tradition. That happens to ensure that erroneous interpretations don't happen, although it's not the only assurance.

No longer are the Dark Ages upon us in which the RCC was the sole political and religious institution in which a majority of people had to follow exactly its own interpretations on spiritual matters.

The vast majority of "people" never did--not even Church members. What fantasy-history did you read?

Ever try living EXACTLY as the Bible says one should live? I would argue everyone who is Catholic has violated its tenets in some way, shape, or form as it was originally intended...

Are you claiming to know EXACTLY 'how it was originally intended'?

Fox News comes to mind with their commentators who are well-known for champion their cause as "Conservative Catholics". "Individuals rarely seem prone..." I think NOT.

Piddletwish. Hannity never claimed to be a 'conservative Catholic'--and he's not. O'Reilly has his own personal religion, too.

And Deneen's admonition is spot-on. The column was written about Dionne, not 'conservatives.'

Traditional Catholics state that abortion is a sin and want political assurances that this practice is illegal in the society in which they live. Humans by their very nature are political animals who seek to dominate their surroundings through laws and policies. Influenced by a particular faith, they seek to embed those values into the foundations of our society.

1) "Catholics" who do NOT hold that abortion is malum in se are in deep doo-doo.

2) I think and proclaim that those acts which are malum in se should be politically illegal, period. In the end, we all strive to shape a rightly-ordered society. One which tolerates abortion and "marries" gays is simply not rightly-ordered.

3) You are, however, correct when you say that political order flows from religion. That's ONE correct answer, anyway!

A Catholic living in our society has to determine whether that issue ought to be of primary importance, or whether it is one of many things he/she must consider when making a political decision as a member of a faith.

Ah, yes, the Joey Bernardin defense: "seamless garment." He was wrong then, and you are wrong now. Abortion cannot be equated with adjusting Social Security checks. It's not a matter of prudential judgment. Same with gay "marriage" and "legal" suicide, as other examples.

Nice try.

Dad29 said...

Anony Two: Prove it.

Anonymous said...

From Anony One

“Doesn't apply to Catholicism, which operates with both the Scripture AND Tradition. That happens to ensure that erroneous interpretations don't happen, although it's not the only assurance.”

Catholicism operates according to man’s creation and interpration of the Bible. Prophets, apostles, and disciples collected the most important Christian writings and cobbled it together. Church leaders have taken those readings and made judgements as to what it entails. Followers use those judgements to govern their lives and set policy for a society.

Nice try.

“The vast majority of "people" never did--not even Church members. What fantasy-history did you read?”

You must have fallen asleep in your world history classes at Marquette. A simple Google search confirms that when the Roman Empire distintegrated in the 400’s, the only universal institution was the Church. The Bible was at the center of any learning activity. In the absence of any central authority, the RCC accumulated wealth and influence. In the Middle Ages, churches and governments ruled together. Bishops and abbots would read and write for kings and often became vassals. Local priests were appointed by local lords, and were expected to uphold their wishes. The role of church and rulers were interconnected; however, citizens generally remained unaffected by the faith aspects, as they practiced strict Catholicism out of fear of God. When nation-states slowly began to form and towns and cities began to grow by the 1000’s and 1100’s, the authority of the RCC authority was challenged politically and spiritually. A result of this struggle was the intensification of independent political and social thinking.

“Are you claiming to know EXACTLY 'how it was originally intended'?”

Try living the Bible to its letter, not just its better-known moral laws like being honest, tithing to the church, but not mixing wool with linen, calling the days of the week by their ordinal numbers to avoid voicing the names of pagan gods, etc. AJ Jacobs attempted repeatedly...and failed. He wrote a book about his experiences. Christians break the rules of the Bible, intentionally or unintentioanlly.

“Piddletwish. Hannity never claimed to be a 'conservative Catholic'--and he's not. O'Reilly has his own personal religion, too.”

Didn’t mention Hannity or O’Reilly specifically, I stated Fox News. Read for meaning. And they do tout conservative Catholic tenets...why do you think Sykes the hypocrite uses them as one of his sources?

“And Deneen's admonition is spot-on. The column was written about Dionne, not 'conservatives.'”

Deneen’s argument entailed political liberals and conseravatives.

“You are, however, correct when you say that political order flows from religion.”

IF one subscribes to that viewpoint.

“Ah, yes, the Joey Bernardin defense: "seamless garment." He was wrong then, and you are wrong now.”

Catholics must support a pro-life or anti-gay marriage candidate no matter what, even if his/her other economic and social views run counter to their own personal philosophies? Nope, sorry, doesn’t work in America. Catholics decide which person overall will best serve their interests.

Dad29 said...

Catholicism operates according to man’s creation and interpration of the Bible. Prophets, apostles, and disciples collected the most important Christian writings and cobbled it together. Church leaders have taken those readings and made judgements as to what it entails. Followers use those judgements to govern their lives

It's clear that you do NOT know anything about doctrine, dogma, or the development thereof in the Catholic Church.

Means that you may be a Theo faculty member at some Jebby U, or a ranter.

Either way, you're ignore-able.

Your "google search" doesn't include the Far East? North or South America? India? Eastern Russia? Africa south of the sub-Sahara?

Your google has minimal bandwidth, eh?

There's so much pure crap in the rest of your "discussion" that it's not worth the pixels.

Buh-bye, turkey.

Anonymous said...

"There's so much pure crap in the rest of your "discussion" that it's not worth the pixels."

That's EXACTLY what I would expect from someone who is unable to refute logically and rationally my statements.

"Prophets, apostles, and disciples collected the most important Christian writings and cobbled it together."

And this is "crap" how?


"Your "google search" doesn't include the Far East? North or South America? India? Eastern Russia? Africa south of the sub-Sahara?"

Catholicism SPREAD to those areas, not ORIGINATED. By force in some cases. Under the direction of the RCC.

Let me reiterate FACT since it appears you did not take a world history class at Marquette--After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century,there emerged no single powerful secular government in the West, but there was a central ecclesiastical power in Rome, the Catholic Church. In this power vacuum, the Church rose to become the dominant power in the West. As the Church expanded beginning in the 900 and 1000's, and as secular kingdoms gained power at the same time, there naturally arose the conditions for a power struggle between church and state over ultimate authority, which continues to this day. The history of the RCC is replete with political and economic intrigue (refer to the lay investiture controversy) with some popes and archbishops using religion as their weapon to bludgeon their opponents into submission. FACT!

"Buh-bye, turkey."

You just committed a sin by purposely hurting someone. Repent!

Dad29 said...

Whatever. Please don't breed.

Anonymous said...

Wow, now you're advocating that I don't exercise my ordained right by God to procreate? My, my, my, the tangle web we weave.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, breeding is a moot point with you, isn't it? After reading your comments, I can't imagine anybody wanting to mate you.

Kate

Anonymous said...

I'm touched, Dad29, I mean Kate! Except the both of you have NOT refuted any of my points.

Dad29 said...

It is impossible to refute invincible ignorance. Or as we used to say in another context entirely, "DWT" (Don't Waste Time)

But for the record, you haven't bothered to refute any points made by Deneen.

No surprise.

Anonymous said...

"But for the record, you haven't bothered to refute any points made by Deneen."

06/09/2012, 8:55 a.m. The first comment. Do you even bother to peruse the combox???

Anonymous said...

Nah, Anonymous, I'm not dad29. I found this place via a link at Althouse. How did you end up here? Found yourself with some time to kill during study hall? Bored studying the Cliff Notes to Das Kapital? Hanging around a small conservative Catholic blog just to pass time being a jerk? Man, that's productive. You lead a real enviable existence, I can tell.
Kate

Anonymous said...

"Hanging around a small conservative Catholic blog just to pass time being a jerk?"

Oh, the irony of that statement, Kate.

"I found this place via a link at Althouse."

Congratulations!


Kate, if it makes you feel better to engage in an ad hominem attack, and not address my points, go for it! You sound just like Capper!