Does Deneen set up a false dichotomy for starters?
...liberalism cannot be understood to be merely neutral and ultimately tolerant toward (and even potentially benefitting from) Catholicism. Rather, liberalism is premised on a contrary view of human nature (and even a competing theology) to Catholicism. Liberalism holds that human beings are essentially separate, sovereign selves who will cooperate based upon grounds of utility. According to this view, liberalism is not a “shell” philosophy that allows a thousand flowers to bloom....
Well, that's at least Libertarian, but the 'separate, sovereign, ....utility' language allows for atheist-Marxists, too. It's arguably what Xi has brought to Red China, since Xi now "disappears" doctrinaire Marxists in favor of his own brand of Communism.
Hmmmm.
...Rather, liberalism is constituted by a substantive set of philosophical commitments that are deeply contrary to the basic beliefs of Catholicism, among which (Catholics hold) are the belief that we are by nature relational, social and political creatures; that social units like the family, community and Church are “natural,” not merely the result of individuals contracting temporary arrangements; that liberty is not a condition in which we experience the absence of constraint, but the exercise of self-limitation; and that both the “social” realm and the economic realm must be governed by a thick set of moral norms, above all, self-limitation and virtue....The red-highlighted text is not by any means exclusively "Catholic" belief; I know quite a few Protestants who would subscribe to those principles with no hesitation--while rejecting, happily, the Papacy and most of the seven sacraments out-of-hand. Those same Prots are very comfortable with the law of subsidiarity, which is expressed in the 'family, community, church' language Deneen uses.
Deneen moves on to the economics implications.
...the “radical” [Catholic] position—while similarly committed to the pro-life, pro-marriage teachings of the Church—is deeply critical of contemporary arrangements of market capitalism, is deeply suspicious of America’s imperial ambitions, and wary of the basic premises of liberal government. It is comfortable with neither party, and holds that the basic political division in America merely represents two iterations of liberalism—the pursuit of individual autonomy in either the social/personal sphere (liberalism) or the economic realm (“conservatism”—better designated as market liberalism)....
Calling Tucker Carlson, eh? It would be interesting to know why Deneen equates "radical" Catholicism (exclusively, it seems) with criticism of market capitalism--especially since both Trump and Carlson are implicit (Trump) and explicit (Carlson) critics of same, and neither of them is remotely Catholic. In fact, those who hold tightly to "market capitalism" are represented by Ben Shapiro and the Chamber of Commerce, and it's fair to say that their concordance begins and ends there.
...It is already evident for anyone with eyes to see that elites in America are returning to their customary hostility toward Catholicism, albeit now eschewing crude prejudice in favor of Mandates and legal filings......and that was before Feinstein (D-China) and Harris (D-Bed-Hoppers) started ripping Trump's SCOTUS nominees for being Catholic-without-a-license-from-Planned Parenthood. But note well: the very same Planned Parenthood/Homosex/Tranny lobby threw a lot of dollars and slanders at a Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate and got their collective asses handed to them. And that loss was not due only to "radical" Catholic votes--not by a long shot. (Further, the candidate was not a Catholic.)
Deneen goes on:
...The relationship of Catholicism to America, and America to Catholicism, began with rancor and hostility, but became a comfortable partnership forged in the cauldron of World War II and the Cold War. Was that period one of “ordinary time,” or an aberration which is now passing, returning us to the inescapably hostile relationship? A growing body of evidence suggests that the latter possibility can’t simply be dismissed out of hand: liberalism appears to be daily more hostile to Catholicism, not merely disagreeing with its stances, but demanding that they be changed in conformity to liberal views on self-sovereignty (especially relating to human sexuality and marriage) or, failing that, that the Church be defined out of the bounds of decent liberal society, an institution no more respectable than the Ku Klux Klan....That's true. But I think the good professor (and I really, really, like what this guy says) should take a hard look at 'conservative' Protestants along the way--and factor them into the dichotomy he is presenting.
No comments:
Post a Comment