Spurred on by noticing a car laden with Democrat campaign stickers leaving the parking lot of our parish, I found a 1986 essay on Catholic political involvement written by Quentin Quade, the former EVP of Marquette U. and founder of the Blum Center. (Fr. Blum was the Jesuit who ran the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in Milwaukee.) Quade clearly opposes +Weakland's leap into politics but the essay is hardly a simple 'black/white' thought-piece.
Anyhow.
Quade essayed on one of +Rembert Weakland's writings regarding politics and the Church. There are a couple of passages in Quade's essay which should be re-read in light of the Protasiewicz judicial victory and which should cast illumination on the controversy in Madison over a bulletin note from a priest of that Diocese.
He begins on a cautionary note:
...And there is a second crucial fact, often noted by John Paul II but not waiting on him: If clergy, without changing hats, enter the most particular aspects of the political fray — at which point by definition people divide as to right action — they may endanger their capacity to represent and call all to the sacramental bounty which Christ left us....
...The real arguments, then, have not to do with “Church in or out of politics,” but how to participate in politics with full respect for all the Church’s missions, for its members’ moral sensitivities, and for the whole of society in and outside the Church....
Then he gets to the heart of the matter, criticizing +Weakland's seeming endorsement of 'compromise':
...If one believes that convenience-based abortions are never acceptable and involve a radical disproportion between discomfiture, even some excruciating discomfiture on the one hand, and a human life, on the other, then there is nothing to “compromise.” Indeed, one instantly sees that the very category does not fit; indeed it does not fit anything of great value, importance, and moral clarity. For someone who holds such Christian beliefs, this is simply the wrong way to see the problem. There is no reason for him to compromise, no reason to be intimidated by such irrelevant appellations as “single-issue,” “negative,” and the like. Indeed, a healthy society will welcome the clear voices in its midst, whether moved by them or not....
That should be obvious. A Catholic pro-lifer is not required to 'compromise' on that matter, just as today's Catholic does not have to 'compromise' on the fact that there are only TWO sexes. (Using the term 'Gender' is a compromise, as you know. Allowing the forces of Chaos to manage the language is a loser's game.)
But Quade isn't quite finished.
...But politics itself — the process by which the state settles the innumerable issues over which men divide — is a process which seeks to synthesize the many, often warring, values sought by society’s members. In performing that synthesis, it attempts to sustain the unifying social fabric, without which there is only jungle. And in that effort, it encourages and if needs be, it forces compromise among the competing voices and interests. If the issue in my breast is profoundly important to me, I cannot realistically think in terms of compromising it. But if I judge social order preferable to anarchy — not for my sake but for the human welfare generally considered — then I will accept the political order’s compromise until, by better persuasion, I can achieve a superior result....
He identifies the problem's genesis as residing in the Constitution:
...Social pluralism, or the multiplicity of views, is the predictable result of an important social decision: the decision to recognize the worth of persons by granting them free choice in matters of personal belief, in deciding for themselves what is good and worth doing....If I believe that truth is ascertainable, as I do in crucial areas of human principle, I cannot want disagreement as to that truth. But if I also believe that each person has been given a moral character rooted in free exercise of his judgment, then I am obliged to be tolerant of such disagreement. Thus, pluralism need not mean relativism, any more than accepting the polity’s necessary compromise need mean I have compromised my faith....
Note well that Quade's remarks apply equally to today's riot-inclined BLM, Antifa, and Tranny crowds. They may get what they want through persuasion (we doubt it); but they may NOT get what they want through riots, violence, and threats of violence. They do not have to compromise their beliefs, but they absolutely may not bring on chaos to achieve their goals.
Quade then addresses (prophetically!) the situation in Madison. Recall that the priest placed an item in the bulletin (or a parishioner letter) reminding them that to support a pro-abortion candidate endangered their souls. He did not name the candidate, by the way.
... there is a natural interaction between Church and politics. It need not be searched for or concocted. And there is a natural and radical difference between the two, which cannot be compromised without inevitable damage to the community of faith. There is, also, a natural procedural linkage which if properly exploited can ensure a Christian impact on society: the believer-as-citizen. That linkage is the only ultimately efficacious way the Church can give guidance to the political order. In the last analysis, in a democracy the decision- makers appropriately want to know where the votes are, and they are with the citizens.
The beautiful part of this potent linkage, of course, is that, though potent, it cannot compromise the religious or sacramental purity of the Church, for the believer-as-citizen cannot pretend to speak for anyone but himself, whatever he takes his inspiration to be. And providing that inspiration by careful exegesis, by profound preaching, by repeated clarification of the principles contained in Christian faith, is a monumental task. Given prevailing divisions of labor, that task can best be done — perhaps can only be done — by the Church leadership, which has exactly such a teaching authority. What is certain is our Church leaders can fruitfully do no more when operating within democratic politics....
It is the task of the priests and Bishops to fully inform the laity of Church teaching because the priests and Bishops have the authority to do so. It is the task of the laity to vote according to their fully-informed consciences, to buttonhole and persuade their representatives of the correct path, and to finance organizations which represent their beliefs. The priest in Madison did exactly what he should have done; the rectitude of his parishioners' votes will be judged, but at a date to be determined by God.
But it is the task of the State to manufacture and implement the compromise, if such is necessary. We must live with the compromise if that is the outcome--until we persuade TPTB otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment