Interesting nuggets from
a 2014 Deneen essay. Here Deneen sets up apposites between "liberalism" and "Catholicism." (Earlier in the essay, he disposed of "liberal Catholicism" accurately, as we see today.) But I think that Deneen misses an important chunk of Americans:
conservative Protestants such as Missouri Lutherans and most Baptists.
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.