« Candidates in Church | Main | Bishop speaks out »
October 31, 2004
Dust in the Light at NRO
Blogger Justin Katz answers the bishops' questions
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83456f53a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dust in the Light at NRO:
» How and Why Catholics Should Vote from Dust in the Light
NRO has afforded me the privilege of sharing with its readers my answers to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' guiding questions for Catholic voters. Even as a relatively long opinion column, my piece is obviously not complete; it's just... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 1, 2004 1:12:18 AM
Comments
The comments on abortion and the death penalty are right on.
However this sort of phrasing "The key to all of these goals is the spread of freedom" is not really Catholic reasoning.
Sin is the impediment to justice and equity. Sometimes we just have to live with it as the consequence of the limitations on civil society, in the imperatives of subsidiarity. But the notion that its simply all a cry for more "freedom" doesn't square with reality, and doesn't address whatever real questions the bishops might have.
Simply ignoring them in favor of libertarianism or liberalism won't do much to convince them or voters that the republican party can be a permanent home for Catholics. For example forcing the third world to repay loans corrupt leaders may have procured from equally corrupt banks isn't necessarily a just treatment of the people of those countries--as South America demonstrates.
Posted by: al at Oct 31, 2004 6:22:15 PM
Justin's reasoned, though arguable, responses set off by contrast the bishops' questions' hysterical tone. I'm really, really tired of the "how can we make them stop beating their wives" tone of lefty-tilted purported Social Justice. Principled liberty, prosperity, are these not Catholic goals? outcomes if not methods. Is offering the poor a way out of poverty--habits, laws, expectations--not a way of caring for the poor?
Posted by: AH at Oct 31, 2004 6:35:45 PM
Some of Justin's stuff - the more libertarian aspects - might themselves come off as a bit hysterical. And his #10 has the disadvantage of being opposed to what the Church teaches, in GS #81, is ultimately necessary in principle. Still, that doesn't mean Bush isn't the better choice, especially in light of the abortion issue.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 31, 2004 6:42:26 PM
Justin writes When war is forced upon a nation, nobody in his right mind disputes that its use of military force is licit.
Well, somebody in their right mind did and does.
The catechism says that the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force still apply even when war is forced upon a nation.
The "freedom" Justin and the Republicans tout simply isn't a Catholic virtue, but the Americanism condemed by Pope Leo XII.
If you want to use "Faithful Citizenship" to justify voting Republican, one doesn't need to throw overboard Catholic social teaching as Justin does, but merely recognise the priority Faithful Citizenship identifies, abortion, and compare the record of the parties.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Oct 31, 2004 8:22:38 PM
Kevin,
What part of #10 is opposed to what the Church teaches?
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Oct 31, 2004 8:31:07 PM
Chris,
I assume you italicized "when war is forced upon a nation" to make clear that the language did not come from the Catechism. In any case, you are correct. But it does stretch the imagination for a country to be attacked and the Catechism not permit such "legitimate defense by military force."
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Oct 31, 2004 8:39:49 PM
And Chris, what part of "freedom" touted by Justin is condemned by Poe Leo XII?
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Oct 31, 2004 8:41:42 PM
Mike,
Just being attacked does not in and of itself meet the Catechism criteria for legitimate defense by military force.
All of the 4 criteria must be met "at one and the same time". In particular :-
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
For example, the Iraqi defense against the US invasion probably did not meet these conditions because there were not serious prospects of success
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Oct 31, 2004 9:35:05 PM
Oh, I do understand that, Chris; but do you seriously think that Mr. Katz was suggesting anything to the contrary? I think you are reading too much into the phrase "when war is forced upon a nation." But perhaps I'm wrong.
Finally, these are very hard criteria to understand in the particular. For example, is losing freedom an evil? How grave? Your earlier post would suggest that it would not be that grave. I beg to differ.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Oct 31, 2004 9:50:36 PM
Truly honored to make the Open Book, Amy. Thank you for adding that layer of reward and hopefulness.
I guess the first response to make to critics is, as I noted in a blog post related to the essay, that this was a brief overview of how conservative principles could answer questions that the "common knowledge" suggests go to the liberals. As a political conservative, for example, I refuse to cede the issue of healthcare to the socialists.
As we who've been around St. Blogs for a few years all are aware, one can argue extensively about when Just War allows that war has been forced upon a nation. I just skipped to the "forced upon" construct, which requires, in my view, Just War application. My question, though, is whether we ought to trace the specifics of Just War back to their reasoning, because the realities of modern war don't allow us quite as much room to discern intent. I know from experience, Chris, that we'll continue to disagree, but (under length restrictions) I used "forced upon" rather than "is attacked" for a reason.
Regarding my answer to #10, I've responded to Kevin in the comments to the above-linked post. Once again, the essential point is that we have to broaden how we think of certain concepts and reassess them to address the modern world as we find it.
And regarding freedom, I guess it just didn't come up in the context of a Catholic layman responding to Catholic Bishops that my view of freedom is quite different from the libertarian version. (Note my support for interaction of church and state.) As far as I can tell, I used the word in precisely the spirit of "Faithful Citizenship" itself, where it says:
Building peace, combating poverty and despair, and protecting freedom and human rights are not only moral imperatives; they are wise national priorities. Given its enormous power and influence in world affairs, the United States has a special responsibility to ensure that it is a force for justice and peace beyond its borders. "Liberty and justice for all" is not only a profound national pledge; it is a worthy goal for any our nation in its role as world leader.
Perhaps even more in my usage, freedom isn't an end, but a means. The Bishops listed some problems (e.g., achieving justice, security, peace, respect, and healthcare), and I suggested applying freedom. "The key to all of these goals"; not "the key to every goal." What "freedom" will entail in set of circumstances can't easily be predicted; one would expect, for example, that the people to be freed will want some say in the matter.
Posted by: Justin Katz at Nov 1, 2004 1:08:29 AM
The Catechism now summarizes centuries-old Just War doctrine in not much more than a handful of bullet points.
Look for a considerable amplification of the next edition's treatment of Just War -- after the first successful major terrorist attack in Italy.
Posted by: ELC at Nov 1, 2004 9:47:13 AM
ELC,
Based on recent news reports, Italy should have nothing to worry about as long as they elect leaders acceptable to Bin Laden.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Nov 1, 2004 10:35:39 AM
>this sort of phrasing "The key to all of these goals is the spread of freedom" is not really Catholic reasoning.
Maybe he was lulled away from "Catholic reasoning" by the question.
Maybe the better form would be to ask how can we build a world where we can be "free to worship Him without fear, holy and righteous in his sight all the days of our life"?
Then we could get down to business.
[The questions did appear in the names of the successors to the apostles.]
Posted by: Bob Kunz at Nov 1, 2004 5:13:38 PM
The answer to the USCCB reflexive shilling for New Deal socialism is not libertarianism or enlightenment liberalism.
Posted by: al at Nov 1, 2004 5:24:02 PM
