« Vale, Maria! | Main | From the Vatican »
April 23, 2005
The Last European Pope?
Joseph Bottum in the Weekly Standard
Perhaps the most curious thing about the attacks on Cardinal Ratzinger, as they now carry over to Pope Benedict XVI, is that he actually seems to stand somewhere to the left of his predecessor on the worldly issues that some might think would matter most to his non-Catholic critics in the media. John Paul II's 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus might be described as "Three Cheers for Democracy, Two Cheers for Capitalism." Ratzinger's rare comments on economics over the years suggest he'd give only, perhaps, one tepid cheer for modern capitalism. He's a Social Democrat, after all, from Germany, where they always thought they were going to find a way to split the difference between communism and capitalism.
It's unlikely that he will issue many papal statements on the topic; he has already signaled that the liturgy and internal Church matters will be the focus of his papacy. Still, in all the raging from liberal commentators since his election, his mild and sentimental socialism has somehow escaped notice.
In itself, that's a revealing sign that he might be right about the condition of the world in which he finds himself pope. The economic issues that once defined the division between left and right are now invisible, at least to the liberal European and American elite who have decided to despise the new pope. In the narrowing of liberal thought, there's nothing left to rail about but sex: abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, and all the rest of the tired, old "Spirit of Vatican II" issues.
After the four years of pontifical discourses in which John Paul II laid out his theology of the body, it's hard to see how anyone can imagine change in the Church's teaching on sexual morality. But the fact that these are the only issues about which the new pope's opponents can bring themselves to care--surely that's a sign that Benedict may be right about a culture "which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I think this is actually much more true of America than Europe, and it's partly true in America because a large portion of the hierarchy and the most active churchgoers have decided that those "tired old Vatican II" issues on sexual morality (& also end of life issues) are much more important than the rest of it. And they have made an alliance with some people who, frankly, frighten us. Who are currently running both elected branches of the government, and are trying to end the two remaining sources of opposition: the Senate filibuster, and the independent judiciary.
To some extent I understand why the Church felt it needed to take sides in this past elections, or at least allow individual bishops and priests to take sides. But, well, the Church did. It may have been decisive in one of the bitterest Presidential campaigns I can remember.
The Church still is taking sides. The American Church has made opposing gay marriage and benefits for gay couples a higher legislative priority than opposing war and torture.
The Church should not be surprised, in a time as polarized as this one, that there are consequences for that choice. If it allows bishops to put themselves in the service of the Bush campaign because of certain issues, it should not be surprised that American liberals consider the church an ally of the Bush campaign and that those are the only issues the Church really cares about.
Not that it's totally accurate. Not that many liberals aren't being stupid and immature about it. It's very stupid to confuse Benedict XVI with Jerry Fallwell or Randall Terry or the authors of the Left Behind books or the individual bishops who were using denial of communion to one candidate, or the threatened denial of communion to voters, to help the other candidate's Presidential campaign. And the "Hitler Youth" charges are beyond stupid. But, well, people are stupid, liberals included. And our media right now is very, very very stupid.
Posted by: maura at April 23, 2005 01:08 AM
(I don't think that then-Cardinal Ratzinger took sides, by the way. I think his letter was perfectly in line with his understanding of Church doctrine, perfectly fair, and that he was concerned about preserving the sacraments rather than the outcome of the election. Still--he's a dazzlingly brilliant man, he had to know how this might be perceived & used in the context of the elections, he had to realize what the bishops were up to, and he wrote what he wrote. The reaction to it was completely foreseeable.)
Posted by: maura at April 23, 2005 01:14 AM
One last thing:
noticee how it is so much about Godless Old Europe, especially The Dreaded French, and so little about Godless America.
We may have higher church attendance here, any maybe a few more people who follow the teachings on contraception, but really not that many. We also have higher rates of poverty, abortion, divorce, a worse environmental record, and a foreign policy that really upsets the Church in many, many ways.
(Little known fact: It's actually "New Europe" that has the most appalling abortion rates.)
Don't get me wrong--I prefer this country, screwed up as it is, to Canada or Western Europe or really any other on earth. But as far as the Catholic church is concerned, I got the sense that John Paul II despaired of his sheep in America every bit as often as his sheep in Europe and perhaps more. And the Weekly Standard is an American Magazine, as is First Things.
Posted by: maura at April 23, 2005 01:29 AM
"And they have made an alliance with some people who, frankly, frighten us."
You mean the nasty Republicans with their distressing propensity to win elections? Liberals once upon a time won elections also, before they embraced abortion, gay rights, a weak foreign policy, high taxes, well the list could go on for quite a while. The Vatican agrees with the majority of the Republicans on most cultural issues, with the majority of Democrats on most economic and foreign policy issues. However the cultural issues, such as abortion, tend to involve matters on which the Church has been clear and consistant throughout the ages, while foreign policy and economic stances tend to change, certainly in emphasis, from papacy to papacy. I am sure it has also not escaped the notice of the Vatican that many Democrat leaders are convinced secularists, Howard Dean and the "New Testament Book of Job", the Pius "XIII" quoting John Kerry for example, and that most Democrats in the Senate have proven unfriendly to judicial nominees of impeccable credentials, who also have strong religious beliefs. The Democrat leaders are largely on the wrong side of the Culture War, and that is obvious to the Vatican and to a majority of American voters.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at April 23, 2005 06:17 AM
Personally, I never liked the "conservative" or "liberal" designations as they have been twisted in this country in an almost Orwellian fashion. For example, an economic "conservative" is one who wants little interference in our daily lives, while a social conservative wants more controls and interference. The reverse is true for economic liberals and social liberals.
Maybe its better to use the terms "interventionist" and "laissez-fair" to designate those who respectively want more controls and those who want less. Sticking with domestic policy only (for simplicity's sake), you get new labels:
Type........Interventionist......Laissez-Faire
Economic...."Regulators"........."Free-Marketers"
Social......"Fundamentalists"...."Bohemians"
Its interesting how the definitions of the current parties criss-cross. Republicans, with their Wall Street and Religious Right bases would be the Fundamentalist/ Free-Marketers party. OTOH, the Democrats with their traditional New Deal coalition (blacks, blue collar, women, etc.) and its solid support in the entertainment industry would be the party of Regulators and Bohemians.
Now if you use the above matrix to plot the locations of the various political parties and the RCC in relation to the Regulator [REG]/Free-Marketer [FM] economic axis, and the Fundamentalist [FUN]/Bohemian [BOH] social axis; the Church (RCC), Republicans (GOP), Democrats (DEM) and Libertarians (LIB) would be located as follows:
(DEM)....[BOH]......(LIB)
.............|
.............|
.............|
[REG]------|---------[FM]
.............|
.............|
.............|
(RCC)....[FUN]......(GOP)
As can be seen from the chart, Republicans won't like the Pope's anti-capitalistic economic policy (not to mention his implied pacifism) and Democrats won't like his anti-choice stand on a host of social and sexual issues. However each can cheery pick what they want from the RCC as it suits them socially or economically. Completely opposed to the RCC are Libertarians who don't want anything regulated.
Perhaps the closest American party to the RCC is Ralph Nader's Greens, though the "fundamentalism" of the Greens is limited to non-sexual issues like political correctness, whether you should be allowed to own an SUV, etc.
Posted by: daniel duffy at April 23, 2005 06:41 AM
(Little known fact: It's actually "New Europe" that has the most appalling abortion rates.)
I don't know that that's actually true. It was true in the bad old days of Communist rule, but certainly in Poland, at least, the abortion rate dropped to a very low level. Romania's was high in the mid-90s; I don't know what the rate there is now.
I think the reality is perhaps a mixed bag.
Posted by: B Knotts at April 23, 2005 07:32 AM
he has already signaled that the liturgy and internal Church matters will be the focus of his papacy.
With all due respect to JPII, I think Ben is on the right track here. First, the liturgy, and second, the unbelievable behavior of the men in charge, have been the biggest problems in the Church of late.
An organization which is properly run will get rid of people who are undercutting the organization's goals (in this case, pedophile priests and those who protect them) post haste. No shilly-shalling around, no mumbling. You're not with the program, you're outta here. And the liturgy has become a major stumbling block, another area ripe for thoroughgoing reform.
The more I hear about this guy the better I like him.
Posted by: Nancy at April 23, 2005 07:46 AM
Highly unlikely that a Bavarian Catholic son of a police officer is a Social Democrat. I am sure that as far as party politics is concerned, Cardinal Ratzinger would have been a supporter of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (to the extent that he cared about secular politics at all). However, neither the Christian Democratic or Social Democratic tradition in Europe is supportive of unrestricted capitalism. Free market capitalists in Europe are, somewhat confusingly for Americans, usually called liberals.
Posted by: Mark C. at April 23, 2005 07:55 AM
Daniel -
Your "regulator/fundamentalist" has a name: the New Deal Democrat. The story of how the New Deal coalition fell apart is very interesting and instructive. Michael Lind has written a lot about this. According to Lind, the largest group of American voters and the majority of American Catholic voters still fit the New Deal profile but have no political party to represent them. He believes this fact, more than any other, explains the phenomenon of the "swing voter".
Posted by: Frank at April 23, 2005 08:01 AM
Maura is right about alliances with frightening people. We should all be a little alarmed when the Senate majority leader agrees to appear in a program sponsored in large part by a "reverend" who calls the Catholic church "a false religion following a false gospel." There was a citizen oped in my local paper after Pope John Paul's funeral castigating Christians for paying their respects to him because of his "false teachings." If we don't look out, our kids will be sitting in public schools reading the King James bible and learning creationism. My kids go to Catholic school but not all, especially in parts of the South, have that choice -
Posted by: msp at April 23, 2005 08:54 AM
If I support capitalism I am not going to hell. If I support abortion, artificial contraception, etc. I am goin to hell. Any questions?
Posted by: brent at April 23, 2005 09:00 AM
I agree with much of what Maura says, which is why I have never voted for Trent Lott. Of course, that has been made easier because his opponents have all been pro-life. But Maura, persons on the wrong side of the "sex issues" are the cause of most of the current problems in the USA. What do you think are the causes of illegitimacy, rampant divorce rate , and the breakdown of the family? Do you deny that poverty and crime are greatly increased by the aforementioned trends? The "sex issues" go to the very heart of what it means to be human.
Posted by: mississippi catholic at April 23, 2005 09:05 AM
"If we don't look out, our kids will be sitting in public schools reading the King James bible and learning creationism."
As opposed to schools that teach that the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians, or run sex ed classes that are de facto, if not de jure, sponsored by Planned Parenthood? The Fundie bogieman won't play anymore. The serious anti-Catholicism in this country is that formented at the elite colleges and in the mainstream media. Remember "Piss Christ" and how ardently it was defended by most of the academy and the press? Nutcases who believe that Catholics are followers of anti-Christ will always be with us, but they are not the threat to the Church in this country. Most evangelicals are more tolerant of Catholics than ever, and willing to make common cause on issues such as abortion. The well-educated purveyors of anti-Catholicism, on the other hand, are rabidly intolerant and will push all Catholics out of public life if we let them.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at April 23, 2005 09:16 AM
"The Church still is taking sides. The American Church has made opposing gay marriage and benefits for gay couples a higher legislative priority than opposing war and torture."
Not clear if you are opposed to the Church "taking sides" or if you are opposed to their priorities. Would "taking sides" not be a problem if their priorities were perfectly aligned w/your own political priorities?
All of us can fall into this thing of wanting the Church to confirm all of OUR beliefs and political leanings. That is not the Church's purpose.
As an aside, I don't think there is any lack of organized, well funded opposition to the Iraq War or the prosecution of the War on Terror. On the other hand, there is a definite lack of organized resistance to same sex marriage...at least in the very "blue" state where I live. You may not agree with the Church's position, but here in Massachusetts the Church was the only entity making arguments against it.
Posted by: Anna at April 23, 2005 09:53 AM
Actually, I highly doubt that the American public school system is capable of teaching the King James Bible or anything else in Jacobean English. They'll go for one of those dumbed-down Modern English versions.
By the way, what's wrong with the KJV? I know it was written up by icky Protestants, but it's got great, banging, pithy rhythm. Random sample: But the children of the Kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth -- Matthew 8:13. Come on, that rocks.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 23, 2005 10:00 AM
"He believes this fact, more than any other, explains the phenomenon of the "swing voter"."
I think the term "Reagan Democrat" better describes this group.
Posted by: carolyn at April 23, 2005 10:22 AM
maura:
The Church still is taking sides. The American Church has made opposing gay marriage and benefits for gay couples a higher legislative priority than opposing war and torture.
I wonder if this is a matter of perspective. From where I stand, the bishops made a hell of a lot of noise about the War.
Posted by: Eileen R at April 23, 2005 10:36 AM
Why the hostility for the markets?
Concern for the poor must consider the strong correlation between poverty and socialism. Socialistic arrangements, not "unrestricted capitalism" (whatever that means), appears to be a root cause of poverty (though certainly not the only cause) in the developing world as well as in the West.
Up to this point in human development, the markets have been far more productive and have encouraged the development of richer distribution networks than collective arrangements. In thinking about a just approach to the poor on a systemic scale, production and distribution must be prime considerations. Solutions that rely on market arrangements should not be dismissed out of hand on the basis of some misguided antipathy for the “rich.”
Those concerned about the poor would do better to propose careful implementations of market arrangements than to agitate for some system of global transfer payments.
Posted by: Louis at April 23, 2005 10:37 AM
Louis,
Thank you for saying so clearly what I have been thinking for quite some time. I was in Italy over Christmas: it is not just rampant secularism that has turned the churches into empty shells with a few old people. The European social welfare state is in itself responsible for much of the evil of moral relativism. I don't see much hope or energy among the Europeans socially, religiously or economically. Market capitalism, with some legitimate regulations to be sure, must be looked at seriously by the Church as a just system of economics. I cannot understand the inability or unwillingness of church leaders to contemplate an alternative to the tired social welfare state.
Posted by: laura at April 23, 2005 11:00 AM
For example, an economic "conservative" is one who wants little interference in our daily lives, while a social conservative wants more controls and interference. The reverse is true for economic liberals and social liberals.
I think that’s wrong on several counts. Most neoconservatives oppose government limits and intrusions into the lives of free adults (though they make an exception for prostitution, some drugs, and certain other personal vices). Privately funded initiatives to buy up old forests and save them from loggers are perfectly fine, as are industry self-regulation mechanisms (ratings on movies, “Good Housekeeping” seals, etc.) And paleoconservatives like Buchanan have no problem with government regulation designed to save certain industries and limit foreign competition.
When it comes to social liberals, many, if not most, are against any government limits that keep teenagers from getting an abortion, or from reading a certain D.H. Lawrence novel in their school libraries, and they fume about FCC crackdowns on Howard Stern and Janet Jackson.
Trying to pigeonhole people, parties (not to mention new popes), without taking such exceptions and nuances into account only adds to the factionalism.
Posted by: HA at April 23, 2005 11:12 AM
...The Church still is taking sides. The American Church has made opposing gay marriage and benefits for gay couples a higher legislative priority than opposing war and torture...
…I struggle with understanding why God would allow the Church to err through murder, torture, rape...
…Everything is tolerated--as long as you believe in Papal Impeccability...
Maura, can you please ease up on the shrieky rhetoric whereby the opinions of those you disagree with are twisted to their most extreme so as to make them easier to knock down? Take my word for it, the bishops are actually against murder, torture, and rape. Really. They are.
And speaking as someone who was also opposed to the Irag war, how about seeing those on the other side as exhibiting that healthy middle ground between blind obedience and willful disregard that you so emphatically support? After all, papal opposition to this *particular* war and this *particular* political act (as opposed to an overriding principle of faith and morals) is arguably something we can disagree with, after due reflection, given that it is based on facts and data that go beyond the scope of papal expertise. (One could well argue in retrospect that papal data was better than US government data, but that’s another matter.)
Bottom line: Turning the melodrama knob up to 11 rarely helps make an effective case. It just makes the arguments easier to dismiss.
Posted by: HA at April 23, 2005 12:03 PM
the KJV is lovely as poetry, but it's not the bible we use - it's missing some parts, as I recall. Mr. McClarey, they may be bogeymen to you but there's plenty of them where I live, so they seem a little more real to me. I don't disagree with what you say about the other kind of anti-Catholicism, I think you are right on target there. But the fundamentalists will turn on you as soon as they have the chance, believe me.
Posted by: msp at April 23, 2005 02:26 PM
"But the fundamentalists will turn on you as soon as they have the chance, believe me."
And do what, exactly? Form a torchbearing mob and burn you at the stake? If the "fundamentalists" in your community are so intimidating that you are actually in a state of fear you should not be complaining on a blog, you should be contacting your local law enforcement people. If it is simply a case that they are serious about their beliefs and are willing to use their influence in the community in a lawful way to make changes that you don't like, I'm going to put your scary statements down to the vapors.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 23, 2005 09:16 PM
Hello Maura,
Way to drag in your political agenda here.
Forget what Republicans care about and focus on why the Church leadership in Rome might place such a high value on life issues, as I prefer to call them.
It is these, much more than war or torture (which the Church has hardly been reticent about addressing, by the way) let alone real side issues like the environment, which are eating away the heart of the West, especially in Europe: unable to defend their civilization or even fulfill the minimm requirement for sustaining it - reproducing themselves. Especailly since on the spcific issues involved - abortion, euthanasia, marriage - the evils involved are absolute and intrinsic. In Catholic teaching war is nearly always a wrong choice - but not always. To give a concrete example, in 1300AD the West was rife with warfare (and torture, to be sure) but was not on the verge of moral and demographic collapse, because it was not rife with the extreme conceptions of autonomy which have produced the relatively new phenomenon of gay marriage, systematic abortion, euthanasia, no-fault divorce, etc.
In the end I feel confident that Ratzinger's intent in regards to communion was almost entirely if not solely protecting the sacrament rather than deciding who got to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania this year.
P.S. We have higher rates of abortion because we have the most liberal abortion regime in the developed world - thanks solely to that judiciary whose independence you seem so solicitous of.
Posted by: Richard at April 23, 2005 10:41 PM
I don't think we have the most liberal abortion regime in the developed world. Russia is much more liberal than we are. As are, I believe, the Netherlands, Sweden and a few other countries. Which is neither a defense nor an excuse; just a statement.
Posted by: Radactrice at April 24, 2005 01:43 AM
