Hiatus

As a blogger, I have two cardinal rules. The first is, “do not repeat that which you have already said”; the second, “do not repeat that which you have elsewhere read.” Since I resurrected this blog last January, the majority of posts have circled back to a few key topics: contraception, same sex marriage, the HHS mandate, religious liberty, and so on.

Part of why I was drawn to these topics is that it seems to me there is a dearth of constructive criticism of Catholic sexual ethics out there. In orthodox circles, you get unquestioning obedience to Humanae vitae with little to no attempt to explicate the encyclical for its skeptics (or, I suspect, to wrestle with it oneself). Amongst so-called liberal Catholics, you get a knee-jerk reaction to the Vatican coupled with a watered down secular ethos. So I’ve attempted in my own small way to think through this stuff and grope toward a “third way” that rejects a false dichotomy between blind adherence to the traditionalism of John Paul II, on the one hand, and to the libertinism of Dan Savage, on the other.

At the same time, I have said all I have to say about these issues and am, frankly, tired of quarreling with the Catholic bishops. Quarreling endlessly with the Catholic Church is what Protestants do, and I am ultimately not a Protestant, but a Catholic–though admittedly a very bad one! We liberals too readily forget that there is more to Catholicism than a list of sexual prohibitions. I do not wish to fall into the trap of monomania. Nor do I wish to violate my first maxim by simply repeating myself over and over and over and over.

Here is the other thing. I don’t want to write about public policy–or, at least, not in the way that Ezra Klein, Simon Johnson, and countless others already do so well. There are plenty of places online for that type of commentary and I have no desire to violate my second maxim, which is not to rehash the commentary of others.

Now, I realize that clearly articulating what one does not want to say is only a starting point. What I need to determine is where to go next. So that is a new year’s resolution. I can’t exactly when, but I do intend to get back in the saddle at some point in 2013.

Smith’s Dictionary: Metaphysics

“The finding of bad reasons for what we all believe on instinct.” (Qtd. by Anthony Daniels)

Insult of the Day

Mark Shea on movement conservatism:

By “the Thing that Used to be Conservatism” I basically have in mind what is commonly referred to as Movement Conservatism. The sort of people who live in a media bubble of FOX, Limbaugh, Talk Radio, and National Review, augmented with stuff like the Blaze, Breitbart, and related propaganda organs. People who seriously believed that Tuesday would be a Romney landslide and who took seriously not merely the idea that Romney sucked less than Obama (intellectually defensible) but that he was a good candidate who was “prolife” and “conservative”. People who think the Bush years were not a catastrophe but a great thing, that the Iraq war was a good idea the Church never opposed, that the erection of a police state only became a bad thing when Obama took over the project, that Ayn Rand is a thinker to be reckoned with, that Sarah Palin was a serious stateswoman and thinker, who never saw an Obama conspiracy theory or denunciation they didn’t like, who believe devoutly in the Immaculate Conception of the State of Israel, who think Mitt Romney was the embodiment of Christian Values, and who never listen to news media outside the bubble just described (except for Christian radio and/or EWTN) lest they be defiled.

For Shea’s post-election musings on how Republican party politics have corrupted conservative Catholicism and what can be done about it, see here, here, and here–some of Shea’s finest writings to date if you ask me!

Smith’s Dictionary: Bigot

Someone whose views I don’t like or understand.

Searching for a New Sexual Ethic

In economics, we are often presented with a false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism. Just so, it seems to me, are we presented in debates over marriage and sexuality with a false dichotomy between Dan Savage and John Paul II.

Since I resurrected this blog last January, I’ve been searching for a sexual ethic at once at odds with orthodox Catholicism and the secular culture. Having spent the past 10 months in an ideological no man’s land, I have on occasion succumbed to self-doubt: is it really worth the effort or even possible to spell out an alternative to the tried-and-true orthodoxies of the Vatican, on the one hand, and post-sexual revolution America, on the other? In light of this nagging question, I was pleased and encouraged to read the following quotation from a contributor to the Oxford History of Christianity, which nicely encapsulates so much of what I have been trying to say:

There has in Western countries been a widespread rejection of traditional Christian standards, chiefly but not exclusively in the realm of sexual behaviour. This revolt has been associated with secular philosophies which stress personal authenticity and individual self-expression. That these philosophies are inadequate to the whole range of moral problems which beset the modern world is increasingly apparent to many reflective people. The churches, therefore, have an obligation, which non-believers expect them to acknowledge, to maintain and strengthen the Christian ethical tradition. It is a resource that the modern world cannot do without. But the churches are liable, in this situation, to adopt one or other of two alternatives, neither of which is satisfactory. The first is to reassert without qualification the ethical prescriptions which have been accepted in the recent past, without considering whether the underlying principles require fresh applications in the light of current knowledge, and to assert them, moreover, in an authoritative manner. This reinforces the modernist revolt which has fed upon the continuing repudiation of just this stereotype. The second alternative is to embrace the typical modern world-view in the one or other of its forms and interpret the Christian ethical tradition in terms of it. The first, conservative, approach fails as a rule to address itself to the problems in their full context and is insufficiently sensitive to the possibility that, because of the ossification of conventional teaching, genuinely Christian insights have sometimes had to flow through secular channels. The second, liberal, approach, fails in a different way to address the problems, because it identifies itself too closely with the very attitudes that have been largely responsible for creating them. What is needed is conservatives who are prepared to be critical of the tradition and liberals who are prepared to be critical of contemporary fashions.

Second Thoughts on the Marriage Amendment

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, a young man who wishes to remain agnostic about the Minnesota marriage amendment cannot be too careful of his reading. Mark Shea’s blog caters to social conservatives and would therefore appear to be safe territory for a Catholic with a heretical leaning toward voting “no”. Not so, it turns out.

Earlier today, Shea linked to a statement by 143 faculty and staff at St. Benedict’s and St. John University in Minnesota. Shea’s goal was not to engage the authors in serious debate—an unnecessary task for a writer whose audience takes the wrongness of same sex marriage as self-evident—but to admonish readers not to “ever give another dime” to the university. Despite Shea’s intentions, the statement provides compelling evidence against one of the central claims made by same sex marriage opponents. Specifically, the third footnote links to an APA Policy Statement that summarizes multiple studies demonstrating that “the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.”

Should the APA be blindly trusted? Of course not. But a substantial body of research appears to contradict the bishops’ claim that “respecting a child’s dignity means affirming his or her need for – and right to – a mother and a father.” This should, at the very least, give same sex marriage opponents pause. Moreover, whereas a “no” vote leaves time for additional study and deliberation, a “yes” vote forecloses that possibility, enshrining unsubstantiated claims about gender into our state constitution.

Thus, for reasons quite inconsistent with the libertarian rhetoric of Minnesotans United, I will be voting “no” on November 6th.

How Our Politics Corrupt Catholic Religion

Earlier this month, in an interview with Fresh Air’s Terry Gross, Stephen Colbert astutely observed that religious leaders who engage in political advocacy typically assume they’ll “get religion into our politics” but forget that “politics will come right back through that gate onto our religion.”  If I have learned anything from the HHS mandate controversy, it is the truth of these remarks.

To be fair, the Catholic bishops view themselves as playing defense, not offense.  Their stated goal is not to impose Catholic sexual morality on the public, but to protect the religious liberty of Catholic institutions.   And yet, as I have discussed elsewhere, the bishops’ libertarian rhetoric is altogether inconsistent with the traditional Catholic teaching that the use of contraceptives violates natural law, which is in principle applicable to everyone, not just Catholics.  Have the bishops’ abandoned the premise that Catholic sexual morality is universally valid?  Apparently not, for they oppose same sex unions partially on the basis that the “proper mission” of marriage is “having children and raising them”—a position that presupposes the wrongness of contraceptive sex.  So the bishops want to have their Catholic kosher and eat it too: the Church’s contraception ban is at once understood to be a theological idiosyncrasy (HHS mandate) and the basis of public morality (same sex marriage).

I think I’m beginning to understand the bishops’ intellectual inconsistency.  The bishops may continue to espouse orthodoxy on pelvic issues, but they have ceased to understand it in any kind of meaningful way.  Like the liberals they continually chastise, the bishops and their conservative allies tend to evaluate moral issues in terms of the categories of American political thought. Their stances may be authentically Catholic, but the reasoning often reeks of American politics.

Lest readers suppose that contraception is an isolated occurrence, I will take another example of this phenomenon.  As anyone familiar with Catholicism knows, the Church opposes legalized abortion on the grounds that all persons have a right to life—a right which government has a responsibility to protect.  The Church has likewise consistently taught that all persons have a right to health care.  Each of these teachings is part of a seamless intellectual fabric.  The trouble is, they don’t jive with American political thinking.  Social conservatives may adamantly oppose abortion, but they’ve hardly been leading the charge on universal health care—quite the contrary.  Due to what I take to be the corrupting influence of politics, some bishops are now attempting to reconcile their pro-life stance with conservative opposition to Obamacare.  Here, for example, is what Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia told the National Catholic Register when asked about the universal right to health care:

The bishops really do believe it. Health is a basic human right; we have a right to be healthy. There’s no declaration on the part of the Church that that has to be accomplished through government intervention.  There are many ways of approaching health care, and I think it’s very important for Catholics to understand the fact that the Church, seeing health care as a basic human right, does not mean [to say] there’s a particular method of obtaining that [right that’s] better than another.

On the face of it, Chaput’s position seems tenable.  However, as J. Peter Nixon of Commonweal has shown, the Church has consistently taught that the state should proactively ensure that all citizens have access to health care.  And with good reason: for if state intervention is not necessary as a means of protecting basic human rights, then there is no compelling reason to be pro-life!  To paraphrase Chaput—and, for that matter, Joe Biden—we could say that the Church’s view that all persons have a right to life need not entail the position that the criminalization of abortion is the best method of obtaining that right.  Surely, no bishop would endorse such a view—and yet the view is difficult to oppose once one has conceded, along with Chaput, that government doesn’t have a responsibility to protect basic human rights.

As a quick addendum, none of this is to suggest that I think we ought to erect a wall of separation between church and state. To be clear, I doubt that it is possible to separate “public” and “private” morality. As Alasdair MacIntyre brilliantly explains in After Virtue, the Enlightenment project has failed. No one has, as of yet, convincingly identified universally valid moral norms, apart from those we inherit from culture, tradition, and (gasp!) religion. So what? Some on the Catholic right have used MacIntyre’s insight as cover for theocratic ambitions. I am not among them. Enlightenment thinkers may not have provided us with a solid basis for separating church and state, but Stephen Colbert does. Political activism tends to corrupt Church leaders, not just morally but also intellectually. And while it would be foolish to turn the separation of church and state into a religion—for example, by making ex cathedra pronunciations in the New Yorker on the role of religion in American life—caution and restraint are surely prudent.

Why I am not Voting on the Marriage Amendment

Warning: Ridiculously long post. Reader discretion is advised.

Minneapolis neighborhood lawn signs sometimes make it seems as though there is not a single homo sapiens in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In reality, 31 states have amended their constitution to ban same sex marriage and Minnesota might very well be the next. Still, a majority of Americans now favor same sex marriage and Minnesotans United has been pushing hard to get out the “no” vote.

Whatever the outcome this November, neither side will receive support from yours truly.

Humanae Vitae Apologists Still Aren’t Making Sense

In my quest to come to terms with Catholic sexual morality, I have poured over countless essays by lay apologists and professional theologians. Like a gambler pumping coins into a slot machine, I read each essay with the hope that maybe—just maybe—this will be the time I hit the jackpot: a clear understanding of the rationale behind Humanae Vitae. So far, no luck.

Part of the challenge is that, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Christopher West), lay apologists shy away from making full throated defenses of the encyclical. You’ll find plenty of denunciations of the HHS Mandate on the internet, but nary a word on why the Church has drawn such a hard line on this issue. Revealingly, Catholic sexual morality is more often than not treated by religious conservatives as a theological idiosyncracy, rather than a universal moral imperative. (Except in the gay marriage debate, where it is simply assumed to be the foundation of Western civilization.) Thus, for example, Rod Dreher compared Church teaching to Jewish dietary law in his commentary on the HHS Mandate.

While I could certainly comment on the essays I’ve photocopied out of obscure academic journals, for blogging purposes it makes more sense to focus on online content, however scant it may be. Anyhow, the difference between the two mediums, I have found, is more a matter of word count than substantive content. So to illustrate why it is I find “defenses” of Humanae vitae so exasperating, I will take an example from a recent post by Mark Shea, which epitomizes much of the literature out there on Catholic sexual morality in tone and substance. (I am not unsympathetic to Shea’s post, which makes a number of wise and insightful points.) Shea writes:

The artificial virginity of contraceptive sex boils down to the permanent attempt to strip mine the gold of pleasure from the sacramental union of love and fruitfulness, enthrone autonomy and pleasure, and declare love and fruitfulness “optional” rather than what revelation declares them to be: the very heart of reality. It is the attempt to replace love with power.

Everything in these two sentences is either a self-evident statement or an unsupported assertion. As for the latter, Shea simply assumes that contraceptive sex cannot be a union of love. For Shea, true sexual union is by definition open to fruitfulness. Why is this the case? We aren’t told. And yet the logic behind this link is precisely what Humanae Vitae skeptics such as I claim not to understand.

Even supposing Shea were to concede that contraceptive sex can amount to a union of love, all he is left saying is that contraceptive sex separates pleasure and love from fruitfulness—which is by definition true. We don’t gain any new insight. Shea simply redescribes contraceptive sex so as to imbue it with sinister overtones: on the one hand you have a “permanent attempt to strip mine the gold of pleasure”; on the other, the “sacramental union of love and fruitfulness.” While I don’t deny that Shea is a fine prose stylist, what’s missing is a substantive argument. Finally, Shea makes an appeal to revelation, which is a typical last resort for pro-Humanae Vitae apologists. We are to accept the teaching because the Church speaks for Christ. And yet the Church also wants to claim that Humanae Vitae is rooted in natural law, which any rational animal is in theory capable of grasping.

I realize that Shea’s post was not an attempt to provide a sophisticated defense of Humanae Vitae. One ought not give passing remarks the same weight as a doctoral dissertation. With that said, defenses of Humanae Vitae–whether academic or popular–never seem to rise above this level of discourse. What you typically get instead are theologicaly rich rhetorical flourishes, or self-evident statements masquerading as arguments, or reminders of the fact that Catholics are obligated to accept definitive Church teaching, or diatribes about how the hierarchy’s right to believe these things is being crushed by tyrant Obama. All diversions if you ask me.

The Need for Self-Criticism

I read somewhere that people tend to measure their wealth not in absolute terms, but by comparison with others. A family living in an affluent gated community may feel poor by comparison with yacht-owning, globe trotting neighbors. But plop that family down in an urban ghetto and their perception is likely to shift dramatically.

Politics is a bit like that. Although the temptation for liberals right now is smugness and complacency, our glowing self-image has more to do with our rivals’ lack of intellectual seriousness and credibility than with the intrinsic merits of liberalism. It’s easy to feel cosmopolitan when your point of reference is Sarah Palin, to feel brainy by comparison with George Bush, or to feel like a dedicated champion of the poor relative to Mitt Romney. In short, next to the wretched hag that is the modern conservative establishment liberals look like beauty queens. And yet according to our own narrative, the conservative establishment is in a death spiral. If that’s the case, the test of liberalism’s merits will soon come from other quarters within the conservative movement: from social conservatives like Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher and Mark Shea; from civil libertarians like Conor Friedersdorf and Glenn Greenwald; and from distributists like John Medaille and Phillip Blond.

I don’t for a moment want to downplay the importance of debunking misinformation. The conservative establishment may not be intellectually serious, but it does have money and influence. For this reason, liberals have a responsibility to expose conservative deceptions, such as those buttressing Paul Ryan’s convention speech and Niall Ferguson’s Newsweek cover story.

At the same time, my concern–underscored by this excellent post by Conor Friedersdorf on why he refuses to vote Obama–is that, in our quest to take down the conservative establishment, liberals are losing sight of the need for self-criticism. This is especially so with respect to civil liberties and foreign policy. We may not agree with Friedersdorf’s verdict on Obama (I for one don’t), but surely our guy is more than a little vulnerable to critiques of the drone war in Pakistan, the extrajudicial killing of American citizen, and the war in Libya.

As for economic issues, liberal policy wonks–notably Paul Krugman–have in general been good about critiquing the president. What they’ve failed to do is imagine alternatives to liberal policy prescriptions. Libertarianism may be a barren wasteland–but what is the liberal response to conservatives who shun big business and big government alike? Such conservatives are obviously in the minority and don’t play enough of a role in elections to receive widespread attention. But marginal status is not the same thing as non-existence and I hope that liberals will learn to recognize and respond to economic policy proposals more nuanced than trickle down.