|
Post by guillaume on Jan 11, 2009 15:15:04 GMT
I hope to post my long-promised thoughts on neoconservatives and palaeoconservatives sometime in the next week or two. I should state that Fr. Neuhaus's break with the palaeoconservative magazine CHRONICLES when he came to believe it was dabbling in anti-semitism was one of the defining moments of the split which produced the "palaeocon" tendency. All right. Would you translate that in English ;D
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jan 11, 2009 18:36:17 GMT
Hibernicus, You mention RJ Neuhaus. Please see www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/09neuhaus.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss. May he rest in peace. You seem to imply neocons are Catholic, while paleocons are less so. I think one of the problems with American Catholics is factionalism. There seems to me to be a need for unity and harmony. 40% of American Catholics are Latinos and 66% of these voted for Obama. The suspicion that Democrats and supporters of Obama are in the state of mortal sin seems extreme. Some American Catholics seem to be attempting to foster a split among Catholic bishops on pro-life issues.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 12, 2009 10:35:37 GMT
Noelfitz: |An interesting obituary, albeit with the usual NEW YORK TIMES weasel-word treatment of anyone who disagrees with them politically. I did not imply that neoconservatives are Catholic or that palaeocons are less so. I know of quite a few palaeocons who are professing Catholics of one sort or another, and there are some areas of economic policy on which palaeos are closer to Catholic social teaching as historically understood. However, there are also many areas in which palaeocons have extremely dubious views in my opinion, and overall I am probably closer to the neocons. This is a matter of political belief which does not necessarily translate into religious obligation, though religious thought can inform it. Similarly, I would never say that all Democrats and Obama supporters are in a state of mortal sin (though this would probably be true of someone who publicly proclaimed, as many so-called Catholic Democrat politicians have, that one of their motives in voting for Obama was specifically to keep abortion legal. Such people may not be fully culpable depending on their level of ignorance, but they are certainly objectively in a very nasty position). No doubt factionalism is a bad thing, and unity and harmony are good things, but that depends on the basis for that unity. Should the Maccabees have joined in unity with the Hellenisers? Should the Early Christians have agreed to worship the Roman emperors for the sake of unity and harmony? Should Irish Catholics have abandoned their "factional" attachment to Rome and joined the Anglican Communion en masse for the sake of unity and harmony? Should Catholic immigrants to the US have converted to Protestantism en masse at Ellis Island for the sake of unity and harmony? Should the Abolitionists be denounced as exponents fo factionalism because they refused to tolerate slavery in the interests of unity and harmony? I would very much like to know who you blame for "attempting to foster a split among Catholic bishops on pro-life issues". Is it perchance pro-abortionists like Speaker Pelosi and her friends in "Catholics" for Free Choice, who misrepresent Catholci theology in the interests of what the late Fr. Neuhaus rightly denounced as the abortion license? Or are you suggesting that faithful Catholics, lay, clerical and episcopal, who are horrified by the legitimation and glorification of abortion should remain silent so as not to show up the delinquencies of those bishops and priests whose waffling on this issue Mark Shea, whom you praised in an earlier post, rightly denounces as resembling the "court prophets" denounced in the Bible? Please let us know, because this is literally a matter of life and death.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 12, 2009 11:11:27 GMT
Guillaume: In a nutshell - Neoconservatives began in the late 1960s as liberals who felt the Democrat party was moving to the left and thought that certain conservative political positions (e.g. on crime, economics, foreign policy, social policy) contained a good deal of truth and could not simply be dismissed as racist or paranoid, as many sixties left-liberals did. A section of these people decided in the 1970s (generally by the time of Ronald Reagan's election in 1980) that they were indeed conservatives (the term neoconservative was originally coined as an insult by left-liberals, on the assumption that actually declaring oneself a conservative put you outside the pale of decency and that most noecons would agre with this). It is this group who are now generally described as neoconservatives. Neocons are associated with belief in American nationalism and an assertive American foreign policy, the view that the size of the state should be cut back, that poverty is attributable to the moral faults of the poor as much as to discrimination,. absence of state services etc. They also tend to see a positive role for religion and religious groups in public life, though they are often accused of an instrumental view of religion (i.e. not believing in it themselves but thinking it is good for society as a whole and for keeping the lower orders in their place - this accusation is particularly levelled at followers of the conservative philosopher Leo Strauss, who operate as a sort of esoteric clique). There is some truth in this accusation, though it varies from person to person; quite a few neocons like Leon Kass are genuine social conservatives. In the Catholic context the term "neoconservative" is often applied to commentators such as Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel, Michael novak etc who see the American political and social system as compatible with, even the fulfilment of, Catholic social thought and who urge a more positive CAtholic attitude towards free-market capitalism. "Palaeoconservatives" started to appear as a tendency in the mid-to-late 1980s among those who thought President Reagan and the first President Bush were not conservative enough and did too little to reverse the evil effects of the 1960s (or, in some cases, of the 1930s New Deal). Pat Buchanan's 1992 run for the Republican presidential nomination wa a highpoint of this group. They are an ideological conglomerate; some are economic populists who believe in protectionism and state intervention in the economy to support traditional industries and the blue-collar workers who have been hard hit since the 1970s by the decline of traditional American industries under international competition (encouraged by laissez-faire economic policies and corporations' moving jobs to cheap labour countries), while others are minimal-government libertarians (Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who sought the Republican presidential nomination last year, is an example of the latter). Palaeocons tend to be isolationists who believe America ought to have a less assertive foreign policy and should concentrate on defending its own borders. There is a strong neo-confederate strand which calls for "states rights" and the rolling back of civil rights legislation. Many leading palaeos are traditionalist Catholics, including some Lefebvrists, though it also includes a significant number of atheists and neo-pagans. American Lefebvrists, even those whose views fall outside the maerican system altogether, often see the palaeos as the "authentic" conservatives in the same way that they see themselves as "authentic" Catholics, and refer to indult traditionalists and John Paul II conservatives as "neo-Catholics" to imply that these people are not "real" Catholics like the SSPX, just as palaeos believe neocons are not "real" conservatives. Neocons' great strength is that they are articulate; they form a sort of policy network that is very good in providing analysis of culture and society and coming up with new ideas. Their big disadvantage is that they are prone to an "echo chamber" effect (that is, only listening to people who agree with them and ignoring inconvenient facts if they don't fit into their thesis) and that their advocacy of American intervention worldwide and minimal-state laissez-faire capitalism is uncongenial if you're not American. Palaeocons tend to see neocons as a self-promoting clique who have hijacked the conservative movement and driven out "real" conservatives like themselves. In my opinion, many of those who were driven out (like Sam Francis and Joe Sobran) were racists and anti-semites who richly deserved to be driven out. The nastiest features of palaeocon thought in my opinion are that they often start from the premise that anyone calling himself a conservative who disagrees with them MUST be dishonest (this saves them the trouble of thinking) and that many of them are outright racists and anti-semites. Many prominent neoconservatives are Jews, and palaeocons often insinuate or claim outright that neocons' first loyalty is to Israel and that their advocacy of an assertive foreign policy is simply a way of getting America to do Israel's dirty work for it (some of them have taken to claiming that American entry into World War II was due to a similar Jewish conspiracy, and that America had no real interests in that conflict and should have stayed out of it). In recent years palaeocon identity has centred on opposition to the Iraq war, so that one often sees the odd spectacle of left-liberals and palaeocons joining forces to denounce the neocons in very similar terms. (I should make it clear that not all palaeocons inhabit these fever swamps, and that some of their views can be defended without resorting to this "Jewish Conspiracy" slime - indeed, there are some Jewish palaeocons.) The best feature of palaeocon thought in my opinion is that it challenges the "Morning in America" Reagan-style optimism favoured by the neocons and has some inkling of how many people are left out of the American Dream. Their big problem is that they don't really know what to do about it - they really represent the politics of despair. The affinity to the SSPX goes very deep, in my opinion. Anyone elese like to comment?
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jan 12, 2009 17:35:06 GMT
Hibernicus,
Thank you for your posts. You write clearly and passionately, but without extreme views. I admire your background in the faith and in general culture. Your arguments are powerful. I think you share my views that Catholics can differ in political opinions.
I disagree with those Catholics who claim it is a mortal sin to vote Democrat, as Democrats support abortion and this issue supersedes all others.
In the presidential election most Catholics supported Obama. In fact 66% of Latinos, who make up 40% of US Catholics voted for Obama.
Catholics are about 30% of the US population, yet 37% of Representatives are Catholic. We punch above our weight.
If the Church throws away Catholics who are Democrats, the Church will be the loser.
Similarly if the Church throws away woman and focuses solely on white conservative males the Church will be the loser.
Once again thank you for your solid posts.
With charity and logic yopu make your points. Please keep it up.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2009 16:00:02 GMT
NOelfitz - Thanks for the flattery but you haven't answered my questions. There is a distinction between the Church "throwing away" someone and that person throwing themselves away by their own actions. The Church ought not to be solely governed by the need to have a big headcount; there comes a point at which someone (such as the Catholics for Free Choice gang) have gone so far in apostasy that they are no longer Catholic at all and must be formally exposed and expelled for the benefit of those whom they seek to mislead by posing as faithful Catholics. By the way, what do you mean when you talk of the church "throwing away women"? What do you mean by this and what do you propose it should do to avoid this? Pray do tell. Now I must get back to work.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jan 16, 2009 1:57:06 GMT
Hibernicus
In Ireland young mothers do not seem to be involved with the Church. To me Humanae Vitae may have had adverse effects on Church loyalty.
Women are excluded. Although I think the Church is now considering allowing them to become readers (http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2008/10/unclear-if-pope-will-support-women-officially-lector-ministry).
The Church, with its, emphasis of virginity, did not seem to respect married people or value them. Women were often seen as occasions of sin for celibate clergy.
This could be debated at greater leisure.
I hope you enjoyed the work you went off to.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 21, 2009 12:54:43 GMT
I will take up Noelfitz on a later occasion. Sometimes I enjoy my work, sometimes not, but it is necessary for my existence - I can't spend all day on this board. LEt me just say that however wrong and misguided some of Barack Obama's polices are, and however irritating is the hoopla which surrounds his inauguration as if he were Messiah instead of president, his inauguration is in one aspect indeed a great day for America. One of the great sins of that country has been the enslavement and degradation of blacks, stretching from colonial days to Jim Crow and to the problems which blacks continue to encounter even when the legal barriers were thrown down. The American Catholic novelist Walker Percy, a descendant of slaveholders and a supporter of the Civil Rights movement, wrote that it was a terrible indictment of all american Christians that it had by and large been left to secularists and atheists among whites to take the lead in assisting blacks to tear down Jim Crow - which helps to explain why so many blacks who are religious believers and advocates of family values vote for secularist and "pro-choice" representatives; and his novel LOVE IN THE RUINS has a scene in which a charater caught up in a race riot imagines God giving the North American continet as a second Eden to the Europeans, with (as in the first Eden) one prohibition - "Do you see that black man in Africa? Don't violate him". In Stephen Vincent Benet's story THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER the New England lawyer-politician Daniel Webster is imagined as trying to secure the release of a farmer who has sold his soul to the devil. Webster tells the devil that every American citizen is entitled to be judged by his fellow-citizens "and I never heard you were an American citizen." "Oh, I think I have as good a right to be considered an American citizen as anyone" comes the reply. "When the first wrong was done to the first Indian I was there; and when the first slaver set sail for the Congo I stood on her deck". However much harm President Obama may do, at least his election is a sign of how his country is purging itself of that particular original sin - one in which American Cahtolcis have been implicated as much as anyone else. LEt us rejoice with them for that, and let us pray that God may enlighten Barack Obama to govern wisely and with justice and purge him of his failings.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jan 21, 2009 12:57:08 GMT
Hibernicus,
You wrote:
" LEt us rejoice with them for that, and let us pray that God may enlighten Barack Obama to govern wisely and with justice".
Amen!
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 21, 2009 18:47:25 GMT
Hibernicus In Ireland young mothers do not seem to be involved with the Church. To me Humanae Vitae may have had adverse effects on Church loyalty. Women are excluded. Although I think the Church is now considering allowing them to become readers ( www.uscatholic.org/news/2008/10/unclear-if-pope-will-support-women-officially-lector-ministry). The Church, with its, emphasis of virginity, did not seem to respect married people or value them. Women were often seen as occasions of sin for celibate clergy. Noel The last part of your comment is true, I think — given that you qualify the statement with the word often. But I'm not so sure about the rest. The question one must ask about Humanae Vitae is not, Did it annoy some people, but Was it right? For orthodox Catholics, the only answer to that can be that yes, by definition, it was. As for allowing women to become readers, surely that is already the case. In fact my impression is that a majority of Ministers of the Word are women. Reading the Gospel is always reserved to a man in at least the minor Orders; no lay person of either sex may do it. You say that not many young married women are involved with the Church, but I would have thought you could say the same about young married men.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 21, 2009 18:53:49 GMT
Let me just say that however wrong and misguided some of Barack Obama's polices are, and however irritating is the hoopla which surrounds his inauguration as if he were Messiah instead of president, his inauguration is in one aspect indeed a great day for America. ... However much harm President Obama may do, at least his election is a sign of how his country is purging itself of that particular original sin - one in which American Catholics have been implicated as much as anyone else. Let us rejoice with them for that, and let us pray that God may enlighten Barack Obama to govern wisely and with justice and purge him of his failings. Can't quibble with any of that. A fascinating thing about Americans is their irrepressible optimism; something we jaded Old-Worlders can never imagine. No matter how often things go wrong, or how badly, they seem to have an ineradicable belief in the possibility of a fresh beginning and a bright future. I'm reminded of the great slogan of Reagan's campaign: It's morning in America. That was almost thirty years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 24, 2009 11:53:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jan 26, 2009 8:23:34 GMT
Here here, a good move by Obama, as it was when Clinton did the same thing.
Disagreeing with abortion is one thing, but in a country where it is legal to try and gag the information about it to bypass the fact its legal is a hideous tactic to perform.
It is legal, get over it or campaign against it. However removing peoples right to information about it is just cowardly and dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 26, 2009 23:01:22 GMT
Disagreeing with abortion is one thing, but in a country where it is legal to try and gag the information about it to bypass the fact its legal is a hideous tactic to perform. It is legal, get over it or campaign against it. However removing peoples right to information about it is just cowardly and dangerous. It's not about people's right to information. The issue was whether American taxpayers' money should be used to provide that information. Bush, for moral reasons, decided not; Obama, presumably for moral reasons of his own, took a different view. It highlights an aspect of Obama that has been overlooked in the recent euphoria.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jan 27, 2009 8:36:19 GMT
Of course it is moral to do so. It is a publicly available and legal medical procedure. Thus the public has a right to information about it.
Can you imagine if the public were not informed about all their medical options? How ghastly! I would never engage in any medical procedure without knowing all there is to know about it OR without knowing what other alternatives are available.
To keep the public ignorant of either their options, or the implications of the options they HAVE decided on is abhorrent. As is passing a law to enforce such ignorance.
|
|