For the record: Archbishop Chaput on Catholic pols and voters

The place to start would be, does our voting for someone make us responsible for what that person does as a legislator or as a judge? And the answer is yes, because we are in some ways materially -- we use the word 'materially' -- cooperating in that person's activity because we've given [him or her] the platform to be elected. Now, if the person does something wrong, are we responsible for that? Well, if we didn't know they were going to something wrong, our participation is remote, but if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we approved of it, our responsibility would be really be close, even if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we voted for them for another reason, we would still be responsible in some ways. The standing is that if you know someone is going to do evil and you participate in that in some way, you are responsible. So it's not 'if you vote this way, should you go to confession?' The question is, 'if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?' Now, if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. There's a more sophisticated thing here: it's not so crude. The reason I want to stress that is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for whom. It's issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or his conscience and remote material cooperation or proximate material cooperation is cooperation, and it's important for Catholics to know that, to be sophisticated in their judgments.

It's about the appropriateness of involvement, on part of individual Catholics and on part of the Church community. And the importance of forming one's conscience intelligently and in an involved fashion on the major moral issues of the day. Now, you know, it is true that the Church sees abortion as the foundational issue of our time. It is. There is no way around it. There is nothing more foundational than the right to life.

You know some moral issues, all moral issues are moral issues, and it's good to be on the right side of them all the time, but some are dependent on the basic principles of human life. The dignity of human life. You never violate it. Whether it's the creation of embryos for embryonic stem cell research or abortion, are violations of the dignity of human beings, from our perspective. And you can never justify it. You can sometimes justify going to war. You may think that the Iraq war is horrible, but there may be sometimes when you can justify [going to war]. It doesn't have the same moral weight. And, it's not calculating 40 million abortions against 40,000 deaths in Iraq. That's not how you do the calculus. The calculus is on the intrinsic act itself. You know, and abortion is never, ever, ever right. And so to elect someone who has no respect for unborn human life or has a--what kind of respect?--a kind of respect that is wobbly; it doesn't make any sense. Why would you trust someone with your life, if that person is willing to let unborn babies die?

I think Catholics have to grapple with the fact that their moral positions impact their relationship with the Church. And they haven't often thought of that, you know? 'I know abortion is wrong, but if I vote for abortion, that doesn't have any impact on me. Well the Church says, 'Like heck it doesn't. It means you're not a Catholic and you shouldn't receive communion, if you are in favor of abortion.' They don't think they connect. And, now that some people have been making a very clear connection between the position and one's relationship to the Church, people have gotten angry, they've gotten nervous, they've gotten mad, they've threatened to take their money away, they've threatened to join other churches.

Leo XIII--Wealth and Poverty

These [social] teachings [of the Church] could diminish the distance that pride is pleased to maintain between the rich and the poor, but simple friendship is still too little. If we obey Christianity’s precepts, union will be brought about through fraternal love. On both sides, people will know and understand that absolutely all human beings have come forth from God, their common father; that God is their common and only goal, and that God alone is able to communicate perfect and absolute happiness to angels and to human beings. In addition, all have been redeemed by Jesus Christ and restored by him to their dignity as children of God, and thus a true bond of fraternity unites them, whether this be among themselves or to Christ their Lord, who is “the first-born of many brothers.” (Rom 8:29) Finally, they will know that all the goods of nature, all the treasures of grace belong in common and indiscriminately to the whole human race, and that only those who are unworthy will be disinherited of the heavenly goods. “If you are children, you are heirs as well: heirs of God, heirs with Christ.” (Rom 8:17)

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 21

Creators and creations

Do we remember Hamlet because of Shakespeare or Shakespeare because of Hamlet? Without the characters he created, Shakespeare would be one more impresario in the long and glorious history of English theater. Therefore, who is the greater being: Hamlet or Shakespeare? Hamlet continues to this day to give Shakespeare life and relevance. And for his part, Shakespeare has given us Hamlet and others who reveal not only their maker's amazing thoughts, but who reveal to us the universe within ourselves. Has Shakespeare made him or conjured him? What was Shakespeare's relationship with this character? Was he changed by the encounter?

This is not to single out Shakespeare. Other notable artists have done likewise. Plato gave us the very troubling Socrates. The anonymous authors and editors of the great story traditions that are quilted together in the Jewish Scriptures give us a very extraordinary G*d. At the very least, isn't it fair to raise as an ambiguity, purely on naturalistic terms, who makes whom? How were these storytellers and their faithful listening community, who would hold dear the stories, changed by the character of G*d?

Deus Caritas Est

Some thoughts about this new document, upon a first, fast reading:

The reasoning and the language are clear and simple. John Paul's works always seemed to have a rich abstruseness and density of reasoning that made one take them in small bites in order to get the gist. Benedict's work so far is much more in the "Latin" or "Roman" way of thinking--logical, gradually building, aimed more evidently at communication rather than meditation. To me this is the most evident contrast between the current pontiff and his predecessor, visible in his shorter messages and now in the encyclical letter.

Benedict seems to have a love for the Classical world and its wisdom. This reflects the sense of many of the Church Fathers that the core of Classical philosophy was the second way by which the world was prepared to receive the Christian message. The way of reason has a universal appeal that may prove (once again, we may hope) to be an effective outreach to the world. No one can say it's too obscure, too "Catholic" (in a pejorative sense, as a sort of closed club whose thinking doesn't compel belief from the secular minds out there). Is it St. Justin Martyr who said that Christianity is "the true philosophy"?

He really boils the heart of the Gospel down to a kernel of belief: "God is love." The opening paragraphs are breathtaking in their directness.

The paragraphs on the Church's duties of love toward the world, love built on justice, emphasize direct action and help. It's not the Church's duty to wait until the government does something to help the poor, suffering and hurt. The Church doesn't exist to build a "utopia" of material good, but rather to help the poor, starting with the poorest. Government's job is to create the conditions where these works of justice may flourish. The Church's political theory is to be the model of love and the first to get its hands busy with the works of love. All else follows, including political advocacy. I think Pope John Paul, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin would concur. And as the saints' lives testify, this work itself is plenty controversial.