March 13, 2025 • 54 mins
In this episode of The Open Door, Thomas Storck, Christopher Zehnder, and Andrew Sorokowski Discuss Politics (March 12, 2025)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to WCAT radio, your home for authentic Catholic programming.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Welcome to the Open.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Door with your host Thomas Stewart, the co hosts, Christopher
z Ainder and Andrews hur Rakowski, will begin as usual
with our prayer, Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of
your faithful and kindle them to the fire of your love.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created. And
you showing you the face of the.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Earth, Let us spray, Oh God, let us talk the
hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit.
Grant in the same spirit we may be truly wise,
and everybody rejoiced in his consolation through Christ, our Lord, Amen,
your name of the Father Son, Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Amen.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Well, today, while we're doing twenty something new on the
Open Door, instead of having a guest author or commentators,
the three of us, the three hosts, and are going
to talk about a very important question the participation of
Catholics in the American polity, and is not simply the
(01:05):
political order, but the whole American system of institutions, culture,
and including the of course the political order. And I
think i'd like to begin with a quotation that's probably
known to many of our listeners. Famous quotations from Professor
(01:26):
Arthur's Senior, who remarked to Monseignor John Tracy Ellis, he said,
I regard the prejudice against your church as the deepest
bias in the history of the American people. Now, what
I think is significant about that quote is not that
(01:47):
Slessser said, I regard prejudice against Catholics, but I regard
prejudice against the.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Catholic Church, i e.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Not Catholics as individuals, but the whole system of Catholic
not just theology, but everything that flows from our theological
stance or understanding of God, or understanding of Man, or
understanding of the social order and so on. So I
if this is true, there is a deep disconnect between
(02:19):
the ordinary American way of looking at these matters and
that which historically has been part of our Catholic heritage.
So as I see it, that would frame our discussions today.
So we have a couple of questions. Can we participate
without selling out our heritage? And what really is the
(02:42):
difference here? What are we talking about.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
In terms of the difference between the these two conceptions
of life.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
So with that introduction, I'll invite my co hosts to
speak up if they like.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
I think maybe we have to identify what is the
source of that prejudice or that disconnect. What what is
in in the United States culture, political theory and the like,
which makes what would make Americans? And what is what
(03:23):
is what is it in the Catholic understanding of these
things that may that would suggest that Catholics would be
considered suspect in American system or in the Catholic Church especially,
that means what what is It's simply a matter that
most Catholic, most Americans were Protestant, or is it a
(03:44):
matter of whether something else is there is another source
of that attention.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
I think I could say that, you know, without maybe
answering that question. I think there are a couple of
approaches to that question we could take. The one that
comes to mind first is, of course, that whole suspicion
that Catholics individually or the church itself are not loyal,
that they are loyal to Rome and not to Washington.
(04:18):
And you know, that was a big issue in the twenties.
It's connected with immigration, and I think that brings us
to the whole question of conceptions of church and state
relationship between church and state. We have obviously, although it's
not in our constitution, we do have some kind of
separation between church and state that obviously has not always
(04:41):
been the case in Catholic countries, or that has in France,
for example. So I think that's one aspect to look
at church and state. Another one we might bring in
is attitudes towards law, because we have a different tradition here.
I mean, you can identify or not identified with Protestantism,
(05:02):
but obviously it's the English common law tradition, and it's
the American tradition of positive law and laws being not
connected with philosophical principles on the continent, of course, it's
completely different. But I'm just throwing those out as possible
avenues of approach to the question that you have just
supposed Do.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
You think do you think it has anything to do
with the fact that, I mean, the United States was
traditionally regarded as the country of modernity for excellence, the
country of modernity was fully realized, and the Catholic tradition
obviously was formed the way way before modernity.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Is this is this is this a.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Source of conflict that when we're at our best when
we're upholding our true tradition, we're upholding something that is
deeply at odd with modernity.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
What do you mean by in this case modernity? What
even more specific.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Well, we regard the philosophical and especially the political phosopical
revolution of the seventeen and eighteenth centuries, where instead of
coming to see the social order as almost like a family,
which is kind of the traditional way of looking at
it throughout the world, not just in Europe, for Christian Europe,
(06:26):
but I think you could probably say broadly speaking everywhere
in the world until in ironity, when it became seen
as more of a collection of individuals and the state
was in Locke. Well, I would I always think of
Lucke as the as the primary expositor of this, or
at least the most articulate expositor of this approach, where
(06:50):
the state is simply the guaranteur of individual freedom, and
that man human nature is essentially a social and we
are our true our true natural state is not in
a polity, is in a society political society, but rather
(07:11):
in the so called state of nature, the alleged state
of nature, and this and the the collectivity, which is
a state exists primarily to enhance those natural freedoms, as
they would Colvin. So to me that is kind of
the I mean, it goes back, it has which in
other parts of philosophy too, But as for our purposes
(07:33):
to day, perhaps we should think of it as in
terms of political.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
Philosophy, m right, which encompasses not just what we call politics,
but the life of the police, is the life of society,
culture and everything else. Mm hmm correct.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Yeah, I mean, if if Lacke is correctly that man's
true state is asocial, then that has I think profound
implications for what the life of society is to be like,
and how society can't.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Really pursue joint goals. It's always my goal in your
goal and his goal and in your goal.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
Yeah, I think I think what Andrew pointed out is
probably it doesn't. Actually it's not as if necessarily the
Americans grasped the principles that Catholics were operating on, but
they were grasped certain of the realities. Because we talked
about separation church and state, which Andrew brought up. It
wasn't simply just medieval society which didn't live by a
(08:42):
distinction between church and state, or at least the same
distinction we would make. But it was actually papal teaching
that and you see that in the eighteenth and beginning
of the eighteenth century, especially in the nineteenth century, where
there was insistence upon a union of church state of
some kind. So they you know, you have the Protestant
(09:05):
prejudice of the papal power in terms of religion, coupled
with what was clearly in the tradition of the Catholic
faith and also in the teachings early of the Pontous
of that period expressions of a real ordering of the
state under the Church.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
I think that was based on certain deeper philosophical principles.
I could see that that was you know, when Andrew
pointed out was that's probably was probably an initial key
to it.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, well, go ahead of no sorry, oh no, no, but.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
How did display out I mean when Al Smifrin for
president in nineteen twenty eight or the year before, actually
a Protestant attorney. This is an exchange that is not
as well known as ought to be. But a Protestant
attorney run in an article in The Atlantic challenging Smith
on some of these questions that you just mentioned, and
(10:08):
he included copious quotations in his article from Peoples. And
when Smith replied the next month in the same journal,
he said, I want right, do I have to vouch
for every thing has ever presented in the papal And
so Smith probably wasn't himself unaware of one of these things.
(10:28):
But nonetheless, the attorney I think his name is Charles
Marshall was his name?
Speaker 2 (10:33):
He uh, he had a point. I think, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 5 (10:42):
In either of you may be give some specifics on
how these things came up. I mean, you just gave
an example of how this came up at a very
high level in US politics. But when I think of
Catholics in the US, I tend to think of the
working class, you know, immigrants, and a course, you know,
maybe the early Catholics. But but the elites were pretty
(11:05):
much Protestant. So where did these questions come up? I mean,
how many Catholic intellectuals were there? And I don't even know,
you know, in the United States, let's say in the
nineteenth century, you know, who were really in the public discussion.
In other words, these questions of different Catholic and let's
say American approaches to politics aside from a few politicians
(11:29):
like al Smith. Where where did these where these questions
actually discussed, you know, say in the academic world or
in the public foreign in general.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Well, some of them were discussed in the American controversy.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Well, there was there was something of a controversy. Yeah,
but even earlier than that, there was a controversy which
was in the Catholic press. There weren't that many Catholic
intellectuals in the United States in the mid nineteenth century,
but Arrestes Bronson proposed a view of church and state
(12:07):
relations which would have made given I forget the exact
term he used, but it essentially was that the church
has moral authority over the state, and so the state
is actually bound to listen to what the Church says.
And that was considered, I think, if not controversial, at
least inopportune at the time. He shouldn't have been bringing
us up because he could cause trouble. Most Catholics, of course,
(12:30):
were not privy to that kind of conversation, even that
kind of thought, given that they were mostly immigrants that
you pointed out, and generally is struggling to make a living,
but it was there was something of that Bronson at
the time, it was, you know, in a tea pot
of the rather rather heady controversy.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
And who were some of the people. Wasn't a hick
or who was one of the people opposing you?
Speaker 4 (13:00):
It was actually bishops who were coming out opposing Bronson.
And I think the bishops primarily their concern was that
that this is going to cause us trouble. You know,
we're already struggling with nativism as it is in anti Catholicism.
What is this joker bringing up this stuff about the
(13:20):
proper role of the church and state. He should just
keep the mouth shut. So, I don't know if they
actually I don't recall. I don't think they did actually
contradict what he said on a theological level, but tried
to make it clear to the American public that we
are in no way proposing any kind of authority of
the church over the state.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Well that's the same thing as Smith and later John Kennedy.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
Said, yeah, yeah, yeah, and it's and I mean that's
been I mean, I think it's been the question asking
today how can Catholics and can Catholics participate in the
American social order in American political life? That was the
questions being asked in the nineteenth century, and bishops are
(14:06):
going to try to make sure that Catholic could have
their place to the table in the United States. It
seems in many in most cases, in many cases that
was by basically ignoring certain aspects of Catholic teaching. I mean,
when syllabus and errors came out Pious the ninth there was,
you know, rush by the bishops to try to show
(14:28):
that he didn't need America, he didn't need America, he
met other places. And one can understand that, but it
also you know, it's it's one one is left with
the idea that the conviction that bishops were not primarily
concerned about converting the United States, but by to make
(14:50):
it to ease life for the for the Catholics in
the United States, which you know, I was understandable goal.
If you're a bishop, I suppose you know what your
flock in yourself being person cuted.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Well, does this imply that we can only participate if
we follow the rules of others?
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Said? Well, isn't that always the case?
Speaker 6 (15:14):
I mean, really, I mean, if you're if your philosopher,
theological opponents actually control the government, and although they propose
a separation of trip to state, you are really actually
imposing one.
Speaker 4 (15:30):
In another form. I mean, that seems to be the
case that we one have to conclude at least participation
in the political life in the manner in which there
was customery at the time, which was in the mid
nineteenth century. Of course, running for office, it wasn't. There
weren't NGOs and things of that sort.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
There were.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
You You ran for office, and you had to convince
whoever was, whoever, whoever was going to vote for you
that you were not a threat to the you know,
the liberal Protestant order which prevail in the United States
at the time. And I said, I don't blame the
Protestants and even the Liberals for holding that position if
(16:12):
they really hold to be true. I mean, they're doing
just what we would do in the circumstances. I would suppose.
If we think something is true, we're going to we're
going to we're going to promote it, and we're going
to try to fight against that which is not true,
not necessarily by suppression. But we're not going to be
sit back and say, oh, it's all right if you
(16:33):
hold this other opinion. Because we think that opinion is false.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
Yeah, I think you know. The objection I guess I
would raise against cooperating with the political system as it
is is that you know, at best, we're going to
be perceived as somehow insincere. You know that we have
a secret agenda cathodes, the secret agenda of some kind
of what they would call the operacy. Uh, And we're
(17:00):
just pretending to play by the rules for now until
we get power. And I think that suspicion is always
going to be there that we are you know, that
we're papist, you know, crypto ultra montanez or something, you know,
And I don't know how to get around that. On
the other hand, if you just forthrightly say what you
think the order, the political order should be, then you
(17:22):
know you'll be also sort of shunted aside and marginalized.
So I really don't know the answer there.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
Yeah, I mean played out in the last election. Yes,
you played last election with Jade Vance, who is a
Catholicondra and admittedly might not himself know the fine points
of these questions, but he came out and very much
in favor of government helping within vid fertilization. And you know,
(17:54):
at the one and I've can say an interview, but
an interviewer actually said, I asked about these embios that
are made? Are they not human beings? And he just
completely shunted aside of the question. And hold to you know,
if he's going to be in the Trump's administration, and
if Trump's Trump is going to win, he has to
most people United States, I think we'll have no problem
(18:14):
with the beatri of vitalization. And they, in fact, it
seems to them like an answer to crisis of family
life in many cases. So how can you how can
you deny people this, these children when you say you're
so pro family, it's it's you know, you know, for
practical policies, I can see why someone would do it.
(18:34):
But that's that's you're right, that's an example of what
we're up against in terms of participation in political orders.
That suspicion.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Now, yeah, so so of some pots of Catholic politician.
As you say, most people will approve of it.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
So if a galthy politician came out against it, where
would he get You would obviously not get elected if.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
He was for for Read about it.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
Right exactly exactly, and it's gonna be true with abortion too.
I mean, I think, I think if if a Catholic
politician could actually support certain bills which don't which don't
say outlaw abortion out right, but allow but abortion in
(19:29):
certain circumstances, that would be perfectly fine. But can a
politician come out and actually support a bill which actively
permits abortion in certain circumstances. Most politic cathol politians would
say yes, I could, but I think it's an doubtful proposition.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Well, you might be able to frame the law and
such as you suggested a minute to go in terms
of forbidding abortion, say after a certain date, without taking
a stance on one or the other on what happens
before that.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
But to me, this race is a more important question
of what are we to do?
Speaker 6 (20:08):
Then?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Are we just to are we to participate according to
the rules that others make, or are we do to.
Speaker 7 (20:16):
Proclaim loudly and clearly no, we have a whole totally
different approach or what? Well that's a good I mean, uh,
I actually do participate. I am a village councilman for
the for the village of Ohio, population four hundred and
four people.
Speaker 6 (20:36):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
On the level of very local politics, I think it's possible.
But yeah, when you start getting into the higher levels,
like maybe the county supervisory even who knows, you know,
it becomes more difficult. So I guess we have to
ask the question. We have to what is what is
our as Catholics? What is our role in the world
(20:57):
as such? And in the how does that relate to
participation in so short, I mean, what are we supposed
to be doing really in the United States ultimately as Catholics?
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Is it?
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Is it a primarily political mission or is it primarily
something else?
Speaker 3 (21:14):
Yeah, because this really goes beyond I think really what
offices we can hold. For example, in the intellectual life.
I think Catholics would be not welcome in certain associations,
say it's godly associations if we insisted upon advancing a
(21:34):
point of view that was radically at variance with held
by most people. Andrew you could probably speak of it or.
Speaker 5 (21:44):
Well, yeah, I mean I think that that's certainly true.
You know, here in California one feels very much in
a minority. But I think that you know, when you
mentioned we've been looking at politics and politicians, if we
look at a little more broadly, something just came to
my mind, which was in the field of culture, and
(22:07):
there was an article interesting. I think it was by
Dana Joya, but I'm not sure about, you know, the
future of Catholic literary work. And what this author wrote
was that, you know, maybe in this atmosphere, and this
is maybe twenty years ago and the sort of not
quite anti Catholic but certainly not Catholic friendly atmosphere we have,
(22:31):
sometimes the best thing to do is to, you know,
raise questions, raise awkward questions, and just get people to
think and perhaps use satire, perhaps use you know, humor,
And I think, you know, the analogous thing that can
be done in politics is to simply challenge liberals and
conservatives and everyone else to come up with a coherent
(22:55):
set of principles. And I think they would have a
hard time doing that, because, as far as I'm concerned,
the two major political parties do not have a coherent
set of positions or principles. And simply by raising questions,
by asking questions, I think Catholics could do a lot
to get people to thinking, at least in our direction,
you know, in the direction of Catholic thinking, to rationalize
(23:18):
their thought a little bit. I think that that might
actually do a lot of good and clear the atmosphere
and then maybe raise the questions that we think are important.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, we're staying from it.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
In the realm of broader Roman culture, at one time,
as you know, Catholics created almost a parallel society. There
were you know, there was the American Catholic Catholic Philosophical
Association as well as the American Pholoshogical Association.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
In many many other fields, the same thing was true.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Many of those organizations have kind of lost their Catholic identity, if.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
You will, their Catholic edge.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
So it was that was that attempt to build up
a peril Catholic intellectual life and even sportually count the
youth organization instead of globally.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Was that attempt worthwhile? Was that? Is that a way
that we should consider approaching this?
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Obviously it wouldn't work in politics because we can't set
up our own governments.
Speaker 5 (24:18):
Well, what I'm suggesting is is actually the opposite. It's
it's not forming a parallel you know, universal, but participating.
But participating ask critics, ask critics who raise awkward questions,
whether that's in politics or culture, or philosophy or anything else,
as I say, that might be a better role. You know,
when you're in a minority position, you can't set the agenda,
(24:39):
and you can't simply push your agenda over everyone else's.
I mean you can try, but that you will fail.
But what you can do is do what minorities often do,
which is simply, you know, provoke a little bit, ask
the questions, you know, in a sort of socratic way.
Speaker 4 (25:01):
Mhm. Be a gadfly, as it were. But but isn't
it wouldn't be would it be helpful if if we
were had organizations, So it's not just Andrew Sakowski in
the academy being a gadfly. Isolated people, isolate instances, but
(25:24):
ways we can organize ourselves to mutually help ourselves in
that endeavor. You know, have I mean problem with some
of these Catholic groups could be that would become too
parochial and we don't actually really engage in a serious
way a lot of the ideas and thought that's being
proposed in society. But that's just a problem that besets
(25:45):
any kind of organization, I would think. But if if
we could have some kind of organized response faithful to
the magisterium of the church willing to engage the tradition,
you know, the traumas tradition, but other traditions, philosophical, theological,
within the Catholic tradition, those that we could actually form
(26:08):
a group which could mutual support and enforcement of our
you know, a suggestion of how we ought to actually
proceed in what ideas, developed ideas, or adequately respond.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Well.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
We still have a few of these organizations, and a
few of them were more or less uh still Catholic.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Some of them I think have totally abandoned h they're
a Catholic identity.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
But I think the American Catholic Philosophical Associations somewhat resolutely calic.
Speaker 5 (26:45):
Still another of professional associations too, you know, lawyers, doctors.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
Andrew, are you a member of the American Cathic Historical Associations.
Speaker 5 (26:56):
I lost for a while. I mean, I was perfectly
happy with it, but then I moved and under fell out.
I wasn't really very active later, but but yeah, I
mean I was. They have a very nice journal, and
they would have meetings and so on. But it was
one for people who are really actively in you know,
teaching in universities, which I was not.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
It wasn't still reasonably robuston's Catholic identity.
Speaker 5 (27:25):
I think it was, as far as I could tell,
I mean, there was a variety of views, but it
was definitely there was a Catholic orientation there as far
as I could tell. Yeah, I mean, I'm just based
on I went to one meeting mate, you know, maybe,
but basically my opinion is based on the journal. And
the journal had some you know, very valuable and interesting
(27:47):
you know, material, which you know it wasn't I mean,
I wouldn't say it, but sort of strictly always following
Catholic you know, let's say, philosophical principles that as I say,
there was a variety of us, but I didn't find
that it was straying from a Catholic identity.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
But I mean, if you can move from the academy
into public intellectuals so called, I mean, the problem we
find we faces problem we brought up. I think our
last show is the tendency is to split orthodox and
unorthodox amongst Catholics along political the greater political divisions our
(28:31):
positions become. We tend because of our political divisions and
our allies, we tend to adopt one side or the
other end, the current debates, political and social debates, and
I think that's something that just really undermines any really
effective Catholic response. I mean, do I have to I
(28:52):
don't know. We pointed out last time. Do I have
to be wary of organized labor because I'm pro abortion?
I'm a type ortion obviously not. I mean the Catholic
Catholic tradition is not. But that's what we see, or
at least if we're not wary of it, we deemphasize it.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
We don't.
Speaker 4 (29:10):
Catholic Orthodox people do not actually actively engage in questions
of labor anymore. It's not not an interest. Questions of war,
questions of healthcare, other things. I mean, maybe do do
health care, but we don't. We don't.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
We don't.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
We were content with following the broader lines of our society.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
I think that you know, the what what we learned
in in the our last session with Byron Lewis was
that most people in America think along in sort of
these tribal lines, and they have lineups of positions which
are liberal or conservative, and those positions are not internally coherent.
(30:04):
So again, I think what we as Catholics can do is.
You know, we have to present the full spectrum of
our view, of our positions, and so as you say,
you know, if you're going to talk about abortion, you
should also talk about labor. You should also talk about
you know, immigration, or whatever whatever position you take. You
have to show first of all full spectrum of positions.
(30:25):
And in doing so, you can show that the Catholic
positions line up logically, whereas the standard of tribal positions,
as Byron Lewis told call them, do not line up logically.
And I think you can do a lot of good
simply by demolishing those incoherent tribal sets of opinions. I mean,
(30:50):
when I meet people and they learn that I'm a Catholic,
they immediately make assumptions about, you know, what my position
is politically, you know, and then I have to correct them,
you know, because we are perceived as belonging to one
or the other of the tribes, you know, And I
think we need to again, you know, we can serve
a very useful purpose in American politics and thinking by
(31:13):
showing that the at least a coherent Catholic position as
opposed to the incoherent positions of liberals conservatives left and right.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
How do you get Catholics to buy into that project
of abandoning the tribes?
Speaker 5 (31:30):
Good question.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
Yeah, yeah, at one time, well, I mean, please go ahead.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
No, Well, one time, obviously, cathol Church was very involved
with labor question, and there were priests or labor priests
who devoted the main part of their hostilate to helping
labor unions, guiding labor unions.
Speaker 4 (31:57):
And so on.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
So at one time, imperfectly to be sure, because we
were always compromised, But at one time there was a
kind of I mean, what would be conceived as a
disconnect by the larger culture, and we were we were
not ashamed of that, but it all dissolved.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
I think after the Council.
Speaker 4 (32:26):
Yeah, I think there's I mean, there was a task
of clarification of thought that we have to undergo and promote.
And I mean what we're doing today as I attempt
at that. I don't think we're going to create a
movement from this. But the clarification of thought is to
what actually are the deep, deep philosophical principles underlying the
(32:48):
Catholic position. If we get those down, it's much easier
to address the particular questions. Otherwise we're just dealing with
the one issue after another. We're happy to come up
with new principle, new arguments without that are not necessarily
rooted in any coherent vision of society or vision of
(33:09):
the good. So, I mean, how you do that is
one question. But the fact that I think it has
to be done, it's montally clear.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
What do you think is fair to say that the
crooks of the issue.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Would be between to put it very cruelly, between Thomas
Aquinas and John Locke.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
I think so.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
I think what it kind of comes down finally comes
down to is the question what is the common good?
And I think everybody believes in a common good. I
think the American system was founded on a kind of
belief in the common good. The question is ultimately, what
does the common good hold primacy over the individual? That
(33:59):
or not so in the United States, for instance, been
pointed out by a certain conservative Americans who call them
that that it's abundantly clear that the founders believe in
the common good, mainly those institutions of society which serve
the good of society. Well, it seems to me I
would argue that, yes, they did believe in that kind
(34:20):
of a common good. But they saw the common good
as existing to create a kind of structure in which
the individual good can flourish. So the common good actually
existed for the sake of the personal good individual good. Likewise,
religion had the same thing, the same problem. Religion is
a good thing, they all said, and we should encourage religion.
(34:44):
But religion's ultimate's purpose was the inculcation of those virtues
which aren't necessary for republic. So there's a question of
the primacy of which good is the primary primary And
I would argue from from Thomas, I think this is
and is deeply part of the Catholic way of looking
at society, that notion of the primacy of the common good.
(35:08):
And we can impact what that means. But because be misunderstood,
it could leads with certain false conclusions. But I think
that's the key. So John Locke is the privacy of
the individual good, and to degree our society follows John Locke,
that's what they see liberty. Liberty is the highest good
for the Catholic Church. Liberty is a good or for
(35:30):
individual freedom is a good, but it's instrumental good and
it's not the final good. The final good is what
we call the common good.
Speaker 5 (35:37):
Do you think that the I mean, you know, when
you raise that question of what should be the philosophical
basis of our political activity or activity in society in general,
I would you know, first of all, look to the bishops.
I mean, the bishops are there to instruct and I
don't know the answer to this question. Do you think
(35:57):
that the bishops have done that? Have they resented a
philosophical basis for our political and general social activity? And
have they instructed Catholics in the US on how to
do that?
Speaker 4 (36:12):
I would say no, bishops, But yeah, they haven't.
Speaker 3 (36:20):
Because that's unfortunately, sadly, I think the bishops are either
afraid to say anything, or they're.
Speaker 4 (36:27):
Clueless, or they have sometimes I mean the blunt they
have supporters monetary who are hold to one of the tribes,
and so they're going to they'll kind of limit themselves
to those talking points. But also, I mean the bishops
might not know much. I mean, we we always we
(36:49):
can't assume that the bishops are are not infected by
this sort of thing. They become from society, our clergy
in the society, and they're heavily in flow. It's a
matter of somehow the the dishops have to be properly
instruct we have to catechize the bishops.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
Yeah, the I mean, I think the the education of
the clergy doesn't as far as I understand, it doesn't
really address any of these questions. Uh, except maybe in
a very very formal way where the disjunction is not
even touched upon or.
Speaker 4 (37:36):
H yeah, yeah, I mean if you're going to be
if you're a Catholic, what are you suppose?
Speaker 3 (37:44):
What?
Speaker 4 (37:45):
What are their political issues? I'm a criticizing political istion.
I just pointed them out. Abortion, of course is the
top one. Biomedical ethics is another big one. Things like
the I can't I draw a blank, but you know,
(38:05):
you know what I'm saying is that there are certain
issues which were supposed to be concerned about, and everything
else is to be it is left up just to
private opinion as to how question immigration, I mean, for
immigration is a much more difficult one. But nevertheless, there
is a kind of Catholic understanding of immigration and the
(38:26):
right of migration which has to be unpacked, and it's
not what is being presented by either of the major parties.
When the bishops address it, they often dress in terms
of gospel values and compassion, which are fine and it
ought to be addressed. They have to be consulted. But
there's also questions of strict strict justice which have to
(38:47):
be a consulted too, and they're not. I don't find
that they're doing that really. So it's an appeal to
the heart rather than to the head, and that's not
going to work in the end.
Speaker 5 (38:58):
Well, I mean that explains a lot of the hit confused,
and I think the problem there is that the general
opinion among non Catholics is that, you know, Catholics focus
on one or two issues and that's it, and then
otherwise they kind of perceived them as being, you know,
again just another tribe. And I think if the bishops,
you know, maybe the bishops should just limit themselves to
(39:19):
general principles rather than trying to resolve complicated policy problems.
I appreciate that, but I think still there there somebody
has to be able to take those principles and apply
them broadly to a series of issues. You know, maybe
it's Catholic intellectuals, but how about Catholic public intellectuals. How
are they doing Are they playing that role of maybe
(39:42):
you know, putting forth a Catholic position on a whole
range of issues.
Speaker 3 (39:48):
Well, many of them are trivably compromised now as you,
as you both know, recently there's been there's been this
postliberalism or integralism movement arising among certain Catholic public intellectuals.
Speaker 2 (40:06):
And no I've been identified with this.
Speaker 4 (40:09):
To some degree.
Speaker 3 (40:11):
But it has many broad as, many different facets to it,
and some of them I would agree with, some of
them I wouldn't. But it at least was an attempt
to apply Catholic teaching on the social order and to
reaffirm it, I should say, and to begin to think
about how it might be applied. Some of these some
(40:33):
of the of the attempted applications or suggested applications were
just ridiculous, but some of them. But I guess I
would say in general, it's a good idea that we
talk about these things.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
As long as we do it reasonably. Yeah, and we
have What we have to do is we have to
do the hard work of trying to see what's right
and what our opponents say and embracing that within the principle.
See how we can how can we embrace that within
the principles we espouse. I think that was one of
(41:08):
the things that happened after the French Revolution. There was
a period of reaction after put Pious the seventh that
where the papacy and Catholic intellectuals just reacted against the
French Revolution and wanted just to restore the old throw
in an altar regime without seeing that may in some
(41:28):
cases that there were, at least in terms of particular issues,
particular goods, the liberals might have been proposing something which
was important but was fundamentally flawed because it was drawn
for false principles. Of course, then you pour Pious the
ninth discovered that when you try to accommodate the liberals,
(41:48):
you get driven out of your city. So there was
that aspect of too much complicated matters. But yet that
kind of spirit of reaction which I think was beginning
to be dressed, and a lot of part of the
nineteenth century, especially bank probably the thirteenth it was it
was it was was important actually try to see what's
(42:12):
right in what the other side says, well, not succumbing
to the principles which they hold.
Speaker 3 (42:20):
Yeah, that Leonine program that lasted with different empasies on
different pontiffs up through the sixties.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
In the beginning of the sixties at least was to
me one of the remarkable epics in the history of.
Speaker 3 (42:36):
The Church, where it seemed like to some degree of
the iarnity was actually being uh turned back, that county
principles were actually gaining some acceptance and at least recognition
is not just stupid. But then we've we've thrown that away,
We've embraced one of the other one or the other
(42:57):
of the political cultural tribes, and so there aren't very
many people who are even asking the right questions, I think.
But I was to guess that, well, go ahead, go ahead,
I was just gonna say I was briefly suggest that.
Speaker 2 (43:15):
But but you can go back to what we were saying.
Speaker 3 (43:18):
But I was suggest that right now we need to
work on the broader cultural philosophical questions and try to
get some hearing for those, rather than addressing the specific
political questions, because that was going to alienate people.
Speaker 4 (43:39):
Well, I think there's a way of doing it. I mean,
this might sound crazy, but I'll say it anyhow. I
think if there was a way of forming a kind
of Catholic political movement more or less organized which uh
(44:00):
us the concrete issues in society from the Catholic perspective,
and supported say, certain movements rather than others, certain issues
rather than others, simply on the level of the issues themselves,
not necessarily in the immediate may like align with groups
(44:22):
the labor pro labor groups, for instance, helping with the
organization of new labor groups or proper labor legislation in
the life from Catholic principles, but temporarily aligning itself with
certain groups for certain very limited ends. That would go far,
(44:43):
because what it would show is that if these are
actually drawn, if the groups the sponsor actually really drawn
from Catholic principles and Catholic social teaching, it might awaken
people say, well, look at the Catholics are all over
the map when it comes to issues. They're not just
concerned about They're not just concerned about unborn babies. They're
concerned about war, they're concerned about immigrants, they're concerned about labor,
(45:08):
helping the starving in a way which accords with distributive
justice in society. And that might way can people say, well,
what what's these people are awfully strange? What is it
that makes them so strange. What is why can they
how can they hold all these positions which we all
think are contradictory positions. I'm not how you would form
such a group, but that I think imagine such a
(45:31):
group existing and not being allied with any of the
major It's not permanently allied with any of the major
force in society. We're not Republicans, we're not Democrats, or
we don't belong to with the ACLU, but we might
back the same issues as the ACLU would pack in
certain circumstances, but we keep ourselves independent. I don't know
(45:53):
what this is sound insane or is it?
Speaker 2 (45:56):
But you don't mean a political party though?
Speaker 4 (46:01):
No, not a political party, No, a political action committee.
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (46:07):
Well, I think you say a movement, you know, something
something like the right leorn. I fully agree, and I
think it's an excellent idea. Would you call it a movement?
Speaker 2 (46:22):
Would you call it?
Speaker 3 (46:23):
What?
Speaker 2 (46:24):
Would you call it a movement?
Speaker 5 (46:25):
I mean, you know, there have been movements in Europe.
I mean that's completely different societies we're talking about, But
there have been movements which were not political parties, which
you know had influence. I'm just wondering is Is that
what you're thinking of some kind of you know, not
so formal phenomenon.
Speaker 4 (46:43):
Yeah, yeah, I mean means so like m Catholic Action
without the heavy hand of the clergy over it. I
don't think we need to we ought to be subservient
to the clergy in this. We have to be subservient
to the clergy as far as they teach their magisterial authority, obviously,
but we don't have to be like Catholic Action is
(47:04):
so firmly under the hierarchy. I think we've justly and
great rightly been freed from that sort of thing since,
you know, since the mid last century. But something maybe
like Catholic action, yeah, a political in a way, because
it's not a political party, it's a political movement.
Speaker 3 (47:22):
Well, with this, what would would would you have this
movement enunciate the deep philosophical.
Speaker 2 (47:31):
Sources of these positions or just be more or less
at hool.
Speaker 4 (47:36):
No, I would be both in terms of political action
the ad hook in terms of but there would be
an aspect behind it. We'd have to we want to
clarify those clarify those positions. What are ad hoc interventions
based upon our principles and so it would provide a
(47:57):
means by which people could ask the question, why do
they hold these seemingly disparate positions, seemly contradictory positions like
right to right to life, the rights right to just
wage people think are contradictory. Why do they hold these? What?
Speaker 6 (48:14):
What? What?
Speaker 4 (48:14):
What's with motivating? And I don't know how many people
to ask that question, but certainly some people would ask
that question, and we could give them the answer. We'd say,
this is why we.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
Hold this, so we haven't asked by wat.
Speaker 4 (48:25):
I think that too, Yeah, except it will also have
to be an engage in action. I mean, we might
be on with picket signs on certain certain protests, right,
we might issue statements to the Congress about things, this
(48:45):
is our position on this. We think you ought to
support this bill or vote down this bill. That kind
of thing.
Speaker 2 (48:55):
Would be.
Speaker 5 (48:57):
Sorry, sorry I interrupted.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
Ahead, that's fine.
Speaker 5 (49:02):
So I would think that maybe a few, you know,
if you had some of these public intellectuals involved, uh,
you know, a few good op eds you know and
in the mainstream preth for what It's worth or or
on social media, would would make an impact because that
would really reach a lot of people. And you know,
frankly in the US, so much is I think depends
(49:27):
on the lead opinions. So if you're reaching you know,
certain social groups, that managerial elite or whoever it is,
you know you could at least make some impact there
on people who do actually read you know, read newspapers
or or or follow high level discussions.
Speaker 3 (49:47):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (49:48):
And you know that that's one way to make an
impact simply in the intellectual.
Speaker 4 (49:54):
M HM. And the I mean hope is I mean,
I think we all this the first people we have
to address in the industrial over the Catholics themselves. I mean,
Catholics don't even know there are Church's tradition and a
lot of these things. And I mean the hard thing
obviously is going to be there's gonna be some questions
which we agree on the principles, we don't agree on
(50:14):
the application. And how do you or I organize that
in terms of your intervention? That's that's another entirely different question.
There's gonna be a lot of difficulties in doing anything
like this, and we probably need somebody with a more
practical political shabby and we maybe the three of us
have to organize something like this. But we yeah, it's
(50:39):
it's I think it's doable, right, Yeah, you have to.
Speaker 3 (50:46):
If I'm hearing you right, it would have almost two
sides to it, an intellectual side and.
Speaker 4 (50:52):
Uh the side that goes out in tickets. Right, so related,
we'd send you Tom in the picket line. Yeah, tell
me what are our public intellectuals and so it?
Speaker 2 (51:13):
Andrew?
Speaker 3 (51:16):
Yeah, we well, I guess we're in our in our
minor way, we're all trying to do that with this, uh,
with our open door.
Speaker 2 (51:26):
Uh was the last letter. We haven't had a big
impact yet.
Speaker 3 (51:30):
But.
Speaker 4 (51:31):
Who it's coming. It's coming for sure. Okay, Andrew, do
you have any uh final thoughts because or something?
Speaker 5 (51:43):
But no, not forget the bullet go ahead because of her.
Speaker 4 (51:50):
Oh I just say where we have impacts. We're also
good looking. Well we exude you.
Speaker 2 (52:04):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (52:05):
So I think it has been a noble discussion and
maybe somebody else can take our ideas and run with them.
I'm not too good at organizing things. But our next
open door is going to be on April, the week
(52:27):
of April twenty three, probably on the twenty fifth, which
is the South Friday, with Professor Chad Decknoll of Gothic
University talking about some of the questions about theology and
the relationship between theology and philosophy. And we will, I hope,
(52:48):
have more of these discussions on one of the three
of us in the future. So again, gentlemen, thank you
very much, and we look forward to the next time.
I say commit our our work and everything we do
to our lady with a hill Mary and the fathers
(53:09):
Hill Mary, full of grace.
Speaker 2 (53:11):
The Lord is with me.
Speaker 3 (53:12):
Blessed women, and blessed is the Gorilla womb. Jesus only
very Mother of God, pray for us. There's now amen.
Speaker 1 (53:25):
Hello, God's beloved. I'm Annabel Moseley, author, professor of theology
and host of then Sings My Soul and Destination Sainthood
on w c AT Radio. I invite you to listen
in and find inspiration along this sacred journey. We're traveling
together to make our lives a masterpiece and with God's grace,
(53:47):
become saints. Join me Annabel Moseley for then Sings My
Soul and Destination Sainthood on w c AT Radio. God
bless you. Remember you're never alone. God is always with him.
Speaker 2 (54:07):
Thank you for listening to a production of WCAT Radio.
Please join us in our mission of evangelization, and don't
forget Love lifts up where knowledge takes flight.
You're listening to WCAT radio, your home for authentic Catholic programming.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Welcome to the Open.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Door with your host Thomas Stewart, the co hosts, Christopher
z Ainder and Andrews hur Rakowski, will begin as usual
with our prayer, Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of
your faithful and kindle them to the fire of your love.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created. And
you showing you the face of the.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Earth, Let us spray, Oh God, let us talk the
hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit.
Grant in the same spirit we may be truly wise,
and everybody rejoiced in his consolation through Christ, our Lord, Amen,
your name of the Father Son, Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Amen.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Well, today, while we're doing twenty something new on the
Open Door, instead of having a guest author or commentators,
the three of us, the three hosts, and are going
to talk about a very important question the participation of
Catholics in the American polity, and is not simply the
(01:05):
political order, but the whole American system of institutions, culture,
and including the of course the political order. And I
think i'd like to begin with a quotation that's probably
known to many of our listeners. Famous quotations from Professor
(01:26):
Arthur's Senior, who remarked to Monseignor John Tracy Ellis, he said,
I regard the prejudice against your church as the deepest
bias in the history of the American people. Now, what
I think is significant about that quote is not that
(01:47):
Slessser said, I regard prejudice against Catholics, but I regard
prejudice against the.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Catholic Church, i e.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Not Catholics as individuals, but the whole system of Catholic
not just theology, but everything that flows from our theological
stance or understanding of God, or understanding of Man, or
understanding of the social order and so on. So I
if this is true, there is a deep disconnect between
(02:19):
the ordinary American way of looking at these matters and
that which historically has been part of our Catholic heritage.
So as I see it, that would frame our discussions today.
So we have a couple of questions. Can we participate
without selling out our heritage? And what really is the
(02:42):
difference here? What are we talking about.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
In terms of the difference between the these two conceptions
of life.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
So with that introduction, I'll invite my co hosts to
speak up if they like.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
I think maybe we have to identify what is the
source of that prejudice or that disconnect. What what is
in in the United States culture, political theory and the like,
which makes what would make Americans? And what is what
(03:23):
is what is it in the Catholic understanding of these
things that may that would suggest that Catholics would be
considered suspect in American system or in the Catholic Church especially,
that means what what is It's simply a matter that
most Catholic, most Americans were Protestant, or is it a
(03:44):
matter of whether something else is there is another source
of that attention.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
I think I could say that, you know, without maybe
answering that question. I think there are a couple of
approaches to that question we could take. The one that
comes to mind first is, of course, that whole suspicion
that Catholics individually or the church itself are not loyal,
that they are loyal to Rome and not to Washington.
(04:18):
And you know, that was a big issue in the twenties.
It's connected with immigration, and I think that brings us
to the whole question of conceptions of church and state
relationship between church and state. We have obviously, although it's
not in our constitution, we do have some kind of
separation between church and state that obviously has not always
(04:41):
been the case in Catholic countries, or that has in France,
for example. So I think that's one aspect to look
at church and state. Another one we might bring in
is attitudes towards law, because we have a different tradition here.
I mean, you can identify or not identified with Protestantism,
(05:02):
but obviously it's the English common law tradition, and it's
the American tradition of positive law and laws being not
connected with philosophical principles on the continent, of course, it's
completely different. But I'm just throwing those out as possible
avenues of approach to the question that you have just
supposed Do.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
You think do you think it has anything to do
with the fact that, I mean, the United States was
traditionally regarded as the country of modernity for excellence, the
country of modernity was fully realized, and the Catholic tradition
obviously was formed the way way before modernity.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Is this is this is this a.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Source of conflict that when we're at our best when
we're upholding our true tradition, we're upholding something that is
deeply at odd with modernity.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
What do you mean by in this case modernity? What
even more specific.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Well, we regard the philosophical and especially the political phosopical
revolution of the seventeen and eighteenth centuries, where instead of
coming to see the social order as almost like a family,
which is kind of the traditional way of looking at
it throughout the world, not just in Europe, for Christian Europe,
(06:26):
but I think you could probably say broadly speaking everywhere
in the world until in ironity, when it became seen
as more of a collection of individuals and the state
was in Locke. Well, I would I always think of
Lucke as the as the primary expositor of this, or
at least the most articulate expositor of this approach, where
(06:50):
the state is simply the guaranteur of individual freedom, and
that man human nature is essentially a social and we
are our true our true natural state is not in
a polity, is in a society political society, but rather
(07:11):
in the so called state of nature, the alleged state
of nature, and this and the the collectivity, which is
a state exists primarily to enhance those natural freedoms, as
they would Colvin. So to me that is kind of
the I mean, it goes back, it has which in
other parts of philosophy too, But as for our purposes
(07:33):
to day, perhaps we should think of it as in
terms of political.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
Philosophy, m right, which encompasses not just what we call politics,
but the life of the police, is the life of society,
culture and everything else. Mm hmm correct.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Yeah, I mean, if if Lacke is correctly that man's
true state is asocial, then that has I think profound
implications for what the life of society is to be like,
and how society can't.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Really pursue joint goals. It's always my goal in your
goal and his goal and in your goal.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
Yeah, I think I think what Andrew pointed out is
probably it doesn't. Actually it's not as if necessarily the
Americans grasped the principles that Catholics were operating on, but
they were grasped certain of the realities. Because we talked
about separation church and state, which Andrew brought up. It
wasn't simply just medieval society which didn't live by a
(08:42):
distinction between church and state, or at least the same
distinction we would make. But it was actually papal teaching
that and you see that in the eighteenth and beginning
of the eighteenth century, especially in the nineteenth century, where
there was insistence upon a union of church state of
some kind. So they you know, you have the Protestant
(09:05):
prejudice of the papal power in terms of religion, coupled
with what was clearly in the tradition of the Catholic
faith and also in the teachings early of the Pontous
of that period expressions of a real ordering of the
state under the Church.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
I think that was based on certain deeper philosophical principles.
I could see that that was you know, when Andrew
pointed out was that's probably was probably an initial key
to it.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, well, go ahead of no sorry, oh no, no, but.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
How did display out I mean when Al Smifrin for
president in nineteen twenty eight or the year before, actually
a Protestant attorney. This is an exchange that is not
as well known as ought to be. But a Protestant
attorney run in an article in The Atlantic challenging Smith
on some of these questions that you just mentioned, and
(10:08):
he included copious quotations in his article from Peoples. And
when Smith replied the next month in the same journal,
he said, I want right, do I have to vouch
for every thing has ever presented in the papal And
so Smith probably wasn't himself unaware of one of these things.
(10:28):
But nonetheless, the attorney I think his name is Charles
Marshall was his name?
Speaker 2 (10:33):
He uh, he had a point. I think, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 5 (10:42):
In either of you may be give some specifics on
how these things came up. I mean, you just gave
an example of how this came up at a very
high level in US politics. But when I think of
Catholics in the US, I tend to think of the
working class, you know, immigrants, and a course, you know,
maybe the early Catholics. But but the elites were pretty
(11:05):
much Protestant. So where did these questions come up? I mean,
how many Catholic intellectuals were there? And I don't even know,
you know, in the United States, let's say in the
nineteenth century, you know, who were really in the public discussion.
In other words, these questions of different Catholic and let's
say American approaches to politics aside from a few politicians
(11:29):
like al Smith. Where where did these where these questions
actually discussed, you know, say in the academic world or
in the public foreign in general.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Well, some of them were discussed in the American controversy.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Well, there was there was something of a controversy. Yeah,
but even earlier than that, there was a controversy which
was in the Catholic press. There weren't that many Catholic
intellectuals in the United States in the mid nineteenth century,
but Arrestes Bronson proposed a view of church and state
(12:07):
relations which would have made given I forget the exact
term he used, but it essentially was that the church
has moral authority over the state, and so the state
is actually bound to listen to what the Church says.
And that was considered, I think, if not controversial, at
least inopportune at the time. He shouldn't have been bringing
us up because he could cause trouble. Most Catholics, of course,
(12:30):
were not privy to that kind of conversation, even that
kind of thought, given that they were mostly immigrants that
you pointed out, and generally is struggling to make a living,
but it was there was something of that Bronson at
the time, it was, you know, in a tea pot
of the rather rather heady controversy.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
And who were some of the people. Wasn't a hick
or who was one of the people opposing you?
Speaker 4 (13:00):
It was actually bishops who were coming out opposing Bronson.
And I think the bishops primarily their concern was that
that this is going to cause us trouble. You know,
we're already struggling with nativism as it is in anti Catholicism.
What is this joker bringing up this stuff about the
(13:20):
proper role of the church and state. He should just
keep the mouth shut. So, I don't know if they
actually I don't recall. I don't think they did actually
contradict what he said on a theological level, but tried
to make it clear to the American public that we
are in no way proposing any kind of authority of
the church over the state.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Well that's the same thing as Smith and later John Kennedy.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
Said, yeah, yeah, yeah, and it's and I mean that's
been I mean, I think it's been the question asking
today how can Catholics and can Catholics participate in the
American social order in American political life? That was the
questions being asked in the nineteenth century, and bishops are
(14:06):
going to try to make sure that Catholic could have
their place to the table in the United States. It
seems in many in most cases, in many cases that
was by basically ignoring certain aspects of Catholic teaching. I mean,
when syllabus and errors came out Pious the ninth there was,
you know, rush by the bishops to try to show
(14:28):
that he didn't need America, he didn't need America, he
met other places. And one can understand that, but it
also you know, it's it's one one is left with
the idea that the conviction that bishops were not primarily
concerned about converting the United States, but by to make
(14:50):
it to ease life for the for the Catholics in
the United States, which you know, I was understandable goal.
If you're a bishop, I suppose you know what your
flock in yourself being person cuted.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Well, does this imply that we can only participate if
we follow the rules of others?
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Said? Well, isn't that always the case?
Speaker 6 (15:14):
I mean, really, I mean, if you're if your philosopher,
theological opponents actually control the government, and although they propose
a separation of trip to state, you are really actually
imposing one.
Speaker 4 (15:30):
In another form. I mean, that seems to be the
case that we one have to conclude at least participation
in the political life in the manner in which there
was customery at the time, which was in the mid
nineteenth century. Of course, running for office, it wasn't. There
weren't NGOs and things of that sort.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
There were.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
You You ran for office, and you had to convince
whoever was, whoever, whoever was going to vote for you
that you were not a threat to the you know,
the liberal Protestant order which prevail in the United States
at the time. And I said, I don't blame the
Protestants and even the Liberals for holding that position if
(16:12):
they really hold to be true. I mean, they're doing
just what we would do in the circumstances. I would suppose.
If we think something is true, we're going to we're
going to we're going to promote it, and we're going
to try to fight against that which is not true,
not necessarily by suppression. But we're not going to be
sit back and say, oh, it's all right if you
(16:33):
hold this other opinion. Because we think that opinion is false.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
Yeah, I think you know. The objection I guess I
would raise against cooperating with the political system as it
is is that you know, at best, we're going to
be perceived as somehow insincere. You know that we have
a secret agenda cathodes, the secret agenda of some kind
of what they would call the operacy. Uh, And we're
(17:00):
just pretending to play by the rules for now until
we get power. And I think that suspicion is always
going to be there that we are you know, that
we're papist, you know, crypto ultra montanez or something, you know,
And I don't know how to get around that. On
the other hand, if you just forthrightly say what you
think the order, the political order should be, then you
(17:22):
know you'll be also sort of shunted aside and marginalized.
So I really don't know the answer there.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
Yeah, I mean played out in the last election. Yes,
you played last election with Jade Vance, who is a
Catholicondra and admittedly might not himself know the fine points
of these questions, but he came out and very much
in favor of government helping within vid fertilization. And you know,
(17:54):
at the one and I've can say an interview, but
an interviewer actually said, I asked about these embios that
are made? Are they not human beings? And he just
completely shunted aside of the question. And hold to you know,
if he's going to be in the Trump's administration, and
if Trump's Trump is going to win, he has to
most people United States, I think we'll have no problem
(18:14):
with the beatri of vitalization. And they, in fact, it
seems to them like an answer to crisis of family
life in many cases. So how can you how can
you deny people this, these children when you say you're
so pro family, it's it's you know, you know, for
practical policies, I can see why someone would do it.
(18:34):
But that's that's you're right, that's an example of what
we're up against in terms of participation in political orders.
That suspicion.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Now, yeah, so so of some pots of Catholic politician.
As you say, most people will approve of it.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
So if a galthy politician came out against it, where
would he get You would obviously not get elected if.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
He was for for Read about it.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
Right exactly exactly, and it's gonna be true with abortion too.
I mean, I think, I think if if a Catholic
politician could actually support certain bills which don't which don't
say outlaw abortion out right, but allow but abortion in
(19:29):
certain circumstances, that would be perfectly fine. But can a
politician come out and actually support a bill which actively
permits abortion in certain circumstances. Most politic cathol politians would
say yes, I could, but I think it's an doubtful proposition.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Well, you might be able to frame the law and
such as you suggested a minute to go in terms
of forbidding abortion, say after a certain date, without taking
a stance on one or the other on what happens
before that.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
But to me, this race is a more important question
of what are we to do?
Speaker 6 (20:08):
Then?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Are we just to are we to participate according to
the rules that others make, or are we do to.
Speaker 7 (20:16):
Proclaim loudly and clearly no, we have a whole totally
different approach or what? Well that's a good I mean, uh,
I actually do participate. I am a village councilman for
the for the village of Ohio, population four hundred and
four people.
Speaker 6 (20:36):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
On the level of very local politics, I think it's possible.
But yeah, when you start getting into the higher levels,
like maybe the county supervisory even who knows, you know,
it becomes more difficult. So I guess we have to
ask the question. We have to what is what is
our as Catholics? What is our role in the world
(20:57):
as such? And in the how does that relate to
participation in so short, I mean, what are we supposed
to be doing really in the United States ultimately as Catholics?
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Is it?
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Is it a primarily political mission or is it primarily
something else?
Speaker 3 (21:14):
Yeah, because this really goes beyond I think really what
offices we can hold. For example, in the intellectual life.
I think Catholics would be not welcome in certain associations,
say it's godly associations if we insisted upon advancing a
(21:34):
point of view that was radically at variance with held
by most people. Andrew you could probably speak of it or.
Speaker 5 (21:44):
Well, yeah, I mean I think that that's certainly true.
You know, here in California one feels very much in
a minority. But I think that you know, when you
mentioned we've been looking at politics and politicians, if we
look at a little more broadly, something just came to
my mind, which was in the field of culture, and
(22:07):
there was an article interesting. I think it was by
Dana Joya, but I'm not sure about, you know, the
future of Catholic literary work. And what this author wrote
was that, you know, maybe in this atmosphere, and this
is maybe twenty years ago and the sort of not
quite anti Catholic but certainly not Catholic friendly atmosphere we have,
(22:31):
sometimes the best thing to do is to, you know,
raise questions, raise awkward questions, and just get people to
think and perhaps use satire, perhaps use you know, humor,
And I think, you know, the analogous thing that can
be done in politics is to simply challenge liberals and
conservatives and everyone else to come up with a coherent
(22:55):
set of principles. And I think they would have a
hard time doing that, because, as far as I'm concerned,
the two major political parties do not have a coherent
set of positions or principles. And simply by raising questions,
by asking questions, I think Catholics could do a lot
to get people to thinking, at least in our direction,
you know, in the direction of Catholic thinking, to rationalize
(23:18):
their thought a little bit. I think that that might
actually do a lot of good and clear the atmosphere
and then maybe raise the questions that we think are important.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, we're staying from it.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
In the realm of broader Roman culture, at one time,
as you know, Catholics created almost a parallel society. There
were you know, there was the American Catholic Catholic Philosophical
Association as well as the American Pholoshogical Association.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
In many many other fields, the same thing was true.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Many of those organizations have kind of lost their Catholic identity, if.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
You will, their Catholic edge.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
So it was that was that attempt to build up
a peril Catholic intellectual life and even sportually count the
youth organization instead of globally.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Was that attempt worthwhile? Was that? Is that a way
that we should consider approaching this?
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Obviously it wouldn't work in politics because we can't set
up our own governments.
Speaker 5 (24:18):
Well, what I'm suggesting is is actually the opposite. It's
it's not forming a parallel you know, universal, but participating.
But participating ask critics, ask critics who raise awkward questions,
whether that's in politics or culture, or philosophy or anything else,
as I say, that might be a better role. You know,
when you're in a minority position, you can't set the agenda,
(24:39):
and you can't simply push your agenda over everyone else's.
I mean you can try, but that you will fail.
But what you can do is do what minorities often do,
which is simply, you know, provoke a little bit, ask
the questions, you know, in a sort of socratic way.
Speaker 4 (25:01):
Mhm. Be a gadfly, as it were. But but isn't
it wouldn't be would it be helpful if if we
were had organizations, So it's not just Andrew Sakowski in
the academy being a gadfly. Isolated people, isolate instances, but
(25:24):
ways we can organize ourselves to mutually help ourselves in
that endeavor. You know, have I mean problem with some
of these Catholic groups could be that would become too
parochial and we don't actually really engage in a serious
way a lot of the ideas and thought that's being
proposed in society. But that's just a problem that besets
(25:45):
any kind of organization, I would think. But if if
we could have some kind of organized response faithful to
the magisterium of the church willing to engage the tradition,
you know, the traumas tradition, but other traditions, philosophical, theological,
within the Catholic tradition, those that we could actually form
(26:08):
a group which could mutual support and enforcement of our
you know, a suggestion of how we ought to actually
proceed in what ideas, developed ideas, or adequately respond.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Well.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
We still have a few of these organizations, and a
few of them were more or less uh still Catholic.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Some of them I think have totally abandoned h they're
a Catholic identity.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
But I think the American Catholic Philosophical Associations somewhat resolutely calic.
Speaker 5 (26:45):
Still another of professional associations too, you know, lawyers, doctors.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
Andrew, are you a member of the American Cathic Historical Associations.
Speaker 5 (26:56):
I lost for a while. I mean, I was perfectly
happy with it, but then I moved and under fell out.
I wasn't really very active later, but but yeah, I
mean I was. They have a very nice journal, and
they would have meetings and so on. But it was
one for people who are really actively in you know,
teaching in universities, which I was not.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
It wasn't still reasonably robuston's Catholic identity.
Speaker 5 (27:25):
I think it was, as far as I could tell,
I mean, there was a variety of views, but it
was definitely there was a Catholic orientation there as far
as I could tell. Yeah, I mean, I'm just based
on I went to one meeting mate, you know, maybe,
but basically my opinion is based on the journal. And
the journal had some you know, very valuable and interesting
(27:47):
you know, material, which you know it wasn't I mean,
I wouldn't say it, but sort of strictly always following
Catholic you know, let's say, philosophical principles that as I say,
there was a variety of us, but I didn't find
that it was straying from a Catholic identity.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
But I mean, if you can move from the academy
into public intellectuals so called, I mean, the problem we
find we faces problem we brought up. I think our
last show is the tendency is to split orthodox and
unorthodox amongst Catholics along political the greater political divisions our
(28:31):
positions become. We tend because of our political divisions and
our allies, we tend to adopt one side or the
other end, the current debates, political and social debates, and
I think that's something that just really undermines any really
effective Catholic response. I mean, do I have to I
(28:52):
don't know. We pointed out last time. Do I have
to be wary of organized labor because I'm pro abortion?
I'm a type ortion obviously not. I mean the Catholic
Catholic tradition is not. But that's what we see, or
at least if we're not wary of it, we deemphasize it.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
We don't.
Speaker 4 (29:10):
Catholic Orthodox people do not actually actively engage in questions
of labor anymore. It's not not an interest. Questions of war,
questions of healthcare, other things. I mean, maybe do do
health care, but we don't. We don't.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
We don't.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
We were content with following the broader lines of our society.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
I think that you know, the what what we learned
in in the our last session with Byron Lewis was
that most people in America think along in sort of
these tribal lines, and they have lineups of positions which
are liberal or conservative, and those positions are not internally coherent.
(30:04):
So again, I think what we as Catholics can do is.
You know, we have to present the full spectrum of
our view, of our positions, and so as you say,
you know, if you're going to talk about abortion, you
should also talk about labor. You should also talk about
you know, immigration, or whatever whatever position you take. You
have to show first of all full spectrum of positions.
(30:25):
And in doing so, you can show that the Catholic
positions line up logically, whereas the standard of tribal positions,
as Byron Lewis told call them, do not line up logically.
And I think you can do a lot of good
simply by demolishing those incoherent tribal sets of opinions. I mean,
(30:50):
when I meet people and they learn that I'm a Catholic,
they immediately make assumptions about, you know, what my position
is politically, you know, and then I have to correct them,
you know, because we are perceived as belonging to one
or the other of the tribes, you know, And I
think we need to again, you know, we can serve
a very useful purpose in American politics and thinking by
(31:13):
showing that the at least a coherent Catholic position as
opposed to the incoherent positions of liberals conservatives left and right.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
How do you get Catholics to buy into that project
of abandoning the tribes?
Speaker 5 (31:30):
Good question.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
Yeah, yeah, at one time, well, I mean, please go ahead.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
No, Well, one time, obviously, cathol Church was very involved
with labor question, and there were priests or labor priests
who devoted the main part of their hostilate to helping
labor unions, guiding labor unions.
Speaker 4 (31:57):
And so on.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
So at one time, imperfectly to be sure, because we
were always compromised, But at one time there was a
kind of I mean, what would be conceived as a
disconnect by the larger culture, and we were we were
not ashamed of that, but it all dissolved.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
I think after the Council.
Speaker 4 (32:26):
Yeah, I think there's I mean, there was a task
of clarification of thought that we have to undergo and promote.
And I mean what we're doing today as I attempt
at that. I don't think we're going to create a
movement from this. But the clarification of thought is to
what actually are the deep, deep philosophical principles underlying the
(32:48):
Catholic position. If we get those down, it's much easier
to address the particular questions. Otherwise we're just dealing with
the one issue after another. We're happy to come up
with new principle, new arguments without that are not necessarily
rooted in any coherent vision of society or vision of
(33:09):
the good. So, I mean, how you do that is
one question. But the fact that I think it has
to be done, it's montally clear.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
What do you think is fair to say that the
crooks of the issue.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Would be between to put it very cruelly, between Thomas
Aquinas and John Locke.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
I think so.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
I think what it kind of comes down finally comes
down to is the question what is the common good?
And I think everybody believes in a common good. I
think the American system was founded on a kind of
belief in the common good. The question is ultimately, what
does the common good hold primacy over the individual? That
(33:59):
or not so in the United States, for instance, been
pointed out by a certain conservative Americans who call them
that that it's abundantly clear that the founders believe in
the common good, mainly those institutions of society which serve
the good of society. Well, it seems to me I
would argue that, yes, they did believe in that kind
(34:20):
of a common good. But they saw the common good
as existing to create a kind of structure in which
the individual good can flourish. So the common good actually
existed for the sake of the personal good individual good. Likewise,
religion had the same thing, the same problem. Religion is
a good thing, they all said, and we should encourage religion.
(34:44):
But religion's ultimate's purpose was the inculcation of those virtues
which aren't necessary for republic. So there's a question of
the primacy of which good is the primary primary And
I would argue from from Thomas, I think this is
and is deeply part of the Catholic way of looking
at society, that notion of the primacy of the common good.
(35:08):
And we can impact what that means. But because be misunderstood,
it could leads with certain false conclusions. But I think
that's the key. So John Locke is the privacy of
the individual good, and to degree our society follows John Locke,
that's what they see liberty. Liberty is the highest good
for the Catholic Church. Liberty is a good or for
(35:30):
individual freedom is a good, but it's instrumental good and
it's not the final good. The final good is what
we call the common good.
Speaker 5 (35:37):
Do you think that the I mean, you know, when
you raise that question of what should be the philosophical
basis of our political activity or activity in society in general,
I would you know, first of all, look to the bishops.
I mean, the bishops are there to instruct and I
don't know the answer to this question. Do you think
(35:57):
that the bishops have done that? Have they resented a
philosophical basis for our political and general social activity? And
have they instructed Catholics in the US on how to
do that?
Speaker 4 (36:12):
I would say no, bishops, But yeah, they haven't.
Speaker 3 (36:20):
Because that's unfortunately, sadly, I think the bishops are either
afraid to say anything, or they're.
Speaker 4 (36:27):
Clueless, or they have sometimes I mean the blunt they
have supporters monetary who are hold to one of the tribes,
and so they're going to they'll kind of limit themselves
to those talking points. But also, I mean the bishops
might not know much. I mean, we we always we
(36:49):
can't assume that the bishops are are not infected by
this sort of thing. They become from society, our clergy
in the society, and they're heavily in flow. It's a
matter of somehow the the dishops have to be properly
instruct we have to catechize the bishops.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
Yeah, the I mean, I think the the education of
the clergy doesn't as far as I understand, it doesn't
really address any of these questions. Uh, except maybe in
a very very formal way where the disjunction is not
even touched upon or.
Speaker 4 (37:36):
H yeah, yeah, I mean if you're going to be
if you're a Catholic, what are you suppose?
Speaker 3 (37:44):
What?
Speaker 4 (37:45):
What are their political issues? I'm a criticizing political istion.
I just pointed them out. Abortion, of course is the
top one. Biomedical ethics is another big one. Things like
the I can't I draw a blank, but you know,
(38:05):
you know what I'm saying is that there are certain
issues which were supposed to be concerned about, and everything
else is to be it is left up just to
private opinion as to how question immigration, I mean, for
immigration is a much more difficult one. But nevertheless, there
is a kind of Catholic understanding of immigration and the
(38:26):
right of migration which has to be unpacked, and it's
not what is being presented by either of the major parties.
When the bishops address it, they often dress in terms
of gospel values and compassion, which are fine and it
ought to be addressed. They have to be consulted. But
there's also questions of strict strict justice which have to
(38:47):
be a consulted too, and they're not. I don't find
that they're doing that really. So it's an appeal to
the heart rather than to the head, and that's not
going to work in the end.
Speaker 5 (38:58):
Well, I mean that explains a lot of the hit confused,
and I think the problem there is that the general
opinion among non Catholics is that, you know, Catholics focus
on one or two issues and that's it, and then
otherwise they kind of perceived them as being, you know,
again just another tribe. And I think if the bishops,
you know, maybe the bishops should just limit themselves to
(39:19):
general principles rather than trying to resolve complicated policy problems.
I appreciate that, but I think still there there somebody
has to be able to take those principles and apply
them broadly to a series of issues. You know, maybe
it's Catholic intellectuals, but how about Catholic public intellectuals. How
are they doing Are they playing that role of maybe
(39:42):
you know, putting forth a Catholic position on a whole
range of issues.
Speaker 3 (39:48):
Well, many of them are trivably compromised now as you,
as you both know, recently there's been there's been this
postliberalism or integralism movement arising among certain Catholic public intellectuals.
Speaker 2 (40:06):
And no I've been identified with this.
Speaker 4 (40:09):
To some degree.
Speaker 3 (40:11):
But it has many broad as, many different facets to it,
and some of them I would agree with, some of
them I wouldn't. But it at least was an attempt
to apply Catholic teaching on the social order and to
reaffirm it, I should say, and to begin to think
about how it might be applied. Some of these some
(40:33):
of the of the attempted applications or suggested applications were
just ridiculous, but some of them. But I guess I
would say in general, it's a good idea that we
talk about these things.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
As long as we do it reasonably. Yeah, and we
have What we have to do is we have to
do the hard work of trying to see what's right
and what our opponents say and embracing that within the principle.
See how we can how can we embrace that within
the principles we espouse. I think that was one of
(41:08):
the things that happened after the French Revolution. There was
a period of reaction after put Pious the seventh that
where the papacy and Catholic intellectuals just reacted against the
French Revolution and wanted just to restore the old throw
in an altar regime without seeing that may in some
(41:28):
cases that there were, at least in terms of particular issues,
particular goods, the liberals might have been proposing something which
was important but was fundamentally flawed because it was drawn
for false principles. Of course, then you pour Pious the
ninth discovered that when you try to accommodate the liberals,
(41:48):
you get driven out of your city. So there was
that aspect of too much complicated matters. But yet that
kind of spirit of reaction which I think was beginning
to be dressed, and a lot of part of the
nineteenth century, especially bank probably the thirteenth it was it
was it was was important actually try to see what's
(42:12):
right in what the other side says, well, not succumbing
to the principles which they hold.
Speaker 3 (42:20):
Yeah, that Leonine program that lasted with different empasies on
different pontiffs up through the sixties.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
In the beginning of the sixties at least was to
me one of the remarkable epics in the history of.
Speaker 3 (42:36):
The Church, where it seemed like to some degree of
the iarnity was actually being uh turned back, that county
principles were actually gaining some acceptance and at least recognition
is not just stupid. But then we've we've thrown that away,
We've embraced one of the other one or the other
(42:57):
of the political cultural tribes, and so there aren't very
many people who are even asking the right questions, I think.
But I was to guess that, well, go ahead, go ahead,
I was just gonna say I was briefly suggest that.
Speaker 2 (43:15):
But but you can go back to what we were saying.
Speaker 3 (43:18):
But I was suggest that right now we need to
work on the broader cultural philosophical questions and try to
get some hearing for those, rather than addressing the specific
political questions, because that was going to alienate people.
Speaker 4 (43:39):
Well, I think there's a way of doing it. I mean,
this might sound crazy, but I'll say it anyhow. I
think if there was a way of forming a kind
of Catholic political movement more or less organized which uh
(44:00):
us the concrete issues in society from the Catholic perspective,
and supported say, certain movements rather than others, certain issues
rather than others, simply on the level of the issues themselves,
not necessarily in the immediate may like align with groups
(44:22):
the labor pro labor groups, for instance, helping with the
organization of new labor groups or proper labor legislation in
the life from Catholic principles, but temporarily aligning itself with
certain groups for certain very limited ends. That would go far,
(44:43):
because what it would show is that if these are
actually drawn, if the groups the sponsor actually really drawn
from Catholic principles and Catholic social teaching, it might awaken
people say, well, look at the Catholics are all over
the map when it comes to issues. They're not just
concerned about They're not just concerned about unborn babies. They're
concerned about war, they're concerned about immigrants, they're concerned about labor,
(45:08):
helping the starving in a way which accords with distributive
justice in society. And that might way can people say, well,
what what's these people are awfully strange? What is it
that makes them so strange. What is why can they
how can they hold all these positions which we all
think are contradictory positions. I'm not how you would form
such a group, but that I think imagine such a
(45:31):
group existing and not being allied with any of the
major It's not permanently allied with any of the major
force in society. We're not Republicans, we're not Democrats, or
we don't belong to with the ACLU, but we might
back the same issues as the ACLU would pack in
certain circumstances, but we keep ourselves independent. I don't know
(45:53):
what this is sound insane or is it?
Speaker 2 (45:56):
But you don't mean a political party though?
Speaker 4 (46:01):
No, not a political party, No, a political action committee.
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (46:07):
Well, I think you say a movement, you know, something
something like the right leorn. I fully agree, and I
think it's an excellent idea. Would you call it a movement?
Speaker 2 (46:22):
Would you call it?
Speaker 3 (46:23):
What?
Speaker 2 (46:24):
Would you call it a movement?
Speaker 5 (46:25):
I mean, you know, there have been movements in Europe.
I mean that's completely different societies we're talking about, But
there have been movements which were not political parties, which
you know had influence. I'm just wondering is Is that
what you're thinking of some kind of you know, not
so formal phenomenon.
Speaker 4 (46:43):
Yeah, yeah, I mean means so like m Catholic Action
without the heavy hand of the clergy over it. I
don't think we need to we ought to be subservient
to the clergy in this. We have to be subservient
to the clergy as far as they teach their magisterial authority, obviously,
but we don't have to be like Catholic Action is
(47:04):
so firmly under the hierarchy. I think we've justly and
great rightly been freed from that sort of thing since,
you know, since the mid last century. But something maybe
like Catholic action, yeah, a political in a way, because
it's not a political party, it's a political movement.
Speaker 3 (47:22):
Well, with this, what would would would you have this
movement enunciate the deep philosophical.
Speaker 2 (47:31):
Sources of these positions or just be more or less
at hool.
Speaker 4 (47:36):
No, I would be both in terms of political action
the ad hook in terms of but there would be
an aspect behind it. We'd have to we want to
clarify those clarify those positions. What are ad hoc interventions
based upon our principles and so it would provide a
(47:57):
means by which people could ask the question, why do
they hold these seemingly disparate positions, seemly contradictory positions like
right to right to life, the rights right to just
wage people think are contradictory. Why do they hold these? What?
Speaker 6 (48:14):
What? What?
Speaker 4 (48:14):
What's with motivating? And I don't know how many people
to ask that question, but certainly some people would ask
that question, and we could give them the answer. We'd say,
this is why we.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
Hold this, so we haven't asked by wat.
Speaker 4 (48:25):
I think that too, Yeah, except it will also have
to be an engage in action. I mean, we might
be on with picket signs on certain certain protests, right,
we might issue statements to the Congress about things, this
(48:45):
is our position on this. We think you ought to
support this bill or vote down this bill. That kind
of thing.
Speaker 2 (48:55):
Would be.
Speaker 5 (48:57):
Sorry, sorry I interrupted.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
Ahead, that's fine.
Speaker 5 (49:02):
So I would think that maybe a few, you know,
if you had some of these public intellectuals involved, uh,
you know, a few good op eds you know and
in the mainstream preth for what It's worth or or
on social media, would would make an impact because that
would really reach a lot of people. And you know,
frankly in the US, so much is I think depends
(49:27):
on the lead opinions. So if you're reaching you know,
certain social groups, that managerial elite or whoever it is,
you know you could at least make some impact there
on people who do actually read you know, read newspapers
or or or follow high level discussions.
Speaker 3 (49:47):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (49:48):
And you know that that's one way to make an
impact simply in the intellectual.
Speaker 4 (49:54):
M HM. And the I mean hope is I mean,
I think we all this the first people we have
to address in the industrial over the Catholics themselves. I mean,
Catholics don't even know there are Church's tradition and a
lot of these things. And I mean the hard thing
obviously is going to be there's gonna be some questions
which we agree on the principles, we don't agree on
(50:14):
the application. And how do you or I organize that
in terms of your intervention? That's that's another entirely different question.
There's gonna be a lot of difficulties in doing anything
like this, and we probably need somebody with a more
practical political shabby and we maybe the three of us
have to organize something like this. But we yeah, it's
(50:39):
it's I think it's doable, right, Yeah, you have to.
Speaker 3 (50:46):
If I'm hearing you right, it would have almost two
sides to it, an intellectual side and.
Speaker 4 (50:52):
Uh the side that goes out in tickets. Right, so related,
we'd send you Tom in the picket line. Yeah, tell
me what are our public intellectuals and so it?
Speaker 2 (51:13):
Andrew?
Speaker 3 (51:16):
Yeah, we well, I guess we're in our in our
minor way, we're all trying to do that with this, uh,
with our open door.
Speaker 2 (51:26):
Uh was the last letter. We haven't had a big
impact yet.
Speaker 3 (51:30):
But.
Speaker 4 (51:31):
Who it's coming. It's coming for sure. Okay, Andrew, do
you have any uh final thoughts because or something?
Speaker 5 (51:43):
But no, not forget the bullet go ahead because of her.
Speaker 4 (51:50):
Oh I just say where we have impacts. We're also
good looking. Well we exude you.
Speaker 2 (52:04):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (52:05):
So I think it has been a noble discussion and
maybe somebody else can take our ideas and run with them.
I'm not too good at organizing things. But our next
open door is going to be on April, the week
(52:27):
of April twenty three, probably on the twenty fifth, which
is the South Friday, with Professor Chad Decknoll of Gothic
University talking about some of the questions about theology and
the relationship between theology and philosophy. And we will, I hope,
(52:48):
have more of these discussions on one of the three
of us in the future. So again, gentlemen, thank you
very much, and we look forward to the next time.
I say commit our our work and everything we do
to our lady with a hill Mary and the fathers
(53:09):
Hill Mary, full of grace.
Speaker 2 (53:11):
The Lord is with me.
Speaker 3 (53:12):
Blessed women, and blessed is the Gorilla womb. Jesus only
very Mother of God, pray for us. There's now amen.
Speaker 1 (53:25):
Hello, God's beloved. I'm Annabel Moseley, author, professor of theology
and host of then Sings My Soul and Destination Sainthood
on w c AT Radio. I invite you to listen
in and find inspiration along this sacred journey. We're traveling
together to make our lives a masterpiece and with God's grace,
(53:47):
become saints. Join me Annabel Moseley for then Sings My
Soul and Destination Sainthood on w c AT Radio. God
bless you. Remember you're never alone. God is always with him.
Speaker 2 (54:07):
Thank you for listening to a production of WCAT Radio.
Please join us in our mission of evangelization, and don't
forget Love lifts up where knowledge takes flight.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.