Did John Paul II Appreciate Catholic Neoconservatives?
Undoubtedly yes, as everyone knows. We must keep the balance. Their general defense and positive elucidations of the Christian keygma and morals has been nothing less than superb. And we all appreciate them for that. But we must not lose sight of the areas where they parted, specifically in matters of war and economics.
John Paul II viewed movements and ideas (whether from liberation theologians or neoconservatives) dialectically, wherein he took from each what he thought was good, true and beautiful, reshaping those areas in each where he thought deficiencies existed and which only the Gospel of Christ could balance. Thus he gave carte blanche to no one ---neither to the violent class warfare of the Sandinistas or the imperial ambitions of the United States--- but took the good from each. The documents are all there. He invited each point of view ever closer to the Gospel light. This is what made him such an original thinker while maintaining the organic link to the whole symphonic Catholic tradition. We see the same thing today when Benedict XVI sits down for dialogue with Hans Kung and the representatives of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
---
Weigel: JPII Was a Diplomatic Liar
A man writes us, commending Dr. John P. Hubert's treatise on Catholic neoconservatism, "Their [the Catholic Neocons] limitless [corporate] funding allows them to travel the world and cultivate the media without let or hindrance. No bishop, not even the pope has their clout. [George] Weigel gave an interview to the (London) Tablet while he was in town promoting his (then) new book, Letters to a Young Catholic. He had the chutzpah to suggest to Tablet editor Austen Ivereigh that John Paul II only opposed the Iraq war in his public capacity as pope.
None of the [4 major Catholic neocons] have even an elementary formation in economics. The sheer arrogance of their pronouncements for Catholic audiences on economics should immediately demand a response from the bishops. At the website IHS Press you will find a page devoted to their reprint of Amintore Fanfani's 1935 book, Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism. Please read the preface available there. It is the best critique of Novak's democratic capitalism to be found anywhere. "
Unfortunately for Mr. Weigel, JPII's closest confidant and former head of the CDF (now Pope), is still quite alive and wrote, showing the mind of JPII:
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'." ----Cardinal Ratzinger May 2, 2003 (who shortly thereafter became our Pope Benedict XVI)
So, we have it from Mr. Weigel---who in these particulars sounds more like the Calvinist R.J. Rushdoony than anything Catholic--- on record now that St. Francis and Dorothy Day were not in the great mainstream of Catholic tradition / thinking, and now JPII was in effect a diplomatic liar. We are sure, to the contrary, JPII's prophetic truthfulness, along with the prophetic teachings, and principles, of St. Francis and Dorothy Day will be remembered long after corporate funds run dry and revisionists are no longer remembered, their books compost. Most Catholics in the pews, even now, don't know who they are. But they know who the prophets just named are indeed.
---
Neo-Conservatism by J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS Catholic Ethicist
It is apparent then that the elites who presently control foreign and domestic policy in the United States are wedded to a secular worldview in which economic and military power is the paramount goal. Their neoconservative “movement” represents a new stealth 21st century pagan (post-enlightenment) “Secularism.” It is evident that they have shrewdly enlisted many unsuspecting Protestant Evangelicals, and politically conservative “Catholics” as well as dissatisfied paleo-conservatives and libertarian conservatives and independents in their cause. The “movement” is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Catholicism rightly understood. It behooves faithful Catholics to shine the light of transparency on what is increasingly an immoral enterprise.
5 comments:
"Weigel: JPII Was a Diplomatic Liar" -- nice headline. For the record, here is Weigel's interview in the Tablet
It was, he says, “a very difficult period for everyone”. But he squares the circle by distinguishing between the temporal and spiritual. “The job of the Pope in his public responsibility as the only global moral reference point is to press for a non-military solution to the very end – I think that’s entirely appropriate,” he says; equally, it is the responsibility of the civil authorities to make their prudential judgement to go to war, a decision with which, in this case, he agreed. He is confident that Bush well understood what the Pope’s spokesman, Dr Joaquín Navarro-Valls, meant on the day before the invasion when he said that those who made this decision were assuming a grave responsibility before history. “He understands the moral responsibility that was assumed by taking the decision that he did.”
As long as David's going to brand Weigel a liar (by virtue of quoting Stephen verbatim), perhaps he might consider posting Weigel's column "Dissent' from church teaching? Great bosh!" - the title of course reflecting Weigel's annoyance, but it stands as a more detailed response to the slanderous charges put forth by the likes of Stephen than the Tablet interview.
Incidentally, thanks for posting the De Lubac links -- a welcome return to the theme of your blog.
Christopher, I wouldn't take the fact that David quoted Stephen as a complete endorsement of what Stephen said... IIRC, in the past he's offered quotes with which he disagrees.
In any case, it doesn't appear that Stephen said Weigel is a liar... rather, he said that Weigel claimed (which he didn't) that JPII was a "diplomatic liar".
Chris Burgwald, ok, point taken. Sorry, David. It was late (or, rather, early) and I apologize for my instinctive reaction.
Q: If it's readily apparent that Weigel's position regarding JPII is being misrepresented by Hand, why bother reproducing the error? -- Especially given the extent to which we've discussed and addressed this already.
None of the [4 major Catholic neocons] have even an elementary formation in economics. The sheer arrogance of their pronouncements for Catholic audiences on economics should immediately demand a response from the bishops.
This argument works both ways. Some Catholics who lack an "elementary formation in economics" or practical experience in business, but perceive themselves as having the capacity to expound at length on a wide range of economic issues:
Stephen Hand. The Zwicks. Thomas Storck. . . .
I couldn't find the preface on the page David linked to, but it's available here. It notes that:
It can of course be argued that Novak is read exclusively by the neo-con crowd, that his following is limited, that few Catholics care what he thinks.
If this is the case, we may all breathe a sigh of relief as Novak will soon fade into oblivion. =)
Unfortunately, the publishers go on to note Novak's perfidious influence on American Catholics, attained only by way of complete neglect of the Bishops to espouse the "third way" of Catholic social doctrine: "Corporatism" in Italy, elsewhere referred to as Distributism.
Perhaps we can consider John Paul II hoodwinked by the neoconservatives, then, with his qualified endorsement of the market economy in Centesimus Annus?
Recommended reading:
Behind Centesimus Annus - Rocco Buttiglione's discussion of the different conceptions of "capitalism" Crisis July / August 1991.
John Paul II's use of the term Neo-Liberal, by Michael Therrien. Based on a paper delivered at the Pontifical College Josephinum April 8, 2000 (addresses in part the conflation of "neoliberalism" and the free economy).
It looks like Novak is well acquainted with Fanfani's works -- his writings on capitalism were intended in part to rehabilitate the notion of capitalism as petty, mean, materialistic, self-regarding, and ruthless and inherently incompatible with Catholicism (compare this to JPII's Centesimus Annus) in Fanfani as well as a correction to Max Weber.
On his "elementary formation" Novak recalls:
As mentioned above, early on in my life, mainly through the subscription to the Catholic Worker that my father brought into our home, my heroes were Dorothy Day, Baroness de Hueck, and (later) Michael Harrington. While I was at Catholic University (1958–59), the radical writings of the sociologist Paul Hanly Furfey were added to these influences. Nonetheless, I hesitated about declaring myself a democratic socialist or social democrat, because I was unclear about the implications of that allegiance. I resolved to study economics more carefully, and to clarify in my mind questions about poverty and wealth, economic development and religion. I devoured Weber, Tawney, Fanfani and others, as well as magazines such as Dissent. I thought it morally correct and religiously satisfying to be something of a socialist and a tart critic of capitalism. I tried hard. . . .
For an interesting account of his intellectual formation -- chiefly on his "neoconservative" break with his left/socialist past -- see "Controversial Engagements" First Things April 1999.
I daresay Weigel and Novak have read and familiarized themselves with basic economic thought in their line of work moreso than Hand and the Zwicks -- what do you think?
Christopher - thanks for the links. They are helpful in this discussion.
Post a Comment