Intellectual Dishonesty and Roman Catholic Apologetics by John W. Robbins
This essay is taken from Dr. Robbins' latest book, Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church (Trinity, 1999). Dr. Robbins earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy and Political Theory from The Johns Hopkins University.
12 comments:
Um... looks like bad news for Catholics in general, as it appears that Robbins thinks the Catholic Church is evil incarnate in many ways.
I'm not sure that it's possible to embrace his arguments that Catholicism and liberalism are opposed while simultaneously dispensing with his other positions on Catholicism... based on the postive and negative reviews, they seem to go together.
There are good arguments which demonstrate that Catholicism isn't as ameniable to liberalism as some believe it is... this doesn't appear to be such.
I agree that this work must be taken with a grain of salt... To be sure this is not a Catholic critique of Novak and Sirico. The author is a Calvinist and his position is not accepted throughout all of Calvinism either, i.e. Acton Inst. Is it worth consideration though? Yes, but I would first recommend one reads many of the Contemporary Thinkers linked on this site including Schindler, Rowland, Milbank, Hauerwas, Cavanaugh, Long, Bell, McCarraher, Baxter, etc.
I emphatically agree with your recommendation.
I would enjoy some feedback on the linked article by Robbins.
Some background info. on Robbins.
Dr. Robbins is a resident of Unicoi County, Tennessee. Born in 1948 in Pennsylvania, he graduated from Honesdale (Pennsylvania) High School in 1966 and received his A. B. from Grove City College (Pennsylvania) in 1969, cum laude, with Highest Honors in Political Science. He pursued graduate studies at The Johns Hopkins University (Maryland), earning his Masters in Political Theory (1970) at age 21, and his Doctorate in Philosophy and Political Theory (1973) at age 24.
In 1973 Dr. Robbins became an aide to a Member of Congress from Indiana in Washington, D.C., and subsequently worked, over the next 20 years, in several capacities for several public policy institutions: The Heritage Foundation (Economic Analyst), The Templeton Foundation (Consultant), The Foundation for Economic Education (Editor of The Freeman), and The Institute for Policy Innovation (President). He served as Legislative Assistant (1979-1981) and Principal Assistant (1981-1985) to a Member of Congress from Texas, ghostwriting and managing all aspects of the Congressman=s office.
In 1977, Dr. Robbins founded a Christian think tank, The Trinity Foundation, and under his direction The Foundation has published more than 70 books, 180 lectures, and 250 essays; hosted conferences and seminars in several states; and published a monthly newsletter for 28 years.
Dr. Robbins has written several books, hundreds of essays, and has lectured or taught at several institutions of higher education, including Harvard University, the University of Colorado, the University of Texas, Biola University, Sangre de Cristo Seminary, College of the Southwest, Westminster Seminary, Western Reformed Seminary, and Chesapeake Seminary. He is a member of two academic societies, the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
Therefore is his thought now worth consideration? Does he not have the academic and professional work experience that adds at least some credibility to his claims?
I'm not sure if you're speaking directly to me, but considering that the comments so far are just between the two of us, I'm going to assume that you are, for now.
I'll answer your question with my own: if he's credible when he analyzes the Church's economic position, why isn't he credible when he analyzes the Church's self-explanation? After all, he is degreed in the area of theology.
Of course, he could be right on the former and wrong on the latter, but I think it'd be better to propose someone who is right on both (as you did by pointing to the contemporary scholars in response to my initial comment).
I'm just skeptical of someone who gets the Church per se for very and obviously wrong.
He is "degreed in the area of theology"? I am not are of that. What type of degree and from whom?
Regardless social ethics is a prudential matter. There can be and are differences even among Catholics.
Just because he is a Calvinist, an anti-Catholic version one would suspect, doesn't mean that he can't level some fair charges against Sirico's position.
In the linked article I for one find his comments on liberation theology and the Catholic Church's endorsement of Marxism to be amusing. Has he read anything of Ratzinger when he was Prefect of CDF? Is he aware of the actions PJPII took against bishops and priests involved with liberation theology in Latin & South America? In Poland was PJPII a supporter of Marxism? Who is credited for the fall of Marxism in Eastern Europe?
That being said doesn't mean that the Church endorses capitalism either. Why does it have to be an either/or solution? It doesn't. The Church proposes another way... Asking that we fully recognizes the dignity of man regardless of the political or economic system.
Hey, remember: I'm (roughly) on your side in the whole Catholicism/liberalism debate. I didn't say it's an either/or thing.
I had Robbins in mind when I said either/or. For Robbins it seems that capitalism is the only option.
I haven't read nor listened to hardly anything of Robbins except for this one article but in it he fails to distinguish between socialism and Marxism or variations thereof, i.e. democratic socialism, etc. Not every economic system is evil in all it aspects or desired results. Some are more efficient than others, but what is the criteria one is evaluating it by and what are the best desired results produced by it?
Isn't this just classical anti-catholicism? He wants to argue that Catholicism is by its nature opposed to American freedom, including the work of the "current pope" JPII or Benedict. I know this sounds like an over simplification. But, since when have politcal science scholars been truly objective in their analysis? Reading the reviews I only see typical anti-catholic polemics: "Ever wonder why South America languishes in poverty in spite of tremendous natural and popular resources? Ever wonder how Roman Catholicism has justified its long history of brutality and dictatorship? Ideas have consequences." Reading and tackling his arguments sounds more like a work of classical apologetics than academic inquiry. I'll put it atop my apologetics readings and at the veyr bottom of academic reading, thus I may read 20 years from now.
Michael
Michael - I agree with you as I do in regards to Chris' comments as well.
The only thing I would add is that Robbins's critique of Sirico in the linked article is the same critique I've seen by others (Catholics and Protestant). Sirico's and Novak's thought have been criticized by many credible folk.
Post a Comment