In response to my Barron piece, two clerics I respect called me a partisan Democrat. Guilty. The Second Vatican Council makes it clear: lay people should do partisan politics. Prelates shouldn’t.
Thanks for your work, including the latest post on Bishop Barrron!
I advocate a different way of putting things, which I think is more defensible from a Catholic position.
I think describing yourself as "a partisan Democrat" both opens you to attack and undermines your position with many Catholics. It suggests that is fundamental to your identity whereas I think we want to have higher commitments than to a political party, as we can see by the state of the GOP.
So I think you would do better to make a distinction between (1) "supporting the Democratic party (or even "proudly supporting...) at our time in history" and (2) being a "partisan Democrat."
I think you could argue that the former is reconcilable with being committed to the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine (basically caring about human dignity, justice, truth, the common good).
The latter, on the other hand, suggests you are simply a member of "team Blue" no matter what.
Thanks again and keep up the good work!
I've done a number of posts that touch on this and might be of interest to readers
I think it is better to focus not on any political party, but on the focus on Christian Social Doctrine. If I look at the issues important to me, they fall under CSD, not team Blue regardless. In these political times I will vote Blue, only because the other alternative is the current MAGA cult. Decades ago the political situation was different.
I think there is a problem here with the English language. In Portuguese, for instance, the words "Democrat" and "Republican" already imply partisan, unless you're talking about those things in other contexts (e.g., you're simply saying you prefer democracias to dictatorships or republics to monarchies).
It would also be hard to argue what the difference between support and partisanship is, and I don't think, in so long as my understanding of the wording in Second Vatican goes, Hale is getting it wrong here. However, you are not wrong to say that the support to a political party must be second to the support of the Church — and I think Hale agrees, as long as we mean the Church as Christ's mytical body and not, for Bossuet's sake, every authorized representant of it. Right?
That all being said, the distinction still matters. Catholic Action wasn't founded as "The party of the catholics", but as a political party open to all, and to which a member could be required to serve even in spite of what the church was doing or saying. And thanks be to God for that.
(1) political parties (i.e. the Democratic and Republican Parties),
(2) members of those parties (i.e. Democrats and Republicans -- you could use partisan in a neutral sense about these), and
(3) those "partisans" who are so attached to those parties that they support their team even when that doesn't serve the common good.
These latter are those who show what I would describe as "the vice of partisanship."
So following those definitions, I would say "being political" is natural to humans, and encouraged by / essential to living Catholic Social Doctrine, participation in political parties is good to the extent we do so virtuously for the common good.
I'm a pre-MAGA Republican and I respect what you do and say, Mr. Hale. I had to leave the discussion boards of CatholicVote. Just like the Republican Party as a whole, MAGA has taken them over. Like Dante has his great grandfather tell him in Paradiso, I have become a party of one! I don't know what will become of the Republican Party post Trump but somehow I think the changes may be lasting. I was thinking if only Paul Ryan could come back and take control, it might return to the Party of Lincoln and Reagan. Being decoupled from a political party has certainly opened my eyes to opposing arguments. You know, decoupling oneself to whatever politics one identifies with, even for a political cycle or two, is refreshing and enlightening. I recommend it to anyone. As for now, I'm neiter right nor left, nor really even centrist. I'm Catholic and I go where the Magisterium and the Holy Father take me. That's why I've latched on to you of late. Peace to you and your readers.
As a priest, I often find it extraordinarily challenging to preach the Gospel and the teachings of the Church that flow from the Good News of the Kingdom that Jesus preached. So much of the kerygma has direct and profound political implications, and there are many in our congregations whose radar is very sensitive to that.
For example, if I bring up matters of human dignity, such as the rights of migrants or the right to healthcare (or, during the COVID pandemic, that getting vaccinated is an "active of love", quoting Pope Francis), someone is bound to accuse me of "being political".
Interestingly enough, when I speak of abortion as an affront to human dignity, those same people applaud that I would have the courage to take an unpopular political position.
Honestly, I sometimes feel that preaching the Gospel is a no-win proposition. While I'm nowhere near their stature, I think I know how the prophets of old must have felt. Holy Jeremiah, pray for us preachers!
Your experience with being accused of "being political" illustrates why I think it is so important to make clear the distinction between "being political" and "being partisan."
I think that would be a great topic for parish adult education, but realize it would be a delicate one in most parishes.
The sloppy use of terminology in our media and popular culture makes this clarification difficult because "being political" is commonly used with bad connotations when--from a Catholic perspective--that should connote something good and natural, whereas being partisan--I would argue--is to be avoided.
The human person is a political creature by nature, and living faithfully to the gospel (according to Magnifica Humanitas) requires "political" participation in "the city" (Greek: polis). The whole sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council presupposes Catholics "being political" if we are to infuse the spirit of the Gospel into the temporal order.
So being political is good, and MH is significantly a call for Catholic to be political, we need to somehow help Catholics to appreciate this.
Of course we need to participate in political parties, which--for serious participation--involves building relationships, and builds loyalty.
I would define "partisanship" as doing that in a way that becomes unreasonable, which means it doesn't serve the common good. So even if we have become identified with a party, our support for them should be contingent on our reasoned judgment of whether that will best serve the common good.
There are certain careers that should require higher ethics and/or higher knowledge in a specific area and require certain behaviors and characteristics that the general public expects. For example: a surgeon is expected to not be addicted to drugs and alcohol while practicing in my state. No surgical team that is on call should drink or alter their brain functioning. I think most people would agree that's an expectation of a surgeon and the team, when on call.
People who claim or whose positions are within the religious career field were held to a higher standard of behaviors too, at least it was this way decades ago. In this country, nuns were respected pretty much everywhere, as were priests. In addition, power structures must be a part of consideration in regards to unduly influencing of others. Of course influence is part of their job, but it isn't in a manner that harms, or misinformation that leads to the wrong conclusion. Or shouldn't be, imo.
Dorm is number one for mental health counselors, who must be aware of the power difference so as to not bring their own opinions into the treatment. Counseling is for the client to find their pathway within their own value system - not to tell clients what to do. If I wasn't retired, I would never write my opinions in public, so as to not harm anyone. But then, I'd have needed to change careers, so I'm doubly glad I'm old. I think leaders of religion have to also understand how the leaders' behaviors influence their congregations, for the present as well as the future. And if that influence will help the people, or the person's boss on this Earth. But, that's just my opinion.
For me, this division is not political, rather it is the difference between a people who attempts to follow Jesus Christ's teachings OR a people who reject Jesus Christ's teachings and follows a different savior. I believe one will save human kind and humanity, and the other will eventually kill every living thing. Would it be possible that Artificial Intelligence grows up to be the antichrist? Or am I too pessimistic? It's very difficult for me to think that Catholics think murder, genocide, theft, lying, cheating is okay sigh
This is the distinction worth protecting. A lay Catholic can walk into a political party, argue, organize, compromise, lose, win, and get mud on his shoes. A bishop has a different problem: the moment people can reasonably hear his preaching as the religious department of a political faction, something has been lost. Not because bishops should be silent about public life, but because their ability to challenge every faction depends on not becoming chaplain to one of them.
What does it mean when a Bishop of the Catholic Church states with certainty that a woman’s healthcare law “permits abortion right up to the moment of birth as long as the mother and doctor …” presumably give consent? Is this Bishop bearing false witness about a medical decision to which he’s not privy to the circumstance?
In the many institutions, those in authority are circumspect in speaking for all members & authority higher than themselves. Is the Catholic Church different in that their Priests & Bishops are allowed to express themselves as are their wont?
I’m not a Catholic probably because I believe in choice, both for a woman to make her own health decisions & people to decide with whom they wish share their lives. The Bishop of the Diocese in my part of Virginia has decided Catholics vote No on ballot questions of abortion choice & same-sex marriage. I hope he doesn’t demand parish priests query parishioners during confession after the election as to whether they should be excommunicated for voting Yes.
There’s a 3rd ballot question about whether those convicted of felonies should have their voting rights automatically restored after “paying their debt to society.” Will there be a carryover of No votes just to be sure that one keeps their Catholic status?
Excellent distinction backed with history . Maybe in your charity bishop Barren will understand the position of the Church. He is a good man but not perfect.
Agreed on principle. but forsaken by our beloved shepherds for over a century, ever since Cardinal Gibbons allied with Woodrow Wilson during and after World War One.
The US bishops’ first pastoral pastoral letter. appearing in February 1919. was a Fabian Marxist “programme” for peaceful socialism in America.
The pastoral’s author, Father John A. Ryan., later became the bishops’ national spokesman, and represented them on national radio broadcasts from DNC Headquarters in Washington to endorse the reelections of Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, 1940, and 1944.
Our bishops were then and are today all aboard with FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s “Great Society” - both Fabian Socialist programs whose ideology has been advocated ever since by the USCCB, its NGO’s, and its DC offices.
So yes, our bishops are political activists and they are Democrats. As a pre-Woodstock Vatican II altar boy baptized 80 years ago last month at Notre Dame, I don’t want them to be Republicans either. I want them to preach the hard truths of the Gospel, “In season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2).
Please join me in praying for all of them. To paraphrase LBJ in one of his many intemperate moments. “They’re the only bishops we’ve got.”
Ah, yes- the same Fr. Jenkins who attended the party celebrating Amy Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court three weeks before the election.
The reason I will never give a penny to my Alma Mater.
AND - I would say that the prohibition you so eloquently described should certainly apply to the Presidents of Catholic Universities...
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for your work, including the latest post on Bishop Barrron!
I advocate a different way of putting things, which I think is more defensible from a Catholic position.
I think describing yourself as "a partisan Democrat" both opens you to attack and undermines your position with many Catholics. It suggests that is fundamental to your identity whereas I think we want to have higher commitments than to a political party, as we can see by the state of the GOP.
So I think you would do better to make a distinction between (1) "supporting the Democratic party (or even "proudly supporting...) at our time in history" and (2) being a "partisan Democrat."
I think you could argue that the former is reconcilable with being committed to the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine (basically caring about human dignity, justice, truth, the common good).
The latter, on the other hand, suggests you are simply a member of "team Blue" no matter what.
Thanks again and keep up the good work!
I've done a number of posts that touch on this and might be of interest to readers
Regarding Voting
https://betterpolitics.substack.com/p/can-catholics-help-rebuild-the-city
https://betterpolitics.substack.com/p/a-better-approach-to-the-morality
Regarding identity
https://betterpolitics.substack.com/p/identity-and-discernment-1-of-2
https://betterpolitics.substack.com/p/identity-and-discernment-2-of-2
I think it is better to focus not on any political party, but on the focus on Christian Social Doctrine. If I look at the issues important to me, they fall under CSD, not team Blue regardless. In these political times I will vote Blue, only because the other alternative is the current MAGA cult. Decades ago the political situation was different.
Hi Bill,
I think there is a problem here with the English language. In Portuguese, for instance, the words "Democrat" and "Republican" already imply partisan, unless you're talking about those things in other contexts (e.g., you're simply saying you prefer democracias to dictatorships or republics to monarchies).
It would also be hard to argue what the difference between support and partisanship is, and I don't think, in so long as my understanding of the wording in Second Vatican goes, Hale is getting it wrong here. However, you are not wrong to say that the support to a political party must be second to the support of the Church — and I think Hale agrees, as long as we mean the Church as Christ's mytical body and not, for Bossuet's sake, every authorized representant of it. Right?
That all being said, the distinction still matters. Catholic Action wasn't founded as "The party of the catholics", but as a political party open to all, and to which a member could be required to serve even in spite of what the church was doing or saying. And thanks be to God for that.
Respectfully,
João.
Hi João,
Yes, getting definitions clear is key.
I would say we need to distinguish between:
(1) political parties (i.e. the Democratic and Republican Parties),
(2) members of those parties (i.e. Democrats and Republicans -- you could use partisan in a neutral sense about these), and
(3) those "partisans" who are so attached to those parties that they support their team even when that doesn't serve the common good.
These latter are those who show what I would describe as "the vice of partisanship."
So following those definitions, I would say "being political" is natural to humans, and encouraged by / essential to living Catholic Social Doctrine, participation in political parties is good to the extent we do so virtuously for the common good.
. . . “participation in political parties is good to the extent we do so virtuously for the common good.”: I agree!
I'm a pre-MAGA Republican and I respect what you do and say, Mr. Hale. I had to leave the discussion boards of CatholicVote. Just like the Republican Party as a whole, MAGA has taken them over. Like Dante has his great grandfather tell him in Paradiso, I have become a party of one! I don't know what will become of the Republican Party post Trump but somehow I think the changes may be lasting. I was thinking if only Paul Ryan could come back and take control, it might return to the Party of Lincoln and Reagan. Being decoupled from a political party has certainly opened my eyes to opposing arguments. You know, decoupling oneself to whatever politics one identifies with, even for a political cycle or two, is refreshing and enlightening. I recommend it to anyone. As for now, I'm neiter right nor left, nor really even centrist. I'm Catholic and I go where the Magisterium and the Holy Father take me. That's why I've latched on to you of late. Peace to you and your readers.
Hi Manny,
Yes, learning to think with the Church is helpful, but does not bring simple answers. Given what you write, I think you might like this link on economics https://betterpolitics.substack.com/p/magnifica-humanitas-and-markets-built
As a priest, I often find it extraordinarily challenging to preach the Gospel and the teachings of the Church that flow from the Good News of the Kingdom that Jesus preached. So much of the kerygma has direct and profound political implications, and there are many in our congregations whose radar is very sensitive to that.
For example, if I bring up matters of human dignity, such as the rights of migrants or the right to healthcare (or, during the COVID pandemic, that getting vaccinated is an "active of love", quoting Pope Francis), someone is bound to accuse me of "being political".
Interestingly enough, when I speak of abortion as an affront to human dignity, those same people applaud that I would have the courage to take an unpopular political position.
Honestly, I sometimes feel that preaching the Gospel is a no-win proposition. While I'm nowhere near their stature, I think I know how the prophets of old must have felt. Holy Jeremiah, pray for us preachers!
Fr Bill,
Your experience with being accused of "being political" illustrates why I think it is so important to make clear the distinction between "being political" and "being partisan."
I think that would be a great topic for parish adult education, but realize it would be a delicate one in most parishes.
The sloppy use of terminology in our media and popular culture makes this clarification difficult because "being political" is commonly used with bad connotations when--from a Catholic perspective--that should connote something good and natural, whereas being partisan--I would argue--is to be avoided.
The human person is a political creature by nature, and living faithfully to the gospel (according to Magnifica Humanitas) requires "political" participation in "the city" (Greek: polis). The whole sociopolitical orientation of the Second Vatican Council presupposes Catholics "being political" if we are to infuse the spirit of the Gospel into the temporal order.
So being political is good, and MH is significantly a call for Catholic to be political, we need to somehow help Catholics to appreciate this.
Of course we need to participate in political parties, which--for serious participation--involves building relationships, and builds loyalty.
I would define "partisanship" as doing that in a way that becomes unreasonable, which means it doesn't serve the common good. So even if we have become identified with a party, our support for them should be contingent on our reasoned judgment of whether that will best serve the common good.
Excellent! From one Bill to another, thank you!
And I won't send a bill :-)
Remember this guy:
Father Charles Edward Coughlin
There are certain careers that should require higher ethics and/or higher knowledge in a specific area and require certain behaviors and characteristics that the general public expects. For example: a surgeon is expected to not be addicted to drugs and alcohol while practicing in my state. No surgical team that is on call should drink or alter their brain functioning. I think most people would agree that's an expectation of a surgeon and the team, when on call.
People who claim or whose positions are within the religious career field were held to a higher standard of behaviors too, at least it was this way decades ago. In this country, nuns were respected pretty much everywhere, as were priests. In addition, power structures must be a part of consideration in regards to unduly influencing of others. Of course influence is part of their job, but it isn't in a manner that harms, or misinformation that leads to the wrong conclusion. Or shouldn't be, imo.
Dorm is number one for mental health counselors, who must be aware of the power difference so as to not bring their own opinions into the treatment. Counseling is for the client to find their pathway within their own value system - not to tell clients what to do. If I wasn't retired, I would never write my opinions in public, so as to not harm anyone. But then, I'd have needed to change careers, so I'm doubly glad I'm old. I think leaders of religion have to also understand how the leaders' behaviors influence their congregations, for the present as well as the future. And if that influence will help the people, or the person's boss on this Earth. But, that's just my opinion.
For me, this division is not political, rather it is the difference between a people who attempts to follow Jesus Christ's teachings OR a people who reject Jesus Christ's teachings and follows a different savior. I believe one will save human kind and humanity, and the other will eventually kill every living thing. Would it be possible that Artificial Intelligence grows up to be the antichrist? Or am I too pessimistic? It's very difficult for me to think that Catholics think murder, genocide, theft, lying, cheating is okay sigh
Keep up the good work Christopher. It is much appreciated. Would these clerical critics consider Jesus's ministry to be partisan?
This is the distinction worth protecting. A lay Catholic can walk into a political party, argue, organize, compromise, lose, win, and get mud on his shoes. A bishop has a different problem: the moment people can reasonably hear his preaching as the religious department of a political faction, something has been lost. Not because bishops should be silent about public life, but because their ability to challenge every faction depends on not becoming chaplain to one of them.
I'm happy to add partisan Democrat as another descriptor of who I am.
What does it mean when a Bishop of the Catholic Church states with certainty that a woman’s healthcare law “permits abortion right up to the moment of birth as long as the mother and doctor …” presumably give consent? Is this Bishop bearing false witness about a medical decision to which he’s not privy to the circumstance?
In the many institutions, those in authority are circumspect in speaking for all members & authority higher than themselves. Is the Catholic Church different in that their Priests & Bishops are allowed to express themselves as are their wont?
I’m not a Catholic probably because I believe in choice, both for a woman to make her own health decisions & people to decide with whom they wish share their lives. The Bishop of the Diocese in my part of Virginia has decided Catholics vote No on ballot questions of abortion choice & same-sex marriage. I hope he doesn’t demand parish priests query parishioners during confession after the election as to whether they should be excommunicated for voting Yes.
There’s a 3rd ballot question about whether those convicted of felonies should have their voting rights automatically restored after “paying their debt to society.” Will there be a carryover of No votes just to be sure that one keeps their Catholic status?
I’m guessing this isn’t a critical issue for now.
I enjoyed reading today’s comments!
Excellent distinction backed with history . Maybe in your charity bishop Barren will understand the position of the Church. He is a good man but not perfect.
Agreed on principle. but forsaken by our beloved shepherds for over a century, ever since Cardinal Gibbons allied with Woodrow Wilson during and after World War One.
The US bishops’ first pastoral pastoral letter. appearing in February 1919. was a Fabian Marxist “programme” for peaceful socialism in America.
The pastoral’s author, Father John A. Ryan., later became the bishops’ national spokesman, and represented them on national radio broadcasts from DNC Headquarters in Washington to endorse the reelections of Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, 1940, and 1944.
Our bishops were then and are today all aboard with FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s “Great Society” - both Fabian Socialist programs whose ideology has been advocated ever since by the USCCB, its NGO’s, and its DC offices.
So yes, our bishops are political activists and they are Democrats. As a pre-Woodstock Vatican II altar boy baptized 80 years ago last month at Notre Dame, I don’t want them to be Republicans either. I want them to preach the hard truths of the Gospel, “In season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2).
Please join me in praying for all of them. To paraphrase LBJ in one of his many intemperate moments. “They’re the only bishops we’ve got.”
Thank you for the newsletter, Chris. When my grandmother was alive she nearly left the Catholic Church, because of Father Coucglin.