Apr 9, 2005

appropriating a legacy

There's a reason American conservatives have been so late to join Pope John Paul's parade: he never really shared their views.

5 comments:

Matthew Anderson said...

1) Which American conservatives aren't joining the Pope parade? The Catholic ones? The Protestant ones? A quick jaunt around the Christian blogosphere will reveal that a lot of Protestant conservatives are hailing the Pope as a great leader and representative of the Christian faith...
2) Disagreed with Conservatives about....what, exactly? The only statement that came close was that the Pope endorses a welfare state, but that was tempered by:

But its indirect role is even more crucial. In keeping with what the pope calls the "principle of subsidiarity," the government must create the conditions in which sub-political institutions will be encouraged to contribute to realizing the common good. Rather than taking over the role played by private charities, churches, families, local governments, and other intermediate institutions, the state should nurture "the internal life" of the larger community while "support[ing] it in case of need and help[ing] to coordinate its activity." On closer inspection, then, John Paul’s political proposals arguably place him closer to the "compassionate conservatism" of Marvin Olasky than to the bureaucratic paternalism of Eurosocialism.

Which issues don't we agree on then?

tm said...

Which American conservatives aren't joining the Pope parade?

I think Jim is referring to the lateness of the bandwagon-jumping. A few years ago, prominent conservatives weren't so fond of the the pope (ie, he's a "wild-eyed liberal loony"), but now are crawling over one another to lavish praise on him.

Mr. Anderson is right that subsidiarity plays an important part in catholic social thought, but so does unionization, living wages, muscular regulation by the state, and international legal regimes to redress the imbalances between poor and rich nations.

Jim Anderson said...

From the article:

"Nowhere are the problematic consequences of John Paul’s refusal to accept this fact more apparent than in his comments on foreign affairs. Embracing a view that comes perilously close to pacifism, he condemns virtually all uses of military force, including the 'tragic war in the Persian Gulf.' Going further, he also denounces the 'insane arms race' that was precipitated by the Cold War, thereby refusing to acknowledge the role it played in bringing down the Soviet Union. And as for those nations that have 'an unacceptably exaggerated concern for security,' the pope has nothing but contempt, since, in his view, they are the primary obstacle to bringing about a situation in which all the nations of the world are 'united [in] cooperation . . . for the common good of the human race.'"

Let's also remember that the Pope considered the death penalty a part of the "culture of death," placing him at odds with most American conservatives.

tm said...

One thing that's bothered me about media coverage of protestants and the pope is the omission of the insane protestant right, many of whom consider the pope, if not the antichrist, then a force of evil in the world.

This omission certainly plays into the disingenuous portrayal of some lovefest between righty protestants and catholics.

Matthew Anderson said...

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner.

I think the overwhelming emphasis (immediately after his death) by conservatives on the perceived positives of the Pope's positions has more to do with honoring one of the greatest men of our generation than downplaying the differences. In fact, it seems more in harmony with the Pope's legacy to emphasize where we agree, while not ignoring the fact that we don't. I haven't read much of his social philosophy, but I have read his theology, and I will admit that I have substantive disagreements about some of his theological claims
(that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, for one). However, immediately upon his death it seems more fitting for us to recognize perceived positive contributions to the world than criticize, lest we come off as bitter and invective as Kung did.

So I think it has less to do with neglecting differences as it does accentuating points of agreement, a strategy that is certainly consonant with Vatican II and the Pope's legacy.

As for Catholic social thought, my hunch is that there's a Catholic social thinker for every position, but I'm not well-versed enough in them to know.

Regarding the death penalty, I think there will be a wide-spread rethinking of death penalty positions among conservatives. I am very open to re-thinking it, in part because of the Pope. Santorum is moving away from it, but it's certainly not an issue that any conservative would really criticize the Pope for (at least I hope not--it would seem horribly disingenous to criticize him for being "too pro-life"!).