Catholics feel so at home in the United States that they can joke about the times when their faith was a severe impediment to high national office. After Al Smith’s Catholicism played a major role in his defeat in the 1928 presidential election, or so the old Catholic joke goes, he sent a one-word telegram to Pope Pius XI ”” “Unpack.” By the same token, however, it’s perfectly natural for Catholics to hear echoes of anti-Catholic prejudice when others ask, “What are Catholic politicians supposed to do if public policy is in conflict with Catholic doctrine? Where’s the bright line between faith and public service?” After all, virtually no one else gets asked those questions in American public life.
Still, the questions are there. So are the confusions, some of them caused by Catholic intellectuals who don’t get the logic of the Church’s social doctrine, and others by Catholic politicians who muddy the waters by suggesting that the moral teaching of popes and bishops is “sectarian.” In the hope of answering the questions and clarifying the confusions, I offer the following “small catechism” on the responsibilities of the Catholic politician.
One can only appreciate Dr. Weigel’s boldness in the interpretation of Papal documents. Given that he chose to publish it in NRO, the child of the magazine and editor who blithely dismissed John XXIII’s social justice encyclical Mater et Magistra with the headline Mater si, Magistra non, one is not surprised that Weigel considers the various Popes’ insistence on concern for such troublesome matters as the living wage, exploitation of workers, adequate health insurance, and decent retirement as arguable. Perhaps though we need Dr. Weigel to clarify what appeared to be the rather clearly and unambiguously stated economic and moral principles articulated by the Popes. Dr. Weigel’s tone is reassuring: We certainly have his ideological and infallible pronouncement on what really counts. Unfortunately, this reader still has some trouble reconciling Dr. Weigel’s ex cathedra with the words of those who sat and are sitting in cathedra.
Dan, perhaps you can provide us with a papal endorsement of a particular bill on the “living wage” or perhaps you can correct the Catholic Catechism that says that the evaluation of the conditions for a just war rest with those who have responsibility for the common good(2309). You misread Weigel if you think he takes issue with moral principles articulated by the Magisterium. Or can you cite an example?
BTW, this article appears to haave been published in “USA Today”.
Thank you phil.
Dan,
The difference between the “social justice” issues that you cite and abortion is that reasonable people can differ on how best to acheive social justice. I am a strong advocate of living wages. However, I don’t think that a minimum wage is the best way to acheive a living wage in the long term. Likewise, I am a strong advocate of “affordable housing.” I think that rent controls only restrict the supply of housing and, thus, make affordable housing less available. I believe in racial equality and, thus, do not support quotas or set asides or reducing qualifications for a person of any racial group.
I believe that the best way to acheive a living wage is to help those who are interested in earning a living wage gain the skills necessary to have jobs that pay living wages. Likewise, the best way to get affordable housing is to give incentives to build more homes and to target those homes at people who need them. For example, we don’t really need 3,000 sq ft McMansions. We need more 1500-2200 sq. ft. homes and we should provide some incentive to build these homes.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder