When Santorum gets on an issue like contraception, that reminds voters that he’s not merely a social conservative, but a Catholic conservative. That, in turn, raises the question of whether he’ll alienate evangelical voters. I suppose that’s a possibility.
But, paradoxically, it may be more likely that he’ll alienate Catholic voters. I don’t mean Catholic voters who share his viewpoint, but Catholic voters on his left.
Some Catholic voters may feel that his conservative views are implicitly judgmental of their Catholic bona fides. If he’s Catholic, what does that make them?
By contrast, his position doesn’t have the same potential to put evangelical voters on the defensive inasmuch as their religious identity was never pegged to fidelity to the Magisterium.
Some Catholic voters may feel that his conservative views are implicitly judgmental of their Catholic bona fides. If he’s Catholic, what does that make them?
ReplyDeleteSeems apt enough. I could imagine some cringing at the idea that Rick Santorum would be the most visible Catholic for 4 years. And they just got done telling all their liberal friends that Catholicism is progressive and we'll all be as liberal as the Episcopalians any day now!
However, this confuses me.
When Santorum gets on an issue like contraception, that reminds voters that he’s not merely a social conservative, but a Catholic conservative.
Is opposition to artificial contraception really that exclusively Catholic in your view? No protestant or non-Catholic could come to the view that it's wrong? Or is it more of a 'Catholics are the most prominent sorts taking this position' thing?
CRUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Is opposition to artificial contraception really that exclusively Catholic in your view? No protestant or non-Catholic could come to the view that it's wrong?"
It's an ad hoc position that isn't really consistent with natural law–or Scripture.
It's an ad hoc position that isn't really consistent with natural law–or Scripture.
ReplyDeleteSo you say, while numerous natural law theorists and others say otherwise. But that's moot, since you can make that claim ('not consistent with natural law or Scripture') for plenty of non-Catholic positions - it doesn't explain why it would be exclusively Catholic. It certainly doesn't seem like it was a distinctly Catholic view until fairly recently.
*Catholic* natural law theorists say that because they are beginning, not with natural law, but with Magisterial teaching, then attempting to justify that retroactively by makeshift appeals to natural law.
ReplyDelete*Catholic* natural law theorists say that because they are beginning, not with natural law, but with Magisterial teaching, then attempting to justify that retroactively by makeshift appeals to natural law.
ReplyDeleteAgain, my understanding was that the teaching against contraception went far beyond the boundaries of Catholicism until fairly recently.
And your claim about 'Catholic natural law theorists' doesn't seem correct. At the very least I can name one such thinker (Ed Feser) who argues that artificial contraception is immoral and contrary even before magisterial teaching is concerned. I doubt he's alone.
Somehow I doubt it's coincidental that Feser is Catholic.
ReplyDeleteSomehow I doubt it's coincidental that Feser is Catholic.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, Feser doesn't "begin with" magisterial teaching.
And again, are you saying this position on artificial contraception is unique to the Catholic Church? My understanding is that it's only fairly recently that most other churches changed their views ("became more liberal" maybe?) on this subject.
Crude,
ReplyDeleteThe historical question is not so clear-cut. See John T. Noonan's monograph, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967).
CRUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Nevertheless, Feser doesn't 'begin with' magisterial teaching."
He hits the target he's aiming for.
The historical question is not so clear-cut.
ReplyDeleteI suppose Steve would say, I'm sure Noonan hit whatever target he was aiming for. ;)
Crude,
ReplyDeleteI often think you're humorous when I read your comments. (I mean that in a good way.)
Noonan was (and is) a Catholic, and his treatment of the subject is widely respected. I think it is a useful corrective to the simplistic manner in which some approach the historical record on contraception.
I often think you're humorous when I read your comments. (I mean that in a good way.)
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear it. Nothing wrong with some light humor, I say.
Noonan was (and is) a Catholic,
No doubt. I'd be shocked if the teaching had absolutely zero alternate views in the Church, stretching back through time.
But my question to Steve was whether it was some exclusively Catholic thing throughout time. My understanding is that - whatever you may think of the particular Catholic history of the teaching - this is not the case. The conversation's over with Steve, since he's currently in Double Down No Matter What mode. Either way, thanks for the reference. Maybe I'll give it a read sometime.
CRUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete"But my question to Steve was whether it was some exclusively Catholic thing throughout time. My understanding is that - whatever you may think of the particular Catholic history of the teaching - this is not the case."
You're equivocating. The question at issue concerns the specific position of Roman Catholicism on "artificial" birth control.
Crude plays Feser, another Catholic plays Garry Wills. Personally I think Catholics really need some kind of supreme document that can codify and preserve their fundamental doctrines and prevent them being subjected to individual interpretations. Each Catholic has his or her own personal list of Rightly Guided Popes; some scholars estimated there may have been as many as 270 Popes, so the possible permutations are huge. (I'm still getting over the shock of learning that Mark Shea does not admire Rick Santorum, as I would have thought, but instead detests him.)
ReplyDeleteSo once you have a fixed list of central and non-negotiable Catholic doctrines, you could borrow a term from Hollywood screenwriting and call it a "bible".
> "Is opposition to artificial contraception really that exclusively Catholic in your view? No protestant or non-Catholic could come to the view that it's wrong?"
There certainly are protestants who oppose all birth control.
There are, however, no protestants - indeed, no non-Catholics - indeed, no one who is not a moderately conservative Catholic somewhere between Vatican 1.3 and Vatican 2.1 on the Precious Spectrum - I have ever come across who adopt the Vatican's position that birth control by NFP is fine but birth control by "artificial contraception" is intrinsically wrong. (Indeed, many ultra-traditionalist Catholics reject this distinction as well and consider NFP just as bad as the Pill, just as liberal Catholics consider all contraception to be legitimate, and abortion as well.)
The distinction between swearing by the temple (binding) vs swearing by the gold in the temple (not binding) is unique to Catholics who bear allegiance to the current and recent Popes. It is not shared by anyone else in the human race.
It is therefore a rather odd candidate for inclusion in a list of "natural law" doctrines alongside Do Not Steal, Do Not Murder, and Do Not Bear False Witness.