Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life

Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life | Charles J. Chaput | Not All Who Defer and Assent are the same - some distinctions

books:

Render Unto Caesar...

	Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life Charles J. Chaput Doubleday, 2008 - 272 pages average customer review:based on 28 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

?People who take God seriously will not remain silent about their faith. They will often disagree about doctrine or policy, but they won?t be quiet. They can?t be. They?ll act on what they believe, sometimes at the cost of their reputations and careers. Obviously the common good demands a respect for other people with different beliefs and a willingness to compromise whenever possible. But for Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of human dignity. Christian faith is always personal but never private. This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail.?
?From the Introduction

Few topics in recent years have ignited as much public debate as the balance between religion and politics. Does religious thought have any place in political discourse? Do religious believers have the right to turn their values into political action? What does it truly mean to have a separation of church and state? The very heart of these important questions is here addressed by one of the leading voices on the topic, Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver.

While American society has ample room for believers and nonbelievers alike, Chaput argues, our public life must be considered within the context of its Christian roots. American democracy does not ask its citizens to put aside their deeply held moral and religious beliefs for the sake of public policy. In fact, it requires exactly the opposite.

As the nation?s founders knew very well, people are fallible. The majority of voters, as history has shown again and again, can be uninformed, misinformed, biased, or simply wrong. Thus, to survive, American democracy depends on an engaged citizenry ?people of character, including religious believers, fighting for their beliefs in the public square?respectfully but vigorously, and without apology. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the nation?s health. Or as the author suggests: Good manners are not an excuse for political cowardice.

American Catholics and other persons of goodwill are part of a struggle for our nation?s future, says Charles J. Chaput. Our choices, including our political choices, matter. Catholics need to take an active, vocal, and morally consistent role in public debate. We can?t claim to personally believe in the sanctity of the human person, and then act in our public policies as if we don?t. We can?t separate our private convictions from our public actions without diminishing both. In the words of the author, ?How we act works backward on our convictions, making them stronger or smothering them under a snowfall of alibis.?

Vivid, provocative, clear, and compelling, Render unto Caesar is a call to American Catholics to serve the highest ideals of their nation by first living their Catholic faith deeply, authentically.

for more information click here

Calling all Christians to political action

Archbishop Charles Chaput eloquently explains the necessity and obligation of Catholics and all Christians to be part of the political process. This book is obviously divinely inspired and a great read!

Not All Who Defer and Assent are the same - some distinctions

The issue I want to introduce in a nutshell, and it is not really an over against critique but an expansion on this excellent theme, is this: When it comes to moral teachings that are not fully transparent to one's human reasoning, for example, involving the metaphysical distinctions regarding human life and human personhood (and especially as such distinctions might, for many in the political arena, reasonably raise parvity of matter questions that are particularly pertinent when values begin to conflict and compete), to the extent one obeys such teachings out of deference to a teaching authority and not rather as a consequence of reasoning one's way from an is to an ought, how could one then coherently urge such deference (what amounts to an obsequium religiosum or even fidei?) on others in a pluralistic society? It is not enough to claim that such a teaching authority's moral reasoning is grounded philosophically and is not essentially theological? That reasoning must also be genuinely compelling (perhaps especially to one's own flock, not to mention to a pluralistic society as a community of value-realizers writ large)? Metaphysical questions are at stake and metaphysics, by its very nature, is an exploratory and not an explanatory enterprise; it traffics in vague references and not robust descriptions, its language employing more so heuristic and less so theoretic concepts and categories, whereby metaphysics can legitimately probe but not conclusively prove realities. Hence, our deontologies should be considered as tentative as our ontologies are speculative, and urged, therefore, more modestly, which is to say more fallibilistically?

1) American democracy does not ask its citizens to put aside their deeply held moral and religious beliefs for the sake of public policy. In fact, it requires exactly the opposite. (Inside Cover, Render Unto Caesar)

2) Catholics strongly support a proper and healthy separation of the civil and religious dimensions of our national life. Of course, everything depends on how we define "proper" and "healthy." No one in mainstream public life wants to force uniquely Catholic doctrines into federal law. But the "establishment clause" does not mean that religious believers, leaders or communities should be silent in public affairs. In fact, healthy democratic life requires the opposite. (Separation of Church and State, Render Unto Caeser)

Indeed, the American response to the Enlightenment critique stands in stark contrast to the Continental approach, which marginalized religion with its secularistic, Enlightenment fundamentalism, marked by an empiricistic rationalism and scientism.

3) The author draws significantly upon the thought of the late theologian, John Courtney Murray, S.J., who played a considerable role at Vatican II in the elaboration of the Council's pioneering Declaration on Religious Liberty, "Dignitatis humanae." Murray argued (and Chaput agrees) that the founding documents of American democracy drew upon a natural law vision that affirms universal truths about the human condition. Thus Catholics, with their commitment to the natural law tradition, have a crucial contribution to make to American public life and the political process. Indeed, how can one possibly contribute to the common good unless one brings to the discussion and debate one's deeply held values and moral convictions? ('Render Unto Caesar' answers crucial questions about intersection of faith and politics By Fr. Robert Imbelli L'Osservatore Romano)

This is all very consonant with Pope John Paul II's words from Fides et Ratio: "Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity. It is as if we had come upon an implicit philosophy, as a result of which all feel that they possess these principles, albeit in a general and unreflective way. Precisely because it is shared in some measure by all, this knowledge should serve as a kind of reference-point for the different philosophical schools. Once reason successfully intuits and formulates the first universal principles of being and correctly draws from them conclusions which are coherent both logically and ethically, then it may be called right reason or, as the ancients called it, orth(o-)s logos, recta ratio."

Also, consider these reflections of R. Mary Hayden Lemmons ( First Things, April 1995, On Natural Law: Carl F. H. Henry & Critics):"Moreover, believers ought not deny the universal accessibility of moral norms. For if moral precepts were not universally accessible and if their justification belonged only to the realm of faith, then moral norms would bind only believers. ... ... Moral claims are justified through logical arguments that appeal to the requirement of human nature and dignity."

However one grounds one's moral philosophy, indeed, the Catholic affirmation of human moral reasoning capacities over against any fundamentalistic fideisms recognizes and affirms the efficacies of moral discourse even in pluralistic societies. However ...

4) Pluralism is a demographic fact. Nothing more. It is not a philosophy or ideology or surrogate creed. It does not imply that all ideas and religious beliefs are equally valid, because they are not. Pluralism never excuses us from speaking and acting to advance our beliefs about justice and the common good in the public square. (Introduction, Render Unto Caesar)

5) Obviously the common good demands a respect for other people with different beliefs and a willingness to compromise whenever possible. But for Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of human dignity. Christian faith is always personal but never private. This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail. (Introduction, Render Unto Caesar)

6) We can't separate our private convictions from our public actions without diminishing both. In the words of the author, "How we act works backward on our convictions, making them stronger or smothering them under a snowfall of alibis." (Inside Cover, Render Unto Caesar)

This affirmation of the willingness to compromise seems in line with a Catholic tradition of political realism, wherein the best is not allowed to become the enemy of the good. Such compromises are practical and not theoretical, which is to say not a capitulation to any insidious indifferentism, facile syncretism, false irenicism or moral relativism but, rather, an approach that is both incremental and principled.

7) American Catholics and other persons of good heart are part of a struggle for our nation's future, says Charles J. Chaput. Our choices, including our political choices, matter. Catholics need to take an active, vocal, and morally consistent role in public debate. We can't claim to personally believe in the sanctity of the human person and then act in our public policies as if we don't. (Inside Cover, Render Unto Caesar)

Religion News Service caught up with Archbishop Chaput to talk politics and theology, as the Democrats were holding their national convention in his backyard. RNS asked: "Why should non-Catholics agree with church teaching on abortion?" and Chaput replied: "This is not a Catholic position, it's a human rights issue that our faith encourages us to support. To identify this as a Catholic issue is a trap. It was the law of the land for decades. It was the way human beings thought human beings should be treated. That's the kind of question that irritates me." (http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/1760 )

Chaput also recently corrected Joe Biden: "Sen. Biden is a man of distinguished public service. That doesn't excuse poor logic or bad facts. Asked when life begins, Sen. Biden said that, "it's a personal and private issue." But in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception. Religion has nothing to do with it. People might argue when human "personhood" begins - though that leads public policy in very dangerous directions - but no one can any longer claim that the beginning of life is a matter of religious opinion. (http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29157 )

These are all excellent commentaries on the place of religion in public discourse and are consistent with the document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States," wherein it is written: "What faith teaches about the dignity of the human person and about the sacredness of every human life helps us see more clearly the same truths that also come to us through the gift of human reason. At the center of these truths is respect for the dignity of every person. This is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching. Because we are people of both faith and reason, it is appropriate and necessary for us to bring this essential truth about human life and dignity to the public square. The Catholic community brings important assets to the political dialogue about our nation's future. We bring a consistent moral framework--drawn from basic human reason that is illuminated by Scripture and the teaching of the Church-- for assessing issues, political platforms, and campaigns. We also bring broad experience in serving those in need--educating the young, caring for the sick, sheltering the homeless, helping women who face difficult pregnancies, feeding the hungry, welcoming immigrants and refugees, reaching out in global solidarity, and pursuing peace. The Church equips its members to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well-formed conscience. Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church."

Some Relevant Distinctions

Some of the distinctions that have been introduced are those between faith and reason, the teaching of the Church and human reason, personal and private issues, religious and civil dimensions, justification in the realm of faith and justification through logical argument, private convictions and public actions, the beginning of life and the beginning of personhood, and so on and so forth.

From a sociologic perspective, such distinctions bring to mind additional distinctions that have a direct bearing on our present consideration. In a pluralistic society, we might recognize that not all of our definitions and distinctions, concepts and categories, seem to enjoy universal acceptance. This holds true whether we employ them in descriptive, normative, interpretive or evaluative modes. Our concepts and categories can be characterized in many ways. I have found it useful to distinguish them, from the standpoint of any given community of value-realizers, as negotiated or nonnegotiated by that community. The nonnegotiable concepts and categories I like to call semiotic for they make our communications possible and without them we could not establish any meaning at all; they would include various first principles and other noninferential propositions to which we all pretty much assent out of practical necessity, however we might otherwise attempt to ground them philosophically.

The negotiated categories and concepts then fall into three buckets: the dogmatic or nonnegotiated, the heuristic or still in negotiation, and the theoretic or negotiated. The reason such distinctions are salient to our discussion is that, as we move from a religious community of value-realizers into a wider, pluralistic community of value-realizers, the lingua franca is going to necessarily change, which is to recognize that --- not only are our descriptive, normative, interpretive and evaluative stances going to possibly (probably) differ, which is enough of a problematic, but --- many of our concepts and categories are going to be subject to renegotiation, which is to suggest that many of our dogmatic beliefs will have to be bracketed and some of our heuristic placeholders will have little normative force for others.

Usually, we will still have all of our semiotic concepts and categories and most of our theoretic ones, too, which, serving as givens (the is), can help us reason together toward the normative (the ought). Now, there are some who, with Hume, would deny our ability to reason from the descriptive to the prescriptive, from an is to an ought, from the given to the normative, who do not affirm even the inherent normativity of epistemology, itself, and all I can suggest is that, if they should come for tea, hide your silver spoons.

All of this is to suggest that the Society of Jesus is correct in saying: "When abortion laws are changed, it will not be the imposition of a narrowly confined religious position upon an unwilling majority, but rather the consequence of a new broad-based consensus grounded upon persuasive and reasonable arguments accessible to people of all faith traditions and people of none ... ... ... ... ... ... ... We must acknowledge, however, that phrases such as `the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' and `the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family' in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are phrases with contested meanings that others understand differently than we do." (A Statement of the Society of Jesus in the United States on Abortion)

As Catholics enter into public discourse, there are additional distinctions that come to bear. One involves the Church's hierarchy of truths and doctrinal authority; see this discussion by Cardinal Dulles at http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/church_studies/reese/ec/ec-7dulles.htm , this one by Dr. William May at http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp.

What is at stake in these discussions are distinctions between the various "voices" of the Magisterium and the types of responses they require from the Faithful, sometimes distinguished as the assent of faith (obsequium fidei) and religious assent (obsequium religiosum). There are further distinctions that come into play such as: a) obsequium religiosum, which means to be acknowledged with reverence and adhered to sincerely (somewhat analogous to that which is commonly called "the benefit of the doubt") or one with the searching church, working for clarification; b) voluntatis obsequium or obedience; c) intellectus obsequium or deference; d) attention bienveillante or cordial attention; e) docilité d'esprit or willingness to be instructed; and f) obsequium fidei or the unconditional acceptance of faith, which is an unqualified mental acceptance (beyond but not without the propositional), whereby we are one with the believing church holding firm to a doctrine.

What all of these orientations have in common is that they are a form of assent, which represent an unconditional belief in propositions that can be apprehended even if not fully comprehended; the object of assent is truth. Per Cardinal Newman, simple assent is an act of the intellect "direct, absolute, complete in itself, unconditional, arbitrary, yet not incompatible with an appeal to argument, and at least in many cases exercised unconsciously," and which, via one's illative sense, the extension of assent to non-logically proved propositions is not unreasonable.

The above-discussion of the hierarchy of truth, voices of the Magisterium and responses of the Faithful vis a vis various types of assent has only an indirect bearing on our consideration to the extent we must draw a further distinction, with Cardinal Newman, between assent and inference, which he considers to be a proposition intrinsically dependent on other propositions, where the object of inference is truth-like and ultimately syllogistic. This, then, introduces another assent, complex assent, which is made consciously and deliberately with acts of inference as its antecedents.

To wit, then, per P.J. Toner `s entry on Infallibility in The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Assent is given not to the logical force of the syllogism, but directly to the authority which the inference serves to introduce; and this holds good in a measure even when there is question of mere fallible authority. Once we come to believe in and rely upon authority we can afford to overlook the means by which we were brought to accept it, just as a man who has reached a solid standing place where he wishes to remain no longer relies on the frail ladder by which he mounted. (Volume VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910.)

Now, even as we properly suggest that our fellow Catholics "[must] bring to the discussion and debate one's deeply held values and moral convictions," before we either explicitly or implicitly suggest that they are somehow a) "putting aside their deeply held moral and religious beliefs" b) "muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of human dignity" c) "[reducing] faith to private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public" d) "separating [their] private convictions from [their] public actions ... diminishing both" e) "smothering [their convictions] under a snowfall of alibis" --- it seems to me that it is incumbent upon us to inquire of this or that fellow Catholic as to exactly what type of assent they have given to this or that moral teaching. (Hence, the Bishops' desires to meet with this or that politician?)

This is to suggest that some Catholics might have, with utmost deference and a most cordial attention, demonstrated a clear willingness to be instructed, and further, that these very same Catholics have, then, with all due reverence, sincerely and obediently adhered to and acknowledged, sometimes with an obsequium religiosum, sometimes with even an obsequium fidei, this or that moral teaching of the Church, even as they have not consciously and deliberately engaged an act of inference in following a logical argument, although, again, not unreasonably extending such assent to a non-logically proved proposition.

This is also to suggest that other Catholics, with the same deference, attention, willingness, reverence, sincerity, obedience, acknowledgment and obsequium may have assented even though they have indeed engaged an act of inference but, in so doing, could not, with all intellectual honesty, be moved by this or that syllogistic force or concur in this or that logical conclusion, perhaps, in all good faith, not even recognizing certain of the concepts and categories employed in such arguments. This is to suggest that the snowfall of ad hominem characterizations of such loyal Catholics and faithful citizens would melt before it hits the ground, because such rash judgment is one thing that assuredly has no place in our public square.

Only if one, as a believer, engages in both assent and inference, however formally or informally, can one then honestly urge such convictions on the wider community of value-realizers through such formal argumentation as is the currency of political discourse. As we know from cultural appeals and imagery, political communications also (maybe even mostly) employ our imaginations and subrational faculties. There are many believers who, not unreasonably, but without conscious reflection, deliberate assent or formal inference, sincerely hold, practice, and are genuinely convicted of, certain moral teachings; such believers can still give profound witness to the secular world through the example of their lives in protecting innocents and serving those in need, and also through narrative and storytelling; still, it behooves all to strive toward a more conscious competence and ongoing intellectual conversion that they might better contribute to formal public discourse. With St. Francis, I'm not wholly convinced that the formal discourse would be more efficacious than the living witness, but it's still best that we take a holistic approach and cover all evangelistic bases. Still, as Newman suggests, we want to eschew any "slavish reliance on the capricious ipse dixit of authority".

http://www.geocities.com/rc4o08/abortion_politics.htm

for more information click here

Great advice from a Great Bishop

Archbishop Chaput hits the nail on the head with this book written for all Christians of good will. This book is an easy read. I read it in a couple of hours. Yet the points that he makes are excellent. We really do need to stop leaving our faith at the church door and get out and change this country for the better. Read this book... it will challenge you and maybe even change you... for good.

Just What We Need

A concise review of the American history of Catholicism that calls us to better integrate our private and public life.

The part on Martin Luther King was OUTASITE!!!!!!!

I'm not sure I fully agreed with nonjudgemental on out of diocese acceptance of public figures on abortion but the rest of the book swung all the way to Moscow!!!!!

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

products you might be interested in