April 17, 2024: Part 2 - Catholic Political Thought in America
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Lectures from Ross Douthat and Leah Libresco Sargeant.
Ross Douthat joined The New York Times as an opinion columnist in April 2009. His column appears every Tuesday and Sunday. He earned his BA from Harvard University. He is also a host on the weekly opinion podcast Matter of Opinion and writes film criticism for National Review. Previously, he was a senior editor at The Atlantic and a blogger on its website. He is the author, most recently, of The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery. His other books include The Decadent Society; To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism; Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics; Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream, co-authored with Reihan Salam; and Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class.
Leah Libresco Sargeant is a freelance writer covering religion, statistics, and as much theater as she can get tickets for. She earned a BA from Yale. Her writing has appeared in First Things, America, The American Conservative, Commonweal, The American Interest, and others. She is the author of Arriving at Amen: Seven Catholic Prayers that Even I Can Offer, which tells the story of how she learned to pray. Her second book, Building the Benedict Option, is a guide to building thicker Christian community. She is the author of the substack “Other Feminisms” and hosts a podcast of the same name.
To describe Mitt Romney as unreasonable is truly bizarre, no wonder why these freaks lose
What is Catholic political thought? What does any religion have to do with who you vote for? You vote for who you think will lead your community best. Your religious beliefs and those of the candidates have absolutely nothing to do with issues like fiscal responsibility, unemployment, policing, health care etc. Jeepers, that's the whole point of separation of church and state.
What you believe is financially responsible is often informed by your values and beliefs, same thing with health care.
Separation of Church and State was always designed to prevent the State from taking over Churches, not from Churches and their members being able to speak their minds and try to influence laws. All laws are based on morals.
@@jameshojnowski8455 I think you make some excellent points. To be honest I had never thought of State wishing to control Church. Now that I think of it, why would government want to take control of Church?
Of course I'm asking from the point of view that Church and Religion are perhaps the greatest evil on the planet. (Spoiler: I'm Atheist). What is moral to one person can be immoral to another. Thus laws are not necessarily moral despite as you say being based on morals.
I do value your thoughts regardless of my disagreement with the concept of religion informing morality. I expect we are quite opposite in our views of society. I hope we can agree on laws that would allow us to coexist peacefully. Thanks for your response.
I appreciate your cordiality, it is rare on the internet.
State-controlled religion was often the norm prior to the creation of the Roman Catholic Church. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian states all controlled their religion. The Roman Emperor also held the title Pontificus Maximus, or Chief Priest. People expected their rulers to enforce and uphold religious and moral dogma lest they tempt the wrath of the gods, and leaders expected religious officials to help and justify their rule. It was a complex relationship that often saw religion as the state as one organism, rather than the two we see them today.
As to why, being in charge of the Church often meant less challenge to your authority as a leader if you were at the top. Christian Kings and Emperors in Europe had to follow a moral code lest they be condemned by the Church, with disastrous consequences. Look at two examples, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV vs. English King Henry VIII. Henry IV tried to take over the Catholic Church so he could appoint Bishops to Church positions that would be loyal to him rather than loyal to Church teachings. He was excommunicated and under threat of losing his soul and temporal power (as his subjects could now freely rebel against him), Henry IV had to humble himself before the Pope before he could continue to rule, thus keeping Church teaching free of political intrigue.
Henry VIII meanwhile wanted a divorce for purely political reasons, and broke away the Catholic Church in England to make himself the leader. He got himself several divorces despite the "Church of England" continuing to teach divorce was not allowed (until the 1900s), and also ransacked all the churches and monasteries to enrich himself, destroying countless communities and human treasures for short term financial gain. The Church of England is slowly tottering to irrelevance as its initial flaw of being founded on a contradiction only leads to conflicts that they cannot resolve, and often look to politics to figure out their teaching.
Yes people may disagree on morals, which in our system takes place in debate. Eventually one side wins out, and their morals predominate. Look at the Abolition movement and Civil Rights movement in the United States, which sought to change what we would both agree were horrifically immoral societal practices (Slavery and segregation). Both were intensely Christian endeavors, their arguments based on Christian morality, that at their time were NOT the popular options (Even most Northerners saw Abolitionists as pot stirrers, and MLK Jr. frequently admonishes white moderates for thinking he was going 'too fast' in demanding fundamental equality). Today you can scarcely find someone, atheist or Christian who would oppose those endeavors or disagree that they are immoral.
Thus it is fundamental to allow people to debate and advocate for their morality in laws. Laws are going to be passed based on someone's morals, ones we will all have to live under. As a Christian (Roman Catholic), I believe Christianity possesses the truest morals that promote human flourishing and joy. My job in advocating for laws based on them is convincing people how those laws would benefit them and their souls.
Cheers.
what about moral issues? aren't political opinions on those informed by religion? Yes, yes they are.
@@baj5763 What moral issues? I don't know what issues you're talking about. Am I supposed to worry about whether the candidate of my choice is going to go on. a killing spree or commit another series of crimes? Sounds like a policing issue.
If you could kindly clarify what you meant with an example or two that would be appreciated.