The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Political Withdrawal, Reconsidered Print E-mail
By Joseph Wood   
Saturday, 09 June 2012

Scott Walker’s victory in his race to remain governor of Wisconsin this week has put Republicans and political conservatives in a good mood. Conservative Catholics in particular were cheered recently by polls showing that a majority of Americans now call themselves “pro-life.” The Supreme Court may overturn in some limited or complete way President Obama’s signature health care plan, which has adopted effectively anti-Catholic elements.

So perhaps not all is lost in the Republic’s political and spiritual life after all. But the real reasons for concern among Catholics – and all who take questions of conscience seriously – lie much deeper than any one election or poll. 

A nation that swings from Bush to Obama, and from casting one party into the wilderness in 2008 to bringing it back in 2010, can be thought of as correcting itself over time. Democracies, especially the United States, are said to do so. Or it can be thought of as weaving between exigencies of the moment with little guiding consensus on the principles that should inform its politics.

So the question remains after the headlines of this week replace the headlines of last week: At what point should people of good conscience begin to consider refusing to participate in the political institutions of their nation? 

Several recent columns in this space have considered that question. Two in particular were striking in their depth, one by Father James Schall and the other by Bob Royal.

In the latter, Royal quotes the distinguished Princeton Professor Robert George, writing sixteen years ago: “People of good will – of whatever religious faith – who are prepared to consider seriously [Pope John Paul II’s] teaching in Evangelium Vitae cannot now avoid asking themselves, soberly and unblinkingly, whether our regime is becoming the democratic ‘tyrant state’ about which he warns.”

These two columns, both provoked by the “Obamacare” mandate for the provision of birth control and that mandate’s violation of fundamental tenets of religious freedom, have reopened the debate, as old as the notion of government itself, of when to participate in political institutions, and when to withdraw.

This is more than a dispute about President Obama’s agenda, as important or ephemeral as that may be. It is much deeper than the momentary ups and downs in wondering what a possible President Romney’s agenda would be or what his prospects in the fall are.

It is a debate about the right course of action for those who have never believed that being a person with a conscience informed by Catholic teaching (or by serious Protestant teaching, or by orthodox Jewish teaching) and being a loyal American presented a conflict, but who sense that such a conflict may now be closer than before.

Several commenters on Father Schall’s column on “Political Withdrawal” talked about not giving up the fight. That misses the point. The question is not whether to fight for the truth, but how best to do so. Are our institutions so reduced in legitimacy, so debased from the intent of the Founders, as to be impossible to support in good conscience? 

If so, participating in such institutions would only perpetuate injustice by perpetuating an irredeemable system. If, on the other hand, the institutions can be steered towards justice by participation, then such is our obligation.

The decision on which of those two courses is right does not depend on the political mood of the day. It depends on a careful weighing of whether a moral consensus still exists in the United States over fundamental questions such as the nature of the human person, the role of the state and its dangers, and the balance of rights and duties. Such a consensus is necessary to have any prospect of prudential policy decisions within a morally supportable order.

Political withdrawal in the sense considered here would not be withdrawing into the desert. It would not mean “giving up” or maintaining silence. It would acknowledge a particular set of circumstances that demands a particular set of responses (which would likely differ in degree and detail with each individual) – a particular withdrawal rather than a general surrender. 

And the question is not new in Christian or broader history. Christ called on St. Matthew to give up his tax collecting and follow him (it always seemed to me especially insightful to have consecrated the Washington Cathedral to St. Matthew). 

Christians faced persecution from Rome. St. Augustine turned from a political career when he converted. Boethius and St. Thomas More dealt with this question until it was resolved for them by the executioner. Examples abound in all times and places, and not just for Christians but for all who face unjust and powerful governments (including, in some times and places, governments supported by Church authorities).

The Church in recent decades has encouraged political participation, and the Catechism describes the place of legitimate temporal authority. But it posits important conditions and caveats. Perhaps most relevant for our moment is the warning, “Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.”

The Catechism goes on to quote Aquinas:

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.
      I have always favored the idea that it is better to try to serve our governing institutions because, if for no other reason, when good people withdraw, bad people will rule. But the question is now opened more acutely than ever before in American history. This week’s polls will not give us the answer.
 
 
Joseph R. Wood is a former White House official who worked on foreign policy, including Vatican affairs.
 
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.
  

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (8)Add Comment
0
...
written by Sue, June 09, 2012
My diocese is withdrawing from adoption services, quietly. No doubt because of homosexual pressure. Should this not be, however, the signature Catholic charity, due to its mediation between the twin evils it uniquely opposes, abortion and artificial reproduction?

I recently saw an excellent secular explanation by Dr Jennifer Roeback-Morse, why adoptive parents should be heterosexual - they are in essence, _standing in_ for the child's biological parents and should therefore constitute the same essential parts. Children deeply relate to the bond that brought them into being (see JPII's "Jeweler's Shop") and are made psychologically secure by having a mother and father committed to each other.

Even if government no longer subsidizes, should the Church not go to the mats to support natural family adoption as a bulwark against Brave New World?
0
...
written by Brad Miner, June 09, 2012
When first published this morning, an editorial error (now corrected) appeared in Mr. Wood's column. Polls show the majority of Americans are pro-life, not pro-choice. We regret the error. -Brad Miner
0
...
written by Grump, June 09, 2012
Brad, unfortunately a majority or near-majority of Americans support same-sex "marriage."
0
...
written by duke, June 09, 2012
To what extent can Catholics withdraw into their own unsubsidized institutions and be free to provide services. With respect to adoptions, are gov'ts prohibiting bans on same sex adoption by agencies they subsidize or by all agencies? How about Catholic agencies that serve only Catholics?
0
...
written by Tony Esolen, June 09, 2012
I agree with Sue entirely.

The dioceses should make the Tsar or the Tsarina drag them away from their duties bloodied and kicking and crying out.

THAT is their genuine political activity: their action in the polis: the attempt to secure the common good by, for instance, the service of adoption. To fold up is to retreat from genuine political activity in the face of what is illegitimate.

I think a case can be made that American politics as it now exists is an affront to the polis itself, and should be opposed also on the grounds of the natural law as it relates to free associations of people uniting for the common good. The example of what has happened to school districts and school boards comes to mind.
0
...
written by Francis, June 09, 2012
As Maggie Gallagher has pointed out, the turning point in a conflict is when one side loses the will to fight, not the fight itself. The Declaration of Independence is still the founding document and the Constitution has not been revoked. And the State is broke, thus restricting its primary means of expansion. This is the time, as Pope Benedict has just reminded us, for recovering the Church Militant. The Enemy looks more formidable than it really is.
0
...
written by Frank, June 10, 2012
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The stirrings to become a Catholic years ago began with Pope John Paul II going to Poland. "Be not afraid!" As much as I admire Reagan and Thatcher, I believe both played only supporting roles in winning the Cold War. In the end, the Holy Spirit working through both John Paul II and the Church, ended the Cold War.
I will assume all here are Catholic and American. Withdraw? Where would we be if Washington had disbanded his army at Valley Forge?
The 16 Nuns of Compiegne willing went to the guillotine in the French Revolution. They could have said no to Christ at their "trial."
To withdraw from adoption services as noted by Sue is not a withdrawal, it is a legitimate tactic in a larger strategic struggle.
There are few things more chilling and unnerving to be issued and read a deployment order to war. It's an order NOT a request. Pack your bags, verify your will as you move through the deployment line, get on the plane that is about to fly TOWARD the shooting, not away form it.
"Go into the world and teach all nations Christ tells us." Any Greek or Latin scholars around that can tell us that somewhere in that text, if there are word(s) or cultural context that clearly point to retreat?
Let's not confuse tactics with the larger struggle but retreat IS NOT and never will be an option.
0
...
written by Chris in Maryland, June 12, 2012
I am sad to say that I believe that the withdrawal from adoption services by some diocesan administrations indicates that the clergy and laity in those diocese believe that Govt has primacy over the Church regarding matters of family, marriage, children and education, and prefer that the Church comply with the Govt, or surrender.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner