Comments for Politics, Culture, Church at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Sun, 26 May 2013 01:52:24 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/politics-culture-church.html#comment-6106 As to the role of politics, in curbing the power of élites, we should recall the wise warning of Père Henri-Dominique Lacordaire OP about the dangers of freedom: "Between the weak and the strong, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free." - Michael PS Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:03:35 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/politics-culture-church.html#comment-6059 You are saying that there is a case for politics. I am saying that there is a case for other institutions being allowed their space too. - Fr. Bevil Bramwell OMI Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:56:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/politics-culture-church.html#comment-6057 With all respect Father Bevil, I’m not sure I follow how you are interpreting Moynihan. Moynihan was not attempting to exalt elites over individual persons. Nor was he arguing that government was the most important institution of all. At least, that is not a necessary inference from what he said. He was attempting to capture the paradox that neither culture nor politics alone can determine the direction of a society. Is he wrong? Pro-lifers believe in trying to change laws to protect the unborn (politics) so that they might influence the culture. They want, in other words, to use save society from the scourge of abortion by changing both laws and culture. Yet they have discovered that it is harder than they thought to change the laws because paradoxically they have not have as much influence as they would have liked over the culture. Politics and culture here include elites but really get at how individuals live (and vote!). Politics is not a code word for “government by elites”; it is an expression of the fact that human beings are social beings existing in relation to one another. Persuading the elites on the high court and state legislatures is not enough, in other words. You have to persuade people as well to change behaviors and attitudes. And as for Augustine…yes what you say is true-- in the City of God. But in the City of Man, Augustine was perfectly happy to have Roman authority (politics?) come and suppress the Donatists, thereby saving the culture of his church from their baleful influence. I don’t think Moynihan’s aphorism was totally off here either. What am I missing? - peterbrown Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:50:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/politics-culture-church.html#comment-6056 Is it perhaps the case that Moynihan's principal error lies not merely in the belief that governance is necessary for the little people, but that "politics" is precisely the sort of governance we need? Governance, after all, is necessary, and there is plenty of precedent in Catholic thought and history for the role of the state in directing society in its journey towards Christ as the "goal of history." But since the seventeenth century, we in the Anglo-Saxon world have adopted (and have subsequently managed, sadly, to inflict on much of the rest of the world), a procedurally positivist view of governance that has proven incapable of maintaining any clear conception of its proper role in promoting the common good and directing civil society towards Christ. The chief operative element of our system, of course, is "politics": the constant cycle of campaigning, pandering, and maneuvering by public officials that our ever-increasing mania for the franchise necessitates. The left has actively promoted the idea that not only will government help all the people better than they or their social (religious, cultural, civic) institutions could do themselves, but that it is precisely the mechanical procedures of "politics" that will yield the benefits. So we are incessantly reminded that "access," "awareness," and above all "voting" and "electing" will yield all the benefits that any group of people could ever need. If the world simply has enough voting, and enough of all the political accessories of voting, everyone will be happy. The result is some kind of procedural immanentism. Regardless of the precise contours of Moynihan's error, it is a well-articulated and compelling article. - Titus Wed, 16 Feb 2011 06:44:24 +0100