Comments for A Question That Won’t Go Away at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 29 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 22 May 2013 07:59:56 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10748 Chris: Would you be willing to elaborate what part of my definition of tradition you believe to be incorrect? - Scotty Ellis Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:05:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10743 Scotty: I regret to say that trying to engage with you on this topic is like the movie "Ground-hog Day." Your response does not engage on the counterpoint...you simply amplify your original point. "[T]radition ... is not static. It changes; it cannot help but change. Like a game of telephone...." That tradition admits change is not news to people who revere tradition. Yet you miss the essential point. Tradition is not what you misunderstand it to be. Your radio could use some calibration - a broader band receiver might enable discussion. Until then, farewell... - Chris in Maryland Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:35:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10737 Chris: "Your response is not an account about what tradition means, it is instead an observation about decay - that the confusion and misunderstanding by "traditionalists" and "progressives" amounts to tradition. No - it simply amounts to decay." No; tradition by its definition is not static. It changes; it cannot help but change. Like a game of telephone, even a group that explicitly intends to keep a static, unchanging tradition will find that alteration of the symbols and meaning will occur through the process of transmission. This is called the development of ideas, and its constitutes the activity of tradition. You may not like the way a tradition is going; fine. You will join the ranks of many throughout history who disliked where tradition was going (consider the pagans of the fourth century, who watched in horror as the ancient traditions of the Roman religion were first replaced and then destroyed by Christians - one has only to investigate a figure like Julian the Apostate to see the fervor and anger that this change in Roman tradition evoked, a change that they would have described as decay). But it is only sleight of hand to call agreeable developments as "genuine tradition" and disagreeable development as "decay." It is perhaps much more truthful to simply admit that you prefer things the way they used to be (whatever that might mean). "Your account doesn't register the stabilizing principle charactersistic of tradition. Your account is exclusively about change, there is no sensibility whatsoever about revering what has been learned/experienced before." This is because tradition, like all social practices, is in flux. Like language - probably the most fundamental set of social symbols - the contents of a tradition will naturally change simply from use, and will definitely change or develop in response to social crises. We can look at Christian doctrine for a perfect example: a heresy forms, which constitutes a social crisis. The heresy threatens the status quo, the given religious symbols and meanings. In its reaction - that is, in its effort to combat the heresy - the Church puts forth new redefinitions, more elaborate explanations - in short, it both develops and adds to its religious symbols. This is merely the result of a tradition being active: the only unchanging traditions are dead traditions. "Your account does not even reach the level of disdain for what has gone before, which would put you in the vulnerable spot of taking a position. It merely registers as indifference, which has no content." Why should I disdain what has come before, even if I disagree with it? I disagree with geocentrism, for instance; I do not treat it with disdain. What many on both sides of the political debate - including the one relevant to this article, the health care debate - often overlook is that even the ideas against which we are reacting or with which we are disagreeing form an important part of our own doctrine. Church doctrine would not be anywhere nearly as developed as it is now had it never had any heretics: that is, if it did not constantly have to react to new social threats by means of elaborating its set of religious symbols. In any case, my whole point was to respond to this article's implication that judicial activism is not part of the Constitutional tradition: my point is that it is now, that the activity of tradition has resulted in change (something that I imagine you would not disagree with - after all, I assume you are okay with women voting, for example?). I do not believe I have to express rancor in order for my comment to have meaningful content. - Scotty Ellis Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:55:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10733 Gian: Sorry Gian - you don't get to redefine the Consitution as you like. TheAmerican system is explicitly designed to free people from tyranny in any political form, not the "re-intrepretation" called "local customs." - Chris in Maryland Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:39:33 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10732 Scotty: Your response is not an account about what tradition means, it is instead an observation about decay - that the confusion and misunderstanding by "traditionalists" and "progressives" amounts to tradition. No - it simply amounts to decay. Your account doesn't register the stabilizing principle charactersistic of tradition. Your account is exclusively about change, there is no sensibility whatsoever about revering what has been learned/experienced before. There is no stabilizing principle to conserve the good handed down. Your account does not even reach the level of disdain for what has gone before, which would put you in the vulnerable spot of taking a position. It merely registers as indifference, which has no content. - Chris in Maryland Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:34:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10727 The animating principle of the US Constitution seems to be Individual Liberty. The logical end is the present libertine despotism, foreseen by Dostoevsky. The American system was designed to free people from local customs. That's why the stress on "pursuit of happiness". In Lockean thought, local customs and people embodying them are obstacles to individual liberty. Customs form "chest" and without them, we are men without chest, dependent upon frail intellects, tossed here and there by delusively perceived self-interests - Gian Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:35:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10726 The Constitution, as I see it, is a blueprint for limited government at the federal level; it is the law for making laws and for disallowing laws. It is no more "outdated" now than the structure of a baseball game is outdated. In fact, its relevance is greater now than ever, because its inherent suspicion of centralized power, if given the respect that suspicion deserves, would help us to see the absurdities of the system we now have. For we have a monstrosity. The most niggling questions of local custom and even personal behavior are referred to a national government of over 300 million people, or, worse, to a Star Chamber of Harvard graduates, all lawyers. That is what our Founders called tyranny. It doesn't matter that we happen to have an electoral mechanism that gives each one of us some exiguous "influence" over the Golem. Big deal. The real exercise of political action should be primarily by way of traditions and customs, lived locally. Does it really make a difference -- I am sorely tempted to use an obscene modifier here -- does it really make a difference that some jobbing Bozos in Washington DC work to determine what goes on in your local public school, rather than a committee of unelected Swedes or Danes? Exactly how much less real political power would we possess if it were the Swedes or Danes? The hypothetical question isn't idle. Jurists in Nanada of the North and in our own United States have explicitly proposed using "precedents" coming from legal cases in Europe -- in other words, cherry-picked "precedents" coming from the same cabals of cultural "elites" there as here. We now have neither a republic nor a democracy. We are ruled by lawless jobbers. - Tony Esolen Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:45:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10724 Flamen: Excellent question, to be sure. I believe it reveals that the primary motivation is political in addition to religious: it is an election year, and the Republican-Conservative-Catholics see the healthcare debacle (no doubt poorly handled by the administration) as an opportunity for an election year warpath. That countless other countries have socialized healthcare - and do not have a huge, ongoing public relations war with the Church over it - suggests something of the flavor of red herring, even if a great much of the Bishop's complaints have a legitimate ground (as the Supreme Court seems to be noting). - Scotty Ellis Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:02:09 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10723 Chris: "Tradition is an inherently strong principle of civilization, a principle that is understood and appreciated by those who revere the value of tradition. At the same time, tradition is often misunderstood by "traditionalists" and "progressivists" alike." I might agree with this to some degree, but to another degree a tradition has no independent existence apart from the participation of a community; that is, as you note, tradition is an active, not passive, handing down and reception. As such, the "misunderstandings" you speak of, if passed down and practiced, become the substance of the tradition. This is what I mean about anachronism: the fundamentalist believes that the tradition, frozen at a particular moment, represents the "true spirit" or "heart" of the tradition, and seeks (in an anachronistic way) to once again externalize that tradition. "interpretations of the Constitution of The United States that preserve the constitutional principle of our republican democracy are in bounds - they grow from the American tree. Interpretations that are opposed to that principle are a different specie - they are very different political ideas. Worse, they are inherently self-destructive - because they recognize no limits on political power - which is the animating idea of The U.S. Consitution." Here you obviate the very apt observations of your previous paragraphs. If you ask the individuals who you blame for destroying or departing from the Constitutions, they will likely give you the answer that they are not at all; that they believe their actions are in line with the Constitution, at least as it is now interpreted (by them, of course). But it is important to realize that this thing that you categorize as a misunderstanding is for them a genuine understanding (and, indeed, it really isn't that novel; you could argue that the entire series of events culminating in the civil war was precisely this sort of disagreement taken to its extreme). Anyway, if the children really are given custody over the tradition, and if they really can change it (as they will, no matter if they try their hardest not to do so), then it will be the case that over time the understanding of what the Constitution means or intends will itself develop, evolve, and change - and it will be no less a genuine tradition for doing so. In fact, it will be the vitalization of that tradition. "Or, in other words: the "innovations" of an institution are themselves subject to development, swiftly rendering the majority of "innovationist" interpretations into anachronisms. " I totally agree; this only serves to confirm my point. The founding fathers were once innovationist, but their interpretations of what our government should be are now quite anachronistic. Even if we look back for inspiration and insight, we still obviate those portions of their beliefs that have fallen out of favor - like women and blacks not voting. They were insightful, but, like ourselves, they were products of their time; in time, my ideas, if they are passed on at all, will be changed and perhaps eventually obviated. That is well; I would hate for the world to be stuck with my limited understanding. - Scotty Ellis Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:58:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10722 Mr. Royal, In response to your comment that "For at least a few years, however, I don't believe any one party will control the White House and both houses of Congress again, so the threat you envision seems less than immediate, since such measures could never be passed without one party controlling government" I would offer the following for your consideration. If Mr. Obama is not reelected, but one of the Republicans who is wholeheartedly prepared to take half measures to forestall the looming fiscal crisis, one which not a few economists see as presenting the possibilities of our own Weimar Republic experience within the decade, then you may be overlooking a possible outcome contradicting your belief. If the collapse does occur and does so on the watch of a Republican following Obama, the political outcome could be that a majority of the electorate, mind-numbingly ignorant of economics (and the Rule of Law) might well blame the Republican party for the mess and we might well see one of the parties in control of both branches for a period comparable to that we experienced from 1930-1945. In my humble opinion, there is only one candidate in either major party who actually understands the magnitude of the problem of fiscal profligacy and the kind of steps that need to be taken to have any hope of ameliorating some of its more deleterious likely effects. And all of the pundits are saying that candidate is unelectable. If both they and I are correct, then we are on this comment thread engaging in a futile evolution. I hope and pray that such is not the case, but I am by no means sanguine that I am wrong. Fortunately, I am already 66 years of age and from a not terribly long-lived line, and, therefore, not likely to have to suffer through the likely span of such an ordeal. Pax et bonum, Keith Töpfer - Martial Artist Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:12:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10719 The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is "waging war" against the mandate and want to overthrow Obamacare. Has our German Pope and the German bishops been waging war to overthrow the German national health care system which pays for contraceptives for girls up to the age of 20 and pays the doctors' bills? Is this "cafeteria Catholicism? - Flamen Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:52:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10718 @ Mr. Ellis: Your argument is weak because you are arguing against a weak strawman - you are making a simplistic attack against a similarly simplistic strawman - your self-termed "traditionalist" or "fundamentalist" target. And you are also making the same mistake as Gian, confusing the idea of law with that of custom. As I've already dealt with the latter issue, I address to you the former. Tradition is an inherently strong principle of civilization, a principle that is understood and appreciated by those who revere the value of tradition. At the same time, tradition is often misunderstood by "traditionalists" and "progressivists" alike. Since traditions are literally "handed down" from one generation to the next, they are by their nature intended to function in two simultaneous ways: 1st - to operate to help the younger generation profit by learning from the wisdom/benefits of the older; and 2nd - to bestow on that younger generation the custody over the tradition, and by so doing, give it authority to make changes that grow organically from the tradition. By analogy - we recognize that a tree or a vine is alive because they grows new branches, and we recognize that a branch is of that tree or vine, because it grows organically out of the tree or vine (i.e., it is of the same species/identity). Joining the analogy about identity and organic growth/connection back to the 1st issue - interpretations of the Constitution of The United States that preserve the constitutional principle of our republican democracy are in bounds - they grow from the American tree. Interpretations that are opposed to that principle are a different specie - they are very different political ideas. Worse, they are inherently self-destructive - because they recognize no limits on political power - which is the animating idea of The U.S. Consitution. Or, in other words: the "innovations" of an institution are themselves subject to development, swiftly rendering the majority of "innovationist" interpretations into anachronisms. - Chris in Maryland Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:48:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10717 Of course, our constitution was never explicitly democratic in structure; it was in its original intent a form of representative or elected aristocracy, in which the political relevance of an individual's opinions was determined by his socio-economic and ethnic status. To some extent, I would argue that original intent is somewhat of a red herring, since no one truly wants to revive the literal original state of the government. Or, in other words: the traditions of an institution are themselves subject to development, rendering the majority of "traditionalist" or other fundamentalist interpretations into anachronisms. - Scotty Ellis Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:47:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10716 To Jacob whose comment was that he was going to write a sci-fi novel based on that symposium. My reply:it's already been written. It's called The Hunger Games! - Diane Schlosser Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:46:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10715 Dear Ms. Louise: Socrates and I go way back. Just before he had to drink the hemlock, he said: "The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways -- I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows." - Grump Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:46:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10714 The 1996 Symposium is more clear and insightful today than we are. Fixations on the fact that the positions of the furniture have changed since then obscures the reality that we are still in the same room and even the sticks of furniture are THE SAME. The current state of things is the latest and largest grab for power by the Federal Government in at least 70 years, is in the hands of those 9 unelected brilliances. Even clearer, the "swing guy" who most acknowledge will decide the fate of our children's relationship to their government is the same as in 1996! This is the guy who opined in the infamous "Casey" decision, that if the court did not re-authorize "Roe v. Wade", they, The Supreme Court, would look bad. If my memory serves me well, this method of issuing decisions was addressed as part of the Symposium and helped provoke it. - John Hinshaw Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:25:46 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10713 Excellent Dr. Royal and excellent, thought provoking comments as well. For me, the key to remediation of our civic ills, and reform looking to revitalize our civic life, lies in the reform of our educational system. We must produce literate, knowledgeable citizens. For the most part we are not doing so and the results are visible. That is the unstated premise of many of the comments above. Most of the judges and justices in our society suffer from the same educational defects as the rest of society. Our law schools do little to educate broadly, with any attention to the history or philosophy of jurisprudence. We graduate "practitioners" and emphasize "clinics". And it is from this "pool" that we select our judges and justices. Our law schools are failing our civic society in this regard but then, so are our institutions of higher learning (for the most part) and our public schools (for the most part). If we cannot produce a civic minded polity, we cannot produce good leaders and our democratic republic will fail.In my opinion, reforming our civic society starts with reforming our education system. - Ray Hunkins Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:05:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10712 You ask several questions, Pete, to which I wish I had good answers. I think much of that has to emerge in debate over desirable goods v. limited government, in which both need to kept really, not just nominally, in play. We've had a very graphic example of heedless disregard of both limited government and religious liberty in the Obamacare controversies. For at least a few years, however, I don't believe any one party will control the White House and both houses of Congress again, so the threat you envision seems less than immediate, since such measures could never be passed without one party controlling government. In the longer run, I would advocate one simple principle: I'm opposed to any further transfer of power to the State, since all modern states, by design or inertia, tend towards anti-Christian authoritarianism or worse. Christians feel this pointedly now, others may see it before long. - Robert Royal Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:25:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10711 To ask a more direct question Bob, suppose the Congress simply expanded Medicaid eligibility to the whole under 65 US population and allowed people to still carry private insurance either in lieu or to top off what Medicaid covers. This would represent a much more vast and straightforward expansion of the government role in health care but it would at the same time render moot all the constitutional issues being raised surrounding mandates and HHS regs on birth control and religious freedom. Is this a better eventuality in your view? Because such a development is foreseeable if Obamacare falls or even if it survives without the mandate. Maybe it is better! I'm not sure myself. It would be difficult to see what the conservative opposition to a simple Medicaid expansion would be either in Congress or the courts. This is I think an important question about which I'd be curious as to what you think. Maybe this is all a sure sign that the GOP should get serious about health care reform too, instead of constantly playing defense and being forced into alot of ad hoc strategies that make it really unclear what their eventual endgame is ! - petebrown Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:02:46 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-question-that-wont-go-away.html#comment-10710 Dear Mr. Grump: May I respectfully suggest that you read Fr. Schall's book, "The Mind that Is Catholic", especially, Chapter 5: 'The Uniqueness of Socrates.' No regime is perfect. So pray that every tyrant who comes along who tries to create the perfect regime is defeated--in his second campaign, if not his first. - Louise Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:35:07 +0100