A friend of mine thinks that God is laughing at us right now. By us he means registered voters in the United States - though there are other targets, for sure. Apart from possible motivations, this opinion is at variance with the saintly Fr. James Halligan, who was the spiritual director of the minor seminary of the Archdiocese of New York in the days I was a student there. God doesn't laugh because He doesn't have a sense of humor, according to Fr. Halligan, and the one would necessitate the other. Humor is a human quality and God is quite decidedly divine in nature, so therefore, no sense of humor, no laughter. Then there was Fr. Jerry Pellegrino, SDB, a Salesian who made his reputation on giving retreats dealing with the very topic of the divine sense of humor, where he would give a tour of the Scriptures highlighting the times when God, and Jesus in particular, used ironic wit to make his points. I never remember Fr. Jerry addressing the specific issue of God actually laughing, but since he did believe that the Almighty had a funny bone, I'll go with he idea that he thought that God did indeed chuckle, at the very least. Well, whatever the truth of the matter, both men are in eternity now, and that particular bet has been settled, for them anyway. Whether God is laughing or crying or sitting back in stoic bemusement, the reason for my friend’s opinion is based upon the presidential election that has a little over a week to go, and can't end soon enough. God laughs, all apologies to Fr. Halligan, because we are getting the general election campaign and the candidates that we deserve.
If God laughs right now, I think it's directed specifically at many sincerely religious people, because over the last forty or fifty years we have placed our faith in the political system as a means of advancing our moral agenda, specifically in the area of social justice and, more narrowly, right to life issues. The Venerable Fulton Sheen, speaking fifty years ago, warned that, in a world that valued the material over the spiritual, religion would eventually get reduced to politics, and while generally speaking progressive minded Catholics are more likely to fall into that trap, conservatives or traditionalists are also guilty of this offense. In judging the right candidate or even party affiliation, one side puts general social welfare policy at the top of the Catholic voter priorities list, while the other has made abortion and other life issues the most important factor to consider when heading to the polls. I'll put my cards on the table, and say flat out that I've been in the latter camp: I can't imagine pulling the lever for a pro-choice candidate, especially one who makes abortion on demand a central part of his or her platform. Nonetheless, whether you are a Catholic who identifies as a social justice warrior or a pro-life crusader, we've been duped by cynical party machines powering a corrupt political system. In 2016 the curtain has been drawn back exposing, not one but two fake, unscrupulous wizards operating a system of holograms, smoke and fire - only many of us are still willfully ignorant of the reality.
I recently wrote a critique of Adam Curtis' documentaries, and while I disagree with many particulars, he gets the essence of the situation - that we are living in a fake, manipulated political and economic system. I would disagree with him in so far as he will still place blame for the current situation on the doorstep of the Right, while pretty much giving the Left a pass. I believe that the real problem is that there isn't any real difference between the sides once we get to the establishment level, and people are seeing that more and more. Curtis sees the banks, the multinationals and civil governments as being in bed with each other, but he sees the financial and corporate institutions as steering, if not controlling, the governments. I tend to see it the other way around, or at least as an equal partnership. This three headed monster has colluded together to control the levers of democracy, leaving the people with the illusion of being in control. If there is a despair among the masses, a loss of hope in the future, it's because many can't see any way out of the situation that we are presently in. Curtis sees the malaise, the hopelessness and understands that the embracing of "Trumpism" and the success of Brexit are reactions by people trying to regain control of a system they feel alienated from.
I would argue there is another reason that he doesn't mention, possibly because he possesses a secular mind, and it's never occurred to him that the decline of religious faith in his home country, Great Britain, and the West in general, has contributed to the existential listlessness now being experienced.
I again reference Fulton Sheen, who in the mid-1970's warned that:
"...we are now living at the end of Christendom. It is the end of Christendom, but not Christianity. What is Christendom? Christendom is the political, economic, moral, social, legal life of a nation as inspired by the gospel ethic. That is finished.
“Abortion, the breakdown of the family life, dishonesty, even the natural virtues upon which the supernatural virtues are based, are being discredited. Christianity is not at an end. But we are at the end of Christendom. And I believe the sooner we face up to this fact, the sooner we will be able to solve many of our problems."
This appraisal was apart of a larger historical analysis that Sheen had, in which he thought that we were at the end of one era and entering into a new one. At least initially, this new epoch was going to see the Church, and Christianity in general, lose its influence on public life. While the culture was still informed by Christian values so would its politics be. In the past it was possible to appeal to Gospel values when advocating for social reform, as the abolition and labor movements did in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Those who thought of themselves as progressive in the 19th century were often against abortion as well (yes, abortion was an issue, even back then). Now Christians are more and more seen as just another advocacy group within the society. Rather than being intimately commingled with the culture, Christianity is now distinct and separate.
Modern Christians in the West have always took for granted that the culture and the faith are married to one another, to the point that we have trouble distinguishing one from the other. But the Enlightenment signaled the great divorce of culture and faith. It took a long time for the papers to get served here in the United States, but in the last fifteen or twenty years the decree of dissolution has been finalized, and what was a slow, at times imperceptible separation, is now complete. It's for us to understand this and learn how to influence the culture in asymmetrical ways, since the direct approach won't work anymore. Even people we thought as allies look upon us as being strangers.
Four years ago I was asked by a different friend to write some pieces for his fledgling website of conservative opinion aimed at the under 30 years old set. He didn't want me to write political pieces as such, but to explain Catholic social thought, and how conservatives might be able to apply its central principles. I was surprised when I received responses from self identified young conservatives who told me that abortion and gay marriage were "losing issues," and besides, religion shouldn't influence legislation. In essence I was told, very politely, that it's the economy, stupid, not social conservative morality. The thing was, I never wrote about abortion or gay marriage using religious reasoning or appealing to Scripture or Magisterial pronouncements. The articles were all argued from the standpoint of natural law, anthropology and, the social sciences, yet the readers (mostly millennials) were so conditioned to seeing these as strictly religious issues that they never bothered to actually address my points. The culture has shifted - that faith is still a leaven influencing the political life of the nation is past. Equating conservative or Republican with Christian and pro-life and traditional marriage is a mistake.
The Democrats and the Republicans are more than happy to use Catholics to promote their agendas, while never really delivering on their promises. Progressives push for greater social spending on federal programs, and they are in control of the levers of power in our inner cites where they want much of the spending directed. But can we really say that places like Chicago, Detroit and Newark are better off than they were fifty years ago? In many ways yes, but large swaths of these great cities are still stuck in a desperate rut of unemployment, violence and decay. Blaming Republicans has always seemed a bit odd since none of these places have had GOP leadership in decades, if not for over a century. Yet there are many Catholics who think that the moral thing to do is to vote Democratic because they're the party of the poor.
On the other side I'm told that I need to vote Republican because they are for Life and family values. Yet forty three years after Roe we are no closer to getting that tragic decision overturned. There has been some progress on the state level, but we must face facts: Roe is never getting overturned, short of a Constitutional amendment - and I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. A 5-4 majority "conservative" Supreme Court couldn't find it's way to overturn sections of the Affordable Care Act - with the GOP appointed Chief Justice essentially rewriting the plan from the bench to make it fit. If a Court dominated by Republican appointees couldn't strike down a questionable portion of a relatively new piece of legislation, what makes conservative Catholics think that future Republican appointees to the bench will have the courage to overturn forty-plus years of legal precedent - 50 if you trace the reasoning behind Roe back to Griswold v. Connecticut?
There are sincere Democrats and Republicans who's faith influence their political life. And maybe political parties are necessary evils that helps those principles to get embodied, at least partially, in practical legislation. But, to paraphrase Russell Kirk, we need to not mistake the wine with the bottle that holds it. For us, Catholic social teaching is the wine, the respective political parties may be needed to serve as the bottles that carries and delivers it. Right now this isn't happening. Both are more than happy to slap a label on their products claiming that they are Roman Catholic Approved - like a bottle of ketchup with a special mark claiming that it's kosher for Passover. The difference is that those kosher labels are pretty trustworthy - party promises aren't. While individual Catholics may be sincerely trying to harmonize their faith and public life, the party machines are another story. They are happy to have our votes and then forget about us until they need those votes again.
I believe that Fulton Sheen was right: we are at the end of an epoch right now. Pope Francis has said the same thing, though when many people hear that they tend to put a positive, almost utopian spin on it. In the long run this will be a positive change, but in the short to medium term the seas will be rocky, to put it mildly. Anytime an established system breaks down there is displacement and confusion at first. What will come, I'm not enough of a prophet to say, but I believe that for Christians it will be a great opportunity to re-evangelize a broken culture. It will only be so if we get back to a spiritual vision of the world.
We have tried to use politics to advance our agenda and it's failed, because the political system really doesn't see us as a partner, but as a tool. As an institution the Church has tried to adopt structures borrowed from the business world, to mixed effect. We certainly have something to learn from corporate culture, as long as we don't actually adopt the culture. I don't think we intended it, but by putting so much stock in being politically savvy and corporately professional, we have been sowing in the flesh and reaping, if not corruption, then a grossly limited yield.
No matter who wins a week from Tuesday, the system as we know it will collapse in short order. By collapse I mean anything from the end of the two party system as we know it today, all the way to a full blown constitutional crisis. We will either have a president-elect who took a scorched earth path to the presidency - who will never be supported by a large segment of the people who feel insulted and defamed by his words, who will never be convinced that their president isn't a racist. The other possible winner will have a continuing FBI investigation hanging over her head as she takes the oath of office (unless the sitting president pardons her before inauguration day). And even if a pardon is forthcoming, it will not take away the stain of scandal that taints her and her fledgling administration. I can't see the status quo surviving either eventuality and I've only highlighted a few of the possible difficulties facing the next president, whoever that person is. And if this turns into another 2000, with contested results, I shutter to think of the chaos that will ensue.
If I'm wrong, and Election Day ends up being business as usual, and the customary orderly transfer of power happens without protest or delay, Catholics will still need to rethink our relationship with the system. We must face up to the fact that we are no longer living in a culture informed by the faith, and the political system reflects that. We must stay engaged, but without lending our loyalty to parties that really aren't looking out for our interests or share our values. We best serve the Gospel from the outside putting pressure on the powers that control the system, making them earn our vote because it was gained by a track record of real change, not empty promises.
No comments:
Post a Comment