There’s so much we could comment on after last night’s circus act; sorry… I mean Vice Presidential debate. I’m referring, of course, to the travesty on the left side of the screen aimed at distracting America from the serious discussion that took place on the right side of the screen.
One of my friends found a simple but elegant way to keep his focus on the debate (no duct tape necesary):
Blanket over Biden: Now I can concentrate on the debate!
Seriously, if the man can’t take anything seriously, then how are we supposed to take anything that he says seriously? How are we supposed to take him seriously when he claims to be a practicing Catholic, implying that his positions are in good standing with the Church’s “Social Doctrine?” Furthermore…
What exactly does he mean by that?
Last night, Joe Biden made it out to seem like his position was more Catholic than that of his opponent, simply by blurting out the term “Social Doctrine” (You might have missed it because he was speaking over the other candidate at the time).
Is that how it works? Just saying the words “Catholic Social Doctrine” means he represents the Catholic Church. As if just pronouncing the magic words “Social Doctrine” means that his pro-abortion politics does not contradict actual Church doctrine, or as Ryan pointed out, as if the fact that over 40 Catholic institutions in this country were actually suing his administration did not matter — clearly, those things have no bearing on what it means to be a true “Social Justice Catholic.”
The problem that we are seeing today with the confusion over which candidate Catholics should vote for boils down to pragmatic nominalism. Translation: cheapening a term to the point that it can mean whatever I want it to mean whenever I use it in order to justify my position.
Social Justice Catholic? You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means…
The terms “Social Justice Catholic” and “Catholic Social Doctrine” mean less to people now, thanks to pundits and politicians who disregard what the Church teaches, on the one hand, while they basically assume ownership of these phrases to justify themselves as Catholics, on the other. In the process, the terms become more distorted and vague each time they pronounce them.
In order to reverse this effect and restore the proper meaning to these terms, we need to clarify a lot of misconceptions out there, such as the fact that “anti-abortion Catholic” and “Social Justice Catholic” are diametrically opposed political factions that correspond to the Republican and Democratic parties’ respective ideologies. That, of course, will take some time to explain — in other words, I can’t just throw out some magic word in order to clear it all up.
But we can start with a word, such as the principle of Subsidiarity.
This video does a very effective job explaining how this principle of Catholic Social Teaching works.
I would like to take up this topic again on Monday. Until then, here are some questions regarding where the candidates actually stand with regard to Catholic Social Teaching based on the principle of subsidiarity.
- Is ObamaCare an example of a good implementation of this principle?
- Was Romney’s health coverage plan in Massachusetts more or less in line with this principle?
- Could universal healthcare be implemented in such a way that it respects or utilizes the principle of subsidiarity?
- By forcing Catholic institutions into a position where they may have to shut down rather than violate their consciences over providing coverage for drugs and procedures that they consider intrinsically evil and therefore intolerable, is the Government favoring or rather dispensing with the principle of subsidiarity?
Biltrix 
Reblogged this on The Peanut Gallery and commented:
Peanut Gallery: Love the split screen….
Thank you for the reblog, Peanut Gallery!
Wonderful, great and timely, James. I may have to borrow part of this, or simply re-blog it; not sure which.
Regardless, this is such a GIGANTIC issue. To me, it goes back to rationalization, figuring out a way for me to do what I want without feeling guilty about it, so that I may remain a “good” person.
I seem to recall the Bible mentioning that somewhere….?
😉
Thanks JTR. I think your point about rationalism hits the nail on the head. In the end the rationalist ends up contradicting himself, whether he sees it that way or not, e.g., and case in point, the VP calling himself a practicing Catholic who has informed his views with Catholic social doctrine. It would have been good for Ryan to call him on that and ask him to explain exactly how his administration exemplifies the implementation of sound Catholic social teaching in concreto. However, I don’t think the moderator would have let that discussion go on any further than one of Biden’s quick, superficial soundbites, before cutting him off.
You’re undoubtedly right on that, James.
At times, it DID appear that it was one of those old tag-team wrestling matches that I used to see when I was a youngin’, with the referee distracted off camera and 2 wrestlers ganging up on 1 guy.
Of course, in this case, the referee often took the place of the 2nd wrestler.
—–
No one’s faith is perfect: we’re all doing the best we can.
However, I don’t think that translates to thumbing my nose at Catholic Doctrine just because my constituency wouldn’t like my belief, and/or my redefining what being a “good” Catholic means.
That more closely resembles throwing a dart, drawing the target around wherever it lands, and insisting that I made bull’s-eye.
Good analogy, JTR.
I do want to clarify that my earlier comment was not intended as an unfair shot at Martha Raddatz, who had a tough job on her hands last night. Unfortunately, she did come across as being partial (to say the least) sometimes, but maybe that was not entirely her fault. Out of fairness to Martha Raddatz, I thought she did a good job and that Biden just knows how to take advantage of whatever open space anyone gives him to get in his jab. If she called him on everything, she would have been acting more like a third grade teacher. The way I see it, she gave Joe enough rope to “do the job himself.”
IMHO, I also thought Jim Lehrer did a good job too letting the debaters duke it out (for the one(s) chose to do so). Different styles, I suppose. In all, I’ve seen worse acts of interference and favoritism from the Wolff Blitzers of the world when it comes to (poorly) moderating debates.
I watched about 15 minutes of it and cut Biden off! He reminded me of Mr. Ed with those “teeth” always showing. I could not take all of that “snickering” as I think nothing is funny about the state this nation is in. I know who I am going to vote for anyways so I decided I did not have to put myself through that torture.
I do not know what “Catholic Church” Joe Biden goes to, but it it not the same one I do. My Church teaches morals, that abortion is wrong, to care for the poor, etc…. It is also a place to worship God, and not to be used when I need it to further my own interest.
Good post and God Bless, SR
Well said, SR!!! (Applause!)
I think you captured just about everyone’s sentiments perfectly and I could not have put it any better myself. Thanks for the comment and God bless!
Thank you for taking this up – as I expected you would. Good questions for people to start pondering.
Thanks, Servus. God bless!
I like the blanket trick. Why didn’t I think of that. I held the remote up to cover the left side of the screen. My hand got tired.
“Hope” and “change” also have a new connotation. I cringed the other day when those words came out of my mouth in a conversation unrelated to Obama and company. Will “forward” also become a dirty word?
There is a simple antidote to nominalism. It’s called honesty. We can still salvage the value of our English vocabulary by not cheapening our words with deceitfulness. Using the words “social justice” in the way that many liberal Catholics do is simply dishonest.
Well stated as always!
Great Post!
Thanks!
There is a verse circulating that is being used to reference last night’s debate. If a wise man contends with a foolish man,
Whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace. Proverbs 29:9
And for those to whom it applies, there is another proverb:
Not a biblical proverb, but still fitting, nonetheless.
Thanks, Gracie!
Excellent!
Thanks, Citizen Tom!