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):
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.
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?