Over at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher has some thoughts on the furor that has erupted over a handful of Catholic academics and writers rallying behind George Weigel and Robert P. George’s public statement against Donald Trump. (I have written a bit on the matter here.) Dreher wonders aloud if this isn’t the end of “neoconservative Catholicism,” that is, the marriage between conservative Catholics and once-mainline Republican Party politics that was inaugurated in large part by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and the magazine he helped found, First Things. Here is Dreher:
This is an astonishing political and cultural moment on the Right. When grassroots orthodox Catholics no longer believe that their leaders, both ecclesial and lay, speak and lead in their interests, the world as we conservatives have known it for at least the last 30 years begins to fall apart. Personally, I don’t fault these Catholic leaders (some of whom are friends of mine) for taking a stand on an issue that they feel strongly about, especially one as critically important as the American presidency. But I also understand why these conservative Catholic readers interpret the statement as an attempt to shore up a party establishment that has failed, even on Catholic terms.
I’m reminded of something a friend of mine, a well-known journalist, told me about a conversation he had during the run-up to the Iraq War with a prominent conservative Catholic. The journalist, a secular liberal, said he challenged the conservative on why he and his Catholic ideological confreres were standing in favor of the Iraq War, and against their hero, Pope John Paul II. He said that the conservative Catholic told him that yes, he had more misgivings than he was letting on publicly, but it was important to maintain solidarity on the Right. If we (meaning social conservatives) want to see progress on the issues we care about, the conservative reportedly said, then we have to give on these other issues.
Even war.
The whole situation reveals one of the critical flaws in contemporary (American) Catholicism, namely the belief that liberal democracy can still provide the pathway to a better future. It won’t. Although I will be the last man in Michigan to mourn the death of neoconservative Catholic politics, I am fine with elbowing my way to the front of the line to declare that no Catholic in good conscience should support Donald Trump or any of the other disappointing choices on offer this election cycle. Conservative-to-traditional Catholics who support Trump are no less seduced by Americanist ideology than those who commonly (and perhaps thoughtlessly) pull the lever for Democrats on the belief that the latter rigorously uphold Catholic social teaching. Instead of taking this moment in American history as a sign that we have no earthly political home (at the moment), Catholics are at war with one another over which earthly messiah will save us. Better, I think, to recognize our post-political situation and prepare for the storm on the horizon rather than squabble over which brand of liberalism will best satiate our basest longings.
March 10, 2016
As an almost daily Mass goer, I voted for Trump in the Texas primary with a clear conscience. Je ne regrette rien.
March 10, 2016
Dreher needs to STFU and move on. We are not his concern anymore.
March 10, 2016
I agree with Diane here. Personally I found the article nothing more than a collection of what ifs, perhaps, and maybes, hardly worth reading.
On the political front, Dreher should stick with what his Russian wannabe coreligionists might do.
March 10, 2016
get over your dreher obsession/hate
March 11, 2016
LOL! Get over your delusion that you’re my spiritual director, personal shrink, whatever.
Meanwhile, it’s still a free Internet and a free country (sort of), so I will comment on anything and anyone I wish, without first asking your leave or paying the slightest attention to your laughable, er, admonishments.
By the way, you may want to tell your pal Dreher to get over his penchant for relentless, obsessive Catholic-bashing. Just a thought.
March 11, 2016
I do not really hate, or even dislike Mr Dreher, but I agree with Diane when it comes to his obsessive, and dishonest, Catholic bashing. He has no problem with dredging up the Catholic abuse scandals, but remains strangely quiet about the same problems within his new-found Russian religion; and it is quite widespread, including a whole monastery in Texas, all of the very hairy monks are now in prison, and the Russian Archbishop of Canada, now also in prison. I do not hate him, but I cannot respect him, he definitely cherry picks.
March 17, 2016
The notion that Dreher is “soft” on Orthodox is laughable. Try typing “OCA” into the search on his AC blog. And he most certainly did address the issue of the Canadian convicted hierarch, (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/defrocking-the-frockless/)among other chosen targets.
The man is as free as anyone (like Diane) to opine on the internet. His field is the intersection of Religion, Culture and politics, and it would be rather hard to do so without ever mentioning Roman Catholicism. I re-read his post about “Catholic Neo-Cons” trying to find the bashing. He writes regularly about all manner of Catholic things, current and historical, and is by no means unrelentingly critical of all things Catholic.
Do a search on “Catholic” on Dreher’s AC blog. Even his post on the most recent problems in Altoona-Johnstown single out a Catholic as a hero fo the Faith, and other recent posts include praise for Justice Scalia, Cardinal Newman, and Catholic education. Nothing comparable in the OCA searches. (Even when he praises Abp. Dmitri, there is no mention or tag to indicate in which Church Abp Dmitri chose to live for over a half century.) As some one who is OCA, I would be relieved if our Church were to be favored with the “unrelenting bashing” he gives the Roman Church.
Dreher had a brief and inglorious chapter in OCA history, and none of his posts ever indicate that his own role in that debacle has caused him to self-reflect on how self indulgent and misleading his “conservative” sense that “I am one of the good guys fighting on the right side” can be. He later on came to admit, (in the cases where the documentation is overwhelming), that his “cause”, Met Jonah, had made some pretty big errors. (I will note that his post on the Canadian former Archbishop only went up when the status quo in that situation, which had been the policy set by Met Jonah, changed – he posted, not immediately upon the conviction, but after the Synod following the conviction). His own errors in judment there and mistakes remain unexamined. Met Jonah may not have been perfect, but Rod was still “one of the good guys fighting the good fight” even though he lied quite brazenly and publically. It is the self indulgence (of which his OCA stuff is only a symptomatic example) that is the most frustrating thing about his writing.
March 17, 2016
He only bothered to go after the Russian Archbishop when it would have become embarrassing not to have done so. He has been woefully quiet on the hairy Russian monks of Texas or the wannabe Russian bishop of NIce, also in prison. It would be interesting if he did an article about the time Alderson was in charge of an Orthodox orphanage in France; but do not expect it.
March 10, 2016
Burn it all DOWN! #Trump2016.
I also will be voting for Trump.
March 11, 2016
You know, I get the frustration and the anger. I can sympathize with “burn it all down.” But do we have the slightest reason to believe that Trump’s populist “outsider” rhetoric reflects what he really stands for and what he would do if he became president? Don’t we, in fact, have countless indications to the contrary? Doesn’t it seem as if the guy has no fixed principles whatsoever and that his rhetoric is hollow — a mere pose, a marketing ploy?
In 2008 Americans voted for a guy largely based on a slogan and a logo. Some of them later regretted that vote when the reality did not match the slogan. Do we want to make that mistake again? Do we want to vote for a marketing slogan?
(Disclaimer: I did not vote for Obama, ever. But yes, I do know folks who voted for him in 2008 and then felt betrayed when “hope and change” turned out to mean lost jobs and frozen wages.)
March 10, 2016
I will vote for the rightful Republican nominee, whether it is Trump or Cruz. If the GOP tries to steal the election from the candidate with the most delegates at the convention, then I will vote third party.
March 10, 2016
What is the storm on the horizon?
March 10, 2016
Not that you are demonstrating this, but I think too often Christians subconsciously add to Psalm 146:3: “Put not your trust in [non-Christian or bad] princes, nor in [a non-Christian or bad] son of man, in whom there is no help.” Various brands of Christian will fill that in with their own right sort of believer, of course. But, from the perspective of the psalmist they are all lesser evils, even the ‘good’ ones who share our faith, our values, etc. Therefore:
http://bit.ly/1Wd6k2E
March 10, 2016
I wanted to vote for Marco Rubio in the Michigan primary mostly because he is Catholic. I ended up voting for Cruz whom strangely I do not trust, because it appears that Cruz is the only alternative to Trump or to a Democrat for POTUS. I have known since before I attended a Trump political rally here in Grand Rapids that Donald Trump would likely be the Republican nominee, but having seen he crowd here first-hand (good and decent working class people for the most part) I knew that I would be making some tough choices.
So I voted for Cruz in the primary – a man with no support in established government over Donald Trump who apparently does not need their support, and Marco Rubio the Catholic without a prayer. For me the vote is indeed about the lesser of 2 evils coupled with the effectiveness of my vote. Why would I abstain from voting? Whey would I vote for someone I believed had no chance of winning? I wouldn’t, it doesn’t make sense to me. My family, my friends, and myself have to live with the decisions of this nation. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination I will vote for him over Killary or Burnme without hesitation – just like I voted for Romney, McCain, & Bush.
In the end we all may be living under the rule of a tyrannical government. America is not a Catholic nation, and I my vote is a practical attempt to choose what is closer to the good that God desires. A pledge to not vote for Donald Trump is a pledge to vote for Clinton or Sanders so I will vote for Trump if he’s the nominee. I have to consider the ramifications of a SCOTUS appointment by liberal activist Democrats.
March 11, 2016
Nate, I feel exactly the same way. I would prefer Rubio, but he seems to be a lost cause at this point, so that leaves Cruz. I have some reservations about Cruz (his dad thinks he’s “God’s anointed”? Yikes!!), but I would much, much prefer him to Trump. However, if Trump is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him. Because anyone, including my dog Coco, would be preferable to Clinton or Sanders.
March 17, 2016
Why would you not vote for Sanders?
March 17, 2016
Perhaps his abortion to the moment of birth might be problematic?
March 17, 2016
I didn’t know that was his platform. I knew he supported abortion, but I didn’t know his position was different than current practice.
At any rate, whether one loves it or hates it, I can’t see such a position being passed through into legislation.
March 17, 2016
In the United States, the current practice is abortion to the moment of birth.
March 17, 2016
What is your definition of “late term abortion”?
March 17, 2016
I was simply mistaken, then. I didn’t think it was easy to have an abortion in the third trimester — I thought that there were an increasing number of hurdles per trimester, and that the third was not so easy, and discouraged. Legal, I assumed — but I didn’t think that having an abortion on the grounds of mere whim one week prior to birth was a serious option for many, or even most.
March 17, 2016
Whim, or not, it is still legal. Even liberal Europeans, at least the ones I know, are shocked.