Bush, The First Catholic President?: Some Think Pope Approves George Bush’s “Use” of Catholic Social Teachings?
Apr 15th, 2008 | 26 responses
Again, a disclosure: I am a Catholic.
Catholic social teachings
disagree with abuses of power,
disagree with politics that omit and oppress the poor and needy,
disagree with trampling the preciousness of the life force,
disagree with any idea that preemptive war is good,
disagree with any idea that humans are not worthy of justice and dignity… and much more.
These principles are in place to keep the world from going dead black with avarice and sloth and cruelty and the sounds of many mouths banging in scorn like empty pots. They are not always easy to live, but they are to be rooted in the heart and soul, and to be striven toward even though it is hard in the winds that swirl through this world.
Here, one journalist writes about some who present George Bush as having a seemingly ‘Catholic conscience.’ You can read the entire article by Daniel Burke here “A Catholic Wind in the White House,” and you can read my article I filed this morning at The National Catholic Reporter in my weekly column there where, speaking as a Catholic, I felt I had to refute the idea that George Bush is in any way following sacred Catholic social teachings. You can see that article, entitled, “Silencing a Woman: Retrieving Her Voice,” here.
April 13, 2008, in the Washington Post, Daniel Burke, a national correspondent for Religion News Service, writes about how some imagine President George Bush is actually a secret Catholic ‘believer,’ and has met with and surrounded himself by Catholics during his administration… that his policies have directly grown out of Catholic social justice teachings… and that the Pope is coming to see the President and his Catholic appointees specially, as the Pope is his ally… even though the Pope disagrees with President Bush’s Iraq war and torture.
“Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, another evangelical with an affinity for Catholic teaching, says that the key to understanding Bush’s domestic policy is to view it through the lens of Rome. Others go a step further.
“Paul Weyrich, an architect of the religious right, detects in Bush shades of former British prime minister Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicism last year. “I think he is a secret believer,” Weyrich says of Bush. Similarly, John DiIulio, Bush’s first director of faith-based initiatives, has called the president a “closet Catholic.” And he was only half-kidding.”
Mr. Burke’s article goes on to say,
“As the White House prepares to welcome Benedict on Tuesday, many in Bush’s inner circle expect the pontiff to find a kindred spirit in the president… this Protestant president has surrounded himself with Roman Catholic intellectuals, speechwriters, professors, priests, bishops and politicians. These Catholics — and thus Catholic social teaching — have for the past eight years been shaping Bush’s speeches, policies and legacy to a degree perhaps unprecedented in U.S. history….”
But, I must say otherwise:
…At a time when hardworking fathers and mothers are literally piling the children’s toys and bunk beds at the curb, for they are losing their homes in the sub-prime mortgage bunco scheme promoted by the grotesquely avaricious…
…at a time when 25% of older women only have a social security check to live on and nothing more… and they have inherited nothing but a President who wishes to do away with social security… and who admires those who call this hard earned savings account belonging to individuals who worked all their lives long, “an entitlement…”
…during a time when the last small farmers, ranchers, and overland independent truckers are being run out of business from sudden spikes in fuel and government’s one-sided subsidies… and our farmers, ranchers and trucker-heroes are becoming desperate for they not only take care of their own families, but have long taken care of us, their nation’s families at a root level, delivering the food and necessities we need…
…at a time when pharmaceutical companies produce much good, and have some charitable programs, yet still, at the back door, many also hold onto medicine patents that would have expired, thereby allowing the formulas into public domain and bringing down the costs of vital medicines for human beings in need…. but instead, some change the formula in slight and meaningless ways and thereby file to re-patent the medicine again, so they are its only producers, and prices remain high… often out of reach of those in most dire straights… and all this is okay-ed by our government…
To read the rest of both Mr. Burke’s article and mine, please see the links above….
————–
h/t Helaine
opinions powered by SendLove.to
26 Responses to “Bush, The First Catholic President?: Some Think Pope Approves George Bush’s “Use” of Catholic Social Teachings?”
John F. Kennedy was catholic no? And just so it doesn't seem like I'm picking nits couldn't agree more with the post. But Bush, and neocons in general despite often draping themselves in the mantle of religous cross bearers, are largely preaching doctrine in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. How Jesus got co-opted by the right when he is the original mold for hippies is beyond me. He was a bleeding heart liberal if ever there was one.
This was a fascinating post! Kudos to Dr. E.
I had no idea there were so many Catholics surrounding Bush…nor that Rove organized sessions to discuss Catholocism as far back as 2000.
I think when so many media view politics from an entirely secular lens, their eyes glaze over at any mention of religion.
Dr. E's valid criticisms aside, I wonder how this religion manifested itself in policy?
There has been a lot of discussion in the British press about Blair's Catholicism. Brit. media being intensely secular, what coverage there has been is clearly mystified and befuddled by Blair's faith.
Blair, the sophisticated media player and arch-machiavel…also a devout Catholic!…the two ideas in conjunction short-circuited British journalists cerebellums.
Now Blair is teaching religion at Yale!
Slamfu…The “First Catholic prez” was in reference to the WaPo article on Bush as being so-called “really” Catholic.
Full disclosure: I am also Catholic…and with Dr. E….as the WaPo has revealed to me, a member of a cabal that secretly rules the world!
Who knew?
Slamfu said: “How Jesus got co-opted by the right when he is the original mold for hippies is beyond me.”
Have you forgotten the Spanish Inquisition, Slamfu?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHGOl-jfUK0&feat…
Yeah Jesus, Son of God and Man, was pretty much a rabble rousing- progressive anti-establishment guy.
(Bush) Looking for validation from this version of the Pope is like Torquemada asking for advice on aggressive questioning tactics…oh wait never mind.
Wonder if Benedict still remembers his Hitler youth songs, that were forced into his head and his conscription into the military. I would hope he looked back on that period of his life with immense regret and realize that America today is shading it's eyes in the shadows of the very same ideologies today (Nationalism/ xenophobia over personal freedom and integrity)
Personally I have no issue with Catholicism( the religion), just it's political fractiousness and the fact that it's one of the originators of hypocrisy( the establishment). One, not the only.
// edited to better elucidate my original post //
Personally I think Jesus would be quite rightly disgusted with the entire catholic church. And not just the inquisition folks either. As far as I know Jesus asked his followers to pretty much forget about personal possesions and live as spartan as you can, but what does goes on Rome? Huge palaces, billions in assets and cash, regalia and pomp fit for a king of old.
Just goes to show you let people run with even the most simple and straightforward message long enough and they will rationalize it into earthly power and wealth if they can. If Jesus were here today I bet he'd tear down the vatican with his bare hands.
Of course, Jesus would not look to kindly on the pro-Choice or pro-Capital Punishment crowds either.
Well, as you said, Dr. E, the Catholic teachings on social justice are not easy to live- and I'd add that this isn't just because they require us to move beyond our selfishness but also because it's often hard to determine the proper way to structure our responses. I find this to be so particularly when delineating faith and politics; basically as I understand it, we aren't taught to embrace any particular form of politics but we should examine each form as to whether or not it provides a solid basis for social justice to improve or not.
The reason I think it's important to point this out is that we ought not to claim Jesus for the Democrat or Republican team. There are elements of both party's ideology which are consistent with Catholic social justice teaching, and elements of each which aren't, and perhaps more importantly, there are ways in which each party corrupts the goodness of policies which could promote just conditions but don't once they are put into effect in ways that are self serving for the political classes.
Personally I find conservative politics to be more consistent with the teachings, but often have problems with the way the more conservative of our parties practices its 'conservatism'. I also realize that conservative politics means that much more of the social justice teachings have to be borne out by concerned citizens acting as brother and sister to those who need a hand up. And of course, when we fail to do so, we give reason for others to believe that liberal politics are the answer.
I just think it's important to note that Jesus obviously shared the goals of liberalism, but never did he advocate use of government to acheive those goals.
To clarify, my comment above was mostly in response to some of the other comments, and it wasn't my intention to disagree with Dr. E's main point about Bush. I can see in some ways that he's respectful of Catholicism, and perhaps admires some of the teachings- but if he has attempted to follow them, he's fallen pretty far short of that.
“I just think it's important to note that Jesus obviously shared the goals of liberalism, but never did he advocate use of government to acheive those goals.”
[The angel on my right shoulder told me to shut up. But the devil on my leftt shoulder won out. So, with apologies to all good Catholics celebrating the Pope's visit, what follows is my rsponset o the above.}
Jesus left nothing in writing and what he said was reported by others, many decades later. Much, much room for interpretation, addition and omission, even at the time(s) his words were first .recorded.
Christianity, in all its forms is the source for many good lessons. So are other religions. So are secular philosophies. That's great, but arguing contemporary politics based on scanty information is a purely academic exercise. In the end, Jesus can only teach people what and as much as they want to learn.
Now, as in the above quote, what he didn't say (or what wasn't recorded in the official Bible) is also interpreted. That brings us to contempalting the various answers to the meaning of silence, or the meaning of the absence of recorded words, and dangerously close to the absurd.
We, each one of us, choose what Jesus or certain teachings inspire us to believe or how that inspiration translates into action. The responsibility for the choice is ours.
It's ,a question of personal responibility.
PWT-
Who's to say really. I think he would take pity on them. After all, infanticide was nothing new in the Bible ( Abraham was told to kill his son by God, so what then?)
As far as Capital Punishment, there's the “let those without sin cast the first stone” epigram.
I find it funny that pro-lifers are also for the most part pro-death ( capital punishment.) I think this feeds off the whole guilt thing-”oops lets fix it by killing em and then let's go make more! ”
He consorted with lepers, outcasts, the homeless. I don't think he wore an Elvis cape or funny hat or drove a Christmobile. No, he rode into town on a mule.
Cuz that's how he rolled.
PWT-
Who's to say really. I think he would take pity on them. After all, infanticide was nothing new in the Bible ( Abraham was told to kill his son by God, so what then?)
As far as Capital Punishment, there's the “let those without sin cast the first stone” epigram.
I find it funny that pro-lifers are also for the most part pro-death ( capital punishment.) I think this feeds off the whole guilt thing-”oops lets fix it by killing em and then let's go make more! ”
He consorted with lepers, outcasts, the homeless. I don't think he wore an Elvis cape or funny hat or drove a Christmobile. No, he rode into town on a mule.
Cuz that's how he rolled.
Runasim, of course some people don't believe that what was transcribed in the NT was the actual teachings of Jesus, but I was referring to what Christians believe (which is that those writings are the Word of God.)
If someone wants to pick and choose or read between the lines, that's their prerogative, but I don't see how their imaginative musings on what Jesus really meant would carry more weight than what the people who were historically closer to Jesus would have written down as His actual words.
Runasim, of course some people don't believe that what was transcribed in the NT was the actual teachings of Jesus, but I was referring to what Christians believe (which is that those writings are the Word of God.)
If someone wants to pick and choose or read between the lines, that's their prerogative, but I don't see how their imaginative musings on what Jesus really meant would carry more weight than what the people who were historically closer to Jesus would have written down as His actual words.
RememberNovember:
I'm not sure where you get your information that “pro-lifers are also for the most part pro-death (capital punishment)”. Do you have any stats on that? I know that there are people who oppose abortion but favor the death penalty (innocent life vs. death penalty for the guilty) but that's not the Catholic position at all, and since Catholics make up a large portion of the prolife movement, I'm skeptical of your claim about the proportion of people who hold the somewhat discordant view.
You are aware, aren't you, that the Catholic Church has been a leading force in opposing the death penalty?
RememberNovember:
I'm not sure where you get your information that “pro-lifers are also for the most part pro-death (capital punishment)”. Do you have any stats on that? I know that there are people who oppose abortion but favor the death penalty (innocent life vs. death penalty for the guilty) but that's not the Catholic position at all, and since Catholics make up a large portion of the prolife movement, I'm skeptical of your claim about the proportion of people who hold the somewhat discordant view.
You are aware, aren't you, that the Catholic Church has been a leading force in opposing the death penalty?
CStanley said:
” ..I don't see how their imaginative musings on what Jesus really meant.. “
And there you have the beginnings of religious animosities, if not wars.
The meaning you take from the Bible is what Jesus really meant,, while a contrary meaning someone else finds in the Bible is an “imaginative musing.,”
The difference is not determined by the Bible but by you and that someone else.
I, for example, am inspired and motivated by the 'do unto others…' maxim, a theme that runs through many religions and secular philosophies. The choice of inspiration is mine and how I apply that maxim in real life decisions is my personal responsibility. Otherwise, it would be too tempting to use the source of the inspirational words as justification (an excuse, if you will) if I apply them badly. and cause someone pain with my good intentions.
CStanley said:
” ..I don't see how their imaginative musings on what Jesus really meant.. “
And there you have the beginnings of religious animosities, if not wars.
The meaning you take from the Bible is what Jesus really meant,, while a contrary meaning someone else finds in the Bible is an “imaginative musing.,”
The difference is not determined by the Bible but by you and that someone else.
I, for example, am inspired and motivated by the 'do unto others…' maxim, a theme that runs through many religions and secular philosophies. The choice of inspiration is mine and how I apply that maxim in real life decisions is my personal responsibility. Otherwise, it would be too tempting to use the source of the inspirational words as justification (an excuse, if you will) if I apply them badly. and cause someone pain with my good intentions.
runasim- you're ignoring the fact that I made that comment in reference to people who were saying that Jesus was a radical liberal, and I pointed out that there's absolutely no Biblical reference to Jesus advocating political organization for the purpose of charity.. If you are actually saying that it's only a difference of interpretation that allows one person to claim that Jesus did say such things, and my interpretation is that he didn't, then I'd have to ask you to support that claim.
I have no problem with the concept that some people DO espouse political organization for that purpose, and even as a conservative I don't completely reject that. But it's just wrong to act as though Jesus' words indicate that he'd be a registered Democrat. I am not trying to coapt Him as a spokesperson for the GOP, and I'm asking that others similarly refrain from doing so for the Dems. I can see where people could find justification for either form of politics- so all I'm asking is that we all agree that it's our own interpretations of how to best enforce the goals that lead us to our political inclinations- not Jesus' teachings directly advising us one way or the other. I'd think that you would agree with that, no?
So what I meant by people having imaginative musings was that they are pretending that what they believe about the writings is what is definitively stated there, and that's not the case.
runasim- you're ignoring the fact that I made that comment in reference to people who were saying that Jesus was a radical liberal, and I pointed out that there's absolutely no Biblical reference to Jesus advocating political organization for the purpose of charity.. If you are actually saying that it's only a difference of interpretation that allows one person to claim that Jesus did say such things, and my interpretation is that he didn't, then I'd have to ask you to support that claim.
I have no problem with the concept that some people DO espouse political organization for that purpose, and even as a conservative I don't completely reject that. But it's just wrong to act as though Jesus' words indicate that he'd be a registered Democrat. I am not trying to coapt Him as a spokesperson for the GOP, and I'm asking that others similarly refrain from doing so for the Dems. I can see where people could find justification for either form of politics- so all I'm asking is that we all agree that it's our own interpretations of how to best enforce the goals that lead us to our political inclinations- not Jesus' teachings directly advising us one way or the other. I'd think that you would agree with that, no?
So what I meant by people having imaginative musings was that they are pretending that what they believe about the writings is what is definitively stated there, and that's not the case.
C Stanley,
I think somwhere there we actually agree on some basic level. I certainly don't think that any political movement, even one I might support, has the right to claim the one and only true interpretation of Biblical teachings.
I just have a problem with your reference to 'what is actually there'. What is there is not Jesus speaking for himself, it's what other people said Jesus said and these other people did their reporting over a very long period of time, sometiimes relying on secondary sources, sometimes writing under pseudonyms, and writing under varying conditions and in various stages in the history of the Christian movement.
Very early on, Christianity took on the organizational form of an institution, and the presevation of the institution became as much a motivational force as the spreading and understanding of Jesus's actual words per se. That self-preservational interest is a part of theological teachings that should be taken into account, from my pwepective.
So, while I agree with you that politics should not co-opt Jesus as the banner bearer, I think the tendency to do so is natural and predibtable. This is, in fact, the major reason why I thnk politics and religion should be kept as far apart as possible.
In personal life, to each his own. .
C Stanley,
I think somwhere there we actually agree on some basic level. I certainly don't think that any political movement, even one I might support, has the right to claim the one and only true interpretation of Biblical teachings.
I just have a problem with your reference to 'what is actually there'. What is there is not Jesus speaking for himself, it's what other people said Jesus said and these other people did their reporting over a very long period of time, sometiimes relying on secondary sources, sometimes writing under pseudonyms, and writing under varying conditions and in various stages in the history of the Christian movement.
Very early on, Christianity took on the organizational form of an institution, and the presevation of the institution became as much a motivational force as the spreading and understanding of Jesus's actual words per se. That self-preservational interest is a part of theological teachings that should be taken into account, from my pwepective.
So, while I agree with you that politics should not co-opt Jesus as the banner bearer, I think the tendency to do so is natural and predibtable. This is, in fact, the major reason why I thnk politics and religion should be kept as far apart as possible.
In personal life, to each his own. .
I think we do come pretty close to agreement, and your quibble with my point about 'what is there' is really just touching on a different point. For most Christians, the debate about whether the Bible is the actual inspired Word of God or not is settled- by professing a belief in Christianity, most people have either considered your point and rejected it (in terms of the organization of the Church seriously distorting Jesus' words and actions) or they simply haven't even considered that a possibility. I realize there are some who consider themselves Christians and derive their beliefs about Jesus from lost gospels and such, but generally when we're talking about Christians the term refers to Bible based Christians (and since this post was a discussion about Catholicism, that's the type of Christian believer I was referring to.)
So IOW, that part of the discussion is really a different subject IMO and that's why I still stand by my statement about “reading things that aren't there”- because I'm talking about people who do accept the Bible as the authoritative collection of our knowledge about Jesus, but they claim that there's more there to support political ideology than there really is.
I think we do come pretty close to agreement, and your quibble with my point about 'what is there' is really just touching on a different point. For most Christians, the debate about whether the Bible is the actual inspired Word of God or not is settled- by professing a belief in Christianity, most people have either considered your point and rejected it (in terms of the organization of the Church seriously distorting Jesus' words and actions) or they simply haven't even considered that a possibility. I realize there are some who consider themselves Christians and derive their beliefs about Jesus from lost gospels and such, but generally when we're talking about Christians the term refers to Bible based Christians (and since this post was a discussion about Catholicism, that's the type of Christian believer I was referring to.)
So IOW, that part of the discussion is really a different subject IMO and that's why I still stand by my statement about “reading things that aren't there”- because I'm talking about people who do accept the Bible as the authoritative collection of our knowledge about Jesus, but they claim that there's more there to support political ideology than there really is.
CStanley,
I think this is very much the same subject, and not at all dependent on whether or not you believe that he Bible is the word of God.
I was simply pointing out that given the sparsity of information about Jesus and his words (surely he must have said a lot more during his lifetme than what is recorded), it is only natural that believers would draw varying inferences.
The scant 'what is there' is simply not enough to tell you what to do at every step.
That's where theologians and institutional churches step in. They tell you how to fill in the answers to the questions in the gaps between the words that are there.
It is quite possible for two people to equally believe in the sancitity of the Bible and to infer toatlly different meanings from 'what is there.'
We haven't even touched on the literal vs allegorical aspect of 'what is there'.
Could Jesus have sometimes spoken in parables (the forty fishes)?
Look, if you're comfortable with the theology of tha Catholic Church. that's fine and dandy.. I get the comfort in that, and I have no interest in nudging you out of your comfort zone (do unto others, you know). I just don't see grounds for claiming a superior understanding of 'what is there' in relation to other theological interpretations.
CStanley,
I think this is very much the same subject, and not at all dependent on whether or not you believe that he Bible is the word of God.
I was simply pointing out that given the sparsity of information about Jesus and his words (surely he must have said a lot more during his lifetme than what is recorded), it is only natural that believers would draw varying inferences.
The scant 'what is there' is simply not enough to tell you what to do at every step.
That's where theologians and institutional churches step in. They tell you how to fill in the answers to the questions in the gaps between the words that are there.
It is quite possible for two people to equally believe in the sancitity of the Bible and to infer toatlly different meanings from 'what is there.'
We haven't even touched on the literal vs allegorical aspect of 'what is there'.
Could Jesus have sometimes spoken in parables (the forty fishes)?
Look, if you're comfortable with the theology of tha Catholic Church. that's fine and dandy.. I get the comfort in that, and I have no interest in nudging you out of your comfort zone (do unto others, you know). I just don't see grounds for claiming a superior understanding of 'what is there' in relation to other theological interpretations.
ip spoof…
I can’t believe I missed this! I’m going to have to do some more reading me thinks….