POLITICS AND THE CATHOLIC MAGAZINE
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
Here I go again, off on a tangent. Last week I wrote about books I have resolved to see graduated off my to-be-read shelf, and the week before I wrote about seeing my son off for his new life in Japan. I had intended to make this week's offering purely apologetical, but I made the mistake of retrieving my mail from its cubbyhole and opening the January issue of "Crisis" magazine.
"Crisis" began as "Catholicism in Crisis." In 1986, during its fourth year of publication, it shortened and, in a way, broadened its title to the single word. The magazine was founded by Ralph McInerny and Michael Novak.
Until recently, when he resigned due to a scandal, it was published by Deal Hudson, who has an article in the current issue. The article is about the wall or fence that Israel has erected to separate Palestinians from Israelis, and the piece largely is about how this barrier has affected the fast-declining number of Christians in the Holy Land. There is a clear religious element in the piece, even though the article is largely about politics.
The same can be said of a feature by Russell Shaw, "What the Election Revealed." Like many other commentators, he looks as how Catholics voted in November, discusses the disarray among the bishops (who sent mixed signals or no signals at all), and calls "Faithful Citizenship" "a painful embarrassment to any thinking Catholic who ploughs through its heavy prose." Again, the article is about politics but has a decidedly Catholic bent.
The lead feature in the issue is framed in terms of "eight questions about the stem-cell debate." The writer is Todd M. Aglialoro. Not much by way of politics here--the reflections are chiefly on moral issues--but one might say there is a political component in that stem-cell research is a hot political topic.
A fourth feature is about "Catholic colleges and the political Left." The writer is Patrick J. Reilly. Again, politics plus the faith, and this is fine, since on its cover "Crisis" subtitles itself "Politics, Culture, and the Church."
In its early years, though, the proportions were different. "Catholicism in Crisis" ran articles about Catholicism in crisis. The 1986 name change did not see a major change in focus. Two decades ago the magazine was mainly a vehicle for the critique of the wider, secular culture, secondarily an analyzer of the way that culture impacted the Church (for the worse, mostly). There were articles that were overtly political, but they were the exception.
About a decade ago the emphasis changed. The magazine moved from South Bend to Washington, and Deal Hudson became involved in Republican politics, which meant "Crisis" also became involved in Republican politics.
When the offices were moved, I had a sense of unease. A magazine can be produced anywhere. Nowadays the offices don't need to be close to the writers. Many editorial tasks can be done via e-mail. So why the move to Washington? Maybe it was in part to give "Crisis" more credibility with decision makers, people who might be able to put into play (or to obstruct) Catholic social and moral principles.
Fair enough, but still I was uneasy. My unease increased when Hudson became the liaison from Catholics to the Bush White House. Such a position is needed; I like the idea of a Catholic voice being heard at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But should the liaison be the head of a Catholic magazine that might need to editorialize against Administration policies?
The intractable problem is partisanship. You can't escape it in such a situation, either personally or professionally. And over time it showed. "Crisis" became accused of being a Republican house organ. Usually the criticism was made by heterodox Catholics or by Democratic Party agents, but more and more the criticism seemed to have some merit. I can't recall anything in the magazine that criticized the Bush Administration but plenty that criticized its opponents.
When the scandal broke, Deal Hudson resigned as liaison to the White House and, after a delay, resigned as publisher of "Crisis." Both resignations were proper, but they should have come simultaneously. The magazine, though, seems to be as heavily involved in politics as before. I have mentioned four features in the current issue, and three of them deal with politics in some manner. Each also deals with Catholicism.
A fifth feature is the one that especially caught my attention. It has nothing to do with the faith and only to do with politics. The title is "Biting the Bullet: Military Conscription and the Price of Citizenship." The writer is Francis X. Maier. He used to edit the "National Catholic Register," before the Legion of Christ bought out that publication and improved its looks, content, and circulation.
At the end of the article it says, "Francis X. Maier writes from Colorado." What it does not say is that he is the chancellor of the Archdiocese of Denver, working under Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. I presume the affiliation with the Archdiocese is not mentioned because the article reflects Maier's private viewpoint and not that of the Church in Denver. I sure hope that's the case, because I find his viewpoint troublesome.
He says that "America is an empire in denial"--that is, this country is an empire but most people don't want to admit it. If our status as an empire is a fact, Maier doesn't seem to be bothered by it. He says, "We want the benefits of hegemony without admitting to it and without being willing to pay for it in the blood and resources that global power requires. ... I support mandatory, universal, national service--including a military draft--because we need it. Not because of military utility--the experts can argue about that--but because of its moral utility. We need it the way a drunk needs a cold shower."
That is an unfortunate simile. A drunk doesn't need a cold shower. A cold shower won't cure his problem, and by itself it won't even do much to sober him up after last night's binge. But Maier thinks universal service not only will make young people responsible citizens (this is debatable) but will make empire sustainable.
He cites an author who argues that, in Maier's words, "a draft would also make reckless military adventures less likely because of their immediate cost in blood to average American families." Frankly, I don't follow that logic. History suggests the opposite.
When a country has a surplus of men under arms, it is tempted to put them to use, lest the cost of their upkeep seem a waste. A country with a modest number of men under arms has to be more prudent in sending them to war. On the one hand, you don't want too few to defend the country adequately. On the other hand, having too many invites the very recklessness that Maier decries.
What especially bothered me about the article is that there is nothing particularly Catholic in endorsing imperial designs, and there is nothing particularly Catholic in universal conscription. Granted, a Catholic can be for them and still be a Catholic in good standing--but a good Catholic also can be against them. My own position is against having America be an empire and against conscription. You may differ. Fine. Let's agree to disagree.
But why should a Catholic magazine come down so strongly in favor not just of the draft but of a wider, universal conscription to various forms of social service? Why should it go further and implicitly endorse imperial designs? And why should it neglect to run simultaneously an article opposing both positions? There is no Catholic dog in this fight. If the Church permits good Catholics to take one side or the other, isn't there an imprudence in pushing only one side?
At Catholic Answers we have a policy of not pushing what the Church doesn't push. Many Catholics prefer one form of spirituality over another. You might like Franciscan spirituality, I might like Benedictine, and the fellow down the block might like Dominican. Each is permissible to a Catholic, so it wouldn't be right, we think, for a Catholic apostolate to leave you with the impression that you ought to take up the form of spirituality that its staff prefers, assuming there is one.
Ditto for apparitions. The Church "approves" of several, such as Lourdes and Fatima and Guadalupe, but only in the sense that nothing in those private revelations is seen as opposing the faith. As a loyal Catholic, you are under no obligation to adhere to any private revelation; your obligation extends only to general revelation, which ended with the death of the last apostle. With respect to "approved" private revelations, you are at liberty, and for that reason Catholic Answers' policy is not to lay a burden where there is no burden.
The same should hold in politics. Not that we get involved in much politics here. We did publish the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics," but that merely reiterated Church teaching on five non-negotiable moral issues. The draft and imperialism don't fall in the same category.
So I wince when I see "Crisis" endorse a position where no position needed to be endorsed and where faithful, orthodox Catholics are free to disagree. I winced when the magazine moved to Washington and changed its focus from culture mixed with some politics to politics mixed with some culture. I think it was an imprudent geographic move that, as I feared, has resulted in too much trucking with the political establishment.
Despite all that, I like "Crisis." I just no longer think of it as I think of "Catholic World Report" or "Laywitness" or "New Oxford Review" or, for that matter, "This Rock." I place it more with "National Review" and other political magazines that have a largely Catholic authorship and readership. It serves a purpose, but I liked its old purpose better.
p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do not hit your Reply button. Instead, go to Catholic Answers' new discussion forums at:
http://forums.catholic.com
where you may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter. You will find a thread devoted to this issue of the E-Letter. Feel free to add your comment in the form of a reply to that thread.
|
Catholic Answers
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up