Tag: life

  • The Great Boycott Controversy

    The Great Boycott Controversy

    I recently initiated a boycott of Gilbert Magazine, not because I dislike the magazine but, on the contrary, because I love it (though I recognize its failings) and I love the American Chesterton Society (ACS). I love these institutions in much the same way that I love the United States of America and in much the same way that I love my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame. I do not love them because of their perfection but, rather, I love them because of their potential good, their potential beauty and even because of the beauty and goodness that has been, hoping that it may be again. I love them with their failings.  In fact, I love them so much that I am willing to expose their failings to the light of day.  I am eager to love them in a manly way and I fear any failure of love that may manifest itself in the form of indifference.  So, in the case of Gilbert Magazine and the ACS  my love took the form of a boycott.

    The occasion that gave rise to this action of love was the editorial by Dale Ahlquist in an issue of Gilbert Magazine published in the months leading up to the recent presidential election (“Why I Won’t Vote for Mitt Romney”, May/June 2012).  I laid out my objections to Mr. Ahlquist’s editorial in another article here at A Sensible Life so I will not say much more about it in this piece other than to say that I found it impossible to get through to folks at the ACS without resorting to the step that I eventually took, the Boycott.  The good news is that the Boycott had an almost immediate positive effect.  I was able to get the attention of some folks at the ACS.  The Boycott engendered some conversation on Mark Shea’s blog as well as on the ACS blog and the ACS Facebook page.  Unfortunately, the folks with whom I interacted remain entrenched in their support of Mr. Ahlquist’s position.

    Let me just say that though I find Mr. Ahlquist’s position poorly reasoned and indefensible, I would not normally make a public objection to an individual’s privately held belief.  The problem with Mr. Ahlquist’s error is manifestly that it is not a private error but one that he made publicly not only in his own name but also “for the editorial board of Gilbert Magazine“.  In effect, he relied upon his position on the editorial board of the magazine and as president of the ACS to attempt to sway readers away from a sensible approach to our 2012 elections.  Rather than remaining silent or, better yet, encouraging Gilbert readers to actively support the candidate on the correct side (if not absolutely correct, then most certainly correct on a relative basis compared to his opponent) of the great moral absolutes of our day (marriage, life, religious freedom), Mr. Ahlquist led those who would follow him to disregard their civic duty.

    In the somewhat jovial though serious debate that ensued as a result of the Boycott, Mr. Shea and other Ahlquist/ACS supporters objected strenuously to my objection but their objections can broadly be summarized in two points: (a) Gilbert Magazine and Mr. Ahlquist have minimal influence in this country and (b) Mr. Romney was a flawed candidate (a point to which I stipulated over and over again).  I don’t know which of these objections I found more troubling.  The first indicates to me a frivolousness (and by that I do not mean Chestertonian frivolity!) that is unbecoming of an organization founded upon the memory and thought of the great apologist and social/political commentator, G. K. Chesterton.  I cannot imagine Chesterton taking a controversial position and then when that position runs into some public resistance, tucking his tail between his legs and saying, “well it doesn’t really matter what I say because no-one reads what I have to say anyway”.  Further, this frivolous response to my objections seems to me to indicate a failure on the part of  Gilbert Magazine  and the ACS to embrace the significance of the role they could (and frequently do) play in reclaiming our culture and society and the positive impact they could have in the public square.  I am glad they had some fun with the Boycott but I am disappointed that to a certain extent their fun became a cover for their inability to defend an indefensible position.

    With regard to the second point the Ahlquist/ACS defenders raised, the faults of Mr. Romney as a candidate, I can only say that I found it to be a red herring.  Of course, Mr. Romney was a flawed candidate.  However, this objection merely served to attempt to distract the conversation away from the fact that they were unwilling to act positively to remove President Obama from office.  In all the dialogues in which I engaged, none of the Ahlquist/ACS crowd was willing to admit the obvious: no matter how bad a candidate Mr. Romney was, he was substantively better than President Obama on all three of the great moral absolutes facing us this election cycle (defense of real marriage, protection of innocent life and protection of religious liberty).  Why did they refuse to acknowledge this reality?  I fear it is because of an ideological bias against Mr. Romney’s party.  I also fear there is a substantial contingency within the ACS that appears to hate the Republican Party so much that it is unwilling to ally itself with the Republicans in order to save the lives of innocent children, save the institution of marriage in our country and safeguard our religious freedoms.  I realize Mr. Romney would likely not have done all we could hope in any of these areas.  But there is no doubt that as a result of having President Obama in office for another four years we will lose more lives of innocent unborns that we would otherwise have done; our religious liberties will be further eroded; and marriage will suffer greater and more powerful attack.

    Herein lie the reasons behind the Great Boycott. I wanted to awaken Gilbert Magazine, the ACS and Mr. Ahlquist to their responsibilities as the foremost commentators on Chestertonian thought in the United States.  Have fun, by all means but do not be frivolous!  Also, I would like to see the ACS work with others of us out here in the hinterlands to educate the American public in authentic Catholic social teaching.  For too long Catholic social teaching has been misconstrued in such a way that it has led many men and women of good will to believe in progressivism.  Progressivism and big government control of social programs are not authentic manifestations of Catholic social teaching.  A proper understanding of gratuitousness, freedom, responsibility, subsidiarity and solidarity will lead us to a distributed approach to dealing with the needs of our brothers and sisters and with our economic activity.  These concepts will lead us away from a focus on centralized government.

    Let us unite in guiding and informing our society.  Let us have fun doing it but let us be serious about it.  Let us be willing to work for small victories (like defeating President Obama) when no greater victory is within our grasp!

    “Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.” (GKC) Hence, the Great Boycott…

  • Are we "Human Capital" or are we Actors Working Out our Own Destiny?

    Are we "Human Capital" or are we Actors Working Out our Own Destiny?

    The Vatican (via the VIS – can be found at www.news.va) released today comments from the Holy Father treating directly with one of the core principles of A Sensible Life: human dignity. I have not yet completed my article on the Six Principles for a Sensible Life but it is in the works and you can be sure that human dignity will be there.

    Following are the words of the Holy Father. Emphases are mine as are italicized comments.

    “Man is nowadays considered in predominantly biological terms or as ‘human capital’, a ‘resource’, part of a dominant productive or financial mechanism. Although we continue to proclaim the dignity of the person, new ideologies – the hedonistic and egotistic claim to sexual and reproductive rights, or unregulated financial capitalism that abuses politics and derails the true economy – contribute to a concept of the worker and his or her labour as ‘minor’ commodities and undermine the natural foundations of society, especially the family. In fact, the human being, …. transcendent by comparison to other beings or earthly goods, enjoys true supremacy and responsibility for himself and for creation. … For Christianity, work is fundamental for man, for his identity, socialisation, the creation of a family and his contribution to peace and the common good. For precisely this reason, the aim of access to work for all is always a priority, even in periods of economic recession.

    Responsibility is another of the Six Principles for a Sensible Life!

    “From new evangelisation of the social sphere, we can derive a new humanism and renewed cultural and prospective commitment”, the Pope continued. The new evangelisation “helps to dethrone modern idols, replacing individualism, materialistic consumerism and technocracy with a culture of fraternity and gratuity, and with mutual love. Jesus Christ summarised these precepts and gave them the form of a new commandment – ‘Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another’ – and here lies the secret of every fully human and pacific social life, as well as the renewal of politics and of national and global institutions. Blessed John XXIII motivated efforts to build a world community, with a corresponding authority precisely on love for the common good of the human family”.

    I have already written elsewhere at A Sensible Life about the central theme of gratuitousness and its importance in understanding ordered relationships between man and man and between man and God. We uphold the dignity of our brothers and sisters by working to ensure they have jobs, by helping them when they are in need, by giving without expectation of return – in this way we live a culture of fraternity and gratuity. We do not live fraternity or gratuity when we abdicate our responsibility to take care of our brothers and sisters or when we attempt to pass this responsibility along to government.

    “The Church certainly does not have the task of suggesting, from a judicial or political point of view, the precise configuration of an international system of this type, but rather offers a set of principles for reflection, criteria for judgement and practical guidelines able to guarantee an anthropological and ethical structure for the common good. However, it is important to note that one should not envisage a superpower, concentrated in the hands of the few, dominating all peoples and exploiting the weakest among them, but rather that such an authority should be understood primarily as a moral force, a power to influence according to reason, or rather as a participatory authority, limited in competence and by law”, concluded the Holy Father.

    Confirmation! No superpower government is going to take on our responsibility for upholding the dignity of our brothers and sisters. We must do it. We must work to teach and convert those around us; convince our culture of the need to take human dignity seriously and, in the U.S., work to restore to individuals those freedoms and responsibilities that will allow individuals to serve each other in fraternity and gratuity.

  • Bishop Speaks on the Moral Obligations of Voters

    Bishop Speaks on the Moral Obligations of Voters

    Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois has provided some beautiful clarity with regard to our moral obligations in the upcoming presidential election.  He speaks of intrinsic evil and warns us of the consequences of our actions in voting.  I encourage you to watch this video:

    Bishop on Moral Obligation of Voters

    Wow!

  • Presidential Campaign

    Presidential Campaign

    I launched A Sensible Life back in June with the intent to write about authentic Catholic social teaching: gratuitousness, solidarity, subsidiarity and a distributed economy. My intent was and is to cover these subjects from a theoretical and practical standpoint. I want to write about public policy relative to these topics as well as writing about down to earth ways we can live these principles in our families and in the larger economy.

    These topics still serve as the primary reason of being for A Sensible Life. Unfortunately, as I was launching A Sensible Life I failed to take into account the fact that we were entering into the prime season for what one could reasonably call the most important presidential campaign in the last several generations. Because of this presidential campaign, I have allowed myself to focus the attention of A Sensible Life on politics more than I would have otherwise liked. Please be patient with us. I will steer the ship back to more weighty and interesting matters. However, pardon me if I spend some more time now and in the next few weeks on the more imminent issues surrounding the presidential campaign.

    That said, I feel the need to lay the cards on the table. Here goes. There is no moral or rational posturing that can justify a Catholic or other person of good will in not supporting Mitt Romney for president. That is to say, it is our moral obligation not only to vote against Barack Obama but to vote for Mitt Romney. How can I say that with absolute certainty? Here is how.

    Moral absolutes: The first issues we must examine as discerning Christian electors are those non-negotiable issues involving intrinsic moral good and intrinsic moral evil. The moral absolutes at stake in this presidential election include: the defense of life from birth to natural death, the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and the protection of each individual’s freedoms of religion and conscience. These are issues that touch upon the most basic rights of men and women in this country. They are incontrovertible and they trump all other issues.

    On each one of these issues Mitt Romney’s position is without any question or doubt better than that of his opponent. His statements support this conclusion as do his actions. No amount of equivocating will get around this fact. No matter how many people repeat, “well, Romney isn’t perfect on these issues either”, the fact remains that Mitt Romney is substantively better on these issues. No amount of cynicism about the honesty of politicians will relieve us of the moral burden of acting upon this reality.

    Matters of prudential judgment: There are other issues that women and men of good will may debate. These matters, subject to the conclusions of our well-formed prudent judgments, can include important issues like the death penalty, the most just and prudent way to engage in international policy and the application of Catholic social teaching to domestic policy. In a presidential election, these are important issues and should be issues upon which we form our political decisions so long as the are not trumped by issues of a higher magnitude.

    However, in this particular presidential election all issues are trumped by those involving the moral absolutes. And, what is more, there may never have been an election like this one in the history of the United States: an election (a) that involved so many questions concerning moral good and evil and (b) in which there was so much clarity on each of these questions with regard to the positions of each of the candidates.

    I just want to say one more thing about issues involving prudential judgment and that has to do with the question of Catholic social teaching. Many Catholics have taken the position during this presidential campaign that we are justified in voting for or even obligated to vote for Barack Obama because of what he has done with government money and policy in support of the poor. First, as I have said above, matters of prudential judgment cannot trump matters of moral imperative. However, this fact aside, these folks are simply wrong in their understanding of Catholic social teaching. Catholic social teaching (and Christian charity) tells us that we must care for those in need (the poor, the sick, the weak). We do not fulfill this obligation by passing it along to the government. To the extent the government takes my tax dollars to care for my brother, it robs me both of my freedom and my responsibility. Moreover, such activity by the national government is in direct opposition to the Christian principle of subsidiarity. This principle states (for purposes of this conversation) that the needy must be cared for by those closest to them; their brothers or very local institutions. The national government not only bungles such work but it de-humanizes the recipients of its efforts and robs others of the opportunity to fulfill their obligations in Christian charity.

    In summary, there is no case in support of Barack Obama. On the contrary, we are morally obligated to oppose him and to support his opponent, Mitt Romney.

  • Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney

    Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney

    Dale Ahlquist is dead wrong and we have a duty to support Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in the upcoming general election. Here at A Sensible Life we cannot shy away from pointing out error, even when expressed by one whom we otherwise hold in high regard.

    I was saddened to see Dale Ahlquist’s editorial in the May/June issue of Gilbert Magazine. As his thesis Mr. Ahlquist asserted that he would not vote for Mitt Romney in the upcoming presidential election. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ahlquist. Unfortunately, I found his reasoning in this case very weak and his conclusion to be both dangerous and unsound.

    Mr. Ahlquist spent much of his editorial describing how George Bush became the Republican Party nominee for president in 2000 and dedicated additional space listing the deficiencies of the Bush presidency, ignoring the pro-life, pro-freedom successes of that same presidency. He admits his cynicism toward the Republican Party. Perhaps his uncurbed cynicism has blinds him to the real differences between the only two parties in this country who have any possibility of winning a presidential election. His uncurbed cynicism leads also to his unsupported assertion that the nomination of Mitt Romney is, “all about money.”

    Mr. Ahlquist justly draws a parallel between the big business tendencies of the Republican Party and the big government tendencies of the Democrat Party. He also points out, correctly, that the Republican Party has contributed to the expansion of government rather than succeeding in reducing its scope. However, in the interest of making his case, Mr. Ahlquist overstates the role of Republican Party in growing government. He also ignores the support from the Republican Party for small business and fails to recognize that it is always the Democrat Party that pushes hardest for government expansion and that the Republican Party when in power generally slows or stops the growth, though rarely succeeding in actually reducing government reach. He also ignores the profound differences between the parties with regard to political philosophy; differences to be seen in the Republican view of the Constitution as an enshrinement of individuals’ rights and a curb to government power. This view of the Constitution is most evident in Republicans’ appointments to the courts, which for the most part have been excellent in the last thirty years. There have been some disappointments in this area but no Democrat would ever have appointed Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or Antonin Scalia.

    All of this said, the most glaring and disappointing deficiency in Mr. Ahlquist’s editorial is his failure to recognize the importance of the upcoming general election in the context of the ongoing battle for the soul of our country. He fails altogether to draw any distinction between the two viable parties in our country with regard to issues such as the secularization of the political philosophy of our national government, defense of life, protection of marriage, human freedom, freedom of conscience, regulatory and tax burdens on small business, etc. Is Mitt Romney perfect on these issues? No rational and informed individual would claim that he is. However, there are members of Congress who understand what needs to be done in these areas and stand ready to do so. Mitt Romney may not be the boldest leader on all the issues that lie before us but mark this well, without a Republican in the White House (and Romney is our only option at this point) there is absolutely no chance that the good men and women whom we have elected to Congress will make any progress on the road to fixing the ills of our country.

    It is an impoverished view of our civic responsibility to suggest that because we do not wholly agree with the results of the nomination process we will refuse to vote in the general election (or we will vote for some unelectable third party candidate).

    I cannot state this too strongly, a vote for President Obama is a vote for the current steep downward trajectory of our country; a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a presidency that will at worst decrease this trajectory and a presidency that has the potential (even if that potential be slim) to turn the trajectory upward. Make no mistake about it, to fail to vote for Mitt Romney in November is to cast half a vote for President Obama. This truth remains, no matter how loudly you claim non- support of the current administration.

    Mr. Ahlquist to many stands as the arbiter of Chestertonian thought in the United States. It saddens me that he would publicly take this position and by doing so potentially draw many votes away from a much-needed victory in the battle for the American soul. Don’t forget, Mr. Ahlquist, God can write straight even with bent instruments like Mitt Romney and you and me. I will close with a remark of Chesterton’s from What’s Wrong with the World, “Men have never wearied of political justice; they have wearied of waiting for it.” Please do not weary of waiting for political justice here in the United States. And please do not express weariness, despair and cynicism by failing to do all necessary to replace the current secular administration with one that holds a brighter potential.