Blogwhoring again: posted on my blog Reconomist.
The Archbishop of Denver's presence is now to be found on the Op/Ed page of the New York Times.
First of all, he does well with me by starting with a quote from Karl Barth.
The theologian Karl Barth once said, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."
True. But from there, the Archbishop's writing assumes a delicate balancing act. On one side, he argues energetically for the proper influence of the clergy and religious belief in general on electoral politics, whilst on the other, he maintains that Catholics can only take the absolute anti-abortion view in good faith. Archbishop Chaput thinks that Barth's observation applies to religious involvement in politics, that outwardly-expressed religion pushes into the political realm, and that such a dynamic is welcome. Somewhat injudiciously, I think, he overtly refers to "the separation of church and state" as a "frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound-bite."
The Basque theologian Miguel de Unamuno once said "Faith which does not doubt is dead faith." Let me say that I do not disagree with Archbishop Chaput, or I should say that I am closer to the Archbishop than I am to Thomas Jefferson on this issue. I have two main objections to his involvement in politics, however:
- The Catholic Church itself should not be used as a political cudgel. Catholicism is a highly institutionalized faith, but it demeans the faith for the Church to stray from its true place. The Archbishop would like to deny the sacraments to believers who nonetheless stray from the Church's politics and do not confess. As the essential part the observances of faith for believers, the Church has such tremendous power, not to be frittered away in the political realm with an implied concept of a specifically 'political sin'. Politics is inherently corrupt, and while it is proper for the Church to improve it, the Church does itself no spiritual favor by wading hip-deep into the mud.
- The Archbishop is inexcusably presumptuous in his absolute positions. He is entitled to them, but without doubt, they carry little weight with me or anyone else. I am more impressed by the believer who is faithful to his principles whilst maintaining the doubt that gives them continued meaning. To make a crass comparison, I am more impressed with John Kerry than with Archbishop Chaput.
And thus, Archbishop Chaput ends his piece:
"As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us."
meaning
"As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted by John Kerry, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. John Kerry should act on what he claims to believe. Otherwise he is violating his own conscience and lying to himself and the rest of us."
The Archbishop basically claims that Kerry's doubt amounts to a violation. I say the opposite: Chaput's lack of doubt amounts to a violation. And Chaput is the religious figure, the one who can afford to have doubt.