Review: A Partisan Church, Part II | National Catholic Reporter

Review: A Partisan Church, Part II | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: MacIntyre is mistaken.  Emotivism is not the basis for modern moral thought.  Humanism is.  This can be a secular humanism, a traditionalist Christian humanism or a more Modernist Christian Humanism.  The result of a Modernist Christian Humanism and Secular Humanism should be close, because the goal of each is to make life better during this life - rather than as a way to subjugate oneself to a God who wants us to be angels on earth, especially in regard to impossible sexual situations, like being gay.  I would aver that the Modernist Christian Humanism would be a bit more charitable to the vulnerable, but that may not exactly be the case, except perhaps with the unborn (and again, maybe not, especially as modernists and seculars alike don't see the utility or the charity in punitive criminal abortion law.  Of course, this is my narrative on morals, not Scribner's.



Scribner's narrative is based on narrative.  Neuhaus depends on Federal era protestant culture for American morality - which I guess is fine if you believe in slavery, discount the Masonic influence and forget that the age of Logical Positivism comes quickly on the stage in the nineteenth and twentieth century (see secular humanism).  As for consumerism (MSW's eternal peeve), it did not come from this ideal, but was the natural result of industrialization and capitalism, where you either make goods available or prepare for workers to riot.  Industrialization, not a moral myth, is what breaks up extended families as opportunities arise and people move to fill them.  Still, slavery was a big deal in that Federal period, especially in the South.  One wonders how that fits the neocon ideal, especially while pastors are gunned down and churches burn, all for southern pride.



I am glad for Scribner's take down of Weigel, who does really qualify as neo-con, much more so than the two popes, indeed, more so than St. John Paul who had no good things to say about Bush's Iraq policy.  Baptizing the the Revolution in Catholic European soil would not only astound the Whigs - it would astound them in their night time activities as members of a Masonic Lodge (neither Catholics nor Papism allowed - and the feeling was mutual).  As for Thomistic Natural Law, I expect that if St. Thomas were alive today, he would join me in condemning how the Curia has handled it - turning it into a Formalist Magisgterium rather than a way to actually discern the truth - and be fluid as what we know of circumstances change.  He might not be as liberal as I am, but he certainly would not be as conservative as George Weigel in his traditionalist natural law.



Novak sounds like someone it might be fun to have dinner with.  I would not turn Paul VI into Jimmy Carter - indeed, I suspect that His Holiness was not happy with the Viet Nam adventure, although as a member of the Vatican diplomatic corps, Montini most likely knew the ins and outs of the foreign policy issues of his day, as did all of his successors.  I wonder if some disaffected liberal writer turns neo-con and makes comments on Francis' barely hidden liberation theology.  That won't be me, of course, I think a bit of liberation theology is exactly what we need.  I suspect that no one thought we would be bringing back Vatican II and maybe setting up for Vatican III or a new council in the East.  I suspect our Neo-cons (or Neo-Trads) would blanche at the idea.  It certainly would be a far cry from the supposedly halcyon days of Ronald Reagan.