The Obama "Virtues"

Perhaps you've already seen this (ht: Jimmy Akin):

Just imagine if George Bush had done something like this:

Yeah, exactly: complete hysterics about the misuse of religion, theocracy, and the need to observe the sacred (ahem) chasm between Church and State.

By the way, some other, related images can be seen here.

Diogenes offers some excellent analysis of the flyer and its message:

I got a kick out of the layout of the flier, especially the main photo, which significantly shows Obama not in the pews but in the pulpit. This is precisely where he ought to be shown.

Remember that the liberal-conservative divide shapes itself not only around the faith vs. secularism fault line, but it involves a further disagreement about the nature of religion. Not only is church attendance a symptom of conservative rather than liberal sympathies (in general), but the relation of preacher to politician is reversed in the different camps. For conservatives, it is the minister who is the mouthpiece of authoritative truths and the politician who, to the extent that he listens at all, is the preacher's pupil. For liberals, it's the politicians (the enlightened politicians) who are about the really important business and who have the answers that really matter. True religion, in their view, is a servant of progress in this world, not its master, and a good preacher is one who has let himself be taught by the authentically prophetic politicians. For this reason, when we hear progressive priests and bishops burbling in praise of Obama or Clinton, the biblical or moral platitudes they offer in support are dragged in tardily and usually ineptly: entranced as they are by power in the person of the candidate who can effect the real-world changes they desire, their own religion is largely beside the point -- except, perhaps, as a compendium of an antique poetry of social resentment. Regardless of the positions they occupy in the church building, it's the preacher who sits at the feet of the pol.

Take it one level further. Liberal Christians believe religion itself to be a product of worldly politics; e.g., they invariably explain the composition of the Bible and the development of Church authority as a series of propaganda ploys by which partisan claims were packaged as "divine revelation" in order to reinforce the policy and position of some privileged caste. There are no immutable truths to communicate. To treat the Bible seriously as God's word, or to suggest that we were "under judgment" of the Gospel, would be laughed away as childishly naive.

Read his entire post over on "Off The Record." And consider these words from Fr. James Schall, writing back in October 2006 ("The State Which Would Provide Everything," Ignatius Insight, October 3, 2006) about Deus Caritas Est:

Deus Caritas Est is not an "anti-state" document. "The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics" (par 28a). There are "things" of Caesar. The "temporal sphere" has its own area or "autonomy." But other organizations also have their autonomy, especially (but not exclusively) the Church. "For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize" (par 28a). "Recognize" here means allow to exist, encourage to flourish. The very existence of charity with in the State makes it better without the State's being in control of its sources.

Again, while charity can perhaps function in a disordered or even tyrannical polity, justice provides a place for it in any polity to do what justice cannot do, most often deal with the "here and now" of things. "Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now" (par 28a). But this very point brings up the experience of the State, particularly the modern State, that has a "certain ethical blindness" that sees justice in terms of "power and self interests."

The Pope understands that the problem with the State, whether ancient or modern, in  claiming more for itself than is due to it, reflects the Fall -- something about which the political thought of Augustine was acutely aware. Faith is thus seen as "a purifying force for reason itself. From God's standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly" (par 28a). Clearly this comment deals with an understanding of a rationalism that would lock reason into itself and proudly proclaim its own self-sufficiency. This move turns reason into its own god, allowing no entrance of being except to that which its narrow methods authorize.

From a political philosophy point of view, I would consider the most important intellectual contribution of this encyclical of Benedict XVI to be his awareness that the Gospel revelation of charity was not intended to result in an expansion of the State to include, in a secularized way, the impulses and institutions of charity. "It is very important that the Church's charitable activity maintains all of its splendor and does not become just another form of social assistance" (par 31). Because of a failure to understand the immediacy of charity, something has been missing from our families, our schools, our dealings with the poor, weak, and dying, and with new life and old life.

In conclusion, I would recall one final temptation that has its origins in our failure to have a clearer place for active charity in our culture. "When we consider the immensity of others' needs, we can ... be driven towards an ideology that would aim at doing what God's governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolving every problem" (par 36). Whether it be our dealings with wars, disasters, poverty, health, education, or a hundred other things, we come back to this most subtle insight: we claim the power to "resolve" every problem by ourselves. We blame God's "governance" when we do not accept the dimensions of the charity that is put into the world. Ideology is indeed behind much of our understanding of the State and its scope. We have here a spelling out of a different form of "divine governance," one that begins with understanding the State and its limits. We do not, in short, want a State that "would provide everything."

However, it seems that Senator Obama does desire such a State. And he is willing to use religious language to mold it.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin wonders why the many verbal gaffes of Senator Obama—some of them harmless, some of them astounding—aren't being picked up by the MSM. 

Just to be clear: this blog does not endorse a particular political party or candidate for the presidency. However, we have no problem pointing out that Senator Obama's stance on abortion is horrific (an "Obamanation"?), and his attempts to use religious language and imagery ranges from humorous to insulting. I doubt St. Paul would be either moved or amused.

• Archbishop Chaput on "Roman Catholics for Obama ’08" (May 20, 2008)
• Donohue vs. Obama (May 13, 2008)
• Sen. Barack Obama: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion." (Jan. 24, 2008)
• That's why Catholics should vote for Sen. Obama? (Feb. 15, 2008)
• Catholic reporter defends his support for Obama, stating: "bishops be damned" (Feb. 15, 2008)
• The soul of Senator Barack Obama (Feb. 28, 2008)

Comments

[Augustine II]

The cynicism of Obama's poster is nothing short of diabolical. This is a man with "perfect" pro-abortion record, and all the rest of it.

[Dan Deeny]

In the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama voted to prevent people from giving aid to babies who survive abortions. Don't normal people think we should help babies who need help? Barack Obama must be a very troubled individual. We should pray for him. And for his family. And for ourselves.

[LJ]

Take him off his script and Obama becomes a speech delivery system desperately in search of a thought. It is actually painful to hear.

In a kind of inversion of the old story of the emperor's new clothes, I think Barack Obama is an empty suit. The danger is not that he is an ideologue so much as that he has no ideas. He's following someone else's script and delivers it so well that it sounds like he really believes it. But without that script he might say or do anything.

[Dan Deeny]

I'm not so sure about Sen. Obama being an empty suit. Why does he follow someone else's script? Doesn't he choose to follow the script? He seems to be a strong supporter of the abortion business. He seems to have twisted ideas - look at his vote in the Illinois legislature on whether to help babies who survive abortions. Is Sen. Kennedy an empty suit? Is Sen. Kerry? Is Tom Ridge? Why do these people vote to keep abortions legal? They are all adults with lots of schooling and who are Christians, as they say. Look at the Catholics on Sen Obama's advisory committee! Let's pray for them, and for ourselves.

[Carthusian]

The Obama "Virtues"

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Dan]

The Diogenes piece is quite good. Once in a while I look at the America magazine website and every time I do I am struck by how focused it is on politics and how relatively little there is about religion. Further, the posts that are on religion have a decidedly lukewarm feel about them.

[TS]

These politicians (Obama, Kennedy) follow the pro-abortion "script" because they are clever. They might not even care very much about abortion, but they know that in order to gain political office, they need large numbers of votes, and winning elections depends not so much on substance as it does on winning approval from the masses.

[M. Daugherty Razetto]

The appearance of Father Michael Pfleg on TV adds a note or two on the subject;What a shameful case he is.The good senator from Illinois ought not to be a candidate; his baggage is too heavy and, God willing, will come out during the national election.We'd welcome Carl's comments on this.