L.A. Times columnist misuses Jesuit Murray to defend Senator Biden

Tim Rutten has worked for the Los Angeles Times for thirty years. Along the way he has made known his irrational and rather unhinged dislike for those who would dare to criticize prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion. And in his most recent column, "The Catholic Choice" (August 27, 2008), he attempts to come to the defense of Senator Joe Biden by using—or, I am convinced, misusing—some quotes from the writings of John Courtney Murray, S.J. (1904-1967), the influential theologian who wrote extensively on the relationship of Church, State, culture, and society.

But, first, to give you a sense of the low level of discourse engaged in by Rutten, here is his opening paragraph:

Every four years, an astonishing array of conservative commentators and Republican campaign strategists suddenly discover an intimate concern for Catholic consciences and an overriding preoccupation with the Roman church's sacramental and liturgical norms.

This is pure silliness. This is akin to saying, "Every four years, an astonishing array of liberal commentators and Democrat campaign strategists suddenly discover an intimate concern for religion and showing how they are just as spiritually-oriented and heavenly-minded as the average American." So what? Is Rutten amazed that important political, social, and religious issues garner loads of attention during the final months of the presidental election year? If so, perhaps he needs to start editing the comic strip page and criticizing Garfield's eating habits. But his remark is also silly because this issue, for many Catholics and non-Catholics, is important regardless of the date, month, and year. Rutten the Ideologue is clumsily trying to say that Catholics are being used by "conservative commentators and Republican campaign strategists," but the reality is quite different, especially when you consider how many Catholics apparently won't vote for either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain. Such remarks say much more about the commentator than the commentatees.

Rutten goes on to suggest that Archbishop Charles Chaput is simply a shill for the Republican Party because of Chaput's strong denunciation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wildly inaccurate depiction of Catholic teaching on abortion. But it is clear that Rutten's real issue, when all of his spleen-splitting hubris is analyzed, is with the Catholic Church's clear and consistent stance against abortion. Which is why he tries the old "theologians know better than the Magisterium" approach, which is both pandering and pathetic:

If Pelosi had half a wit about her, she might have done what most U.S. Catholics instinctively do, which is to rely on a tradition of moral reasoning that stands athwart Chaput's novel reductionism. Nearly five decades ago, the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray offered this classic appraisal of the real matter at issue:

"The American Proposition makes a particular claim upon the reflective attention of the Catholic ... in the matter of the 'pluralist society ... ' " Murray wrote. "By pluralism here I mean the coexistence within the one political community of groups who hold divergent and incompatible views with regard to religious questions -- those ultimate questions that concern the nature and destiny of man within a universe that stands under the reign of God. Pluralism therefore implies disagreement and dissension within the community. But it also implies a community within which there must be agreement and consensus. There is no small political problem here."

Murray went on to argue that the "working out" of that political problem is itself "an exercise in civic virtue" -- and a theological imperative.

It is this older line of Catholic moral reasoning that allows Biden, who has voted to ban late-term and so-called partial-birth abortions, to say he is "prepared to accept" the Catholic Church's teaching that life begins at conception while supporting Roe vs. Wade because, for now, it "is as close as we're going to be able to get as a society" to accommodating all religious views on the issue.

Now, I readily admit that I've read very little by Murray and am the furthest thing from an expert on his thought and work. He was (and is), of course, very controversial, and his ideas continue to be strongly critiqued by people much smarter and well-learned than myself. This is not a defense or critique of Murray's thought, but something much simpler: an examination to see if Murray is accurately being quoted and referenced.

The quote given by Rutten comes from the foreword to Murray's famous book, We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition (Sheed and Ward, 1960). Rutten seems to be saying that Murray's approach would allow for the support of abortion since there is always and necessarily debate and disagreement within communities about the nature of God, man, and society. In other words, the work of a politician is to uphold pluralism and to work toward a consensus that is healthy for the political community. And this means, he seems to think, that a politician must support abortion, otherwise he somehow rends the fabric of the public order. But Rutten fails to quote this, which comes immediately after the above quote:

If society is to be at all a rational process, some set of principles must motivate the general participation of all religious groups, despite their dissensions, in the oneness of the community. On the other hand, these common principles must not hinder the maintenance by each group of its own different identity. The problem of pluralism is, of course, practical; as a project, its "working out" is an exercise in civic virtue. But the problem is also theoretical; its solution is an exercise in political intelligence that will lay down, as the basis for the "working out," some sort of doctrine.

It seems quite evident to me that, first, Murray's statements in no way excuse or allow for a Catholic politician to uphold policies and laws that are contrary to Catholic social and moral teaching. On the contrary, Murray refers to the right of various groups (which would, of course, include Catholics) to maintain their own identities. The issue is simply this: in a pluralistic, democratic society, how do groups with opposing viewpoints work out principles and consensus for the common good? It must be noted that the final chapter of Murray's book is titled, "The Doctrine Lives: The Eternal Return of Natural Law," and is a strong argument for the use of natural law to guide such actions. The conclusion of that chapter states:

Finally, it does not bow to the new rationalism in regard of a sense of history and progress, the emerging potentialities of human nature, the value of experience in settling the forms of social life, the relative primacy in certain respects of the empirical fact over the preconceived theory; at the same time it does not succumb to the doctrinaire relativism, or to the narrowing of the object of human intelligence, that cripple at their root the high aspirations of evolutionary scientific humanism. In a word, the doctrine of natural law offers a more profound metaphysic, a more integral humanism, a fuller rationality, a more complete philosophy of man in his nature and history.

I might say, too, that it furnishes the basis for a firmer faith and a more tranquil, because more reasoned, hope in the future. If there is a law immanent in man—a dynamic, constructive force for rationality in human affairs, that works itself out, because it is a natural law, in spite of contravention by passion and evil and all the corruptions of power—one may with sober reason believe in, and hope for, a future of rational progress. And this belief and hope is strengthened when one considers that this dynamic order of reason in man, that clamors for expression with all the imperiousness of law, has its origin and sanction in an eternal order of reason whose fulfillment is the object of God's majestic will.

I quote that at length because I think it is safe to say that folks such as Rutten are not only dismissive of natural law, they find it manifestly ridiculous and of no value when it comes to debates over, say, abortion. (Indeed, there are Catholic theologians who sniff in disdain at the natural law tradition, or at least the natural law tradition upheld by recent popes.) They prefer to insist that those who oppose abortion are doing so as irrational religious believers, not as logical and syllogistically-minded men of good will. But the argument against abortion, as Dr. Francis Beckwith and many others have shown, can be made very well without any recourse at all to divine revelation, Scripture, Magisterium, or thunderbolts from on high.

Now, did Murray's various writings help promote a division between public action and private morality? Some have argued so and, again, I plead ignorance on that count. But I would point readers to an October 7, 1994 article in Commonweal (yes, I just recommended a Commonweal article), "What would John Courtney Murray say? On abortion & euthanasia," by Todd David Whitmore. Whitemore appears to be addressing the same sort of misuse of Murray engaged in by Rutten, and states:

One might argue that official Catholic teachings on the status of the embryo-fetus and the morality of taking its life are wrong, and Segers suggests as much in her article. However, the question is what can we say within the context of the concepts that Murray has provided us. In such a context, there are real difficulties in making the case that official Catholic teaching on abortion is wrong. For example, in his writings on churchstate relations, Murray was quite careful to shape his argument so that he could say that Leo XII was not wrong on religious freedom. The pope was simply writing in a different historical context. Because of the presence of the imperita multitudo ("illiterate masses") in Leo's time, a paternalistic government linked to the Catholic church was necessary. However, with the increase in literacy rates and the concomitant rise in people's awareness of their human dignity such a government is no longer necessary. Murray's account of doctrinal development was shaped by an understanding of historical consciousness that allowed him to argue for a change in Catholic teaching on churchstate relations without saying that Leo was wrong. It would be very difficult to make a similar case on abortion: one would have to say, flat out, that popes as different as Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are all wrong. The understanding of doctrinal development offered in Murray's writings leaves little--if any--room for such a claim.

Any argument on abortion made from within the Murray tradition--that is, within the context of the moral and social theory he provides us--must begin, therefore, with three presumptions: that official Catholic teachings on the status of the embryo-fetus and the morality of taking its life are true, that as a result abortion is a matter of public morality, and that laws limiting recourse to abortion are appropriate. If schools seek to make another argument on any of these points, the burden of proof is on them to show how they are operating within the Murray tradition. Segers's argument would require a different understanding of doctrinal development, a changed epistemology, and an altered understanding of consensus. This makes her case that she is responding from within the context of Murray's moral and social theory rather strained. I do not think that her argument can be sustained in the end.

Which brings me, in the end, to a simple fact I hinted at above: pitting this or that theologian against the clear teaching of the Magisterium, while a favorite form of argumentum ad populum for those who deny or dislike Church teaching, is obvious in both weakness and intent. Even if Murray had boldly stated, "I think every Catholic should decide for himself what he believes about abortion," it wouldn't matter a bit as far as the formal, authoritative teaching of the Church. Archbishop Chaput's stance does not reflect a "novel reductionism," but obvious moral teaching: abortion is evil.

Or, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law" (par 2271). Period. Dance, jabber, blather, yell, mock, kick the curb, and misuse John Courtney Murray's writings as much as you like, there it is. Anyone with half a wit about them should be able to see it, even if they have written for the L.A. Times for over three decades.

• Biden: "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine..." (Aug. 27, 2008)
• Archbishop Chaput chastises and catechizes Speaker Pelosi (Aug. 25, 2008)
• More Archbishop Chaput! (Aug. 21, 2008)
• Archbishop Chaput on being Catholic and voting Catholic (Aug. 20, 2008)
• Speaker Pelosi keeps polluting the waters... (Aug. 7, 2008)
• Catholicism, Pelosi style (January 26, 2007)
• Catholics who are shamelessly clueless about the Bible (April 25, 2008)

Comments

[Francis Beckwith]

Nice work, Carl. What Rutten does not understand is that Murray's picture of pluralism presupposes the Catholic understanding of the human person. That is, what constitutes society--whether or not it includes the unborn--is logically prior to the affirmation of pluralism. So, the appeal to "pluralism" cannot answer the question of who and who is not a member of the community when pluralism itself applies to that community.

It's like saying that slavery should be decided by each community. But the question of slavery is precisely the question of who and who is not a member of the community. You can't appeal to the community when its very nature is the question.

[Mark Brumley]

Yes and you either see the point or you don't. And when some people don't see it, it tends to have damagerous consequences for certain other people. Hence slavery, the Holocaust, and Roe v. Wade.

[Ryan Smith]

I think it is time for the Vatican to issue a formal document banning pro death (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, contraception, euthanasia) Catholic politicians from receiving communion. In doing so, it will take the burden off of the bishops and priests who feel too weak to stand up to these people. I am not upset with the bishops and priests that struggle with this because I am not good at confrontation. If the Vatican issues the order though, it is much easier for the bishop or priest to enforce because they can say they are following marching orders.

[Clare Krishan]

Followed Amy's link, and agree - Kudos!
We need more such erudite journalism (may I in turn point you to Rod Dreher's post
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/08/up-with-conservative-journalis.html) on why the country needs journalists conversant in conservativism more than its does activist think tanks. As Barb Nicolosi's ActOne counters the dearth of vital Christian witness in the entertainment business, we need a similar vanguard inculcating the broadsheet and news media. Here's a simile I came up with to illustrate how off-kilter our society is with its tyranny of relativism (in abject contradiction to the flourishing inherent in the natural law) "A "conservative" ideologue blasting indignation from his tuba is no more able to win a standing ovation than a "liberal" ne'er do well discordantly clanging his tympani. A society that permits abortion on demand is like an orchestra that uses sawblades instead of bows on their stringed instruments, and a society that permits FIAT currency via fractional reserve banking is like a chorus singing the refrain uninterruptedly without the verses, wondering why the crowds have turned their backs. Without the lyrical evocation of a life well-lived, the droning beat echoes the marching orders of a slave driver on a chain gang.

[A Mauldin]

I agree with Ryan. I do wish the Holy Father would address the issue of communion for pro choice Catholic politicians and soon. The longer the Pelosis, Bidens, Kerrys and Kennedys of the political world can receive communion unimpeded the more marginlized a Catholic stance against abortion becomes. And consider the spectacle of Sen. Ted Kennedy's funeral - full Catholic funeral mass & rites for him? Oooh boy. It seems like 'draw a line in the sand time'.

[Robert Miller]

You have done good work here, Carl.

However, I think JC Murray provides very shaky ground for US Catholic identity. (I know he was Jesuit, so mea culpa for criticizing him).

The best, I think, that can be made of his tortuous attempt to assimilate the Catholic public thing to the American is to argue that, thinking and writing in the 1940s and 1950s, he was working in an environment in which Catholic, Protestant and Jewish (and even secular liberal)moral and political purposes were unusually congruent. I have no doubt that , with the experience of the last 40 years, Father Murray would have felt compelled to recant his faith in the American proposition -- unless, of course, he was only a more careful forerunner of some of his less disciplined successors.

The essential problem with Murrayian thinking (as with all Americanist and Modernist thinking) is that it is ahistorical (= among other things, untraditional, unBiblical, unapocalyptic...). The natural law of the US "founding fathers" is a natural law asserted over against the natural law enlightened by true Faith. After the thirteenth century -- and especially after the fifteenth -- every assertion of natural right (including the American and the French) has been anti-Catholic in intention and effect. Murray's real purpose, of course, was to counter the argument I am making as being "integrist" -- or ahistorical in its own turn.

So, Murray is a real big problem, even if, I agree, he probably wouldn't have agreed with Joe Biden on abortion.

Murray, I repeat, is what Leo XIII would have thought an "Americanist" -- or, what I would call an ahistoricist. He develops a political philosophy that prescinds from the fallen, redeemed state of man, ignoring the fact that we, in the US, are living in a society that largely (and from the beginning) has rejected the Catholic Faith. We Catholics in the US will never have it right until we understand that Catholic doctrine requires us to be the res publica christiana (Christendom), and to abjure all other allegiances.

We often are reminded that Jesus admonished the Pharisees to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" -- and most commentators elide the admonition to include all governments (just as the modern Biblical translations make "publicans", "tax collectors"). In reality, Jesus' Caesar was a flesh-and-blood human being -- not a bureaucracy. And that Caesar had successors (kaisers, tsars, kings) down to our time. But none of the modern regimes are Caesar: In fact, they have set their faces against "Caesarism"-- i.e., personal rule. They are -- at the risk of making me sound like a wacko fundamentalist -- precursor vehicles of the Anti-Christ. Only, for us Catholics, the millennium is over; we have entered the end time in a profoundly essential way (cf., Guardini and Pieper). The Anti-Christ comes after the Millennium.

[tom faranda]

In Chaput's new book, "Render Unto Caesar", he discusses Murray's idea of the "American Proposition." Pp. 180-183.

Just quoting Murray's quote from the book refutes Rutten' interpretation of Murray's thinking.