After several posts by Mark Shea on the subject of “conservatism”, I must admit I don’t like those conservative Catholics very much. Anyway, at least how Mark Shea describes them. Fortunately, I haven’t met very many who fit Mark’s description. And I think I would have run into them, for I am a conservative Catholic.
I won’t go point for point with Mark on this as he has so many points it would be rather pointless. A snippet then. Mark says things like:
But when alleged conservative Catholics tell me that they would rather get their social teaching from a talking hairdo on FOX than from the bishops, when they tell me that it is “moralistic” not to be willing to put your soul at risk of the fires of hell by committing what used to be called “war crimes”, when they make excuses for buffoons who think saluting the brave idealists of the Waffen SS with their sons is a sure fire indication of sound judgment—and that any criticism of this makes one vehemently suspect of heresy and a traitor to the Faith—I can only say that the Right is becoming as mindlessly ideological as the Left. And ideology is not the Faith.
So Catholics who also call themselves Catholic willingly admit that they would rather get their social teaching from “a talking hairdo on FOX.” Truth is, I don’t know these people. I know lots and lots of Catholics of a conservative political bent, and I don’t know anyone who puts Glenn Beck or any other host ahead of the Bishops. Not one.
Now obviously there are kooks out there I can’t speak for every person who call himself Catholic conservative (neither can Mark btw), but that is not any of the Catholic conservatives I know. Glenn Beck is an entertainer, not a …>>>>
October 19, 2010 at 6:30 am
Unfortunately Mr. Shea is rather odd for my taste when talks about things that have to do with politics or Liturgy.
I have pointed out in his site before that he says things that don't make much sense to me, and I know that he does not believe he does those things, and if you point them out he will actually be offended by the fact that you would even suggest that he does them.
Mr. Shea in the end is a good man, good apologist but not simply, in my opinion, not well informed in neither of the two subjects mentioned in my first paragraph.
October 19, 2010 at 6:47 am
Oh no, not another Shee post. *headdesk* Sort of like my liberally-blind aunt– great person, does good stuff, but goes nutzo on some specific topics.
I'll start the count-down until he shows up to accuse us all of being horrible people; who's got the betting pool on what form our horrificness takes?
October 19, 2010 at 7:27 am
I am a Catholic, I am mostly conserviative, but I do NOT get my social teaching from a "talking hairdo" on FOX News. I get it from the Catechism of the Catholic Church & the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
October 19, 2010 at 8:15 am
We don't even have TV so no talking hairdos run this house 😉 But then again not having a TV might paint us as one of those scary backwoodw Conservative types!
October 19, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I like Mark Shea, but I have the same problem with him that Patrick A. does. On the other hand, I'm still wrestling with the question of voting for the lesser of two evils. I wasn't old enough to vote in the last election, but if I were, I would have voted for McCain. McCain supports embryonic stem cell research. I'm not entirely sure that I can vote for him in good conscience and that bugs me.
October 19, 2010 at 2:52 pm
You are not alone in that dilemma PB. I struggled with the same issue this past election. Democrats make it easy not to vote for them. But Republicans make it hard to vote for them.
Zippy Catholic (who is no longer blogging actively, but has left his site up) has a lot of interesting and insightful posts on the issue of voting for the lesser of two evils that I highly recommend.
October 19, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Anon: Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.
October 19, 2010 at 3:44 pm
I think they're both wrong on different points. Pat comes across as being apparently ignorant of the power and nature of small property in Catholic social teaching, and Mark, like many Chestertonians and Distributists I've known, are academically brilliant in a Chestertonian way – standing still and reflecting writings and ideas that are nearly 100 years old, without tuning it for modern audiences.
In fact, after reading Mark's post, I see why some people call Distributism "Marxism with a rosary." It's all negative against capitalism, without explicitly and constructively teaching the principles to which he alludes. Hence the socialists are coming out in force in comments on his post. This prompts a reactive post from Pat, and the non-acceptance of Distributism among Catholics grows wider.
Chesterton wrote that young people are not suffering want of something to believe, but something to do. He condemned the Christian Socialists for talking about movements and "society oughts" and "government oughts" and contrasted it with Jesus' teaching – a personal directive to go and sell all you have and give it to the poor.
Among the old-guard distributists, there was Cobbett who laid out the how-to, while Belloc laid the philosophical principles and Chesterton fanned passion. For the whole of the 20th century, and the first decade of the 21st, no one has made the small property teaching vulgate again, as Chris West did with Theology of the Body. Distributism has been kept academic, without a plan of action each individual can act on. Chesterton admitted he had no plan, and modern Distributists have persisted in his manner.
If it is a failing of Pat Archbold and others that it is difficult to relate to Catholic Social Teaching (per Mark), who has done a poor job of popularizing and teaching the truth, and even mucking it up?
For this reason I have started advocating small property's secular benefits, drawing together ideas from others who get it – such as Seth Godin and even Fight Club references, as well as the old guard distributists, at indieworker.com. It's small-c Catholic, as in universal, but the wind of the small property revolution is already there. Modern Distributists have just been looking at the wrong trees.
October 19, 2010 at 3:53 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
October 19, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Paul: Do you hate Wal Mart as much as the traditional distributists do? Small property has its benefits but I guarentee you that Wal Mart can feed and cloth far more people than mom and pop stores. Please read this piece by Thomas Woods Jr. about distributism:
http://mises.org/daily/1062
God Bless
October 19, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I'm a small property advocate, but not a distributist. I don't boycott walmart, but I do see how its days are numbered (as all the marchantile/retail sector is headed for reduction). I'm not opposed to economies of scale, but am more focused on the independence and autonomy of the worker – which could be accomplished and encouraged by a organization as big as walmart.
October 19, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Hmm…Just looking at the first sentence quoted, I'd say I know quite a few conservative Catholics who could be described thusly. They are vocal in combos discussions – does immigration ring a bell? When it comes to that issue, it's immensely popular to disparage even papal teachings and hang one's hat at Fox News.
October 19, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Barefoot Momma:
While there are certainly individuals that might fit the description, I think this still remains a crass generalization. Are you saying that anyone who has a staunch stance with regards to illegal immigration is ispo facto hostile to Church teachings? Also the "Fox News" meme seems to me to be a rather lazy caricature that speaks more poorly of the person making the accusation than the one being talked about.
October 19, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Well said, Mr. Archbold. I shared your frustrations when I read Shea's piece and am glad you shared your comments.
October 19, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Paul Nowak:
Exactly. We are called to respect the human dignity of the immigrant and work toward justice, but that doesn't mean that a country has no right to enforce its immigration laws. Personally, I favor some sort of limited amnesty but only after the borders have been secured. In the meantime, it is our government's duty to uphold the rule of law. As far as I know, there is nothing unCatholic about my position.
October 19, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Coffee Catholic- another backwoods TV-free house here (but then, we have a computer)
October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for this conversation. Mark Shea rubs me wrong, as does Bill O'Reilly. I'll stay here, thanks.
October 19, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Well, I love to visit (often) both this site and Mark's. I'm glad that both are there.
There are opinions on both sides that I disagree with from time time, but it's small potatoes compared with the wonderful stuff.
Keep up the good work.
October 19, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Whatever farm Mr. Shea lives on must have had one heckuva good straw-harvest.
He's constructing a lot of men of that material.
October 19, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Anybody remember the joke about how everyone driving faster than I am is a maniac, and everyone driving slower is an idiot who needs to get out of the way?
Comes to mind a lot.