Any religious person – and I suspect I know several – thinking of voting for Santorum needs to read this piece from Andrew Sullivan. One of the tragedies of Christian conservatism in this country is that this fall, assuming he gets the nomination, we’re going to vote for this violent, hawkish, brute (for what else can you call a man who supports what Santorum supports?) in droves. Very sad. Sullivan:
In that very defense – in Santorum’s own description of what he is defending – he is defending the “breaking” of a human person, made in the image of God. He is defending a core, absolute evil. Let us concede for the sake of argument that these are “enhanced interrogation techniques” and not “torture”, as Santorum insists. There is no meaningful difference between the two whatsoever from a Catholic perspective, and Santorum’s public positioning as an avowedly Catholic politician, while defending and promoting an absolute evil, is a true and immense moral scandal – in the Church’s sense of the word. No one should be giving the impression that the Catholic church defends “enhanced interrogation techniques”.
You really must read the whole thing.
Ahhh…. there’s nothing quite like hearing Sullivan’s self-righteous assault on Santorum – a candidate that I’m not defending here. I find it very ironic that Sullivan is speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church and its teaching when it’s convenient to his own moral lights or political bent. Jake, can you really take serious Sullivan’s cafeteria-style Catholicism? He picks and chooses which teachings tickle his fancies. He opposes enhanced interrogation techniques (which I do as well), so he’s on the side of the Church. But when it comes to his own homosexuality, all of sudden he’s on the opposite side of the Church, pronouncing it misguided and quaint.
Here again, I want to apply Peter Wehner’s words that you quoted in another post. Is it “a light touch” or “heavy hand” to describe Santorum as “violent, hawkish, brute”? Would you be willing to use these same words to describe Obama’s permissiveness toward abortion (the worst of any president) and his extravagant use of drone warfare?
Christopher,
Quick preface: I oppose Sullivan’s homosexuality also, for the same reason you do – because the Bible does.
But is it really all that productive to dismiss the message because of the messenger’s position?
The main content of what Jake posted is very relevant, and extremely important. Can we just discuss that?
JTS: Yes, I obviously think it’s productive to dismiss the message because of the messenger; they are indissolubly linked, as I wrote in my blog post “Defending ad hominem arguments”: http://bensonian.org/2012/02/10/defending-ad-hominem-arguments. I don’t want to be lectured at by a man who espouses the official teaching of the Catholic Church when it’s convenient to his political argument and rejects the teaching when it’s inconvenient to his moral conduct. Let’s turn Sullivan’s words around on him: Is it “a true and immense moral scandal” that he defends and promotes what his Church and the Bible unequivocally calls a sin while public positioning as an avowedly Catholic writer? I think so. Therefore, I’m less inclined to hear his argument regardless of the merits. A different messenger needs to deliver this message. I elect that messenger George Hunsinger, the McCord Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary. He is the co-founder of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. See his lecture “Why the Torture Abuse Scandal Matters”: http://www.witherspoonsociety.org/2005/hunsinger_on_torture.htm.
Christopher – Andrew actually addresses that point in his post: “I conscientiously dissent from the Magisterium on marriage equality, contraception, and women and married priests. But I publicly acknowledge that I am dissenting and this is not the hierarchy’s view and that I am not representing the Magisterium. Santorum, it seems to me, needs to be just as explicit in his statement that he dissents from his own church on the question of the inviolable dignity of the human person. He is advocating crimes “deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles”. He is proposing to “break” a human person, without even due process. He is standing as the publicly Catholic foe of human dignity.”
It’s one thing to conscientiously and explicitly acknowledge your differences from the magisterium. It’s quite another to be a cafeteria Catholic (which Santorum is just as much as Sullivan) and pretend that you’re not. That’s what Santorum is doing. Santorum is not just war and he’s pro-torture. These are two issues on which the magisterium has taken a position just as clear as it’s stance on other social issues. Yet somehow one dissenter is dismissed as a cafeteria Catholic and the other is not – and even tries to present himself as some kind of true Catholic.
Jake:
Fair enough. We’re talking about two cafeteria-style Catholics. What gets under my skin is Sullivan’s tone of self-righteousness as he criticizes Santorum. Is it any better than Sullivan “conscientiously and explicitly acknowledge[s] [his] differences from the magisterium”? I don’t think so. The messenger is unworthy of the message. Far better to hear George Hunsinger on torture than Andrew Sullivan.
You didn’t respond to this part of my comment and I’d appreciate an answer:
I want to apply Peter Wehner’s words that you quoted in another post. Is it “a light touch” or “heavy hand” to describe Santorum as “violent, hawkish, brute”? Would you be willing to use these same words to describe Obama’s permissiveness toward abortion (the worst of any president) and his extravagant use of drone warfare?
Christopher – I thought about that before writing and I’ll stand by the comments with Santorum. Read the things he supports using as “interrogation techniques.” “Brutish” is being generous.
In regards to how that language is deployed regarding abortion, I do think it’s appropriate at times: For instance, in describing someone who has no problem with partial-birth abortion or someone who thinks of abortion as just another form of birth control. That’s brutish. (So yes, by that standard, Obama is brutish in his views on abortion.) That said, I wouldn’t describe every pro-choice person in that way. There’s a difference between recognizing another being as human and brutalizing their body and convincing yourself that an unborn baby isn’t fully human till some specific point during the gestation period and, therefore, aborting that being is OK. I still think that position is morally wrong, but it’s a different sort of wrong than the high-handed brutality of torture, partial-birth abortions and the like.
There’s more that could be said, but I’ll leave it there for now.
(tongue in cheek) Christopher – I hadn’t heard that Hunsinger was sinless. Thank you for volunteering him to cast the first stone on this particular issue.
Seriously though…at the risk of straw-manning your main contention, am I to assume that what you’re inferring is that I should first research the most sinless resource before receiving an opinion or theological interpretation from same?
Or is there a cutoff point at which we could accept a take on this issue…somewhere along a sliding scale between an Andrew Sullivan type and a George Hunsinger that you might suggest?
JTS:
Hunsinger is not sinless. Nor am I looking for a sinless messenger. I just don’t want to hear Sullivan’s ire. He’s a sanctimonious hypocrite who Jake thinks is exposing another sanctimonious hypocrite. I suppose, upon close examination, we’re all hypocrites, aren’t we?
What I find odd is that Jake would turn to this messenger when he doesn’t meet the criteria for tone and countenance that Jake approvingly quoted from Peter Wehner. Sullivan’s “arguments on behalf of moral truth” are not “made in ways that are winsome,” not radiating “some measure of grace and tolerance rather than condemnation and zeal.” I also wonder why Jake would resort to the “heavy hand” with Santorum, describing him as a “violent, hawkish, brute” when these same words could just as easily describe Obama’s permissiveness toward abortion (the worst of any president) and his extravagant use of drone warfare. So, the question arises: Should we talk this way about anyone? If so, shouldn’t we apply the ad hominems across the board and not just selectively when they suit our proclivities? I ask these question earnestly.
JAKE: There’s a noticeable difference in how you’re using language. You describe Santorum as a “brute” (noun), whereas you describe Obama’s views on abortion as “brutish” (adjective). The former is an attack on the man. The latter is an attack on the argument. As you know, I have defended the occasional use of ad hominems so that’s not the bone of contention here. I sincerely wonder if it’s fair to reduce Santorum to a “brute.” Is his entire character that of a brute? Are all of his views that of a brute? Wouldn’t it be more charitable to say, as you did about Obama, that his views on enhanced interrogation techniques are “brutish”? I look forward to your answer.