Editors’ Round Table on Sarah Palin: One Catholic’s View
John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate was surprising, but the surprise pales in comparison to the reaction of conservative Christians, especially Catholics. In their race to endorse McCain-Palin, they have cast aside any questions about the complementarity of the sexes, or even the late John Paul II's theology of the body.
Catholic laymen who have always voted Republican but were unhappy with McCain were, not surprisingly, the first to crumble at the sight of the moose-hunting, pistol-packing pro-life mother of five, but I have since seen orthodox priests say that they wish Mrs. Palin were at the top of the ticket. And one traditionalist Catholic is now implying that it might even be sinful to vote for a third-party candidate instead of McCain. (In fairness, he sees the pick of Palin as one of several signs that the Republican Party is avowedly pro-life with no exceptions in this election cycle, but since Catholics are not bound to vote under pain of sin, it's ridiculous to imply that a vote for any candidate—as long as you are not supporting that candidate because he supports policies in opposition to Christian moral teaching—could be sinful.)
The negative reactions have been few and far between. One Catholic mother of seven, upon hearing the news, wondered why the mother of a four-month-old child (let alone a child with Down Syndrome) would want to run for vice president. Of course, that same child was born prematurely after Palin, leaking amniotic fluid, refused to cancel a speech at a Republican Governor's Conference at which John McCain was in attendance. The Palins chose not to abort baby Trig (not a minor matter, considering that upward of 90 percent of Down's babies are murdered in their mothers' wombs), but they were willing to take a calculated risk with his life in order to advance her political career.
The revelation of the pregnancy of Palin's 17-year-old daughter has been jumped on by the left with glee, but Catholics can certainly understand that sin happens. More disturbing is the fact that Mrs. Palin knew that accepting the nomination meant exposing her daughter to international scrutiny and ridicule—and yet she did it anyway. Unlike her daughter's premarital sex, that was not a decision made in the heat of passion.
This is just sexism, some Catholic women (and a few men) have responded. Would I be raising the same issues if Mrs. Palin were a man? Well, the question of throwing the 17-year-old daughter under the bus would be the same if we were discussing Todd rather than Sarah. But they are right: Most of the other questions wouldn't come up, not because I would go easier on a man, but because they wouldn't exist.
That doesn't mean, however, that it is sexist to raise them. Instead, it points to the very heart of the problem: From a Catholic understanding of the complementarity of the sexes, should a woman ever find herself in the position where she has to choose between her vocation as a wife and mother and political service? Even considering this a choice that needs to be made implies that, at best, motherhood and political service are of equal value.
But they aren't—not in the eyes of the Church. That is not to demean wives and mothers, but to raise their vocation to its proper dignity—a dignity that dwarfs any that may once have been attached to politics.
It's hard not to like Sarah Palin. Her accent may grate even on my Midwestern ears; she may be all too happy to accept the role of a "pit bull in lipstick" (not exactly a dignified way for a woman—much less a mother—to act); and she has certainly shown an eagerness to cast aside political positions that no longer serve her interests. (Despite her pro-life credentials, in her last political race—for governor of Alaska in 2006—Mrs. Palin refused to discuss the issue except to vow not to propose pro-life legislation if elected.) But there is no doubt that, compared with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain, she seems more normal—more one of us. Her failings as much as her virtues bolster that feeling.
But that doesn't change the decision before us in November. Anyone who votes for John McCain because of Sarah Palin still votes for John McCain, with all that that implies: rabid support for a war that two consecutive popes have condemned; the possible expansion of that war to Iran, and maybe Syria; a new Cold War with Russia; a vow to expand funding of embryonic stem-cell research, including the creation of new lines, which requires the destruction of more embryos; an unwillingness (as McCain repeatedly stated back in 1999) to overturn Roe v. Wade; support for contraception, sex education, and family-planning programs.
Anyone who planned to abstain from voting in November or intended to vote for a third-party candidate and is now considering voting for McCain-Palin needs to ask himself this question: Why? Is Sarah Palin providing cover for his desire to vote for McCain? Or is her nomination simply a convenient excuse to allow him to vote against Barack Obama?
If the latter, it would be better to own up to the reason and state forthrightly that he is not voting for McCain-Palin but against Obama-Biden. Then, his vote for the Republican ticket at least would not imply support for all of the anti-Christian policies that McCain has proposed, and the voter will not feel compelled to defend McCain when he carries through on his promises.
For myself, nothing has changed. Neither ticket will receive my vote. Instead, I will offer a prayer on Election Day that Mrs. Palin's presence on the ballot does not signal the final triumph of feminism over the traditional Christian understanding of the proper relationship between the sexes.
126 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Chronicles’ Editors Roundtable on Sarah Palin « The Vermont Traditionalist
- Scott Richert: One Catholic’s View of Palin « The Paleocrat
- Chronicles, November 2008 « Panther Red
Entries(RSS)
Of all the possible reasons to make excuses for the evil deed of voting for McCain, the possibility he MIGHT appoint good Justices is the least convincing.
Has anyone seen the response from the Vatican to the Palin selection? I think they said it was a "dream".
That is definitely why the Supreme Court excuse doesn't convince me. I've never understood why good Christians whom I know are intelligent and well educated can vote on such a basis. Of course, most of the time their opinions on some of the other issues fit the general trend of the Republican Party's policies. I've been reading Chronicles too long, and haven't been a member of that party or any other for the past eight years.
Mr. Wilson, if you equate voting for a politician with evil, then it is pointless to continue with trying to figure out how to make the most of a bad situation. In fact, why are you even reading and commenting? You and Mr. Fowler seem content to define yourselves by what you are not, but that is of no good to anyone but yourselves.
I am well aware of who appointed the judges I mentioned. I learned that while looking them up. But you are confusing the vague constructs and histories of the GOP with the specific future of John McCain the man and what he would do as President. I do not entirely trust John McCain at all. But as Mr. Jacobczyk (and others) pointed out, it is not an entirely dumb gamble. As I also said earlier, this is a dangerous game we are playing. However, if we reduce ourselves to only playing the most isolated games, making only the decisions where we can feel no evil, then we will be playing by ourselves and all, including ourselves, would be lost by then.
Mr McCabe @ 105
You said "I do not entirely trust John McCain"
-John McCain has in the past staunchly supported affirmative action
-He was, and no doubt still is, an absolutely fanatical supporter of Third World colonization of America
-He supports the ongoing bankruptcy of this country
-He has a long history of insulting and belittling Christians
If you fancy yourself a conservative, what leads you to "trust him" in the least bit?!
I use "trust" to describe my belief that I know what I'm going to get. I do not use trust to describe how parallel another's beliefs are to mine, although I see how it could be used as such.
I trust Obama more than I trust McCain, because I think I know almost exactly what to expect from him. I trust him to keep his word.
Trusting presidents, though, to nominate supreme court justices has always been a hard thing to do. The nominees themselves can be deceiving.
My argument in this election relies on a string of events of John McCain 1) openly promsing to appoint constructionist judges, 2) saying plainly and simply at that Christian circus that he believes life begins at conception, and 3) picking up Palin for the ticket.
The fact that Bush got reelected on a similar promise to ~4 million evangelicals and was actually able to get 2 consctructionists (I think) through speaks to my believe that it is possible with McCain.
All the other things you say are true as well, as they might also be with Obama, which is leading many to despair. But if we cannot find a general representative of Christian beliefs to lead our country, we must at least win something in the process, rather than make ourselves feel better by not participating.
The analogy is that I'm willing to save the city for one good person.
Scott,
Sorry if you've answered this question above, but I'm curious. Do you vote for third party candidates whose governance would conform to your moral values, or do you have more flexibility in voting for a third party candidate. In other words, do you vote for the person you would prefer, in an ideal world, to be president, or do you vote to send a message?
Joe (if I may call you so, after all these years), the simple answer is yes and yes. If a third-party candidate is someone I can support wholeheartedly, then I'll support him rather than, say, a different third-party candidate who might be expected to get more votes (and, therefore, to send a message more clearly).
On the other hand, I have voted for Ralph Nader in previous presidential elections (yes, plural), and I obviously don't agree with him on any number of issues. Yet even there, I voted for him on the basis of issues that we do agree upon. My vote, however, was more to send a message (no matter how insignificant) than to signal support for Nader.
As a white nationalist I look at it this way -- the only developed countries that have been able to boost fertility in the post-feminist age is to make it easier for women to have a career and to have children. Countries like Denmark and Norway now have significantly higher fertility than Spain and Italy (and I am talking indigenous population here), and part of the reason is long periods of maternity leave , creches, all sorts of help for women to both have kids and have a job. I see no way other than that. Palin represents a woman that has had lots of kids and has had a career. This is good for our women and our future. She is a good symbol and perhaps would have some influence in the white house over such matters.
I confess I am staggered by the intensity of Dr Fleming's malevolence towards women.I am a Catholic man and I reject what he says with all my heart and soul. Such contempt for women cannot possibly reflect the will of a benevolent Creator. What what have here, I regret to observe, is purely human resentment seeking divine sanction for itself.
I am very interested in the history of ideas--which I consider to be the true inner history of the world--but I will not have ancient writers, however distinguished or inspired in their own time, overruling common sense and common decency in our time.
I hope that brilliant and ambitious women will not read Dr Fleming and his followers and come to the conclusion that they had better be liberals and agnostics.
I have no idea what has prompted Mr. Harrington's outburst, but if he would like to offer a substantive comment on this post, I would be happy to engage him. Until then, these remarks seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with what I have written and strike me as a way of avoiding the very real issue of what the Catholic Church teaches about the complementarity of the sexes.
Scott P. Richert
I am surprised that that you have "no idea " what prompted my "outburst" as you call it. It is obvious that I was responding to Dr Fleming's remarks in this thread, specifically in post # 69 above.
For example : "Wives are to subject themselves to their husbands.....stupid liberal men gave women the power to vote and to hold public office...People like Ms Palin, 100 years ago,would have stayed home to take care of her husband and and children and would not have intruded herself into a political realm etc etc"
Are you perhaps so used to reading stuff like this that you have lost your awareness of how malevolent and thoroughly offensive it is? Have you failed to notice the meanness of spirit, and the bad tempered bluster Dr Fleming uses instead of argument?
With the help of Google I found a statement by the Catholic Church presented to the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995: "A woman has a right to choose between having a profession,being a mother and simultaneously carrying on a profession, and being a mother and dedicating all her activity to the home."
No doubt I could find more and stronger statements, but that one will do. It makes the essential point.
Dr Fleming dismisses anything like this as the work of "silly Bishops" who I suppose resemble the "stupid liberal men" who gave women the vote. It is not persuasive or even interesting to keep calling people "stupid" or "silly". There was a time when reactionaries at least had charm, and wit, and irony. Alas.
Dr Fleming can quarrel with his Church, but he has no warrant to set himself up as a superior religious authority.
I confess I am not attracted to discussions about "the complementarity of the sexes." I think I can work out most of it for myself without clerical guidance. In any case such "discussions" usually boil down to men who want to confine women to the home trying to draft God into their corner--to provide balsam for their septic egos.
I know two very bright young women, daughters of friends of mine. They are far better Catholics than |I am.I am happy to say that they have been brought up to understand that their are no positions in academic or professional life to which they cannot aspire if they can show the ability and the character.
They are well armed, I would say, against the boorishness of fools, but the malice of educated men could be more difficult becasue it is not expected.
Mr. Harrington, you indict yourself, not anyone else, when you refer to the claim that "Wives are to subject themselves to their husbands" as "malevolent and thoroughly offensive."
That is, after all, simply a paraphrase of St. Paul. If your idea of Catholicism excludes the Apostle, then you are the one who is "quarrel[ing] with his Church" and "set[ting] himself up as a superior religious authority."
I confess I am not attracted to discussions about “the complementarity of the sexes.”
That's fine--then you don't need to take part in the discussion of my piece, which hinges on this Catholic understanding. Though your remark about "provid[ing] balsam for their septic egos" would undoubtedly come as a surprise to both John Paul II and Benedict XVI who, between the two, have written more on the Catholic understanding of the complementarity of the sexes than anyone else in the last century. (John Paul himself, of course, devoted much of his public writing as pontiff to just such a discussion.)
To Mr. Harrington and others of like mind, I again repeat my recommendation of #55 above regarding traditional Christian teaching on the proper role of men and women, both in and outside the Church. You can still get a copy of Patrick Mitchell’s The Scandal of Gender on amazom.com. It explicates the scripture-based teachnings of the Fathers and Saints of the Church on men and women. You can disagree with those teachings, but you should know what those teachings are and who you disagree with.
Of course the modern mind finds those teachings to be offensive. It is a conceit of the modern mind to believe it knows better than the ancients. You can work everything out for yourself, but the chance of working it out correctly is nil.
Mr Van Sant.
Thank you. I will look out for the book you recommend. Any book with "Scandal" in the title is bound to arouse my curiosity.
However ancient minds could be just as conceited as our own. Conceited and worse. It was, I think, the early Church that invented the lie that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.Why was that? The modern fiction that Jesus married Mary is, I would surmise, a feminist response to an ancient slander.
Would you really say to a bright young girl eager to face the challenges of life, "You can never be president because you are a woman. You can never run a large business because you are a woman. You can never run a a government department because you are a woman. You can never hold an academic Chair because you are a woman."
An outlook so malign , so mean spirited and frankly ridiculous, cannot possibly reflect the mind of the divine Creator.
You can find ancient supporters for any point of view.In the end you have to rely on your own common sense and common decency because they are all that you have got.
Best wishes.
Mr. Richert,
If you happen to have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church handy, you may want to read section 2240 where it states "Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:"
Mr. Harrington,
I will not deny that some ancient minds could be just as conceited as our own. I was not referring to all ancient minds. I was referring to the minds of those who were chosen and taught by Christ, as well as those taught by the Apostles and their followers who had to refute the wrong ideas of their time. (As there is nothing new under the sun, those wrong ideas keep coming back.)
You say that you think this and surmise that. I'm suggesting that is where you make your mistake. I referred you to a book that cites authority for what I believe. Apparently your authority is your own "common sense" and your idea of "common decency." Do you have any other authority that I might value or find persuasive?
I would never tell any bright young girl that she cannot do anything. It is not a question of "can"; it's a question of "ought." If I knew the young girl well enough, like my own daughters or nieces, I would recommend a different direction for her life.
Perhaps you can tell the rest of us how you know what is in the mind of God. Are you unaware that the Son of God was male, that He referred to His Father as father, not mother, and that He chose only males to be Apostles? (Perhaps there is some significance to Christ's example.) Do you not agree that Christ established His Church and we are to be subject to its teachings? If so, please read the book. It explains some of those teachings in a clear, concise manner. If not, try reading E.F. Schumacher's, A Guide for the Perplexed. It may get you thinking in a more productive manner.
S Hack (@118):
I'm aware of the passage, but what I wrote is that we would have to be obliged to vote under pain of sin--a higher standard than "morally obligatory."
Mr Van Sant
I don't claim to have a private line to the Almighty. However I believe, as a matter of faith, in the benevolence of the Creator. It is in the light of benevolence, to the extent that I am given the light, that I consider the questions we have been discussing.
In the light of benevolence, as I understand it, I have no hesitation or doubt in affirming my belief in fair opportunity for women to practice any lawful profession and rise to any position of authority that her talent,character, and motivation may carry her. That is justice. That is decency.
I think St Paul was wrong about women, and the Church is wrong about women priests. However I can recite the creed without misgivings and I will remain in the Church until I am sacked.
Mr. Harrington,
Against my better judgement, I'll continue our discussion. If you do not accept the instruction of St. Paul who God commissioned to instruct the Gentiles, then it senseless for me to try to tell you anything. I'm curious, though. What creed is it that you recite without misgivings? The one with or without the filioque? Why do you recite that particular creed and not the other? Why do you consider yourself to be a member, or even want to be a member, of a church with which you disagree? Why not just be an unaffiliated Christian? Or start your own church?
Mr. Harrington,
I forgot my most important question. What criteria do you use to determine if a teaching of St. Paul is correct or incorrect?
Mr Van Sant
Thank you. I do not claim to have all the answers. However, Paul thought that the world was going to end shortly. He supported slavery or at least tolerated it. I would say that he was wrong on these points. Common sense tells us so. And his views about women were wrong because they were based on false and malicious ideas about female inferiority. We might excuse Paul because of his ignorance, but there is no excuse for an educated man today saying the same thing.
We do not take our opinions from ancient authorities. We find the ancient authorities who will support our opinions. Always that has been so--with the exception, in my experience, of the sayings and teachings of Jesus, which have an authoritative quality which speaks directly to the soul and overrules anything we may have thought before.
Mr. Harrington,
I take your response to mean that you are your own authority. You pick and choose whatever pleases your sensibilities. No need for further discussion.