Never Engage, Never Explain, Always Avoid and Obscure: The Intellectual Collapse of the Left
By Hugh Hewitt
Three things: E.J. Dionne on Cardinal Ratzinger; Richard Cohen on Bill Frist; and the Los Angeles Times on Opus Dei. (RomanCatholicBlog is going to have fun with this last one.)
Each of these pieces is a non-answer to a direct question or fact. Cardinal Ratzinger declared yesterday that the greatest danger to the Roman Catholic Church and the world beyond it is the "dictatorship of relativism." Senator Frist is participating in "Justice Sunday," one of whose organizers believes that Senate Democrats target people of faith for unfair obstruction. And Opus Dei is the Catholic order of priests, nun and laity that has experienced explosive worldwide growth in the nearly eighty years since its founding.
The central questions raised by these three stories are: What did Ratzinger mean and is he right? Are the critics of Senate Democrats correct in asserting that those Democrats are unfair to nominees who are "people of faith?" And why the explosive growth of Opus Dei?
Each of those are serious questions deserving serious answers. Neither of the two liberal columnists or the liberal Los Angeles Times tackles the central issue. Each in turn bumps and runs, refusing the challenge and instead veering off into comfortable canards or wrestling with straw men.
Dionne: "But for the many cardinals here from the Third World -- 20 of the 115 voting are from Latin America, 11 from Africa, 10 from Asia -- the battle over relativism is far less important than the poverty that afflicts so many of their flock. Some of these cardinals -- Claudio Hummes of Brazil is a representative figure -- may share points in common with Ratzinger on doctrine. But for them the struggle against suffering and social injustice is part of their lives every single day." Do you see? Dionne sets up Ratzinger as in a different camp than the cardinals dedicated to ending suffering and poverty. How silly and absurd, and also how transparently an attempt to deflect from the substance of Ratzinger's challenge.
Cohen: "People of faith, you may rest assured, are people of their faith. All others need not apply. I don't think a gay Presbyterian would be considered a person of faith, no matter how devout, nor, for that matter, a pro-choice Methodist -- say, someone such as Hillary Clinton. The category would certainly not include a Baptist such as Husband Bill or a Jew such as Chuck Schumer or, I venture to say, an Episcopalian such as John McCain, whose faith sustained him in a Vietnamese prison. As for a Roman Catholic such as Ted Kennedy, whose faith informs his liberalism, take it on faith that he would not be considered a person of faith. The phrase would also exclude anyone of any faith who believes in a limited role for religion in public life, especially the schools, if only on the pragmatic grounds that otherwise we will be at each other's throats. This is a lesson of history."
At least Dionne quoted Ratzinger correctly before jumping to a different argument altogether. Cohen picks up the Democratic talking point that Frist is arguing that Democrats are hostile to "people of faith" rather than confront the real assertion that Senate Democrats are blocking some nominees because of those nominees' particular faith --see William Pryor's devout Roman Catholic faith. Cohen isn't stupid, so he knows what the real debate is about. Refusing to engage it makes him simply deceptive and an intellectual coward. The showy nonsense about gay Presbyterians or pro-choice Methodists is inane. The charge is that Senate Democrats won't confirm devout Roman Catholics as appeals court judges because of their "deeply held beliefs," to use Senator Schumer's phrase. Nothing more and nothing less. Cohen's inability to rebut the assertion undergirds its reliability.
Finally, to the Los Angeles Times focus on Opus Dei. In an interview I did with Ralph Neas of the People for the American Way two weeks ago, Ralph specifically cited Opus Dei as part of the radical religious right. Now comes Larry Stammer and Tracy Wilkinson to inform us on the group's "critics have called the group elitist, and it was depicted as a villainous secret society in Dan Brown's bestselling novel, 'The Da Vinci Code.'"
The thrust of the story is that Opus Dei is mysterious and to be feared for its power over the conclave:
"Others note that for the first time, two of the 115 voting cardinals — Julian Herranz of Spain and Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne of Peru — are members of Opus Dei, giving the group the ability to work inside the conclave.
'They have a chance to lobby the other cardinals from an inside position,' said an official with a lay organization that has close ties to the Vatican. 'Opus Dei has international connections, they know many cardinals, are appreciated by some. They are entitled to talk to cardinals, to invite them to dinner, all with authority.'
Several European cardinals are sympathetic to Opus Dei, among them Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Italian prelate who runs the Diocese of Rome on behalf of the pope, and a contender to succeed John Paul. Ruini last year opened proceedings to declare Opus Dei's Del Portillo a saint."
Yikes! "They" invite cardinals to dinner! There's more of course: "Critics of the movement have said the church's decision to make Escriva a saint was disturbing in view of his friendship with Spain's late fascist dictator, Francisco Franco," and "Escriva hewed to the theologically conservative stance shared by John Paul II, including strict adherence to the church's teaching on sexual and moral issues. He also spoke out against 'godless' communism."
Note the use of quotation marks around "godless." No explanation is given for Opus Dei's explosive growth, or for the late Pope's affection for it beyond the obvious theme that these Opus Dei people are the pope's most loyal followers. Why has it grown so fast? What does it believe? Could it possibly be on to something that the older orders have forgotten? Were any Opus Dei priests involved in any of the Church's scandals, and if not, why not? Tabloid reporting is what Stammer and Wilkinson produced, but useful to their ends.
This piece will have no impact at all on the conclave, but it helps to set-up the predictable coverage to follow on the next pope, as Stammer and Wilkinson stand by with Dionne and Cohen and legions of other critics of John Paul II's doctrine to spin the election of the new pope as a victory for progressives or another win for the reactionaries.
Three pieces, all having to do with faith, none of which touches on the the central issue presented by each subject. This is what passes for argument on the left these days, and it tells us that the left is out-of-gas when it comes to the debates that matter. Cliches and avoidance are all that's left. If you find a real response to Ratzinger, or a real defense of the anti-Catholic bigotry behind the filibuster of William Pryor or a real discussion of why Opus Dei has flowered --send me the link.
Finally, to see how low the left's understanding of the law has sunk, see John Hindraker's WeeklyStandard.com column: "What Liberals Want."
hughhewitt.com
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
latimes.com
romancatholicblog.com
hughhewitt.com
weeklystandard.com |
