Fr. Neuhaus Cites Vox Nova in Latest Post at On the Square

Congratulations to the folks over at Vox Nova, who have apparently caught Fr. Neuhaus' attention:

... There have been lively, and sometimes rude, responses to my respectful exchange with Bishop Thomas Wenski, who chairs the international affairs committee of the bishops’ conference, on the wisdom of his response to a letter from congressional Democrats asking the bishops to help “mobilize Catholic opinion” against administration policy in Iraq (see here, here, and here). I suggested that it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. These are typically matters of prudential judgment on which Catholics (and others) of equal intelligence and good will can and do disagree.

While most of the responses to my comments were positive, this from the blogsite Vox Nova was among the more thoughtfully critical:

If I understand [Fr. Neuhaus] correctly, the Church should stay out of matters of prudential judgment, or matters pertaining to the application of Catholic teaching to specific facts and circumstances. I do not deny that characterizations like the need to end the Iraq war are prudential judgments. But to deny the legitimacy of Church intervention in these areas would be gravely wrong.

Let me explain why, and I will use the abortion example. The “solemn magisterial teaching of the Church on faith and morals” (to use Neuhaus’s term) in this area is that abortion is always and everywhere wrong, never a right, and never licit. Hence no Catholic can support it in the public sphere. But what happens when we want to go beyond that general and generic statement? Any discussion of how to address the issue of abortion today quickly descends to the domain of prudential judgment. Is the best strategy to elect presidents that will choose judges that will vote to overturn Roe? Quite possibly, but this train of thought is a probabilistic one, imbued with uncertainty. In other words, to use Neuhaus’s phrase again, it is a “prudential judgment about eminently debatable circumstances” . . .

Of course, when we think about it, the Church simply cannot ignore prudential judgments, as otherwise it would be reduced to muttering vague platitudes, and saying nothing about 95 percent of the key issues affecting the lives of the faithful. It would be toothless, but perhaps that is what some want.

Politics is not anywhere near 95 percent, I would suggest. Unless one is in the unhappy state of living a life almost totally politicized. [ED.: Looks like Fr. Neuhaus has Tony A's number. Just kidding, Tony. You know I agreed with you on the Neuhaus piece you were criticizing.] Recall the observation of the great Dr. Johnson: “How small the part of all that human hearts endure can laws or kings either cause or cure.”

[More]

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
More from Fr. Neuhaus on Bishops Working with Democrats to Forge Iraq Policy