Social Philosophy: Christian debate: Burkeans note debaters Prof Koyzis & Fr Jape on Chr political activism vs quietism

Burkeans, social conservatives, compassionate conservatives, and others not in the Liberal or Libertarians molds regarding political philosophy, would do themselves well to take thoro notice of the debate between Prof David Koyzis (political sci dept, Redeemer University, Ancaster, Ontario) advocating from a neo-Calvinist perspective, and an apparently anonymous Catholic thinker named Fr Jape who accesses horizons of political quietism for Christians in today's society - which he calls the New Dark Age thru which we must live with a very circumspect less-than-public strategy, leaving the worrisome spirits that be to takeover completely and bring everything down on their own, and us.

Pessimism. Well, yes, but in attaching the correct label, I hear the words of Greogory Baum, a theology and onetime Catholic priest say, "I'm a pessimist about the way things are going, except that I'm a Christian and have hope, therefore I'm an optimist."

Thanks to Brian posting at Dialogical Coffeehouse: Hymns in the Whorehouse for putting me onto this latest development in the discussion, appearing on New Panatgruel's pages. And thanks to David Koyzis for launching this discussion by smoking out Fr Jape's further thawts, by way of David's June 30 post on his own blog, where he published an article of political philosophy, "Liberalism, pluralism, and secularism." The post has elicited 11 comments already, but as yet I haven't had a chance to read them and peruse them to judge their quality. So, no recommendations on the comments, but I do recommend the Koyzis and Jape articles here linked.

Those interested in this kind of discussion should keep checking Russ Kuykendall's blog, Burkean Canuck: Commentary on political theory and politics. Now, back to Dialogical Coffehouse, where Russ has entered the debate being noted - June 29 Contra Japefying Assertions where RK explains that he originates in neither school, appreciates both, but sides more with the neo-Calvinist idea of sphere-specific identity and sovereignty (and, by philosophical extension, I would add à la Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd, the complementary ideas of modal sphere univerality). That is, RK does not fall in line so much with the Catholic Magisterium's dictation of the doctrine of subsidiarity which is a dictation to all societies and inherently non-pluralist in my view, altho RK sees some amelioration within the Catholic doctrine more recently in this regard (much of it, I would say, reliant on neo-Kantian Jesuit theorists), where I'm more dubious due to all the doulbletalk of Catholic politicians who violate said Magisterium and its subsidiarity-doctrine, yet are not excommunited for their grossly public "sin." (tho, often enuff, I don't agree with the "consistent of ethic of life" which makes some Cathpols subject to the gross public "sin" label). It's all too labyrinthine and duplicitous to me. Back to RK: June 29 again More gripes about Neo-Calvinists from the Japes of Wrath.

Contra Japefying assertions, is Russ's pièce de la résistance (in my opinion), while his June 30
Is he serious, or is this a jape shows some pique at having to deal with Fr Jape's chimera of anonymity, regarding which I'd suggest the self-claimed priest write Russ privately and square up particulars beyond the pseudonym used and deployed to Russ's disadvantage in the discussion. Not to do so is quite unkind given the delicacy and importance of some of the issues, and some of the name calling to which the priest has resorted in lieu of not being able to answer RK's argumentation, apparently.

Now, to a response by a certain Publius. Correction: Not the Publius of the blog The Gods of the Copybook Headings, a great blog worth exploring, by the way!, and a gentleman who has exchanged views with Russ in the past. But, in today's case, it's some other Publius who tries to take to task Russ' Contra Japefying assertions, where Pub/Pube (however the shortform should be pronounced) gives us a good go at RK, in two comments. Publius asserts:

But secularists are out; so are ultramontanist Papists--i.e., people who want to proselytize and use whatever leverage they can to dominate the public sphere. Principled Pluralism then would seem to be a perpetual detente where nobody seeks dominance and all share a common base of values or first principles. Aside from the sheer impracticality of this in a world of ever-changing populations and political fervor, such pluralism is enabled by an extensive non-pluralistic homogeneity within which "tolerance" is the highest virtue--except when it comes to dealing with those deemed "intolerant." This is the old garden variety Liberalism now dominated by certain religionists to the exclusion of others. Rather like the old situation in the US and Britain where there was an unofficial WASP dominant culture enforced by various anti-catholic customs and laws. It is not uniformly anti-catholic in the sense that a JFK is totally acceptable while an "ultramontanist" is not. It doesn't matter which expression of Catholicism really is more correct than another, because that call will differ depending on who makes it. So who makes the call? Koyzis? The problem is that any X telling all Ys which Ys and which expression of Yism is acceptable/unacceptable is a colonizing, imperialistic move. That problem cannot be escaped. And again on a practical level, without the force of numerous backers or other means of coercion, the position Koyzis represents can never be implemented. He, like a good Liberal, believes that reason and persuasion, done well, would suffice.

This sort of claim is anti-Catholic or reflecs such hostile motoives to the extent that it generalizes in a reductive fashion to emphasize the worst in order to dismiss an entire group: "Quebec's post-Quiet Revolution secularist-modernists are the natural heirs to the earlier ultramontanists...." because "All the pioneering secularist-modernists of Quiet-Revolution, 1960s Quebec were the beneficiaries of Roman Catholic educations BEFORE the Quiet Revolution saw the introduction of Enlightenment texts in RC undergraduate institutions."

Replying to Publius' two comments, Russ on July 1, answers with Co-belligerent? Or, just belligerent?," While I think Russ won the debate, that's neither here nor there. What's salient is the intransigence of ultramontanists who obstruct a real dialogue that could lead to a healthy political co-belligerence among Catholics and those Protestants, at least, who adhere to something similar to the "consistent ethic of life." Again, to which I do not adhere. I agree with Laura Bush on the abortion issue, and decry the abortion industry with mega-corporations like Planned Parenthood which have a vested interest in maintaining the hi-est number of abortions possible. I agree with consanguinous side of the family of Terri Schiavo, and not the former husband, but I don't think a person in my own circumstances should be denied the recognition to determine one's own date and place of death given no family; that would be far better than leaving me to cost taxpayer's further expenditure to keep me alive, while putting me in the hands of care-givers who are come by chance to my bedside and have no knowledge of me, but my dying phase. So, I would be automatically excluded from the more general alliance I think may be possible between Catholics of commitment and Protestant Christians who are just as philosophically informed, but otherwise.

Also on July 1, Russ posted live links for Prof Koyzis replies to Fr Japes clownifications - first, the post of the Prof's with the 11 comments I haven't read yet (to which I referred at the top of the page) that answers the claudications which the japer made against Koyzis here. Now, the process of Catholic japerification proceeds with a reply to the Prof's reply to .... Here, the jaypass admits one to a totalist critique of latterday commercialization that includes apparently Evangelicalism but not Marian dolls, ugly statuettes of Saint Francis rendered in idealistic poses he would have abominated, and all the other saleable indulgences proferred by Rome at Fatima and Lourdes. It's a perky traditionalism that hates all pluralism, so as to have one sure point in the creation, the Magisterium of Church of Rome and apparently its latest Pontiff. Sorry, that can't give you a healthy Christian political stance, whether your path is activist or quietist. I have come to feel at this point that the Pantagruellians are not the Catholics wth whom to dialogue, there are better out there. And some of them are in Parliament and have not bowed the kneel to Baal. Still in that bitter gruel of the Pantagruellians, there have been razor blades that do cut into some of the Neo-Calvinist conceptions, to the extent of drawing blood. Lot's of work to do, fellas! - Owlb