In 1998, four years after publishing his best-selling book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter on the nature of episcopal conferences. The letter capped a long campaign, waged across two decades, to limit the pastoral reach of bishops conferences in the name of the autonomy and teaching authority of individual bishops. Coinciding with the passing of a generation of bishops whose sense of collegiality was shaped at Vatican II, John Paul’s letter unfortunately meant the end of such conference initiatives as the U.S. Bishops’ The Challenge of Peace [pdf] (1983) and Economic Justice for All (1986). In order to be considered “authentic magisterium,” such letters must now be approved unanimously or by a two-thirds vote with subsequent Vatican approval. And so pastoral letters from the bishops conference have given way to individual trade books—books like Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
Now, as the 2012 presidential campaign sputters to take off, a former USCCB president, Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George, offers God in Action. Echoing the title of a 1934 book by Karl Barth that set Christian faith against the stirrings of German fascism, George attempts to limn a politics informed by the Catholic philosophical tradition. As his preface aptly puts it, God in Action is “a modest effort to look for how God acts in the challenges of our time.” His introduction explains what “God in action” might look like. George’s God is St. Thomas’s God, as explained in Question 22 on divine providence in the first part of the Summa Theologiae—a Creator, George writes, “supremely present to the world, necessarily active in it.”
The first four chapters of God in Action set forth a serious critique of contemporary U.S. jurisprudence, which George criticizes for quarantining God in a private sphere of personal faith. The bottom-line issues here are abortion, legal recognition of gay marriage, and what George calls the question of “Catholic ethical and religious control over Catholic hospitals, charities, and nursing homes.” He views these questions through the lens of a religious freedom that is communal and organizational rather than private and individual. With the fervor of an abolitionist, George goes after the “gradual legal establishment of secular individualism.” Aggressive secularism, he claims, threatens political freedom more than religion does. He compounds his provocation by adding that democratic institutions—such as the Supreme Court, which he charges with deinstitutionalizing religious freedom and absorbing it into mere self-expression—jeopardize religious freedom in the United States. “For the sake of human flourishing,” urges George, civil law—as teacher and carrier of American culture—must “enter into a more creative partnership with the cultural institutions of marriage, family, and religion.”
Advertisement
God in Action focuses on the neuralgic issues of abortion, gay marriage, and the freedom of Catholic institutions to follow church teaching. The five steps for creating a culture of life it presents at the end of chapter 4, however, are highly abstract. What George clearly wants is to sensitize consciences on life issues and narrow the scope of prudential judgments, the flashpoint of recent intra–Catholic debates about health care. The context here is our cultural polarization—both within and without the church—and the ongoing debate about prudential judgments and the denial of Communion to Catholic politicians who, for any reason, have voted for legislation that includes legalized abortion. In his 2008 presidential campaign book Render unto Caesar, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput addressed the question of Communion and argued that Catholics cannot support a “prochoice” candidate without a “truly proportionate reason.” Such a reason, he asserted, would be one we could “expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our actions.” Such a standard is enough to make this pro-life Democrat’s soul quake. But it does concede that political decisions involve prudential judgments.
In his 1963 encyclical Pacem in terris, Pope John XXIII observed the increase in women taking part in public life and interpreted it as a sign of a growing sense of human dignity and equality. Almost three decades later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that women needed the liberty abortion provides in order to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation.” George disputes this verdict. I agree with him, but think he needs to go further in acknowledging, as Pope John did in 1963, what is good and true in contemporary aspirations. George’s argument with the Supreme Court subsumes both abortion rights and gay marriage under “secular individualism.” But this deeply flawed phrase, applied to such complicated social realities, hides the faces of real women and people of homosexual orientation who don’t recognize their hopes and fears in such abstractions. They deserve more compassionate and efficacious words, even from pastors who must in conscience publicly oppose their political desires and demands. They deserve a serious account of what is good in their aspirations and how they can be fulfilled in Christ.
The final four chapters of God in Action reflect and promote the inculturation of the social teaching of Pope John Paul II in our twenty-first-century United States. In his treatment of war, economic life, and immigration, George insists that our country is implicated in global relations that call into question simple resorts to national sovereignty. Such relations demand a self-consciously global or catholic perspective that sees God at work in bringing people together. George’s challenge to reconsider national sovereignty culminates powerfully in his book’s last chapter, with its reminder that “God is not a citizen of any nation state.” The work of contemporary popes for peace, he writes, “relativiz[es] the absolute claims of nation-states upon their citizens’ behavior.” George sees the church—at its best—as a sign of God’s unifying action in the world. Politically, this means affirming the support of most popes over the last century for some sort of international body to promote order and peace. George is not expecting modern nation-states to disappear any time soon, but he does insist that a nationalistic perspective is inadequate for thinking politically about just policy in areas such as economics, immigration, and warfare.
On one large point, I wish God in Action had spoken with a louder voice. “The bishops have lost much of their moral authority and therefore speak without great influence.” George buries this sentence, without analysis or comment, in his chapter on human biology. Surely it deserves more. The hard truth is that the shameful behavior of many bishops compounded the crisis of clergy sexual abuse. The failure of the bishops’ conference to discipline its own in this regard cannot be unrelated to the Vatican’s recent emphasis on individual episcopal autonomy at the expense of episcopal collegiality.
For better or for worse, this emphasis, plus internal divisions among the bishops, has replaced a tradition of collegiality with free-agent bishops and their trade books. In such books, the lure of cheap prophecy is a chief temptation, and for the most part Cardinal George resists it, speaking—as he says the church does—with “a distinctive voice...neither co-opted nor isolated.” God in Action makes a timely and provocative episcopal intervention that deserves wide readership. Its advocacy for life is consistent. George will catch heat from some for so emphatically foregrounding abortion and gay marriage, and from others for his strong challenge to U.S. sovereignty in the name of global solidarity. Perhaps the willingness to challenge both sides suggests an adherence to principle above mere partisanship. As we approach the 2012 election amid dismal times, God in Action offers a trace of hope.
Related: David Gibson's interview with Cardinal George



I never read the comments of Cardinal George without thanking heaven that I live in a secular democracy. I hope he enjoys a happy and quiet retirement, but have better ways to spend $22.99 than on his book, so politely reviewed here.
<blockquote>George’s argument with the Supreme Court subsumes both abortion rights and gay marriage under “secular individualism.” But this deeply flawed phrase, applied to such complicated social realities, hides the faces of real women and people of homosexual orientation who don’t recognize their hopes and fears in such abstractions. They deserve more compassionate and efficacious words, even from pastors who must in conscience publicly oppose their political desires and demands. They deserve a serious account of what is good in their aspirations and how they can be fulfilled in Christ.</blockquote>
Oh, I don't know. I think <i>secular individualism</i> says it very well. That's what it is. You can try to soften it to make political converts or to try not to lose friends, or you can soften it to indicate that you don't much like being called a secular individualist yourself, but that <i>is</i> softening it, not making it clearer, more precise.
Bill, your measured and temperate review is to be applauded, a whole lot more measured and temperate than the writings of George (or Chaput), as you more or less say in suggesting that a pastoral tone is what we might reasonably expect from a bishop. When you suggest a connection between the incapacity of bishops' conferences to discipline their own members and the Vatican's newish emphasis on the authority of the individual bishop, you puzzle me a bit. I think you are suggesting that the Roman emphasis is a response to the weakness of the conferences. But from where I am sitting, I'd say it is at least as likely that the efforts of the CDF during the Ratzinger era to systematically undermine the authority of bishops' conferences played some kind of role in weakening their capacity to wield any kind of stick at all. Rome's interest seems to me clearly to be served by reducing the authority of any mediating structure between the local bishop and the Vatican. In other words, even further to move us away from the synodal structure of church governance that once worked so well and just could be our salvation once again.
St Thomas Aquinas would not approve my attitude, but given His Eminence's unfortunate role in the forthcoming liturgy debacle, I'm simply not interested in his thoughts on politics. Much less am I interested in helping the sale of his book.
Some pundit once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Pietro Sambi and the Vatican clearly fall into this category of "one-trick ponies", since they continually appoint hard-line conservatives as bishops. Philadelphia has had a long string of them dating back at least to Cardinal Dougherty, and most recently with Archbishops Bevilacqua and Rigali, with sad results. Now we have a new and very disheartening appointment in Archbishop Chaput, yet Rome ostensibly expects different results. The already-conservative Philadelphia church is likely to shrink and decline even farther. May the Lord have mercy on us all. Who will heal this hurting Church?
Perhaps I am getting crankier. I did not read this book. But I did read the other book which Portier refers to by Chaput. "Render Unto Caesar" which was an awful book, pure propaganda at best and puerile writing at worst. This book looks like it has the same attributes. Same political agenda with the mandatory minuscule recognition of the poor and downtrodden. If this is a bishop's way of proclaiming the faith because Rome won't let the bishops at large come to a consensus, then I guess George and Co. might as well turn in the ship and let Rome continue to treat them like altar boys. Seems like a lot of canned stuff which may not be worth a can of beans.
That "Cardinal' Chaput is said to be the next A/B in Philly makes the 2012 election campaign more 'fun' for Catholics. How will the 'new' American hierarchy chose between the GOP frontrunners Romney or Bachmann. Romney might flip on abortion two more times by then and Bachmann will be a hard sell to Catholics. George was right to say " The bishops have lost much of their moral authority and therefore speak without great influence'
With Chaput in Philly 'great' may change to 'any' in the above George quote.