No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Gary D. Glenn and John Stack advance two important claims; one explicit, the other implicit. Their explicit claim is that the “new regime of civil liberties” is dangerous to Catholicism. Here I am in qualified agreement, though important ambiguities cloud the argument. Their implicit claim is that it is a bad thing for Catholicism to be in danger. This proposition is flawed. Glenn and Stack cite (without irony) American Catholics “who have spent several generations seeking to become accepted and acceptable to the American democratic culture.” A large part of the danger seems to be “the punishment of exclusion from respectability in the culture.” This assumes that the “normal” mode for Catholicism is comfortable accommodation to political culture and institutions.
1 Cochran, Clarke E., Religion in Public and Private Life (New York: Routledge, 1990).Google Scholar
2 Cochran, Clarke E., “Institutional Identity; Sacramental Potential: Catholic Healthcare at Century's End, Christian Bioethics 5 (1): 26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Ishould not want my argument to be misunderstood. My account applies only to the dangers implicit in any legitimate regime. I do not recommend the altogether different and deadly perils to Catholics in, for example, Sudan or East Timor.
4 Paul, John II alludes to this distinction in Evangelium Vitae, #90.Google Scholar