The whole situation with Hugo Chavez and the Catholic Church is just filled with teachable moments. First, anyone who doubts that Chavez has dictatorial tendencies needs to watch the hours-long haranguing speeches he regularly gives. He certainly does not sound like a voice of freedom. Still, one has to laugh a bit at the protestations of the Church. Latin American Catholicism is a phenomenon unto itself, and always was.
If you have a hobby of Catholic Church history, as I do, you cannot help but marvel at how the dictatorial tendencies of political rulers mirror the ones of the Church. I am not saying that the Roman Church would want a theocratic dictatorship at this point. But the situation really is analogous in some sense to Islam in a place like Afghanistan. The Catholic Church doesn't need a theocracy, or even desire it, because no matter what happens the culture of the place will be largely Catholic still. This is because there was no Reformation in Latin America. The Church in Europe has a pattern laid down by centuries of grappling with a religious opposition. Yes, evangelicals and even Mormons have made inroads in Latin America. But they have not made a dent on the essentially Catholic identity of the continent. You don't really grasp this until you have spent some time in a Latin American country. The very oxygen that you breathe ---culturally speaking -- is still very much Catholic. There is no other place on earth where this is so. I have never been to a totally Islamic country, but imagine the feeling is similar. (I suppose Egypt doesn't really count.)

So in fact the Cardinal is probably not lying. He does not need to be allied with the opposition. He represents the culture, through and through, which will never relinquish its spot to mere politics. Relatedly, in fact the situation is utterly unlike Poland under the Communists. Poland worked out in itself a strange destiny based on being a very Catholic place amidst a continent that had centuries of wars over religion and ideologies. That sort of battle is the impulse for an Enlightenment critique. In contrast , it is fascinating to read about the hodge-podge and selective reception of Enlightenment ideas in Latin America. It mostly consisted in the form of 18th Century fascinations with geology and other scientific preoccupations. But the social critique was not overtly in evidence. (Bolivar was most strongly inspired by Napolean, not philosophes) The Enlightenment social critique was one that could only be embraced by brave souls, and even then basically surreptitiously.

This background is important because it clarifies how both sides are basically talking past one another in Venezuela. How could the Church be an mere opposition when it is the culture itself.?Yet in the context of trying to help the disenfranchised, Chavez confronts the fact that this massive world-wide institution is naturally always allied with the rich and powerful.

To me the sad part is that all the elements of an analytical grid to understand the Roman Catholic Church generally in the world are available in brightly lit colors in Latin America, and we will not read them. When very spurious philosophers like Robert George write books proclaiming the congruence of an essentially Catholic ethos -- in stripped down philosophical garb -- and a pluralistic society, we should remember to look to Latin America. The Church there has never ceded one centimeter of influence and control without a huge fight. But here is the telling part. It fights from the position of the central figure. The assumptions of the modern Catholic identity on pluralism are so unconsciously displayed by them as world-wide exemplar.. We are far past the point of the Roman Church actually wanting to require people to be Catholic. Yet the ONLY reason that is so is because it has had the empirical experience in a particular place called Latin America of both remaining the very culture and yet wanly embracing elements of the Enlightenment. And, as I said, because this is a place where there was no Enlightenment in a thoroughgoing way, and not even a Reformation. This will remain so no matter how many converts to other Churches there are. Hugo Chavez is no threat to this set-up. Thus, his antics play right into their hand. When you understand what the de facto cultural grid really is you see the views of Catholics like Robert George very differently. Truly ironically, what right-wing theorists like this want for our country is to make it something on the Latin American model.

But since the vast majority of people in this country have never been to Latin America they cannot imagine that people like Professor George, with his talk about rights, is in fact intrinsically relating those rights to an ethos which only makes sense in a place where there is very weak Enlightenment tradition. Latin America is the center of this odd cultural set-up. In other words, in the Catholic mind the only place where Enlightenment ideas are safe is in an environment, just like Latin America, where there is a very weak Enlightenment tradition. This is why, somewhat humorously, I believe it is reasonable to assess Robert George and his ilk as essentially Latin American thinkers.

Of course this quickly brings to my the many leftist thinkers of the continent with whom the right-wingers mentioned would have little in common. Very true of course. This leaves us with the impression that it is a place caught only in rigid polarities. The truth is that there have been thinkers and philosophers who have escaped these rigid poles. Let me cite the great German Arciniegas as an example. Arcineigas conceived of an authentic Latin American vision that embraced both strengths and weaknesses of the place. So it can be done. But the telling point is, not very easily.

Post Scriptum: I just read a good article by Michael Sean Winters about Vatican Press coverage. Any article that references Cognac as a way of analyzing religion is a step ahead. But more important, he pointed out a Catholic legal blog called Mirror of Justice which I did not know about. Lo and behold, there is a posting from that wishful theorist Robert George. And it makes the point I referred to in the above posting so well. It concerns the case at the University of Illinois, the professor Howells fired over comments about homosexuality. But Robert George focusses on something very interesting. And quotes the aggrieved student to make the point:

""Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote in the e-mail. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."

This is delicious because ti goes right to the heart of the unspoken issue for
people like George. Nobody reasonable
- - and apparently not the aggrieved student -- would want to prohibit a religious tradition from describing its view on morality, as a feature of that religion. The way nobody would want to prohibit Orthodox Jews from describing their views on eating pork. But people like George want more. They want to pretend that construing Catholic beliefs in the form of Natural Law is not a religious sleight of hand. By claiming a status of "Natural" they change the question entirely. Thus, the question here can be construed simply as this. Is it fair to even reference "natural" as a a way of negating homosexuality when the "natural" world is full of homosexuality. The trouble is "natural" means about ten different things. But if Catholics want to continue arguing in this vein they are going to need a different word. This case can be argued as a freedom of speech matter. But also as a case of violence against simple facts of reality, if we take "natural" in its commonsense meaning. And thus not only potential hate speech, but stupidly flat-earther in quality . So it is telling. Still, I am not sure what the right decision in the case is. Protecting freedom potentially trumps a lot of others.

Peter, I would have to agree that Cognac is a superior influence in the study of religion. Though we would be contributing to the economic well being of the Carthusian Order if we studied under the influence of green Chartreuse. Besides 110 proof is more spiritual than 8o proof.

http://www.chartreuse.fr/pa_history4_uk.htm

Dana,

And Chartreuse is medicinal -- like excommunication -- too!

How was Bingo at the Hippo?

Peter

And Post Scriptum Again: It just occurred to me how simple it would be for Roman Catholic scholars to preserve their rights, and for others not to get offended by them. All they need to do is be a little long winded, and add a few few words. Instead of saying "Natural Law teaches that.....", as if it were a universal concept, all they need to say say is: "In the Roman Catholic religious tradition, developed since the thirteenth century, the Natural Law tradition of the Church teaches that...." The answer is just to be a bit prolix. problem solved! Talk amongst yourselves!

And I forgot to say, I love Rachel Maddow!