Authoritarianism as an ideal type

[Rick Garnett]

Dear all,

George Weigel has suggested that the Catholic Church and its teaching
authority are best understood -- that is, if one wants to understand this
authority as the Church understands it -- as "authoritative" rather than
"authoritarian."  This distinction is intended, I think, to map onto the
distinction JPII often draws between "proposing" and "imposing" (e.g., "The
Church imposes nothing, she only proposes . . .").  Given this
self-understanding, nothing is ever true or right (or false or wrong)
"because the Church says so", or "because the Pope says so", but because
"God has charged and authorized the Church to propose as much."

Does this distinction have any use for constitutional lawyers, and for the
present discussion about the "authoritarian" nature of the present
Administration and Court?

An aside, with respect to Professor Levinson's post -- first, the
(widespread, I admit) notion that JPII has been busily excommunicating
those he regards as heterodox is mistaken.  It simply hasn't happened.  And
-- though I certainly think there is nothing at all "offensive" about the
post -- I think some reasonable people of good will would insist that the
(again, common) "JP II doesn't like Vatican II" picture is, for a most
part, a caricature and that, on the contrary, JP II has seen it as his
mission to carry forward the Council's call.  For what it's worth . . . .

Best wishes,

Rick Garnett

At 04:54 PM 10/29/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>I really don't want to give offense.  So what about the following rewriting?
>
>1)  The Catholic Church has a more authority-based institutional structure
>than does, say, the  Southern Baptist Church, in the specific sense that
>there are individuals and institutions within the former who claim the
>right (and are recognized by most members as having the right) to make
>authoritative judgments as to tenets of belief and actions of
>believers.  This means, among other things, that more (though it is an
>empirical question how many) Catholics, especially if they are
>"traditional," are likely to give "because the Pope (or Church) says so" as
>the reason for some position on a controversial issue than Southern
>Baptists would be likely to say "because the Southern Baptist Convention
>said so.
>
>2)  Pope John Paul II is more concerned with reinforcing the authority of
>institutional officials, including Bishops and the Vatican, than was, say,
>Pope John XXIII, who set in motion (and seemingly supported) a process that
>significantly challenged the traditional claims of authority of the
>institutional Church, though, obviously, John XXIII was no "protestant" in
>terms of rejecting the institutional authority of the Church.  He has
>exhibited such concerns by systematically naming Cardinals and promoting
>Bishops who accept the traditional claims to authority of the Vatican and,
>concomitantly, leaving unpromoted those clerics more sympathetic to
>interpreting Vatican II as a call for further "reformation" in the
>practices of the Church, including, but not limited to, the ordination of
>women, contraception, and celibacy.
>
>Is *this* either inaccurate or offensive?
>
>sandy
>
>
>
>>Sandy:
>>Yes, a Catholic would have the right to take offense at such statements, for
>>exactly the same reasons Eugene has, I think cogently, suggested
>>abandoning the
>>term "authoritarian" in legal analysis.  That the Church exercises
>>authority does
>>not necessarily make it "authoritarian," and those like Wills who do want
>>to use
>>such language do it precisely because they want to criticize the Church or
>>John
>>Paul II.  I don't think I have ever heard someone sympathetic to the pope,
>>or to
>>Bush, or to Clinton, or to anyone, refer to them as
>>"authoritarian."  ("Well, yes,
>>but he's my authoritarian"?)  Unless Wills wants to identify himself or
>>bishops he
>>likes as "authoritarian" as well, the moniker gets us nowhere; once he
>>does accept
>>the mantle, it becomes relatively useless in analysis.
>>
>>Apropos of the question of John Paul's "authoritarianism," I would want to
>>ask the
>>same questions Eugene asks: in what way(s) is he authoritarian?  What
>>examples of
>>supposedly authoritarian behavior can we put on the table to talk
>>about?  Who has
>>he excommunicated, and for what reasons?  Until we can begin to assess such
>>questions, the assertion is simply that, an assertion.  In other words,
>>the use of
>>the term doesn't really get us anywhere, and I take it, absent more, is
>>not the
>>reason most (?) people subscribe to the list.
>>
>>Richard Dougherty
>>University of Dallas
>
>Richard W. Garnett
>Notre Dame Law School
>Notre Dame, IN  46556
>(574) 631-6981
>garnett.4 at nd.edu
>http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/facultypages/garnettr.html