Given the important role played by American Catholics in determining the outcome of presidential elections, many commentators have speculated that Newt Gingrich might be the one to capture the prized Catholic vote.
For Gingrich’s campaign, his recent conversion from Southern Baptist to Roman Catholicism almost functions like the makeovers of popular reality TV shows. His past record of “double spousal abandonment” and congressional ethics violations, we are told, are sins of a previous life that are irrelevant for the newly made-over “Catholic Newt.”
Over the past three years Gingrich has vigorously embraced his newfound faith and has gotten a great deal of publicity because of it. Even before his formal reception into the Church in 2009, he appeared on talk shows to critique Notre Dame’s decision to award a degree to someone with “anti-Catholic values” like President Obama (his Twitter).
Later, he embarked on a Catholic media tour to promote his 2009 documentary on Pope John Paul II Nine Days that Changed the World—a film produced by the controversial group Citizens United. With screenings at strategic parishes and select interviews, the former speaker increased his visibility within certain Catholic circles. While the tour was ostensibly about the late pontiff, one may wonder if it was more about his political career and the agenda of Citizens United.
There is a lot a Catholic could find appealing in the leading Catholic presidential candidate and his “compassionate conservative” approach. Echoing the US Catholic Bishops concerns for religious liberty, the sanctity of marriage, immigration reform, and abortion, Gingrich might appear as an ideal “Catholic” candidate.
From the perspective of Catholic social doctrine, however, several “blind spots” emerge suggesting that Gingrich’s Catholic makeover might need a major renovation. Key social teachings of his beloved John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are simply ignored or set aside (remember the rude rejection of Pope Benedict’s Caritas in Veriitate by Gingrich’s friend George Weigel). Apparently liberals are not the only ones in the Catholic “cafeteria!”
Role of Government and Economic Justice
For one thing, conservative American commentators, including Gingrich himself, are increasingly appealing to Catholic social doctrine’s principle of subsidiarity to argue for less regulation, the privatization of social assistance programs, and more “freedom” for the private sector. Much to the chagrin of Weigel and other supporters of Gingrich, the limits placed on government by subsidiarity is but one side of the coin. While it is true that subsidiarity limits unjust interference in the affairs of local levels, this does not mean, however, in the words of the US Bishops, “that the government that governs least governs best” (124). Rather, the Church advocates an understanding of government as a vital instrument to promote justice and the common good.
John Paul II, for example, was insistent on the fundamental obligations of governments to the poor and the need for subsidiarity to be balanced by solidarity. Quoting his predecessor on this point, Pope Benedict warns us in Caritas in Veritate that without solidarity, subsidiarity “gives way to social privatism” and results in various social injustices (58). In contrast to Gingrich’s position on taxes and welfare, the pope emphatically reminds us that “the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice ” (35). Further, both Pope Benedict and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace have recently stressed the critical necessity of governmental regulation of the market. The type of unregulated free market capitalism based only on commutative justice, as endorsed by Gingrich, is simply not sufficient according to official Catholic teaching.
Foreign Policy
While most politicians use the language of American exceptionalism, Gingrich is the only one to have made a documentary about it. The notion that the United States has some divinely blessed characteristic stands in contrast to John Paul II’s teaching on solidarity in Sollicitudo rei Socialis. Excessive nationalism of this kind can be sinful since it is opposed to solidarity—the “virtue” that invites us to see other nations as sharers “on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God.” (39).
Gingrich’s position on the Iraq War, a war strongly opposed by Pope John Paul II, also shows an inconsistency between his view and the tradition’s teaching on the illegitimacy of preemptive war. His recent “hawkish” comments on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and statements in support of targeted assassinations and air strikes on Iran are also quite troublesome from the perspective of Catholic teaching.
Unions
Finally, even after his Catholic makeover, Gingrich has supported efforts to undermine the ability of unions to advocate on behalf of the working class. Although some may see the support of unions as a relic of Kennedy-era Catholics, both John Paul II and Pope Benedict have strongly reaffirmed the obligation of society to support rights of unions.
Ultimately, while some Catholics are drawn to the Former Speaker and the Republican Party as a whole, others are increasingly turned off by rhetoric that attacks the poor, demonizes unions and promotes a go-it-alone foreign policy. This is especially the case for many young-adult Catholics. For example, in December leaders of Catholics United and members of the Occupy DC movement presented Speaker John Boehner with over 8,000 petition signatures from Catholics around the country to ask him to increase taxes and strengthen Wall Street regulation.
If Gingrich is, as Michael Novak claims, “a John Paul II Catholic,” he does not appear to be a very consistent one. We only need to look at his positions on economic justice, foreign policy and unions to see the contradictions in this description.
Kevin Ahern is a doctoral candidate in theological ethics at Boston College. He is the past president of the International Movement of Catholic Students, the editor of The Radical Bible (Orbis, 2009) and a contributor to the blog Daily Theology.
Kevin, thank you for your post.
I agree with you that there are some important differences between Gingrich’s views on foreign policy and recent Catholic social teaching on relevant issues, such as war and peace. I actually think there is room for improvement on both sides, which I try to explain in chapters 8 and 9 of my book The Origins of War (Georgetown University Press, 2011).
As I wrote in my reply to Meghan, I am not sure why you attribute a nearly libertarian understanding of the state to Gingrich, when what distinguishes him from the other Republican candidates is precisely his more positive view of the government. The reason I believe his views have resonance with Catholic social teaching is precisely because he sees a positive role for the state that preserves an important role for “intermediate communities” as well.
In your treatment of subsidiarity, you write as if solidarity is synonymous with the “pro-government” side of subsidiarity. In Centesimus Annus, however, John Paul has a very different way of looking at the issue. He writes that it is intermediate communities such as the family and other cultural groups that is the source of solidarity, not the state; this solidarity is then lived out through those intermediate communities and the state, governed by the principle of subsidiarity.
I think this way of looking at things is exactly what compassionate conservatism is getting at, that yes, the state has a positive role, but it should carry it out in a way that strengthens intermediate communities, rather than weakening and destroying them.