{"title":"美国的天主教共和主义","authors":"J. M. Patterson","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2192633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recently, so-called Catholic “postliberal” conservatives have condemned the American regime as fundamentally liberal and, hence, parasitic on pre-liberal institutions. I argue that this view unduly conflates liberalism and republicanism and thereby confuses an ideology with the principles of the regime. American Catholic clergy have historically condemned liberalism in favor of a Catholic republicanism. This trend began with the political thought of Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Bishop John Carroll who advocated for republican government in conjunction with “conciliarism” in the Church. Archbishop “Dagger” John Hughes of New York condemned “nothingarianism,” an early form of liberalism, while also arguing that Irish minorities were capable of republican self-rule during the School Controversy of 1840–43. Later, during the 1880s and 1890s, Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota, condemned liberalism, but also provided an alternative vision of post-Civil War racial reconciliation and of Catholic patriotism. Even as he disparaged liberalism, Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen rescued the “Americanism” condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899 to argue against totalitarian states of the twentieth century, while, at the same time, Fr. John Courtney Murray, no liberal, sought a religious truce in America in favor of common political action in areas of agreement. In short, these clergy opposed liberalism, but they couched their opposition in terms of support of the American Republic, often arguing that the Catholic Church, especially in parochial schooling, provided the best foundation for good government. However, the recent decline of hierarchical support of Catholic republicanism has led to the present disillusionment of American Catholics, who are at risk of turning to reactionary politics to their own peril.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"106 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Catholic Republicanism in America\",\"authors\":\"J. M. Patterson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10457097.2023.2192633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Recently, so-called Catholic “postliberal” conservatives have condemned the American regime as fundamentally liberal and, hence, parasitic on pre-liberal institutions. I argue that this view unduly conflates liberalism and republicanism and thereby confuses an ideology with the principles of the regime. American Catholic clergy have historically condemned liberalism in favor of a Catholic republicanism. This trend began with the political thought of Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Bishop John Carroll who advocated for republican government in conjunction with “conciliarism” in the Church. Archbishop “Dagger” John Hughes of New York condemned “nothingarianism,” an early form of liberalism, while also arguing that Irish minorities were capable of republican self-rule during the School Controversy of 1840–43. Later, during the 1880s and 1890s, Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota, condemned liberalism, but also provided an alternative vision of post-Civil War racial reconciliation and of Catholic patriotism. Even as he disparaged liberalism, Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen rescued the “Americanism” condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899 to argue against totalitarian states of the twentieth century, while, at the same time, Fr. John Courtney Murray, no liberal, sought a religious truce in America in favor of common political action in areas of agreement. In short, these clergy opposed liberalism, but they couched their opposition in terms of support of the American Republic, often arguing that the Catholic Church, especially in parochial schooling, provided the best foundation for good government. However, the recent decline of hierarchical support of Catholic republicanism has led to the present disillusionment of American Catholics, who are at risk of turning to reactionary politics to their own peril.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Political Science\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"106 - 118\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2192633\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2192633","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
最近,所谓的天主教“后自由主义”保守派谴责美国政权从根本上是自由主义的,因此是寄生于前自由主义制度之上的。我认为这种观点不恰当地将自由主义和共和主义混为一谈,从而混淆了意识形态和政权原则。美国天主教神职人员历来谴责自由主义,支持天主教共和主义。这一趋势始于卡罗尔顿的查尔斯·卡罗尔和约翰·卡罗尔主教的政治思想,他们主张共和政府与教会的“和解主义”相结合。纽约大主教“匕首”约翰·休斯(John Hughes)谴责自由主义的早期形式“虚无主义”(nothingarianism),同时在1840-43年的学校争议(School Controversy)期间,他也认为爱尔兰少数民族有能力进行共和自治。后来,在19世纪80年代和90年代,明尼苏达州圣保罗大主教约翰·爱尔兰(John Ireland)谴责了自由主义,但也为内战后的种族和解和天主教爱国主义提供了另一种视角。即使在他贬低自由主义的同时,尊敬的富尔顿·j·希恩大主教拯救了1899年被教皇利奥十三世谴责的“美国主义”,以反对二十世纪的极权主义国家,而与此同时,不是自由主义者的约翰·考特尼·默里神父(Fr. John Courtney Murray)在美国寻求宗教休战,支持在有共识的领域采取共同的政治行动。简而言之,这些神职人员反对自由主义,但他们以支持美利坚共和国的方式表达自己的反对,他们经常辩称,天主教会,尤其是在教区教育方面,为良好的政府提供了最好的基础。然而,最近对天主教共和主义的等级支持的下降导致了美国天主教徒目前的幻灭,他们面临着转向反动政治的风险,这是他们自己的危险。
Abstract Recently, so-called Catholic “postliberal” conservatives have condemned the American regime as fundamentally liberal and, hence, parasitic on pre-liberal institutions. I argue that this view unduly conflates liberalism and republicanism and thereby confuses an ideology with the principles of the regime. American Catholic clergy have historically condemned liberalism in favor of a Catholic republicanism. This trend began with the political thought of Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Bishop John Carroll who advocated for republican government in conjunction with “conciliarism” in the Church. Archbishop “Dagger” John Hughes of New York condemned “nothingarianism,” an early form of liberalism, while also arguing that Irish minorities were capable of republican self-rule during the School Controversy of 1840–43. Later, during the 1880s and 1890s, Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota, condemned liberalism, but also provided an alternative vision of post-Civil War racial reconciliation and of Catholic patriotism. Even as he disparaged liberalism, Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen rescued the “Americanism” condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899 to argue against totalitarian states of the twentieth century, while, at the same time, Fr. John Courtney Murray, no liberal, sought a religious truce in America in favor of common political action in areas of agreement. In short, these clergy opposed liberalism, but they couched their opposition in terms of support of the American Republic, often arguing that the Catholic Church, especially in parochial schooling, provided the best foundation for good government. However, the recent decline of hierarchical support of Catholic republicanism has led to the present disillusionment of American Catholics, who are at risk of turning to reactionary politics to their own peril.
期刊介绍:
Whether discussing Montaigne"s case for tolerance or Nietzsche"s political critique of modern science, Perspectives on Political Science links contemporary politics and culture to the enduring questions posed by great thinkers from antiquity to the present. Ideas are the lifeblood of the journal, which comprises articles, symposia, and book reviews. Recent articles address the writings of Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Plutarch; the movies No Country for Old Men and 3:10 to Yuma; and the role of humility in modern political thought.