Severability, a technical legal term, is definitely the "word of the month." It emerged in the confirmation hearings of now-Justice Barrett in regard to the imminent case before the case on the Affordable Care Act. "Severability" is the question of whether a specific, invalid aspect of a legislation thereby nullifies the entire act or can be "severed" from the act such that the remainder remains legitimate. Candidate Barrett helpfully explained it in terms of the Jenga game in which blocks of wood are carefully removed in a manner to leave the tower erect until a "non-severable" link is removed and the edifice collapses. I find it to be a most suggestive term to use analogously in philosophical, moral and political thought.
Another analogy from biology: we can imagine severing a finger but not a heart or a lung. We can imagine that for one person the covid brings few or even no symptoms; but for another it is deadly.
From Catholic theology: venial sin is known to wound and hinder but not destroy the life of grace in the soul; but mortal sin is deadly. Venial sin is "severable": he is far from perfect but basically a good guy; mortal sin is not: he is deeply, catastrophically given over to evil.
All of us are flawed morally in our leadership roles, but the question is at what point does a moral failure substantially invalidate a leader, a party or a movement? To what degree might we "severe" the moral failing and retain the remainder as good? This is a pressing question in these distressing times. Let's consider the following from a Catholic viewpoint.
Democratic Party. Can a Catholic intelligently "sever" the issue of abortion (not to mention euthanasia, marriage, religious liberty, etc.) from the party's arguably admirable stance on immigration, the environment, racial and social justice and so forth? My own prudential (non-infallible) view: absolutely not! To "sever" and cavalierly "set aside" the genocide of the incompetent and defenseless would be like severing Hitler from his antisemitism.
Trump. Can a Catholic intelligently "sever" Trump's odious behavior from his admirable policy on innocent life (as well as marriage, religious liberty, etc.) and his arguably positive influence on the economy, foreign affairs and such? My prudential (non-fallible) view: no. His contempt for people (immigrants, women, his opponents), his disregard for truth and reality, his polarizing and divisive effect, his disregard for expertise together gestalt into a social catastrophe. It is entirely different from that posed by the other side; it is lesser for sure. But in its totality it is gravely evil.
The Francis Papacy. For five years I labored to respect and receive the guidance of Pope Francis, to accept the good and discard the bad, to interpret him in continuity with what came before him. I gave up in the catastrophic summer of 2018. What has come since then has strengthened my conviction: his is not merely a flawed, but a failed papacy: his destruction of the John Paul II Institute in Rome and his rejection of the legacy of that sainted pope; his autocratic imposition of his personal view of the death penalty on our precious Catholic Catechism; his tolerance of McCarrick and his proteges; his deference to the odious, oppressive Communist state of China; his random, impulsive, reckless comments which carelessly disregard tradition, his confusing and polarizing policies, and more. Very much like Trump but for entirely opposing reasons, his papacy is a catastrophe that cannot be corrected.
Kennedy Legacy. Reading Frederik Logevall's balanced but appreciative biography "JFK: Coming of Age in the American Century" leads me to another look at the Kennedy legacy. I adored them when I was 14; I have despised them for my adult life; but now I am seeing the weeds with the wheat. There is lots of good here: love of family (especially on the part of patriarch Joseph), concern for the underprivileged (on the part of super-privileged Jack), an admirable internationalism (on the part of Jack in contrast to isolationist Joseph Senior) and tons of charm, humor, energy and glamour. BUT...the treatment of women...referred to as "philandering" by Logevall...is simply too odious to be "severed." The marital infidelity celebrated among father and sons, the lobotomy of Rosemary, the marginalization of Rose and her Catholic faith...all of this prepared, obviously, for their unwavering support for abortion of the unborn. We have to love the good that is there; but the mortal sin cannot be severed or minimized.
Historic Figures. The controversy over statues and memorials to historic figures (of the Confederacy, the American Founding, Columbus and others) can be understood in terms of "severability." We Catholics have long known of the deep animus against Catholicism that characterized our founding fathers right up through FDR himself. But we were able to sever that and still honor the positive legacy they left us. Something like that has to be practiced in many of our leaders: many are flawed but not entirely failed. Others (Jackson) may be beyond flawed and into failed.
Brennan Manning. At last, a splendid example of severability. I have been reading his books. He is for sure flawed: ex-priest, ex-friar, divorcee, and bad-bad-bad alcoholic. BUT...to the end of his life he proclaimed: "Jesus loves you as you are; not as you are supposed to be." He is controversial and much criticized, mostly in Protestant not Catholic circles. He is called an antinomian; and he leans in that direction. But I find him inspiring! Implicitly he strongly affirms the reality of sin and evil; but insists that God's love prevails even when evil is, to our eyes, impregnable, invincible, inexorable. For me, he is not a failed man, but a flawed man.
Aren't we all?
No comments:
Post a Comment