I would suggest that Mrs. Morse left out the real reason for her change of heart. She makes it sound as if she just came to her senses regarding freedom. In reality she first converted to Catholicism. Her conversion to social conservatism came along with her conversion to Catholicism. And that was a big jump for her—after all she and her husband originally held a ceremony to denounce the right of the church or state to proclaim anyone married.

Of course if I were pushing social conservative theory that I embraced due to a religious conversion I might leave that fact out as well—it is more effective to leave out theology. But in this case I believe theology was the root of the change of heart and that not putting it is a serious flaw. That Acton Institute is fundamentally a Catholic conservative group run by a priest is also not mentioned.

wmb (above): Aren’t Catholics allowed to hold and express opinions in the area of economics and social policy? Furthermore, what makes you think that all social conservatives are Catholics or indeed religiously affiliated? Also, am I, a practicing Catholic, required to label myself as such every time I write a letter to the editor, or express an opinion based on my educational background and life experience, or exercise any of the rights and freedoms I have as a citizen? Last, you are implying that Ms. Roback Morse is deliberately hiding information about the Acton group-- yet there is an active link to the Acton Group at the bottom of the page. Please, get over your conspiracy theories.

wmb, Mrs. Morse’s better understanding of freedom may well have come as a result of her entering the Catholic Church, but that takes nothing away from the quality of her argument and the truth of her conclusions.  She made it clear that libertarians and economists are her primary audience.  Approaching the argument from a theological perspective would not be receptive to that audience.  She is trying to let them know that defending the traditional family is in their best interest as well.

Not sure why you attack the Acton Institute.  It is run by a wonderful priest, but you seem to imply that the mere fact that he is a priest should make his venture less laudable.  That said, the Acton Institute is by no means only for Catholics.  It is a great institution which would be of interest to anyone concerned with economic freedom, the dignity of the person, and the American founding.  Check it out at http://www.acton.org (I am in no way affiliated with Acton, but I love their work).

Great work, Mrs. Morse. I wish you continued success.

Of course Catholics have the right to believe anything they want. But disguising social conservatism as pro-freedom is just fraud. Morse is not being honest when she tries to argue that she changed her mind for reasons other than her new found faith. She is free to have the faith but ought to tell people the role it played and not pretend it wasn´t involved. Acton is, to a large degree, a social conservative organization, not libertarian. Morse has a much worse view of freedom than before.

But wmb - What is the source of your assumption that anything that can call itself “libertarian” is morally superior, and anything you can label (ie. dismiss) as “conservatism” is morally bad? These are just labels, chosen by the user to promote and enhance the moral standing of one position (the one they choose) and trash the other. Labels and names have no authority, certainly in moral terms - nor do the origins of ideas (whether from Catholicism, or whatever) - these are just ad hominem attacks. I think this author’s ideas are right (where they come from, or who holds them, or by what means they came to her, is irrelevant) - but you don’t - that is all that can be said. Your exulting/trashing, by way of the implications of terms, is equally dishonest.

wmb: again, what you are saying is that anyone who expresses what in your opinion is a socially conservative point of view must, if they are Catholic, declare themselves as such first. I suppose this would also hold for any political conversations-- could be a little cumbersome, though, and at times we might forget… hey, let’s just be really efficient about it, and give out badges for Catholics to wear when out in public.

wmb,

I strongly second Pete Cooke’s statement.  “Deconstructing” the author does not actually address ANY of the substance of her arguments.  It is an extremely weak form of criticism of any proposition.  In fact it bears no relationship to the proposition being criticized at all.

There also seems to be an unproven assumption in your comment that everyone is expected to take for granted: that the author came to her opinion on the family BECAUSE she joined the church.  While it is certainly possible (I can’t speak for the author), the reverse is at least as likely.  I know of one well documented case of conversion to the church and it’s connection with the individual’s opinion that artificial contraceptive is wrong.  While one can assume that he thinks that way because his newly adopted church told him to, in reality, a key step (one of many) on his road to conversion was an attempt on his part to prove how wrong the church is on this topic.  His research on the topic convinced him that the church was right and he had been wrong.  So he came to the church, at least in part, because he first changed his mind on the contraception issue and followed his conscience from there.  I personally know of many other conversions that started the same way.

Finally, the very judgmental charge of dishonesty in her statement about changing her mind is simply illogical.  While I can state that much of what I believe I accept on faith in the teaching authority of the Church, it is also true that, for a SUBSTANTIAL portion of what the church teaches, my acceptance of its truth is based on simple common sense: “unaided reason” alone.  For many of this latter category of teachings, I formed my opinion that they were true long before I knew the Church even had an opinion on them.  IT WOULD BE DISHONEST if I were to attribute any of those opinions to the teaching of the church.

wmb,
Your argument is fallacious and can and should simply be ignored. You argues against the author based on your perception of the author’s motives and personality. You are engaging in an “Ad Hominem” and “Circumstantial Ad Hominem” argurment. By practicing it, you have not offered any real agrument against the central thesis of the book. You have simply made it clear that you are close-minded enough not to seriously consider the opinions of someone who practices a certain religion or who you can label with a certain political distinctive.

Your comments would be much more productive and useful if you focused on debating the thesis and not the personality of the author.

--- references ---
“The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). “—From “The Nizkor Project” (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person’s interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person’s interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person’s circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: “Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false.”
—From “The Nizkor Project” (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html)

“Of course Catholics have the right to believe anything they want. But disguising social conservatism as pro-freedom is just fraud. Morse is not being honest when she tries to argue that she changed her mind for reasons other than her new found faith. She is free to have the faith but ought to tell people the role it played and not pretend it wasn´t involved. Acton is, to a large degree, a social conservative organization, not libertarian. Morse has a much worse view of freedom than before.”

What is wrong with changing your mind because of a newly-found faith? Better than changing your mind because of something you saw when you were high on narcotics, which seems to be a libertarian tick.

And from experience, these libertarians wouldn’t know true freedom if it punched them in the face. Worse view of freedom? The libertarian would just have you enslaved to your passions, which is no better than being enslaved to a corporation, or whatever bogeyman they might conjure up for the moment to represent that omnipresent “Man”.

as an outsider, i am just amazed at the odds against catholic intellectuals,regardless of their opinion.

Wow,
I’m a MercatorNet subscriber since one year, but I never had the time to go through an article and relevant comments as I did this morning. Exciting! The debate is interesting, and I would like to add a small question-contribution.
Why the opinions of people should be criticized based on the peoples’ cultural, social or religious roots, rather than on the intrinsic opinions truth? As rjp says: “claims stand or fall on their own”.
The Church doctrine (see St. Paul) teaches to look for truth in the opinions of everybody, regardless of all differences, based on the common human being dignity. I’ve never read of such an open-mind actitude in any other cultural, political or philosophical approach to reality.
Marco

Twenty years ago I took a number of university courses in philosophy.  My marks were consistently A’s and A+ whether my professor was a religious person or an atheist, an existentialist or an empiricist.  It is my impression the marks were given based on comprehension of the subject matter and ability to rationally discuss and debate it.  I have since become a religious person and a Catholic.  That said, I am always amazed and discouraged when I see how anything said publicly by a professing Catholic in the political, social, or moral realm is dismissed out-of-hand by so many.  Those who do so seem to think Catholics cannot think rationally or are hopelessly biased by their beliefs. I still argue my points rationally but find it a frustrating affair since so much of what passes itself off as reasoned debate these days is little more than sloganeering or posturing superior (intellectually or morally). 

This too reminds me of my university days in philosophy for even then few in the class seemed to appreciate the strength of an argument or able to properly formulate one themselves.  But they all could tell you how they felt about an issue or articulate the common view of their peers.  So many of them being largely but unconsciously culturally informed made it possible most of the time to know what they would say before they even said it.  As one of my professors called them (in private) - “The herd of the independent minds.”

By the way, if someone is tempted to respond to these comments by saying my argument is irrational or fallacious (ad hominem or whatever) these comments are not meant as an argument. They are merely personal observations.  And if you had thought of responding in such a manner it may indicate that you are one of the people I am addressing.

It is a pity wmb chose to attack the person rather than focus on what Ms Morse is saying.
What she says has just been endorsed by one of England’s most senior judges, Mr Justice Coleridge. He states in a recent speech to a conference of family lawyers, “We are experiencing a period of family meltdown whose effects will be as catastrophic as the meltdown of the ice caps.” He adds that judges are witnessing “a never-ending carnival of human misery” and that almost all of society’s social ills can be traced back to the collapse in family stability.
The judge, who has 37 years experience of family law, writes as a professional law-giver, just as Ms Morse writes as a researcher. What his religious or political views might be is irrelevant to what he is saying.
Perhaps Al Gore could be persuaded to turn his attention to a global catastrophe nearer home?