Why I See William Barr as a Threat to Democracy

I was recently surprised to find myself described as a “Liberal Catholic” in an article I was interviewed for concerning William Barr’s speech that purports to defend religious liberty. I explained that I was not a liberal in the theological sense but that I am a Democrat. I tend to try to be a centrist in general, which means most people do not like my stances; however, my centrist stance arises from my commitment to St. Bonaventure’s approach to theology and the idea that virtue can be found in the center of extremes.

I suppose in our new context, Aristotelian notions of virtue are a sign of being liberal. My support for religious liberty, refugees, and the promotion of everyone’s dignity strikes me as conservative, since these ideas are grounded in the Christian Scriptures.

The reporter who interviewed me was interested in my reaction to William Barr injecting his faith into politics. He also seemed particularly interested in Opus Dei. I told him that there was no explicit connection that I knew of between Opus Dei and Catholic Nationalism, though some of the same people may run in both circles. This is not to defend Opus Dei, but I warned him that some of his questions called to mind the rhetoric of the “Know-Nothing” party against Catholics.

I stated that I did not see how a man who opposes admitting refugees and who supports policies separating families as a deterrent to immigration could be injecting his Catholicism into politics. I said that the speech, which is awful and ignorant in many regards, was not the primary source of my concerns with Barr though it reinforced them. Given the fact that Barr works for a self-proclaimed Nationalist, Donald Trump, I told the reporter I see several statements in the speech that reflect Catholic Nationalist positions taken in Poland and other European countries over the last ten years.

I explained that in countries where Catholics are not in the majority, such as Hungary, Catholic Nationalists use “Judeo-Christian” culture as an alternative to speaking about a Catholic culture. This can be seen in the Alt-right movement, whose most well-known leader is Steve Bannon. Further, I told him that it is rare for people making such claims to care much about the “Judeo” part of the equation. It is never that people care about their “Christian-Judeo” culture.

The speech reflected the rhetoric employed by Catholic Nationalists in Europe and in the U.S. There are four common features of this rhetoric. First, it opposes accepting Muslim refugees and immigrants. Second, it opposes the extension of civil rights and protections to LGBTQ people. Third, it presents the good of the nation without considering the common good of humanity. Fourth, it either proposes or justifies oppressive and exclusionary laws on the basis of Catholicism or Judeo-Christian culture. The speech clearly contains dog whistles against Muslims and LGBTQ people, which seek to motivate Catholics to support Trump.

Catholic Nationalists use Pre-Vatican II sources to justify their illiberal policies. They can do so because they bestow the same authority or more authority to the Pre-Vatican II papal encyclicals than to the council. The problem is that these sources, such as Mirari vos or The Oath against Modernity, are part of the Catholic Church’s anti-democratic history. Barr has in his words and his deeds revealed himself as a Catholic who has clearly rejected the doctrines of Vatican II, which may reflect personal ambivalence towards democracy.

The Catholic Church’s official stance towards religious liberty, separation of church and state, and democracy changed decisively at Vatican II. This change did not appear ex nihilo; instead, it largely emerged out of the Catholic experience of democracy in the U.S. where Catholic bishops were strong supporters of the separation of church and state and of religious liberty. As the leaders of a religious minority, they recognized how these principles afforded their communities protection and allowed them to grow in a pluralistic society.

Drawing on traditions that go back to John England, who was the first bishop of Charleston, South Carolina (1820-1842), John Courtney Murray, S.J. demonstrated how Catholicism and democracy were compatible. After having been silenced from 1954 until 1963, he was invited to help draft a document on religious liberty during Vatican II. In December of 1965 the council released Dignitatis humanae:

The Vatican council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that everyone should be immune from coercion by individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, no men or women are forced to act against their convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others. The council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right.[1]

Vatican II asserted that the right to religious freedom is grounded in human dignity and is revealed by faith and reason.

The council taught that it is the common responsibility of individual citizens, social groups, civil authorities, the church, and other religious communities to protect the right to religious freedom. Further, it stated that civil authorities must see to it that there is no religious discrimination before the law, such as attempts to ban Muslims from immigration.[4]

Given the Catholic Church’s history, the council members were careful to show how religious freedom is in harmony with the apostolic tradition. Dignitatis Humanae declared:

“One of the key truths in catholic teaching, a truth that is contained in the word of God and is constantly preached by the Fathers, is that human beings should respond to the word of God freely, and that therefore nobody is forced to embrace the faith against their will.”[5]

The problem with Barr’s so-called defense of religious liberty is that religious liberty includes the choice to not be religious at all. Religious liberty includes secularism as much as Islam or Hinduism. It must include those who believe that LGBTQ sexual acts are moral or even sacramental. We must respect everyone's religious liberty if we want to be evangelical, which includes respecting those who are critical of our own religious perspectives. Such respect only becomes virtuous when applied to those whose beliefs we find objectionable.

William Barr does not support religious liberty, except for the groups that agree with his perspectives on morality, reason, and natural law. This would not even include the majority of Catholics in the U.S.; but the reason I see him as a threat to democracy is that he believes the president cannot be prosecuted and because he has effectively eliminated any checks to presidential misdeeds that his office used to provide.