Quit Smoking Now

Search Advanced SearchView Cart   Checkout   
 Location:  Home » Quit Smoking Books » Christianity » Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life  
Featured Product

Quit Smoking Products
Quit Smoking Programs
Quit Smoking with Hypnosis
Quit Smoking Books
Quit Smoking DVD
Homeopathic & Natural Remedies
Nicotine Patches
Nicotine Gum & Lozenges
Related Categories
• Christianity
Religious Studies
Humanities
New & Used Textbooks
Custom Stores
• General AAS
Religious Studies
Humanities
New & Used Textbooks
Custom Stores
• General AAS
New & Used Textbooks
Custom Stores
Specialty Stores
Books
• Inspirational
Catholicism
Christianity
Religion & Spirituality
Subjects
• Roman Catholicism
Catholicism
Christianity
Religion & Spirituality
Subjects
• General
Christian Living
Christianity
Religion & Spirituality
Subjects
• General AAS
Christian Living
Christianity
Religion & Spirituality
Subjects
• Church & State
Religious Studies
Religion & Spirituality
Subjects
Books
• General
Religion & Spirituality
Subjects
Books
• General AAS
Religion & Spirituality
Subjects
Books
• Hardcover
Binding (binding)
Refinements
Books
• Printed Books
Format (feature_browse-bin)
Refinements
Books

Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life

Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life
Author: Charles J. Chaput
Publisher: Doubleday
Category: Book

List Price: $21.95
Buy New: $13.04
You Save: $8.91 (41%)



New (41) Used (10) from $9.99

Avg. Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars 47 reviews
Sales Rank: 2778

Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 272
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.7
Dimensions (in): 7.6 x 5.3 x 1

ISBN: 0385522282
Dewey Decimal Number: 261.708828273
EAN: 9780385522281
ASIN: 0385522282

Publication Date: August 12, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Also Available In:

  • Kindle Edition - Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life
  • Paperback - Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life

Similar Items:

  • Living the Catholic Faith: Rediscovering the Basics
  • St. Paul: Jubilee Year of the Apostle Paul Edition: A Bible Study for Catholics
  • The Fathers
  • The Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine
  • The Apostles

Editorial Reviews:

Product Description

“People who take God seriously will not remain silent about their faith. They will often disagree about doctrine or policy, but they won’t be quiet. They can’t be. They’ll act on what they believe, sometimes at the cost of their reputations and careers. Obviously the common good demands a respect for other people with different beliefs and a willingness to compromise whenever possible. But for Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of human dignity. Christian faith is always personal but never private. This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail.”
—From the Introduction

Few topics in recent years have ignited as much public debate as the balance between religion and politics. Does religious thought have any place in political discourse? Do religious believers have the right to turn their values into political action? What does it truly mean to have a separation of church and state? The very heart of these important questions is here addressed by one of the leading voices on the topic, Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver.

While American society has ample room for believers and nonbelievers alike, Chaput argues, our public life must be considered within the context of its Christian roots. American democracy does not ask its citizens to put aside their deeply held moral and religious beliefs for the sake of public policy. In fact, it requires exactly the opposite.

As the nation’s founders knew very well, people are fallible. The majority of voters, as history has shown again and again, can be uninformed, misinformed, biased, or simply wrong. Thus, to survive, American democracy depends on an engaged citizenry —people of character, including religious believers, fighting for their beliefs in the public square—respectfully but vigorously, and without apology. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the nation’s health. Or as the author suggests: Good manners are not an excuse for political cowardice.

American Catholics and other persons of goodwill are part of a struggle for our nation’s future, says Charles J. Chaput. Our choices, including our political choices, matter. Catholics need to take an active, vocal, and morally consistent role in public debate. We can’t claim to personally believe in the sanctity of the human person, and then act in our public policies as if we don’t. We can’t separate our private convictions from our public actions without diminishing both. In the words of the author, “How we act works backward on our convictions, making them stronger or smothering them under a snowfall of alibis.”

Vivid, provocative, clear, and compelling, Render unto Caesar is a call to American Catholics to serve the highest ideals of their nation by first living their Catholic faith deeply, authentically.




Customer Reviews:   Read 42 more reviews...

5 out of 5 stars amazing book   November 23, 2008
 1 out of 1 found this review helpful

Written in the same way Archbishop Chaput speaks- down to earth and easy to follow yet full of wisdom and powerful insights. Archbishop Chaput is a living saint and this book reflects his holiness in the matters of politics- where few holy people go. His insights into American Democracy will have you thinking differently about your role in our country


5 out of 5 stars A true son of Issachar   November 20, 2008
 2 out of 2 found this review helpful

"the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do" -1Ch12

To this concise book by Bishop Chaput, this non-Catholic says: Wow, a true tour d'force. A continuous flow of historical, cultural, moral, and spiritual insight and perspective.

At times the text flows almost non-stop with memorable quotes, representing an enormous amount of research, imparting a deep well of understanding and wisdom.

I liked the way Chaput didn't gloss over the church's difficulties in implementing the Vatican II changes, or indeed, the need for those changes prior to that council. I think this was a very honest and perceptive presentation of the challenges facing not only Catholics, though the book was certainly geared primarily to them, but all Christians, and indeed all sincere religious, as well.

The game has shifted, and aggressive secularists are at the throats of all who would live by - and especially those who would proclaim - standards of objective morality. The basic theme of this book is one by which every believer would be benefited by reconsidering: we are in a battle, the stakes are real and high, and we cannot legitimately excuse ourselves. If we fail to rise to the challenge, then we fail to live out the Gospel of salvation in its fullest and most necessary expression at this point in history, and one day we will have to face that shameful, unloving reality before both our Redeemer and the ones we allowed this culture to victimize.

Highly recommended. Bravo, Bishop Chaput.



5 out of 5 stars FOR US CATHOLICS, IT SHOULD BE A SIN NOT TO READ THIS BOOK!   November 18, 2008
 1 out of 1 found this review helpful

Just kidding... but Bishop Chaput gives an amazingly accessible overview of the history of the Catholic Church in the US and why the Catholic voice/morality has been lost in recent decades. I pride myself on knowing quite a bit of the Church' history, but this little gem of a book taught me alot and I found myself scribbling in the margin and asterisking quotes that I've never read. A VERY EASY READ BUT CHOCK FILLED WITH FACTS, INCITEFUL ANALYSIS and VERY PERSUASIVE AND TIMELY recommendations on how and WHY us Catholics must live fully the Faith... or America may be doomed. An easy and enjoyable read, I read this on a 3 hr plane trip. GET IT, READ IT and THEN PASS IT ALONG TO THOSE YOU LOVE (my mom has my copy and then my brother (who gave it to me for my birthday) gets it...)


5 out of 5 stars Required Reading For Every Catholic   November 11, 2008
 1 out of 1 found this review helpful

American Catholics are ignorant not only about the doctrines of the Catholic faith that they profess to believe; they, naturally, also don't have a clue about how to LIVE it in the "real" world! Thanks to Abp. Chaput, we now have a reliable guide to both. In "Render Unto Caesar," Chaput gives us a condensed history of 2000 years of Catholicism & how Catholics have lived(& died for) their faith under various forms of government during that time. But, his primary focus is Catholicism's effects on the history of the U.S., & where & how Catholics should be living their faith in today's society.
One quote from the book sums its content up very well. "To Caesar we owe respect & prayers for our leaders (1 Tim 2:2); respect for the law; obedience to proper authority; and service to the common good. It's a rather modest list. And note that "respect" is not subservience, or silence, or inaction, or excuse making, or acquiescence to grave evil in the public life we all share. In fact, ultimately, everything important about human life belongs not to Caesar but to God: our intellect; our talents; our free will; the people we love; the beauty & goodness in the world; our soul; our moral integrity; our hope for eternal life. THESE are the things that matter. These are the things worth struggling to ennoble & defend. And none of them came from Tiberius or anyone who succeeded him." ("Render . ." pp.218-219)
These words are an excellent example of Abp. Chaput's writing. An inspirational call to action for ALL Catholics. This book is long overdue. Thank you, Abp. Chaput, for being the shepherd Catholics have been wandering the fields looking for for far, far too long!




3 out of 5 stars Useful but limited   November 3, 2008
 3 out of 15 found this review helpful

Chaput has two main ideas and two clarifications of Church teaching.

The first main idea is that Catholics, and other believers, have both a moral and a civic duty to witness for their faith in the public square. The Constitution in the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, not the secularist goal of freedom from religion.

The founders frequently appealed to religious values in their deliberations and public statements. The Declaration bases its arguments for independence in God's order for his creation. Indeed, many of the colonies had an established religion; the First Amendment was not intended to overturn them.

The second main idea is that the religious freedom of the US and the separation of religious and political authority is beneficial for religion.

As early as the 1830s de Tocqueville noted the comparative vitality of belief and churches in the US as compared to Europe. In Europe, the establishment of Christianity as the state religion under Constantine had entangled religious and secular authority. The discontent with the Acien Regimes and consequent revolutions lead to an aggressive laicism and anti-clericalism including anti-popery.

The European bishops and traditionalists among the US bishops distrusted the US system and fought a rear-guard action. Dissent by Americanists was surpressed as late as the 1950s, but eventually Vatican II accepted freedom of religion in principle as well as in practice.

The proper principles can be traced to Augustine; there are separate secular and religious authorities, but Christian authority has the greater moral authority and should guide political authorities. Although Chaput doesn't give it the name, this is the doctorine of subsidiarity, in which authority is devolved to the lowest competent level but the Church, acting for God in the world, has primacy. He doesn't acknowledge the competing Protestant doctorine of separate spheres of authority, in which authorities in households, communities, states, and churches are directly responsible to God without subsumption under higher levels.

The first clarification of Church teaching restates the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' Faithful Citizenship guidance particularly with reference to abortion and euthenasia. A Catholic may support a politician who doesn't strictly follow Church preferences as long as the politician (or other public figure) doesn't give direct material support for these practices and they believe that other grave moral reasons justify a Catholic's support for the leader.

The second clarification of Church teaching concerns the denial of Communion to those who do not affirm Church teachings in all aspects. It is not intended as a punishment. The Church is an eklasia, a moral community. Communion is a central act establishing that community. For someone who doesn't affirm Church teaching to seek Communion damages the community. Denial of Communion is sometimes necessary for the protection of the eklasia and the clarity of Church teaching.

Chaput's presentation raises in my mind several questions which are not addressed:

How universal is the interpretation of natural law?

Chaput argues that although the natural law philosophy emerged in Medieval Christendom, it is based on the instrinsic nature of creation and hence is available by the exercise of reason to all and expresses universal values. Even if accessible to all and therefore universal, the Catholic Church by virtue of its strong natural law tradition is equipped to lead in dictating its application.

Here Chaput exposes an seeming lack of knowledge about how cultural premises shape conceptions; two cultures may denounce murder but hold different accounts of what acts constitute murder based on different premises about legtimate authority and norms of human relations. He holds that Church opposition to abortion is not a consequence of doctorine but based in universal natural law. He does not discuss why different faiths or cosmologies may have different stances on abortion. Arguing from universal principles, he ignores empirical evidence of their culturally-influenced interpretations.

The long tradition of the Church is not a sufficient guarantee of the validity of its interpretations. Tradition may entrench prejudices and errors. The best mechanism for cleansing tradition of error is vigorous and open argument. The Church's interest in protecting its magisterium or teaching authority and preventing confusion among its flock often leads it to attempts to surpress open debate; censorship or the execution of heretics do not favor the refinement of its traditions. Eventually Church resistance to reform lead to a split in Christendom.

Chaput recognizes, half-heartedly, mistakes in the Church's history, but these do not lead him to a cautious appraisal of contemporary teachings. He shares the progressivist bias of American culture. If we once made the mistake of supporting slavery, or some espoused facism, or we allowed great disparities between the rich and the poor, we have put them behind us: these spectres need not trouble our future. But - history is full of examples of cycles in human behavior and attitudes. Has the Church put old errors of entanglement behind, or is there a continuing tendency in human nature to seek temporal power?

We might also ask: How does Church intervention in the public square conform with its God-given mission of salvation and the example of Jesus?

Jesus demanded of us that we witness before the world by our acts, but he did not engage with politics or demand changes in the law. He might have come as a king as the Jews expected, but he came as a teacher and a healer. When the Church engages in politics it raises political opposition and diverts attention from the sacred to the secular realm, to the detriment of its mission to lead men to salvation by transforming their hearts.

An essential question not considered by the bishops is, what are the legitimate and necessary limitations of the powers of the state to act in moral matters?

The Declaration and the Constitution are guided by a vision of limited government. Chaput acknowledges that this idea of limited government allows for the freedom of religion. What are the necessary and proper limitations of the power of governments and the situations in which they apply? Recognizing that government has no authority in the ream of faith, Chaput gives little consideration to the limits of government authority in the secular realm. His discussion of the Bill of Rights is limited to the non-establishment provision concerning religion; the rest of it provisions limiting its secular powers are overlooked.

Chaput acknowledges that it is not the duty or authority of the state to make all immoral behavior illegal. Roe v Wade turns upon this very question of the limits of state power. Joining the chorus that calls Roe "bad law", Chaput doesn't tell us why it is bad law. He tells us that no other rights exist for one who is denied life. But the protections of the Constitution were never imagined as universal. They don't apply outside of the boundaries of US territory, for example. There is no provision in the Constitution extending its protections to a fetus inside the womb of a woman. Roe extends the reach of the Constitution into the womb but at the same time argues that this reach is limited by implicit constraints within the Constitution. Chaput would overturn those constraints without considering the implications for limited government power in other situations.

The Fifth Ammendment holds that a person may not be compelled to testify against themself. Technology changes the basis of evidence; "testify" has been interpretted narrowly. A person may be required to supply fingerprints which can be compared with those at a crime scene, potentially providing evidence against oneself. This has been extended to DNA. Lie detectors extend the range of evidence into the mind. Although current law forbids that people can be required to provide law detector evidence, this is based more on the unreliability of such evidence than the protection against self-incrimination. New brain-scanning techniques presume to promise more reliable evidence of mental states. Without protections for privacy, we can anticipate
a day when states will seek to mandate brain scans, either as a tool in solving existing crimes or in detecting potential malefactors, as in the case of terrorism. The privacy of our minds, essential to maintaining freedom of conscience, would be at risk. Should the Church pay more attention to the possibility of unintended consequences of its political and legal campaign against abortion?

Does the Church give sufficient consideration, when advocating for its admirable pro-life stance, to the difference between acts where the state is the agent and acts where individuals are the agents?

Church doctorine and teaching does make important distinctions - for example, between formal and material cooperation, direct or indirect, with immoral acts. In some acts - war and the execution of the death penalty, the state is the agent. Here, political and legal action are necessary to constrain acts which implicate to a greater or lesser degree all citizens able to exercise the franchise to vote. Perversely, current priorities emphasize euthenasia and abortion, where individuals are the agents and the responsibility of other citizens is more remote. We do not hold neighbors responsible for acts committed their neighbors. Generally, we only hold individuals responsible for the acts of others when they meet two requirements: that they have authority over the other and a reasonable expectation that the person in authority had or should have had prior knowledge that the act was likely. How does the Church reconcile its political priorities with the issue of differing responsibilities?

Finally, a curious contradiction. American bishops have differing interpretations of Church doctorine which they promulgate by means of their teaching authority to members of their flocks. Chaput argues that the bishops have a collegial relationship with each other; no bishop has authority over another. However, a bishop's interpretation is authoritative for his flock. Indeed, in the 2008 election cycle, several bishops have rejected the nuanced guidance of the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops as expressed in Faithful Citizenship, insisting that Catholics in their dioceses maintain obediance to their stricter directives on for which candidates a Catholic can vote.

The result is that a Catholic who is not bound by ties of family and employment to a particular dioceses and bishop can, by moving, excersise a greater freedom of conscience than the Catholic who is more closely bound. The contradiction generates an irony. The meaning of "catholic" with a small "c" is universality and accepting of diversity. In practice, the "universal, catholic, and apostolic faith" accepts diversity among the hierarchy but not within its territorial divisions, and the universal faith becomes balkanized.

The Catholic Church in America raises important issues concerning morals, politics, law, and community. It has not been highly successful at answering these questions, as evidenced by the frequent dissent by Catholics on important issues such as war, the death penalty, birth control, and abortion. Assertions of authority will do little to resolve these issues. Jesus told us that 'those who seek to exault themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves wibb be exaulted.' More humility from the Church may lead to better results.



Copyright © 2007 Quit Smoking Now