Scott J. Lawson

May 26, 2024

Since Harrison Butker gave his “controversial” speech at Benedictine College on May 11, 2024, the focus in the blogosphere has been primarily on his remarks about women. Conservative outlets are generally defending his remarks, as evidenced in this Federalist article. As usual, the Leftist-dominated media has misconstrued his remarks and created an outrage that is largely divorced from what he actually said. You can read one such reaction at the Huffington Post here. But aside from this disservice, focusing on his remarks on women alone has been mostly a distraction in itself. When one looks at the speech overall, it is clear that his remarks about women were only a small fraction of the overall material and only adjacent to the primary point.

His speech was really a call to arms so to speak; a plea for Catholics specifically, but Christians and dutiful citizens generally, to stop being timid and quiet regarding their faith and moral conscience. Butker insisted it was time for citizens to hold political leaders accountable, for the faithful to demand a more ordered Church, and for Church leadership to better fulfill their duties within their roles. Butker also promoted the notion of a general return to a norm in personal lives that puts God over the world, or in secular terms, a return to valuing duty to universal moral law over subjective selfish gain.

This primary point, if explored further and adopted by more people, might threaten the dominance the current secular political establishment has enjoyed over the culture that has been instrumental to maintaining their grip on the levers of power. Many people have been advocating this sentiment over the years, but whenever anyone with even the slightest bit of celebrity does it there seems to be a vitriolic reaction. This of course might offer insight as to why the focus has been on the perceived insult to women rather than the crux of Butker’s argument. Division is a weapon for those in power seeking to maintain it at any cost.

There is likely more agreement between “opposing sides” on these issues than the divisive interests would like to admit. We cannot really begin to talk about specific social issues like the relationship between men and women and values/roles/expectations between them and within society until we have established some first principles for judgment. We ought to try to understand where people are coming from before we try to pigeonhole them or reject their arguments. If we do this, we can better maintain what deserves to be maintained and better fix what needs to be fixed over time.

This appears to be what Butker was trying to do. But there is a problem, which is essentially the same problem that all groups and even individuals face with such judgments. The problem is figuring out what criteria to use for moral and ethical judgment and when one ought to yield to authority/will of a group or exercise tolerance of differences versus when one ought to check authority/the will of a group via disobedience and/or critique. If there is an actual controversy to be found in Butker’s remarks it is not regarding his stance on women, careers, and families, but rather related to his remarks on this problem. Butker touched on the seemingly contradictory notion that flocks of layman (including himself) are meant to submit to Church authority but also that they are capable of determining which actions by which authorities are valid and which are not. Other than the a general idea of leading a “Christ-like” life and acting in accord with such ideals, Butker did not expand on how we are meant to distinguish good acts from the bad (in the Church, in society, and in our lives). If this is not an outright challenge to the objective authority of the Church, it is at least an expression of a reduction of it to a subjectively-derived level.  There is of course inherent danger in this, just as there is inherent danger in blind obedience. While Butker is a far cry from Martin Luther, some of his words seem more fitting for a fed-up Protestant than a Catholic. The Reformation didn’t solve all the disputes and necessarily provide clarity, so we can forgive Butker for not elaborating completely. So again, we are faced with our same problem as before. How do we strike a balance and find practical solutions in accord with objective truth and moral goodness?

Butker touched on how being Catholic alone is not enough. He mentioned Biden, a Catholic, recently attending a pro-abortion rally and making the sign of the cross as if to say being pro-abortion is compatible with the Christian faith. He also mentioned Catholics were instrumental in instituting the COVID lockdowns and also “pushing dangerous gender ideologies onto the youth of America.” He criticized the recent tendency of Catholics and people of faith to stay quiet in the public square and suggested it has even been encouraged. The “Church of Nice” is not good enough, according to Butker, and Catholics need to seek out more vocal and courageous parishes, priests, and bishops that do not mistake “charity for cowardice.” He mentioned that if sought, Catholics can “find traditional and timeless teachings that haven’t been ambiguously reworded for our times.” On its face, this sentiment could be labeled as cherry-picking and/or an appeal to tradition. After all, here we have a self-described layman seemingly adopting the contemporary political positions of “the Right” and then challenging Christians/Catholics that do not agree with him (including bishops and priests) as if to say they are not “real Christians/Catholics.” This is the very tactic “the Left” often employs against Conservatives in America in other matters, and Conservatives correctly identify it as fallacious. The reason it is fallacious is because the individual treats their pre-conceived conclusion as true and inserts it into the premise of the argument. This is reasoning backwards from a selfish position, which is the opposite of what is required when one adopts a “God > The World” maxim to guide their lives.

When one adopts a “God > The World” mentality, they are committing, as a duty, to act in accord with universal moral principles, to cultivate virtue in themselves and promote it in others, and to not act in a manner that puts selfishness and sin over the good and the inherent rights of others. We can logically derive fundamental inalienable rights from these objective and universal moral principles (maxims) that necessarily apply to all rational beings in a mutual moral community. This is a proper foundation because it is not based on selfish desires or circumstances of the individual. Ethical action can then be judged based on adherence to these principles along with an analysis of the nature of the worldly circumstances, relationships involved, natural necessities, etc. There is of course always going to be some ambiguity and overlap/conflict between various goods/needs in practical application. The important point however is that the intent of the act is not unjustly coercive and is not contrary to our nature as rational beings, and the willful act is not directly harmful to ourselves or the world around us. Equal members of a rational moral community deserve nothing less than a mutual commitment from each other on these points. Denying this presents an inherent contradiction in the moral concept and when exceptions are taken for the self, it necessarily comes at the expense of all, thus the problem with the “World > God” alternative proposition; it depends on the norm being fixed to the contrary in order for it to even work as intended for the benefit of the self by taking exception to it.

The problem of determining when to submit to authority versus when to challenge it becomes a lot easier to navigate if one has a solid understanding of these objectively-derived truths. Butker is right to criticize current Church practices and positions that are contrary to these truths, all of which are essentially compatible with Christ’s teachings. The goal of this criticism ought to be to bring the practices of the Church back in line with these truths, not because of the words of previous human authorities alone, but because of their objectivity and their logical necessity. A full argument on each point would be necessary to do this, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is only necessary to identify the proper order and procedure to initiate it. Some of Butker’s criticisms of the Church, such as certain relationships between priests and their flocks, ecclesiastical differences, and The Traditional Latin Mass, may not necessarily fit this bill, but there is little harm in merely expressing them. This is in itself indicative of Butker’s other point – there is little value in hiding one’s faith and staying silent in such regards. Open dialogue is usually a fruitful endeavor. This especially rings true regarding application in political affairs. America is built on a moral foundation with an expectation of freedom of action and tolerance of that which is not contrary to the rights of others or necessary government action to secure rights/keep order.

Tolerance in this regard is a two-way street, and Butker’s critics ought to remember this when they attack his comments on women, for example, with deliberate misrepresentations. Butker did not express any bigotry against women or call for any coercion against them, on the contrary, he recognized their inherent worth and reflected upon natural duties that most women also recognize as of the utmost importance. He reminded his audience that women have a choice, and when they make that choice they ought to have considered all the factors, not merely given in to the lure of contemporary expectations of career and power alone. Variation in situations, interests, talents, and dispostions all play a factor in determining priorities for individuals. But our similarities as rational/social beings and our cultural history has created wisdom that holds true over the years and provides us with a solid base for setting fruitful societal norms and family dynamics. This is reflected in, and intermingled with, philosophical, ethical, and religious teachings. So while the people that have came before us have certainly made enough mistakes to warrant questions about the moral worth of certain practices and beliefs, not everything “old-fashioned” is backwards. Sometimes it is us living in the now that has made the foolish mistakes and we ought to check ourselves from time to time to ensure we are not “progressing” in the wrong direction.

In his speech, Butker said, “Our Catholic faith has always been countercultural. Our Lord, along with countless followers, were all put to death for their adherence to her teachings. The world around us says that we should keep our beliefs to ourselves whenever they go against the tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We fear speaking truth, because now, unfortunately, truth is in the minority.” Referring to the students he was addressing, he later added, “Make no mistake: You are entering into mission territory in a post-God world, but you were made for this. And with God by your side and a constant striving for virtue within your vocation, you too can be a saint.” This captures the true essence of his remarks. We must understand what is right first, and we do this by using our “God-given” faculties of reason to recognize objective universal moral maxims and ethical principles. Our structures, whether religious, social, or political, must be compatible with, compliment, and promote this truth. Question any supposed authority that does not do this, willfully submit to and/or support those that do.