THE SOCIETY OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENTISTS

THE 15TH ANNUAL MEETING

 

Friday and Saturday, October 26-27, 2007

The St. John’s University School of Law

8000 Utopia Parkway

Jamaica, Queens, New York 11439

 

 

Mark Lowery

Professor of Theology

University of Dallas

Irving, TX 75062

972-721-5357

Lowery@udallas.edu

  

Mark Lowery, Ph. D., is Professor of Theology at the University of Dallas, departmental chair, and the editor-in-chief of the Catholic Social Science Review. He has published articles both in theological journals such as Communio, The Jurist, Faith and Reason, the Catholic Social Science Review, and the Irish Theological Quarterly, and in such popular periodicals as the This Rock, New Oxford Review, The Catholic Faith, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, and the Social Justice Review. His introductory book on moral theology, Living the Good Life, is published by St. Anthony Messenger Press.

 

 

Abstract

 

“The Jihadist/Western Crisis: A Battle of Two Fundamentalisms”

 

This paper employs a variety of principles of Catholic social thought to analyze the “Islamicist” crisis, and to show that the ultimate solution to the crisis lies in the proper application of those principles.  Of paramount importance are the various meanings of “autonomy.”  Dinesh D’Souza’s thesis is that radical moral autonomy of the secular West (a “fundamentalism” of the far left) is the chief culprit.  Authors like Mary Habeck emphasize that the chief culprit is the refusal of the Jihadists to entertain any sense of the proper “autonomy of the temporal order” (a fundamentalism of the Islamicist far right).  Both theses are taken seriously and critically, and melded together with the help of Catholic social principles.

 

The so-called Islamic “moderates” are often blamed for not speaking out more forcefully; this paper assesses such a claim and notes that both Islamic moderates and Western moderates to become far more bold in addressing the crisis.  In addition to challenging the use of the label “moderate” (for both groups), the paper urges a proper conception of authentic freedom (versus the radical autonomy of leftist fundamentalism) and a proper “autonomy of the temporal order” (versus the theocracy of Jihadist fundamentalism) as the central ideas needed to forge a solution.