Terrence Wright on Dorothy Day

CWR Dispatch: Author: Dorothy Day’s personalism and faithful orthodoxy too often overlooked
“If my work on Day has one point to make,” says Dr. Terrence Wright, “it is that she was a very faithful Catholic who loved the Church.”

CWR: As you note, Day’s “program” is not a political one but is spiritual in nature. But is this not also a form of “politics” in a more expansive sense of the word “politics”? And does not the narrower sense of politics (voting, legislation, policies) depend on this broader sense of politics? Could you elaborate more on this notion of politics and how it relates to Day’s anarchism?
Wright: A lot of people have misascribed different political ideologies to Day, claiming that she was a communist or socialist. After her conversion, Day was in fact an anarchist in the sense that she embraced the Church’s teaching of subsidiarity which emphasizes the importance of acting locally. Day’s personalism emphasized the responsibility that we all have for one another.
Far from being a communist, she was very suspect of “Holy Mother the State” relieving us of this personal responsibility for the other. Christ doesn’t call for the state to take care of the poor, He calls us all to this responsibility. So her politics is spiritual in that my membership in the local community and my membership in the mystical body of Christ calls me to take care of the other. And, since we are all body and soul, this care must be on both the material and the spiritual level: thus I am called to perform the spiritual and the corporal acts of mercy.

Her suspicion of the state is correct; but does she have a political program that all should follow? Is there anyone living today who can be called her true successor or follower? With how many of her disciples would she agree today? And if there is disagreement on their political advocacy and public positions, then how well did she supervise her organization? If she didn't do a good job, then whatever credibility she may have with respect to political discussions is undermined.

CWR: Day’s pacifism is probably the most controversial aspect of her teaching. Your book presents her views in the broader context of Catholic teaching on the just war. Does the later Dorothy Day eventually come to reject just war theory entirely? Does she become late in life a total pacifist? And if so, how does Day square this with the demand of charity to protect the weak from the strong?
Wright: For me, Day’s pacifism is without a doubt her most challenging position and my thinking on this has developed since the publication of my book.

First, I always mention that Day saw herself as a peace maker. For her, pacifism does not mean being passive but actively working to make peace and to follow the beatitude, “blessed are the peace makers.” There is some disagreement about whether Day eventually rejects just war theory completely but it is clear that her position on it developed over time. In 1936, for example, she states that she supports just war theory and identifies herself as what some call a “just war pacifist,” i.e. one who accepts the principles of just war theory but who holds that, because modern warfare makes the killing of non-combatants unavoidable and even makes killing them more likely than killing combatants, modern war can never be just. I argue that, as the horrors of the twentieth century mounted up, Day became even more convicted in her pacifism and came to oppose the use of physical force in all instances.
Briefly, the theological justifications for her pacifism are twofold: 1) that since all persons are members or potential members of the mystical body of Christ, violence against any person is violence against Christ; and 2) that the evangelical counsel of obedience requires that one love one’s enemies even when what they do is wrong.
But the question remains, what about the demand to protect the weak from the strong? One might summarize the basic principle of just war theory as the claim that the obligation to protect the weak entails a right to oppose the aggressor who is harming the weak. While rejecting the use of physical force, Day supports opposing the aggressor by using what some call “the weapons of the spirit,” i.e. prayers, penance, the mass, personal purification, as well as civil action, i.e. boycotts, public protest, civil disobedience. Thus, on Day’s view these non-violent means are the only means available to a Christian to ever wage just war against an aggressor.

I think this sort of absolute pacifism goes too far, though the number of just wars with which the American Empire has been involved in the 20th century can probably be counted on one hand, if that hand is even necessary. But resistance to the state itself? Can there be a peaceful solution? If Peter Maurin had still been alive, would her position on the Christian response to aggression have been different? Or would he have agreed with her?