{•nflourishing. More specifically, as anCatholic, Weigel is too eager to fit in withnAmerica, and to make Catholic theologynseem as unthreatening as possible tonthe “American way.” Catholics are callednto do all things soli Deo gloria. If by happyncoincidence that is also to do good fornthe country, then so much the better.nBut there is no Catholic mandate to supportnthe regime, and our attitude towardnliberal democracy should be suspiciouslynneutral, at best.nGeorge Weigel is a careful thinkernand a man of Christian integrity, but Infear he ignores this sage advice of his ownntheological mentor, John Murray: “Thenquestion is sometimes raised, whethernCatholicism is compatible with Americanndemocracy. The question is invalidnas well as impertinent; for the manner ofnits position inverts the order of values. Itnmust, of course, be tumed round to read,nwhether American democracy is compatiblenwith Catholicism. . . . ThenCatholic may not . . . merge his religiousnand his patriotic faith, or submergenone in the other.” Weigel skillfully correctsnthose on the left who are guilty ofnthis error, which is no less a mistake whennit occurs on the right.nKenneth R. Craycraft is a BradleynFellow in the theology department ofnBoston College.nCutting thenGolden Keynby Joseph Pappin IIInEdmund Burke: Enlightenmentnand Revolutionnby Peter J. StanlisnNew Brunswick, New Jersey:nTransaction Publishers;n259 pp., $34.95nThose who know anything of contemporarynscholarship or the politicalnphilosophy of Edmund Burke knownthat Peter J. Stanlis clearly holds the titlenof “Dean of Burke Studies.” While RussellnKirk ushered in the return to Burkenin America, it is Stanlis who has, morenthan any other scholar, sustained thenrevival of Burke scholarship. It is Stanlisnwho dropped the bombshell in the lapsnof jaded and torpid utilitarian expositorsnof Burke’s thought with his monumenlence.” Perhaps, as Stanlis modestlyntal work, Edmund Burke and the Natural remarks, there is no “golden key” tonLaw, first published by the University of Burkean writ. But beyond doubt Stan­nMichigan Press and recently reprinted. lis in this volume lays before the readernThis was followed by the inauguration of those essential elements that consistentlynthe Burke Newsletter, which became Stud­ permeate Burke’s politics and unify thenies in Burke and His Times, edited by Stan­ great profusion of Burke’s genius. Whatnlis; his subsequent publication of Edmund are these elements as disclosed by Stan­nBurke: A Bibliography of Secondary Studlis?ies to 1982 instantly became an invalu­ Stanlis states unequivocally that “faithnable resource. The present work, Edmund in the classical and Scholastic conceptionnBurke: The Enlightenment and Revolution, of Natural Law is Burke’s ultimate polit­nbrings into one volume a rich cross secical principle.” Elsewhere he refers tontion of some of Stanlis’s writings on Burke’s “principle of moral pmdence” asnEdmund Burke. The book is constmcted “the most important principle in his polit­nin three parts devoted to Burke’s political politics.” If “Natural Law” andnical philosophy, his critique of the “moral prudence” do not provide thenEnlightenment, and his view of revo­ “golden key” to understanding Burke,nlution in general and on the Revolution they certainly provide the basic elementsnof 1688 in particular.nof his political philosophy. Further, thesenReading someone so diverse in his sub­ two principles are intertwined. The “norjectnmatter and unsystematic in his style mative ethical principles of the Naturalnas Burke, one naturally seeks from his Law” do not have the status of mathe­ncommentators the essential meaning unimatical theorems entering into a politfyingnthe literally global nature of the ical calculus that details what is to benIrish-bom British politician’s works. Stan­ done in every particular event. Like Arislis’snreply to such seeking is that Burke totle and Aquinas, Burke realized thatn”never provided a golden key to his scrif)- moral principles necessarily have a unitures”;nbut, lest one despair, “he is neiversal import. But the circumstances tonther vague nor inconsistent.” On both which they are applied vary according tonof these points, we can hear echoing custom, habit, tradition, and locale.nacross continents the strident protests of Hence, the necessity of recourse to moralnnumerous scholars claiming that Burke prudence. Stanlis holds that for Burkenis a rhetorician, utilitarian, conservative “prudence is the general regulator ofnideologist, whose main purpxjse is to sus­ social changes according to Natural andntain the nearly perfect worid bequeathed Constitutional law. As such, it is the car­nto him by tradition and the British Condinal virtue that supplies the practicalnstitution. Some, such as Ian Hampshire- means by which Natural Law principlesnMonk, in audacious fashion go so far are fulfilled and harmonized with thenas to deny altogether that Burke was a concrete circumstances of social life.”npolitical philosopher. So implausible Pmdence does not resist “change,” whichnare these evaluations of Burke, especially Burke held to be the great law of nature.nin light of the work of Stanlis and thenequally rich and penetrating work of FrancisnCanavan, S.J., that one can only won­nLIBERAL ARTSnder how seriously Stanlis’s own work hasnbeen studied.nActually, Stanlis’s work, even in thennegative reaction it has spawned, hasnhad an enormous impact. For nearly allnof the most recent scholarship—includingnthat by F.P. Lock, Hampshire-Monk,nand Christopher Reid—has been forcednto acknowledge the explicit use of then”natural law” by Burke. In response,nthese scholars counter by declaring thatnBurke’s recourse to natural law is a rhetoricalnploy. It falls to Conor Cmise O’Briennto put the final spin on the matter, for henclaims that Burke is “a conscious andndeliberate propagandist,” one who “hadnlong been aware of the value of verbal vio­nnnYOU CAN LEADnA HORSE TO …nAccording to a German court in Celle,nLower Saxony, a husband who consentsnto the artificial insemination of his wifendoes not have to accept paternity. Thencase, reported by the German Tribune lastnJanuary, involved a couple who agreed tonartificial insemination and then divorcednbefore the birth of twins, whose “legitimacy”nwas contested by the ex-husband.nThe court deemed the twins illegitimate.nMAY 1992/35n