The Ideology of Compromise
Recently on his NCR blog, Richard McBrien posted a response to the “Fordham Conversation Project,” a meeting of young Catholic theologians that was hosted at Fordham in August and was reported on this blog by Robert Imbelli. McBrien quotes the group’s self-description as follows:
“We are young Catholic theologians at colleges, universities or seminaries, who desire to shape our careers in ways that reduce polarization in the American Catholic church. Each of us came of age at some distance from the ideological debates of Vatican II and the immediate postconciliar era, and we believe that our Catholic generation has new opportunities to heal divisions in the body of Christ. We proceed with profound humility toward the previous generation’s tilling of common ground, even as we hope to plant new seeds of faith and charity in our church. As Christians committed to the unity of the Holy Spirit, we approach our task with intellectual solidarity toward one another.”
He then goes on to question whether describing the debates of Vatican II as “ideological” is either accurate or helpful:
What does the Fordham group mean by the “ideological” character of the debates at Vatican II? Did those debates represent differences in theological and pastoral emphases, or were they reflective of radically different understandings of the nature, mission, and structural operations of the Church?
McBrien goes on to argue that the real theological work of Vatican II was covered over and compromised by changes in ecclesiastical leadership, which sought to undermine and even reverse some of the progressive strides made by the council. I’m in no position to argue for or against McBrien’s account of the postconciliar era, though it does seem to be a position agreed upon by many Catholic commentators whether conservative or progressive. More interesting, I think, is the Liberal pathos shared by conservatives and progressives to try to characterize proper debate over foundational principles as “ideological” in the name of seeking the Golden Calf of compromise.
Progressives tend to like compromise because it gives the impression that we’re having a properly civilized, rational discussion, and conservatives like it (at least the smart ones do) because they know that it almost always leads to a tacit support for, or at least a leaving in place of, the status quo. It seems to me that McBrien is completely right to press the issue with the Fordham group over whether they think the postconciliar debates were really simply ”ideological,” which is to say that they were driven by interests other than theological, or whether they may indeed have been about important theological issues, such as the relative roles of laity and clergy in Church governance, the importance of ecumenical dialogue, the performance of the liturgy and sacraments, the relation between the Church and the modern world, etc. To say that such issues are simply ideological and to consign them to that most despicable battlefield known as the ”culture wars” seems to simply avoid the fact that there was and still is actually real theological work to be done and rational debate to be had. The very phrase “culture war” implies that the positions that have been and are being staked out are neither informed by rational thought (they’re just cultural worldviews pulled from the air) nor conducive to conversational engagement (which is why they can only be aggressive assertions).
This ideology of compromise, which pretends to have overcome the debates of the past by demoting them to a status that is less then rational, also informs political “common ground” initiatives. Talking about “open hearts, open minds and fair minded words,” is a good piece of platitudinous, political rhetoric that is useful when speaking to a crowd who you hope will have a heart and mind open enough to vote for you again, but it’s hardly a rallying cry for a serious debate over the truly incommensurable positions that divide some pro-lifers, who think that a fetus should be granted full, equal (and in some cases supervenient), legal recognition as a person, and those who don’t. It seems silly to pretend like there is not a proper, rationally supportable choice between these two positions, which is why I sympathize with those pro-choice individuals who would say, “Why are we even talking? We’re right and we’re winning.”
Similarly, the question of whether or not the Constitution provides for the clear separation of church and state seems to be a debatable interpretive proposition. Like the documents of Vatican II, the Constitution doesn’t interpret itself. So, when someone offers an interpretation, the proper response is not to laugh at the obvious ideology and ignorance behind their proposal, but to argue for a counter-interpretation. If the original proposition was indeed ideological, it might fold when faced with actual arguments, and if it is not, then maybe we’ll have an actual debate. But, of course, we’ll never get there as long as we’re more concerned with fine tuning the rules of the game than we are with actually playing it.
Amen.
I think the heart of the debate, which hasn’t happened enough to resolve it, gets to the questions of authority (and thus trust) and change.
In his book What Happened at Vatican II, John O’Malley hits the nail on the head by asking:
1. When change in the church is appropriate and how that change is justified (e.g., ressourcement, aggiornamento, development)
2. Who gets to authorize that change (i.e., Pope vs. Curia vs. Bishops vs. the rest of us)
3. What is the style or model according to which such authorization is exercised
It’s a very tricky thing. If your beliefs are validated by authority (i.e., you’re conservative), you don’t see the need to validate them by arguing them from reason. You don’t want to reform authority, you want to reinforce it. Conservatives want to restore that which they sense has been lost in our understanding of mystery and tradition by restoring centralized authority. They see any attempt to dilute authority as an attempt to dilute the faith.
If your beliefs are not validated by authority (i.e., you’re progressive), then you have no alternative but to think them through yourself. Progressives rightly want to reform the structures of authority and governance but often see any attempt to recover the treasures of the past as a return to the authoritarian days of old (as though we’ve successfully escaped them, which we clearly and painfully haven’t).
I also found the use of “ideological” to describe the debates at Vatican II and in the immediate post-conciliar period rather odd. Of course, “ideology” and “ideological” carry many different meanings for different people. Some people use the term to describe any position, e.g., as when defenders of liberation theology replied to critics of it by saying: “Let him who is without an ideology cast the first stone.” I myself think it should be reserved for positions driven by interests other than those stated and usually favoring the one or ones holding the positions. As “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue,” ideology is the tribute that unreason pays to reason.”
Would that be Fordham? Or the other one, like Noter Dame?
I’d like to understand what eric thought of the original Common Ground initiative and the work of Bernadin and Phil Murnion?
And what has been the historical factors in the winding down (it seems) of the NPLC?
What is to be said of dialogue and its value inside the Church and across denominational lines?
How important is civility rather than toxicity (I’m right you’re wrong”) in discourse on basic disagreements roiling both Church and society?
I’ll go back to the Fordham magenta thread and say again that it was a noble effort that probably won’t succeed in the current arc., and “open minds. etc.” is another attempt of generous spirit to move discusion beyond hardened toxicity.
” If your beliefs are validated by authority (i.e., you’re conservative)…If your beliefs are not validated by authority (i.e., you’re progressive)”
The beliefs of the Church are not validated by the authority of man (whether the humans who sit as bishops in Council or CommonWeal commentators), but by God, who (as Vatican II clearly teaches in Verbum Dei) inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture and (as Vatican II clearly teaches in Lumen gentium) who sent the Holy Spirit to “guide [the Church] in way of all truth”.
And for those who don’t think Vatican II was hijacked after the Council by a “pastoral spirit” which has no basis in the actual promulgations of the Sacred Council, explain this, from Vatican II’s “Sacrosanctum concilium, 36.1: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
Shrug. McBrien can continue his heterodox, sometimes heretical attacks on his own Church, but the big picture is that with the newly named Cardinals, Pope Benedict XVI has now named more than half of the Cardinals in the Church. The reform of the reform will continue until the needed balance has been achieved and only then will the fruits of the Council be fully experienced.
John Allen today on the newly named cardinals:
“Benedict is not that much interested in governance.”
Like Fr. K, when reading a summary of the Fordham young theologians’ comments, I also was curious about the labels used. On the other hand, I do get the desire to move past polarizations and start fresh in a sense.
Yet, theologians don’t seem to start with a “clean tablet” – they usually build on the works and ideas of those who have gone before. So, a concern about where VII’s direction, aims, mission fit into their young theology vocations?
Anne says it well above.
But was not there and wonder if the term “ideological” referenced more a general feeling or cultural impression of where the church finds itself all too often today on any number of topics. And, as theologians, they are interested in moving past discussions (not issues) which have become set in stone and are not helpful in terms of the future? Just a thought.
“If your beliefs are validated by authority (i.e., you’re conservative)”
Hi, Jeanne, I also thought this a curious comment. If you mean that conservative beliefs are argued from authority, and others’ beliefs aren’t, I wouldn’t agree with it. Surely the history of the 20th Century is that some of the very worst regimes were not conservative and yet relied on authority.
I’d also think that in parish life and school life, there is a lot of enforcement of liberal ideology via authority.
Jim, what I think I was trying to get at was the extent to which historical context mitigates one’s acceptance of the pronouncements of those in authority. I think progressives take historical context more into account than conservatives.
“Jim, what I think I was trying to get at was the extent to which historical context mitigates one’s acceptance of the pronouncements of those in authority. I think progressives take historical context more into account than conservatives.”
It may be that conservatives and progressives interpret history differently. With regard to how Vatican II should be understood, I believe the Holy Father is a proponent of the “hermeneutic of continuity”. That’s not an ahistorical approach, although it is one that some progressives don’t care for.
“Each of us came of age at some distance from the ideological debates OF Vatican II and the immediate POSTCONCILIAR era . . .”
“What does the Fordham group mean by the “ideological” character of the debates AT Vatican II?”
Professor McBrien fails at his sleight-of-hand here. They did not speak of debates AT Vatican II, they spoke of POSTCONCILIAR debates ABOUT Vatican II. Indeed, he then goes on to prove their point by his own personal engagement in an ideological debate about Vatican II.
But the group is very clear, it does NOT want to engage in such dinosaur wars. Enough already.
I think the whole “hermeneutic” debate is a little bogus. Continuity and rupture to me seem more like code words for the concern over the trauma that hit the Church in the aftermath of Vatican II (and Humanae Vitae) when ordinary people figured out what they thought was an immutable Church actually could change. Continuity of what? Rupture of what? We still all profess to the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Resurrection. However, we don’t condemn democracy anymore, or free speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, or historical scholarship, or ecumenism.
I’m all for reducing polarization but I don’t think yo do it by not engaging with the issues, even if they are long-standing. They’re still unresolved.
In his analysis of ‘reform’ and ‘renewal’ language in the documents of the church’s 21 general and ecumenical councils, church historian Christopher Bellitto discovered that nearly 75 percent of all ‘renewal’ language was found in the documents of Vatican II alone!
Regarding the use of Latin in the sacred liturgy (as well as other post-conciliar changes), I suggest that conservatives read Christopher Ferrara’s “Sacrosanctum Concilium: A Lawyer Examines the Loopholes” at http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm . Mr. Ferrara, no lover at all of the Novus Ordo liturgy, contends that SC’s language clearly allows for all the liturgical changes that came into being after Vatican II.
“The beliefs of the Church are not validated by the authority of man…, but by God, who…inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture…and…who sent the Holy Spirit to ‘guide [the Church] in way of all truth.’”
So, who speaks for the Holy Spirit? Who does the communicative mediating between the Spirit and the rest of us? Only the hierarchs? All of us, ordained and unordained alike? Only the bishops (including the pope)?
When progressives remind conservatives of the council’s acknowledgement of the “sense of faith” enjoyed by the whole church, it too often seems that the latter group regards this teaching as a de facto assault on the teaching authority of the bishops, i.e., what most of us, progressive and conservative alike, come to associate with the word ‘Magisterium’.
” If your beliefs are validated by authority (i.e., you’re conservative), you don’t see the need to validate them by arguing them from reason. You don’t want to reform authority, you want to reinforce it. Conservatives want to restore that which they sense has been lost in our understanding of mystery and tradition by restoring centralized authority. They see any attempt to dilute authority as an attempt to dilute the faith. ”
Acute observation, Jeanne. The too-ready acceptance of current authorities by conservatives these days and their claiming to be the truly orthodox Catholics has muddied the the theological conversations. The question should be: what is it to be orthodox? Not: who are the orthodox amongst us? Until the first is answered clearly and in some depth, the second is unanswerable.
“. . . the Holy Spirit to “guide [the Church] in way of all truth”.”
P. Flanagan- -
Note that Scripture says only “guide” the Church. It does not say “validate”, “give its seal of approval”, “answer all questions”, “provide answers that are never in error”, or otherwise provide perfect instruction from its popes and bishops.
GUIDE is the operative word, P., GUIDE!!!
Fr. McBrien is right to press the question. Ideology has indeed clouded the issues in some respects, but in no era more than the present, when documents are being re-read with a determination to advocate a minimalist approach to change, and with a willful desire to see in them an endorsement of the preconciliar status quo.
I do not know whether this statement is a sort of journalistic on the one hand / on the other hand oversimplification, but I think that Fr. McBrien picks up on a false consciousness that is being promoted among those born after the Council. This false consciousness suggests there was an even distribution between those who wanted things to stay as they were, and those who wanted change. Vatican II, in this view, is a pendulum swing, now to be corrected. There was however a marjority and a minority, as John O’Malley’s book so persuasively pointed out.
Eric,
Did the Fordham Conversation Project use the term “culture war” in its statement? I don’t see it in the passage you quoted. As far as I can tell, you use the term, criticize its use, and suggest that fault attaches to those who haven’t used it.
Of the Princeton conference you write that “it seems silly to pretend like there is not a proper, rationally supportable choice between these two positions, which is why I sympathize with those pro-choice individuals who would say, ‘Why are we even talking? We’re right and we’re winning.’” Who was pretending this? There were more than two positions represented at the conference. But let’s assume for a moment there weren’t. What would that have to do with the purely tactical judgment with which you sympathize? If that is a fair description of the judgment of any of the prochoicers at the conference, I very much doubt that anyone arrived at it because he was dissatisfied with the binary options presented at the conference.
Finally, what is the game you mention in your last sentence, and just who is more concerned with fine tuning the rules of the game than with playing it? The people who attended the Princeton conference, the young theologians behind the Fordham Conversation Project? So far as I know, neither group has been preoccupied with procedural questions, though one very good session at the Princeton conference did address the question of whether abortion law should have been decided by the Supreme Court.
For what it’s worth, I sympathize with your impatience with the “ideology of compromise,” unless this phrase just means democratic process. And I agree with you that one should avoid using the term “ideology” simply to dismiss or discredit ideologies that contradict one’s own. I just think you don’t have your examples lined up very well.
The question is, do you believe in The Faith that can save you, The Spirit of Love that encompasses all that is seen and unseen through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, The Word Of Love Made Flesh Who, lifted up on The Cross draws us to Himself and thus to His Father’s House through God’s Grace and Mercy, or not?
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby lept in her womb.”-Luke
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comments. You’re right that the Fordham group did not use the phrase “culture war.” That comes up in McBrien’s piece as his paraphrase of what seems to be implied in calling the Vatican II debates “ideological.” Maybe that’s slight of hand, but I don’t think it’s totally unwarranted. The phrase “culture war” is deployed liberally in the calls for compromise with which I am expressing impatience as a way, it seems to me, of rhetorically marginalizing competing views. So, technically, you are right, the Fordham group is not guilty of using “culture war” to characterize the “ideological debates” that they are claiming to transcend, but it seems like it wouldn’t be a far stretch to suggest that the fray they are theologizing above might be also known as the ubiquitous “culture wars.”
As for the Princeton meeting, my issue again is with the rhetoric and not the content. Of course, I wasn’t there, but the title alone seems to betray the ideology that I am trying to describe. The pro-choice attitude that I expressed sympathy for was taken straight from your post, which quoted Vischer: “If common ground between prochoice and prolife advocates is to be implemented legally, the move will likely be toward the prolife side of the ledger. Given that the status quo largely reflects the prochoice perspective, more than one prochoice participant expressed exasperation along the lines of ‘Why are we even here? What do we stand to gain?’” This quote seems to favor even more my suggestion that compromise is a chimera by suggesting that “common ground” is going to move things closer to the pro-life pole. If we really are finding “common ground,” why are we leaning more pro-life? Also, note the dualism. I’m know there are plenty of nuanced and varied ways of being pro-life or pro-choice, but at the end of the day you either think abortion should be legal or you don’t. And if you begin to criminalize it in some cases, then you are favoring, even if only in stages, the pro-life position.
Lastly, by the rules/game stuff, other then a snappy way of trying to wrap-up, I was trying to point out that pleas for compromise, even those that just refer to democratic process, usually have only to do with the form and not the content of discourse. Are we being concilliatory and letting the civil majority decide the issue or are we standing by our positions? The ideology of compromise would say that the former is rational and the latter irrational. Was it irrational for the courts to force the issue of integration? Is it irrational for the California court to overturn the “democratically” decided Prop. 8? Sometimes justice simply requires intervention and not endless conversation.
O’Brien clearly takes the Fordham group to task for misinterpreting the reaction of ND students to the very small protesters at the Obama speech and for misreading the fact that the reforms of Vatican II were overwhelmingly voted upon by a majority of bishops at the Council. Sadly, JP II took it upon himself to dismantle the reforms put in place by Paul VI at the direction of the Council. The ideological or cultural wars began with JPII and his appointed bishops who are responsible for the polarization. For example, the vernacular is enjoyed now by the whole church as well as a revised cathechesis as well as improvement in our outlook toward our Protestant and Jewish brothers. These have really enhanced the worship, practice and understanding of the faith. In fact parishes were much more lukewarm prior to Vatican II. Vatican II brought a much needed vibrancy to the parishes. By concentrating on the negatives, which were much much worse before VII, JPII and his bishops polarized the church and brought on the culture wars. This the group at Fordham seem to be incomprehensibly unaware of it. This is why O’Brien rightly calls them naive. For lack of a better word, I presume.
These young theologians show a shocking ignorance of history and of the weight of history. Setting oneself as above the fray and as God’s gift to a split church is the sort of naivety that one finds in green seminarians. It is empty narcissistic idealism. It even smacks of careerist opportunism, as if to say, “Look at us, we’re the bright new boys and girls, we won’t bother you with tired old dinosaur wars like Vatican II and Humanae Vitae!” In a way these young theologians are already cynical survivors in an ideological battle; if they had not played their cards right they would not be functioning Catholic theologians; their independent-minded contemporaries have already been shoved off the theological stage. That is the kind of Church they are living in and they choose to paint it blithely in angelic colors.
I liken the slow moving reforms that came out of Vatican II with the interpretations of our country’s Constitution. The movement is always going to be slow, as it should be, because you are working with documents that have very little “wiggle room” by their very nature. Nuanced interpretations come slowly, and within the church, hopefully they come with much prayer and forethought. Dogmatic pronouncements should not be looked for from either body, but rather reasoned interpretations. One thing the church has going for it is what Nancy Danielson referred to as what I interpret as the Love of Christ. One of the biggest ideas to come out of Vatican II, in my humble lay interpretation, was the idea of following an informed conscience. If we are all doing that, then honest debate about thornier issues should be taken and encouraged in the spirit of Christ’s love.
The group are well-meaning, to be sure: “Despite many of us clearly having differing views on hot button issues like authority, sexuality, women in the Church, liturgy, and more…the natural friendship produced by the weekend (which, because many of us didn’t know each other, started with the presumption of good will required by intellectual solidarity) created a safe space to express some of these ideas.”
The fact that they need a “safe space” shows that they are under pressure from the ultra-”orthodox” forces in the Church. Huddling together against the storm does not make the storm disappear.
“If those who disagree actually make conscious choices to engage in practices to create the space to be friends then the disagreement is far less likely to fracture the relationship.”
I’ve always found this to be the case, but it takes two to tango, and many of the neocaths cultivate ideological warfare rather than this spirit of friendship.
“‘our generation’ (1) hasn’t been formed by the culture wars of the 60s and by Vatican II and its aftermath and (2) generally haven’t yet fought the battles that define one’s self in opposition to another person or idea. This allows friendships to flourish across divides”
This is childish and silly. People younger than these theologians are deeply shaped by the culture wars not of the 60s but of the 00s, which are a continuation of those of the 60s (Iraq as a replay of Vietnam), and they will meet those culture wars among their students. Also if they have not yet fought any battle to define their theological identity, they are indulging in wishful thinking.
The stand-off between conservatives and liberals has changed radically in its nature since the Internet came along. It can no longer be controlled by a theological or episcopal establishment. Now everyone has their say and speaks up boldly. The battle of ideas is wide open. When the young theologians present themselves as above the fray, what they may mean is that they are tuned in to the wider fray of today where clear battle lines no longer hold. Many topics that were taboo or consigned to silence or defined as inalterable are now in flux, and have become quaestiones disputatae about which everyone has their say — these include, of course, every aspect of bioethics, sexual ethics, etc. Of course this works in the opposite direction also, emboldening those who put Vatican II or the values of the Church’s social teaching in question. “Authority” in this Darwinian siuation can be won only by those with open minds and a capacity for dialogue and consultation. Inquisitorial smackdowns or crackdowns are completely ineffectual. Perhaps this new flourishing of open discussion will bring about a great change in Catholic culture comparable and perhaps in continuity with what happened in the 1960s. Or is it I who am now indulging in wishful thinking?