To make Him better known
Over at First Things, Richard John Neuhaus has some nice things to say about DotCommonweal in general and this author in particular (scroll down after the link). So I thank him for that. But I’m not sure we’re entirely in agreement on every point.
But I’m almost reluctant to keep the debate going. I stand by my sociological observations, which I think remain true regardless of whether one feels they are positive or negative developments. But there has been too much of this “point scoring” lately, where we criticize each other for the various ways we fall short of the call of the Gospel. Isuppose my post on the Cardinal Newman Society can be criticized for falling into that category.
But the debate is important. It goes to the heart of what we are all about. How do we come to know Christ better? And how do we make Him better known?
To say that the answer is “Fidelity! Fidelity! Fidelity!” is to beg the question: fidelity to what? To Christ Himself? Or to an understanding of Him that is bound to a particular time and place? Is it hard to separate the two? Of course it is. The earliest Christians took a hell of a risk when they dispensed Gentile converts from circumcision. Pope John XXIII took a few risks too. Why? Because they thought it would be worth the risk of removing some unnecessary stumbling blocks if Christ could become better known.
At its best, the liberal Catholic project was about how to make Christ better known in a culture shaped by the Enlightenment. We’re still living in that culture, even if we are more conscious of the dark side of human reason, and more aware that perhaps not every “reform” has served its underlying purpose.
In the end, I’m drawn to the observation that Peter Steinfels made at the end of his well-known debate with Francis Cardinal George:
Not long ago I came across some notes from an interview I had with Gustavo Gutiérrez, usually viewed as the founding father of liberation theology. “I don’t believe in liberation theology,” Father Gutiérrez said. “I believe in Jesus Christ.” Let me take my cue from him. I don’t believe in liberal Catholicism. I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
But I would argue that insofar as we can humanly tell, liberal Catholicism is essential to the flourishing of that church in the United States and, I believe, in the rest of the world. I don’t deny the need for currents in the church that emphasize preservation and the risks of change or currents of either right or left that call for prophetic confrontation and sectarian witness. But if the church is to remain a healthy organism it needs the self-criticism, open inquiry, and spirit of dialogue that liberal Catholicism has provided.
Nice job Peter…
And a nice point by Neihaus when he says:
“the liberal project that has been preoccupied for decades with defining “American Catholic”–with “American” regularly trumping “Catholic”–has almost no power of adherence at all. It is simply too easy to be American without the complications of having to explain why one is Catholic, too.”
True enough. American culture also has far more distractions than ever before. People want that one hour on Sunday to matter…to be a time like no other time. Which is why the high church that so-called conservatives (for lack of a better term) complete with smells and bells is attractive to many including many young people. At the same time, vibrant liturgy with great music and preaching also enraptures people who are on both sides of the fence.
It seems to me that Issac Hecker, the Paulists founder said it best when he remarked that we need to preach “old truths in new forms.” I think that’s what everyone hopes for the present, never mind the future.
I think very little of Neuhaus’ point, unless he’d like to suggest that conservative Catholics have been on the front lines protesting SOA, nuclear arms, and other issues (aside from abortion) arising from a social gospel consciousness these past several decades.
Instead of enlisting a favorite bogeyman, “the liberal project” Neuhaus could use a dose of reality in the Pauline theology of the Body. The Body needs all the parts, and Peter’s take is a bit more thoughtful to my sensibility.
Conservatives are often tripping over themselves to criticize the Left for being light and fluffy, yet at the same time attribute the worst of secular harshness to our failings. From my view, it’s hard to see how the conservative pro-war views and the capitalism endorsed by such parts as the Acton Institute can get a free pass.
Richard Neuhaus, examine thyself.
Perhaps I missed something, but I have read Neuhaus’ comments three times (in fact, that is how I found out about dotCommonweal) and have yet to find any criticism *in that post* towards Commonweal or the blog.
He said:
1. The site was very handsom
2. He said Nixon’s comments were “for the most part, right on”
3. He said, “Nixon is right in suggesting that the liberal Catholic project, framed along the lines of what has happened in mainline/oldline Protestantism, is exhausted”
4. And “he is right about the way in which many Catholics have come to accept a de facto congregationalist polity in which one chooses a parish to match one’s theological-moral-liturgical taste.”
Now having read the article four times, I still only see good will and agreement in *that post*. Perhaps you (Todd, esp.) are reading into his comments some others from the past that you didn’t appreciate?
Interested.
Justin Nickelsen
http://www.nouvelletheologie.blogspot.com
My point about Neihaus’ comment is not that liberal Catholicism is bad or even that conservative Catholicism is a good thing–I think his pointing to Nixon’s take that liberal Catholicism is exhausted is somewhat on the mark.
I agree with Todd when he points out the fact that the more liberal elements of the church have marched against SOA and other issues, but why not simply point to a tradition of Catholicism instead of liberal Catholicism?
I would like to suggest that there will be Commonweal Catholics as long as there are Catholics who find The Commonweal worth reading on subjects of interest to Catholics and find in most issues a great deal to agree with and much that is helpful. I believe I satisfy the proposed criterion.
Joe Gannon
I think Mike’s point about appealing to Catholicism as opposed to merely liberal–or for that matter, merely conservative–Catholicism is absolutely essential to responding to Peter’s question.
As soon as we claim “Fidelity!” to Catholicism + Liberal Ideals, or Catholicism + Conservative Principles, Or Catholicism + anything else for that matter, we are watering down the message of Christ.
That said, when we appeal to Catholicism proper as Mike suggests, we are also, de facto, accepting the governing, teaching, and sanctifing role of the Magisterium, and accept that when Roma locuta, then the causa is also finita. Appealing to Catholicism is not the same as appealing to some abstract ideal. I think it also represents an appeal to an embodied Church that has a head as well as arms, limbs, fingers, and toes. My point is that Catholics on both the right and left like to forget about the Magisterium when it becomes convenient for them to do so. But faithful appeals to Catholicism proper requires us to do more than treat the Magisterium as the uncle who farts too loudly and at inconvenient times.
So when we attempt to engage a new idea, cultural phenomenon, philosophical trend, or political innovation, of course we must attempt to take the (small”c”) catholic view about that new thing and ask ourselves, “What is good about this, and what about this helps us better understand Christ operating in the modern world?” But in doing so, we must be simulataneously sensitive to big C Catholicism which has a structure for discerning with us what is consistent with our Tradition and what is not.
Peace
I don’t know where that emoticon came from above. Please disregard.
We’re working on disabling them. Sorry about that.
So, Peter, you’re playing Jonathan Franzen to Neuhaus’ Oprah!
Justified, I’d say, in this case since he kind of has you drawing his conclusions rather than your own.
And, interesting that he seems to characterize liberal American Catholics as placing to much emphasis on the “American.” I wonder if he’s aware that this is just as much the neoconservative American Catholic’s Achilles’ heel as well!
Mark:
Well, I have to admit I’m drawing an absolute blank on Franzen and I don’t watch Oprah, so the comparison escapes me.
But yes, I think that there is a distinction between identifying certain sociological trends that put the project of “liberal Catholicism” at risk and concluding that it is an “exhausted project” that must be abandoned. You could have said that IBM was an “exhausted project” several years ago because computer hardware had been commodified. IBM was able to reinvent itself into essentially an IT consulting company that leveraged its considerable technical expertise on behalf of its clients. Renewal is always a possibility.
Let me conclude with a final point. There is no such thing as a simple, unmediated Catholicism that is not shaped by its culture. Such a creature has never existed in Christian history. The very concept of sacramentality itself demands that the sacred be mediated through the physical. To use the terminology of French theologian Louis Marie Chauvet, the Word of God is at “the mercy of the body.” Preaching the Word to Americans, or Greeks, or Latin Americans always runs a risk that we will construct cultural idols that we mistake for God. But it is a risk that must be taken because there is no other alternative.
Sorry for the unclear reference.
Franzen’s book “The Corrections” was chosen for Oprah’s book club a few years ago. But when Franzen wasn’t sufficiently awed–and was even dismissive–of the honor, he was dropped from the club.
The comment that both right and left ignor Rome when Rome disagrees with them is generally quite true. If we can agree on that point, namely, that Rome will have to come up with more responsibility than drawing on its unsupportable “always taught or always held.” There just is no place except in dictatorships where a governing body is able to say very wrong things and get away with it. Jesus always demanded the quality of humility in service–washing the feet of others. Seems pretty clear. It is a place to start.
Greg writes:
>>when we appeal to Catholicism proper as Mike suggests, we are also, de facto, accepting the governing, teaching, and sanctifing role of the Magisterium, and accept that when Roma locuta, then the causa is also finita. Appealing to Catholicism is not the same as appealing to some abstract ideal. I think it also represents an appeal to an embodied Church that has a head as well as arms, limbs, fingers, and toes. My point is that Catholics on both the right and left like to forget about the Magisterium when it becomes convenient for them to do so. But faithful appeals to Catholicism proper requires us to do more than treat the Magisterium as the uncle who farts too loudly and at inconvenient times.
First off there is no inconvenient time for farting. The man who puts good manners before good health dies young.
Secondly, I think that the Magisterium in terms of the people who make it up do not de-facto have to be accepted. They indeed can be wrong and misguided and miss a fact in Canon Law, etc. However, that doesn’t mean that we can willy-nilly dismiss them either. Can we point to where they are being “misguided Catholics?” What in our tradition is not being represented properly? Moreover, what have we come to understand as part of our Catholic tradition that is new? What have we discovered in recent years that expresses who we are well?
I often think that many on the right think we already have all the answers and we simply have to look them up. It makes me wonder if they’ve read a book since 8th grade.