Healing divisions
Is there anything worse than “liveblogging”? Well, here I go, anyway–from the L.A. Religious Education Congress (that hotbed of liberal loopiness). Just got out of a talk by Timothy Radcliffe, OP, former master of the Dominicans, on the important issue of healing divisions within the church. He covered a lot of ground, but one of the more striking ideas he took up during the Q&A (which was full of really excellent questions and comments) was the problem of language. The issue was raised by a laywoman who asked Radcliffe what he made of the importing of political categories into our religious discourse (left, right, liberal, conservative). Radcliffe answered briefly and eloquently (OPs…): we need a new language, one that doesn’t cut off conversation across divisions. Liberal, conservative, left, right, orthodox, dissident.
With the conversation about Bishop Bruskewitz’ missive over at Amy Welborn’s blog getting a little hot, I thought it particularly appropriate to pose the questions: What do these terms get us? Do they serve a purpose? If not, what should replace them? Comments are open. Go to town.
There are a number of people talking like Radcliffe and I am not sure it is a movement yet. A maltese priest, his name escapes me, just did his doctorate on this very point from Fordham. He maintains we must change the language. But I would like to know how he differs from Common Ground and people like Robert Imbelli on this blog who call for cooperative efforts. If one talks like this then it has to be pointed out how Common Ground is not adequate or that it is failing somewhere and how the new approach is different. Is the answer that Common Ground, like Christianity, has not failed because it has not been tried.
I mean this is a bullet ridden battlefield. Are the bullets flying because one side does not understand the other? God save us from glib answers.
On the other hand, how much does each so -called side understand those within its own camp. It seems to me that too many liberals participate in the beheading of its own when the going gets tough. The capable Roger Haight now teaches in a Protestant University because he is not permitted to teach in a Catholic one. Where is the unified front of Catholic professors to defend Haight? (he is only one of many) The other side of this question might be that there is not enough courage to support each other all the way. And however, we slice it, Thomas Reeves did go and it was another failure of liberal catholicism to stand for another.
These words serve absolutely no purpose other than to divide us and cause many to get riled up and miserable because they get so caught up in the politics of the day and totally forget what they are supposed to be about as Catholics. I like to keep it simple: humility; respect for others; appreciation for what has been given to me and what I have accomplished (in a non-material sense); happiness for others that achieve success; etc…example: Samuel Alito’s appointment to the Supreme Court. All I read and heard was concern about his position on abortion. I virtually saw no admiration and congratulations by the media for this man’s accomplishments and appointment to this Court. As a Catholic (as well as anyone), we should be happy for him and his family and each of us can pray and/or hope in our own way that this man will do the best he can when it comes to making decisions that affect millions. No political labelling necessary. It may also put a smile on someone’s face when they actually look at it these terms and it might just free some people from the contrived shackles of political labelling that I truly believe ends up making people more miserable than they need be.
I have never been a big fan of using political terms to describe Catholic positions. Political language does not suffice to describe Catholic beliefs because the terms used in political language tend to change.
While it is true that certain teachings of the Catholic Church do refer to political aspects as well, and thus a similarity between the two, the motivation is quite different. In the political sphere, it is one’s personal ideals and the party line that enables a person to go towards the right or the left, to be a liberal or a conservative.
The motivations of the Church, however, are not some political ideal, we are not, as Pope Benedict says, Christian’s because of some lofty idea or ethical choice. The motivations of the Church are a result of that encounter with Christ that the Church has been participating in for nearly 2000 years. Thus, the motivations are truth, justice, and the good. The motivations are to defend the truth which is Christ, and the truth does not change with the winds of time, but is constant and always present.
For a political party, political ideals can change over time. Furthermore, we must remember, that there are certain teachings of the Church which would be, in the political sphere, be considered conservative, while other teachings (ie the Church’s social teaching) are on the more liberal side. But these terms do not satisfy the meaning of the teachings. If we apply these political terms, then the teaches are no longer rooted in the truth, but in the ideals of a society in its current state, able to change over time.
The truth does not change, it is constant, and eternal, and is made known to us through our encounter with Christ. Thus, we have orthodox beliefs in the Church and those who do not follow Church teaching in way that is not good for the sake of their soul are considered to be heterodox. Those are the only terms which we can apply to the teachings of the Church. They satisfy the meaning of the teachings, because Orthodox means, simply, right belief, while heterodox means wrong belief. There is a truth and a falsity, and Christ is the truth, and thus our teachings are based in that truth. If our teachings are based in the Truth of Christ, and we have faith in Christ (that is, we believe in Him), then the only term that can have any meaning with regards to the Church’s position is Orthodox.
-Harrison
Grant first off, I have to say how much I enjoyed the bracketted phrase “that hotbed of liberal loopiness”. I’ve always known that teachers, especially religious education specialists were among the most liberal of Catholics. In that regard it is good to see that Canadian and American Catholic schools are similar.
As for Radcliff’s call for a new language, I would beg to differ on that score. Categories are useful in quickly distinguishing various perspectives we bring to a debate. As well, although they are not uniquely American, within the American context, they possess an exhuberance and passion that is rarely rivalled in other countries.
The problem is not with the categories but with the propensity to not listen to what people in each of the categories are saying. Margaret O’Brien Steinfels in her presentation to the USCCB re the sexual abuse scandal put it well, when she told them that the two sides talk past one another.
This is what Bruskewitz and his defenders appear to be doing. Welborn, on the other hand, appears to be caught off kilter on this one. She knows Brusketwitz has scewered himself on his own words but still finds a way to blame the liberal bishops within the USCCB.
The one word that you list above that is not apart of the normal secualr political discourse is the term “dissendent”. This is also the word that I personally find the most offensive. It has acquired the characteristics of a derogatory epithet and is being used intentionally as such. If there is an need for a change in language this is it. Expressing an alternative opinion is not the same as practicing dissent. Some who want a rote conformity want to equate the two.
Bruskewitz in the meantime managed to do all three at the same time: dissent from the agreement that he as a member of the USCCB had intered into, claim the NRB was a hot bed of “dissendents”, and claim he was the only one capable of determining that he was in conformity with the teaching magisterium of the Church all the while directly insulting the spokeperson for the NCR.
It is clearly incumbant upon the leadership of the USCCB to defend the NRB and its spokesperson and to call Bruskewitz to task . Anything less will be a miscarriage of justice. And that isn’t a matter of liberal, conservative, left, right, orthodox or progressive positions but simply one of good leadership.
Another thought is that if people listened to each other all the talk radio stations would have to go to a different theme as all cater to a bar room brawl. Just as the defense industry welcomes war, many areas are vested in conflict. It is not dissimilar than when I worked for the New York Narcotic Control Commission more than three decades ago. As dope addiction declined budget cuts in our agency followed.
It is natural enough to try to group opinions on controverted issues in some way, if only to make thinking about them more manageable. So talking about liberal, conservative, middle of the road views on some subject may serve well enough as rough headings, subject always to further sorting and analysis. The problem comes when you apply those powerful labels to people. The result is often to impede discussion because those so labeled are viewed not as individuals, with minds of their own, but as adherents of whatever constellation of views others identify with “conservative, liberal, etc.” That said, people of good will and intelligence can get round even this kind of labeling. I think of the discussions between David Brooks and Mark Shields on PBS. They have been selected to represent differing points of view, and often do. But they listen to one another, and can surprise us by agreeing when we might least expect it. Perhaps it would be good to have a television venue where religious matters could be discussed with similar grace.
Bill,
The Maltese priest you mentioned is Fr. Anthony Gatt and he’s great! He was a clasmate of mine and is a very gentle soul.
It is clearly incumbant upon the leadership of the USCCB to defend the NRB and its spokesperson and to call Bruskewitz to task
What makes you think that this would happen, when, to my knowledge, the USCCB hasn’t called any other bishops to task for commiting the *actual* sins that the Review Board might (supposedly) prevent, i.e., hiding their eyes and/or covering up sexual crimes?
I find “liberal”, “conservative”, and the like as general characterizations less than useful. They are in some instances rallying cries or write-offs, more emotive than expressive of thought; in others descriptive but too vague to be useful, employed to avoid reflection and the effort of thought. I prefer evaluations of particular positions actually taken rather than supposed tendencies to think along certain lines, and such evaluations as “well argued”, “thoughtful”, “plausible” or, alternatively, “misguided”, “incoherent”, “inconsistent” and the like. Personally I should not like to be labeled either liberal or conservative, much less middle of the the road.