The Coalition of the Orthodox
When I was in high school, two of my classmates were ultra-conservative religious types. One was a Mormon and the other was the member of a small, fundamentalist sect. The two inevitably took the same side in any political discussion and came to see each other as allies in classroom debates about virtually any political issue, from abortion to homosexuality to tax policy. A fellow Catholic classmate and I often noted, with no small bit of satisfaction, the irony that, even while these two had each other’s backs in political discussions, they each believed that the other was going to burn in hell when he died. What my classmate and I believed in high school may not have been an accurate reflection of Mormon theology about the afterlife (see, e.g., this article), but the alliance between my two conservative classmates was clearly rooted more in political expediency than in theological affinity. (Thanks to Gene O’Grady for correcting my misunderstanding of Mormon theology in the comments.)
I’ve often thought about my two classmates when I consider the stability of the coalition of sorts that has emerged in recent years between conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians in this country. Rooted as it is in the politics of abortion and homosexuality, it strikes me that it is, at base, no more than a marriage of convenience, or as John Rawls might say, a “mere modus vivendi.”
After all, many hard core fundamentalists have long considered the Pope to be the Whore of Babylon. And, of course, there’s the issue of evangelicals proselytizing in Catholic countries. Consider this comment from the president of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention explaining why his group continues aggressively to seek converts in Catholic countries:
“Why would we invest such efforts in Catholic countries? The answer is
quite simple: It is because they are lost,” Rankin said. “The people
may be identified as cultural Christians since that is their
socio-religious profile, but most of them do not have a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ…. They, too, deserve an opportunity to
hear, understand and respond to the life-changing message of the
Gospel. They cannot be ignored in our commitment that all peoples would
know our Lord Jesus Christ.”
That’s hardly the foundation for a lasting friendship.
The problem with modus vivendi, as Rawls points out, is that they have a tendency to last only until one party gets the upper hand. How might the fragility of this coalition of the orthodox rise to the surface? One way would be if conservatives actually got their wish and the Supreme Court interpreted the Establishment Clause to permit more of the sorts of state-sponsored, faith-based programs described in today’s New York Times:
Life was different in Unit E at the state prison outside Newton, Iowa.
The toilets and sinks — white porcelain ones, like at home — were in
a separate bathroom with partitions for privacy. In many Iowa prisons,
metal toilet-and-sink combinations squat beside the bunks, to be used
without privacy, a few feet from cell-mates.
The cells in Unit E had real wooden doors and doorknobs, with locks.
More books and computers were available, and inmates were kept busy
with classes, chores, music practice and discussions. There were
occasional movies and events with live bands and real-world food, like
pizza or sandwiches from Subway. Best of all, there were opportunities
to see loved ones in an environment quieter and more intimate than the
typical visiting rooms.
But the only way an inmate could qualify for this kinder mutation of
prison life was to enter an intensely religious rehabilitation program
and satisfy the evangelical Christians running it that he was making
acceptable spiritual progress. The program — which grew from a project
started in 1997 at a Texas prison with the support of George W. Bush,
who was governor at the time — says on its Web site that it seeks “to
‘cure’ prisoners by identifying sin as the root of their problems” and
showing inmates “how God can heal them permanently, if they turn from
their sinful past.”
One Roman Catholic inmate, Michael A. Bauer, left the program after
a year, mostly because he felt the program staff and volunteers were
hostile toward his faith.
“My No. 1 reason for leaving the program was that I personally felt
spiritually crushed,” he testified at a court hearing last year. “I
just didn’t feel good about where I was and what was going on.”
This strikes me as one of those “be careful what you wish for” stories. It may be the case that, as was recently discussed on this site, the language of the separation of Church and State was historically rooted in anti-Catholic sentiment, as Philip Hamburger has argued. But the dubious origins of the discourse of “separation” does not mean that, as a substantive matter, the consequences of separation of Church and State are not as good for Church as they are for the State.
UPDATE: I want to make clear that I’m not at all committed to the most extreme legal understanding of separation of Church and State. My point is that there are reasons to support some of the conclusions reached under the separationist logic, notwithstanding the historical connections Hamburger points out between the origins of the rhetoric of separation and anti-Catholicism. Once the power of the state is permitted to enter too far into the domain of religion, or vice versa, some predictable things start to happen. I fully agree with those who would argue that there ought to be more room for faith in the public sphere, but that’s a far cry from the program described in the NY Times today — state-subsidized proselytizing of a literally captive audience, which seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that would be likely to generate the kinds of intra-religious conflicts I’m describing. My view on the Establishment Clause is vaguely along the lines of Douglas Laycock’s neutrality position, and, while that tends to allow more “establishment” than the typical ACLU member would appreciate, I think it’s hard to square with straight-up state funding for a program in which Catholic inmates can be browbeaten by evangelicals in order to receive more comfortable cells.
I assume that surely there must be a remedy for this case short of adopting a “separationist” interpretation of the First Amendment along lines suggested by People for the American Way or the ACLU.
Hamburger’s subtle analysis, echoing Tocqueville, warns of the effects in the present and not merely in the past of such an approach and describes how it is not good for the Church or State. One telling excerpt:
“Advocates of separation usually were self-proclaimed defenders of ‘American’ liberty, who conceived of themselves as intellectually independent and who held profoundly coercive expectations that others should conform to their ideals. Thus separation became part of a majority’s oddly conformist demands for individual independence and strangely dogmatic rejections of authority” (p. 484).
One of the conservative readers of dotcommonweal observed that the Church ought to put more effort into building bridges with evangelicals and fundamentalists.
I pointed out several doctrinal issues that would make that impossible, but this was all waved off rather glibly, in my opinion, as “Yes, but we all believe Jesus was our savior,” an attitude of tolerance conservative Catholics seem more inclined to extend to Protestant fundies and evangelicals than to other Catholics.
Catholics who think we ought to be allied with conservative Protestants never got a load of my Baptist in-laws, who honest-to-God asked me to contribute to their kids’ mission trips to Mexico to “convert” the people there from Catholicism to Christianity.
So I thank you for making this point again.
Faith-based initiatives are, however, something of a conundrum for me. I, frankly, I don’t want my tax dollars going to the efforts of religious sects that denigrate Catholicism.
By the same token, I consider it a sin of omission to pass up a Salvation Army bell ringer. Ever.
God bless them.
One of the astounding revelations to come from the present theocons is their belief that the founding fathers believed that Christianity is the foundation of the nation and that God and America are synomous. Especially if Republicans are elected.
When one believes in America’s theological destiny, it is easy to hold that whatever America does is sanctioned by God.
This is an age old fallacy. It was attempted by Constantine and so many emperors and popes with devastating consequences.
The opening paragraph of the (if you want to talk about great) great John XXIII’s welcome to Vatican council II pointed out that we are free today to form a church without the secular arm interfering.
Eduardo, thanks for the post. I think you’re largely right, but with two related qualifications. One, the relative lack of theological knowledge of people born after the council. To conservatives of this era, arcane theological dotrine seems nothing compared the overriding importance of the culture of life. But in fact, theological commitments drive and shape ethical theory and commitments. Different theology, different ethics.
Second, and worrisomely, I think much of the conservative Catholic political movements are more evangelical than Catholic in their temperament. I see this in some more polemical converts on the blogosphere. It’s the protestantization of the Church, if you will, to conform to the broader religious culture of the nation. They have Catholic bottom line positions on ethical issues –but not, in my view, Catholic sensibilities.
>>It’s the protestantization of the Church, if you will, to conform to the broader religious culture of the nation. They have Catholic bottom line positions on ethical issues –but not, in my view, Catholic sensibilities.<<
There is more than some truth to this, which I believe is the result of the intellectual implosion of Catholicism after Vatican II. We lost our grounding in a solid and hard-won intellectual tradition and have come to talk about things like “sensibilities” instead.
But I would also argue that 47 million dead babies has changed the broader religious culture as much as anything.
First, like Jean, my experience with evangelicals, many of whom glory in their prison ministry, is that they are out to convert and will condemn folks like me.
What’s this “Catholic intellectual implosion” after Vatican II?
There’s a really sweeping statement. Aggornimento was badly needed by that ‘”hard won intellectual tradition”
One deeply unfortunate outcome of those who espouse it is a return to 50′s style apologetics where we “cleverly” (by more than a half) refute those who disagree with us.
Two comments:
I’m semi-informed about Mormons and their theology, and have spent quite a bit of time talking about their faith (which it’s somewhat misleading to describe as “conservative.”) I have never heard a Mormon speak of those who don’t share their faith going to hell, and the concept seems to be contradicted by at least some aspects of Mormon theology. I did have the experience, however, of being told that I needed to put more emphasis in my catechism classes in making my kids afraid of hell fire, advice I disregarded.
Cathleen Kaveny’s comment about evangelical movements in Catholicism hit home — one of the prime criticisms my 28 year old daughter has of the church is that it’s been protestantized in the last ten years and she can no longer recognize the church she grew up in.
I’ve been tossing around the idea of organizing a conference on the relationship of theological commitments to ethical insight. It seems to me that it is precisely these connections –what it means for ethics to be theological — is something that has been greatly obscured by the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” movement.
True ecumenism, as opposed to ephemeral alliances, can’t be built on political expediencies.
Gene — Thanks for the note. You may well be right about Mormon theology, about which I know very little. I’m talking more about the impression my friend and I had while we were in high school. (BTW, what is the explanation for the Mormon practice of post-mortem baptism if there is no connection between membership in the Mormon Church and salvation?) As for whether it’s fair to characterize Mormons as conservative, I’m more willing to argue the point. I’d be more willing to concede the point if you mean theologically conservative, but it would be hard to deny that Mormons are, by and large, politically conservative, which is the sense in which I was using the term in my post.
One other thing. Obviously, the point of the story still stands, of course, even if it was only the fundamentalist who thought the Mormon was going to hell and the feeling was not reciprocated.
>>It seems to me that it is precisely these connections –what it means for ethics to be theological — is something that has been greatly obscured by the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” movement. True ecumenism, as opposed to ephemeral alliances, can’t be built on political expediencies.<<
Please forgive my intemperance, but this is simply ignorant. ECT has consistently produced documents of theological weight and seriousness and they can be easily found in book form or on the internet. In meetings or print, they have always taken up issues of theological consequence, tackling issues ranging from ecclesiology to natural law to topics in Trinitarian theology and Christology.
I am all for ethics being theological.
I’ve read the statements – I read them as sophisticated manifestos, designed to intervene in the United States’ political /ecclesiastical discussion. I don’t read them as serious and nuanced contributions to theological study –or to ecumenical discussion — although many of the contributors have made serious and nuanced contributions to theology. I would be surprised if any of these participants would suggest that their work on these statements–or any other statements of this sort– substituted for hardcore theological investigation.
I would hope that all students pursuing doctoral work in theological ethics would know the difference between academic work and the advocacy of public intellectuals.
Got that, Cathy? The person who just cited “the intellectual implosion of Catholicism after Vatican II” just accused you of being ignorant.
I think Cathy Kaveny hits a very important point. I’ve always thought the alliance with the evanglicals was a disaster, and yet another excuse to provide right-wing Catholics enough “space” to dissent from Church teachings they don’t like. At the heart of it lies a certain theological illiteracy. I think the greatest example of this was over the Terry Schiavo debacle. Those of us who defended the traditional Catholic approach to end-of-life issues were denounced as abetters of murder. Too many Catholics fell into this trap simply because it was politicaly expedient. They followed the evangelical appeal to emotion rather than the Catholic appeal to reason (I think much of evangelical thought is actually voluntarists). And in the process, they simply trashed Church teaching on this topic, simply because they can’t handle nuance.
>>I don’t read them as serious contributions to theological study –or to ecumenical discussion…<<
Well, okay. That’s a pretty hefty statement, but there it is. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You are the trained theologian and I am not.
Historically, I believe, the people we call Evangelicals come from the Calvinist tradition, which held that Catholicism had been so corrupted that it ceased to be Christianity. It is not so surprising that this view should still be with us.
As to separation of Church and State, I doubt that it is correct to say that the founding fathers were primarily concerned about Roman Catholics taking over, certinly not in the near term. There were too few of them around. John Adams feared the possibility of a “Protestant Popedom” and feared that the Methodists and Presbyterians would unite and try to dominate over other Protestants. The Danbury Baptists that Jefferson reassured were more afraid of Congregationalists than of RCs.
Much later, it is true, organizations like Protestants and Other Americans United were opposed to Catholicism above all. As I look back, their concern was not entirely without its causes. John Courtney Murray was silenced, was he not, by Pius XII for his ideas on church and state.
Is it worth looking at the theological presuppositons of Jim Wallis and the people around Sojourners magazine before Catholics join any coalition that includes them?
Cathy,
I am encouraged to see how current you are on ECT politics. I was beginning to think that only Damon Linker was aware of it.
No question you should organize a conference on this. I suggest Fordham with Peggy’s institute. Should be an all day affair.
No topic is more urgent or pertinent for the church in America.
It should be noted that this is nothing new in the history of the church. In that religious leaders are still attemptin to dictate national life by religious legislation and rule. It started with Eusebius touting Constantine as the light of Christianity, “by this cross you will conquer.” Augustine changed his mind and wrote against this view after the sack of Rome in his City of God.
The other intriguing, related issue is how abortion go to be front and center of all this. http://philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-abortion-became-abortion.html
I think the assumption that Catholics who work with Evangelicals on issues of common interest are some how unaware of the hostility some Evangelicals hold for Catholicism is incorrect. If you look at the popular rebuttals of fundamentalism by Catholics, almost all of it comes from those you have identified as Conservative Catholics (e.g. Joseph Fessio, Patrick Madrid, Karl Keating, JohnTrigilio) . Progressive Catholics are the ones who ignored the fundamental theological and faith differences and have attacked Evangelicals and Fundamentalists on purely political grounds. They seem more concerned with them being Republicans than they do about their teachings on the real presence.
Morning,
If those who opposed the starvation of Terry Schiavo were toeing the emotional Protestant line in opposition to the nuanced and reasonable traditional Catholic teaching, we need to get the word to the Vatican, since all their public statements indicate they were toadies as well.
Sean — not sure why you think I think conservative Catholics aren’t aware of these issues. I just think they might end up regretting the alliance for reasons the NY Times article brings into relief.
“Progressive Catholics are the ones who ignored the fundamental theological and faith differences and have attacked Evangelicals and Fundamentalists on purely political grounds.”
Last week we were criticized for being too open and ignoring core differences. Which is it, I wonder? Whatever attempts to make the point?
The experience of ministry associations with evangelicals is the most interesting. Seminary-trained folks thinking the others are going to hell, but they’ll stick with the program if it means access to college or high school students. My criticism of evangelicals is based on their methods of evangelizing believers–including non-Catholics, and on their smugly pragmatic approach to sharing soup kitchens, and other social outreaches.
Individually, I think common ground can be achieved. But it’s a road filled with suspicion and distrust.
My sense is that evangelicals, like Republicans, are willing to use Catholics to achieve particular ends of their group. And then cut them loose when expedient.
Wolves, sheep, snakes, people.
Sean H,
See here for analysis of Schiavo: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/07/exploitation-of-terry-schiavo.html. Bottom line: the teachings are quite nuanced. The problem is, nuance is not something an evangelical fundamentalist can appreciate. And many Catholics are falling more and more under this spell, to the detriment of our great tradition.
I also find that progressive Catholics tend to allow our conservative brothers and sisters to hold a monopoly on theological discourse. Conservatives love nothing more than to paint themselves as orthodox, and those that oppose them as dissenters. It’s a convenient cover, but ultimately, the emperor has no clothes (how is it orthodox to embrace and immoral war and support economic policies that embody a “preferential option for the rich”?) We should not cede this ground. For example, where are the denizens of orthodoxy when it comes to torture, which John Paul declared to me “instrinsically evil” (and thus admitting no exceptions) in Veritatis Splendour? With a few honorable exceptions, they are silent.
I’m coming a bit late to this discussion, but I want to weigh in here on the whole Evangelicals-and-Catholics thing.
I think that the term “Evangelical” may be just a bit too elastic to be useful. In my experience, Evangelicals range from the thoughtful and informed (Philip Yancey, for instance) to the ridiculous and inane (Jerry Falwell) to everywhere in between. They range from old-time fundamentalist Baptists to with-it nondenominationals who are more savvy than your average Catholic pastor. They can be charismatic to the point of prophesying at every church service, or they can be almost paranoid in their suspicions of anyone who so much as raises his or her hands during worship on Sunday.
Most of the Evangelicals I have come to know have a great respect for Catholics, even if that respect is mingled with intrigued curiosity about some of our traditions. I have encountered very few who would think that Catholics are going to hell because of their Catholicism. They tend to look upon Catholics the way they look upon everyone else: as sinners in need of salvation. Catholics are no more hell-bound because of their Catholicism than are the “chosen frozen” mainline Protestants who do not have a personal conversion story to tell.
I have also found it quite instructive that many Evangelicals, especially those who attend nondenominational churches, are former Catholics who have experienced an awakening of their faith outside the Catholic Church. These former Catholics do not seem to think that the Church is the Whore of Babylon. More to the point, they find in the Church (and especially among its leaders) a misplacement of priorities: liturgical correctness and ritual observance over personal encounter with Jesus. And that’s why many have left.
Perhaps my experience is so different from Jean’s for two reasons. First, much of what I encountered happened in the overly sophisticated, hyper-educated suburbs of Washington, DC, while Jean’s experience (if I remember rightly) comes from a more rural, unvarnished, tell-it-like-it-is environment. Second, the only Evangelical family members I have are a brother- and sister-in-law, both of whom are former Catholics and who seem to devote more of their time and energy to the typical pursuits of affluent suburbanites than to theological inquiry or dialogue of any sort.
Having said all of that, I find the situation in the prison that Eduardo relates to be objectionable in the highest degree.
Someone somewhere, commenting on the Schiavo affair, noted how the good Catholic folks shouting “murder” were, in fact, kowtowing to the god of technology, i.e., if it (“it’ being keeping a body’s basic biological functions operating) can be done, then it must be done.
Yes, JPII condemned withdrawing ANH from Schiavo, and, in doing so, tossed well established Catholic moral principle on its head.
I appreciate an earlier comment noting that solid/traditional application of Catholic moral principles requires awareness of the importance of nuance.
Regrettably, the late pope just added fuel to the emotional fire, and too many (I suppose) uninformed Catholics were all too willing to go along with him because (I suppose) they believed incorrectly that whatever comes out of the pontiff’s mouth is binding/infallible.
Mark — great point. It’s hard to convey much nuance in a short blog entry, but you’re clearly right about the diversity among evangelicals. One question — and this may get to the snarky comment above about Wallis — I have is whether you think there’s any correspondence between the more ecumenically-minded evangelicals you describe and their political orientation. That is, do they see themselves as part of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together project?
My point was this, and perhaps I didn’t state it well.
When I read Commonweal and it blog and other “progesssive” Catholic sources, their criticism of Evangelical Protestants always centers their politics, not their religious beliefs.
My experience in reading and dealing with “conservative” or here described as “orthodox” Catholics is that they work with and even praise Evangelical Protestants on the points on which they agree with them, but they are also not afraid to explicitly and vociferously disagree with them on matters where they differ with the Catholic Church.
Take, for example, Karl Keating. His book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is one of the only books out there specifically refuting Fundamentalist Protestant theology, and it say not a word about politics. He, I suspect, would be seen here as a “conservative.” “Progressive” religious writers (Catholic and Protestant), when they criticize the Jerry Falwells of this world focus almost exclusively on their politics. They place political tags on their opponents like – “Theocons.”
As for the Schiavo affair, my point was that those that sided with the Schiavo’s were not under the “spell” of evangelicals, but were in agreement with Catholic tradition. Clearly most of the Catholic Church Hierarchy agreed. I, for one, won’t cast myself as being more Catholic than the Pope.
Maybe somebody can help me understand what’s so questionable about this alliance. Under the description being offered in this thread, the evangelical-Catholic common cause is purely political and aims at curtailing abortion and preventing same sex ‘marriage.’ But even under this uncharitable description, I completely fail to see what’s wrong with it. The alliance works to defend two absolutely fundamental principles protecting the common good, according to Catholic social teaching. Isn’t this what even the most opportunisitc political alliances should be about? How do they get more basic than this? If this is a manipulation of Catholic social and moral doctrine, what isn’t?
Eduardo:
Many of the ecumenically sensitive Evangelicals whom I know tend to be politically conservative. But again, that may be more a function of their socio-economic status than of their religious convictions. They also tend to like NASCAR, deer hunting, and SUVs. So there’s a whole demographic bundle here. In fact, it seems to me that one could validly question whether their faith is affecting the way they approach politics and the way they live in the world, or the other way around. Again, this is only based upon my experience and not any scientific survey.
As for participating in ECT, there’s nothing specifically active there. But they do tend to have a lot more in common with their more conservatively-minded Catholic neighbors than they do with the Baptists down the road–or the Methodists, for that matter. Again, the similarities have to do with social and political issues more than with doctrinal issues.
This is probably because the megachurches they attend do not have a deep theological or philosophical foundation, and they are not really taught much beyond an initial conversion experience and the subsequent call to try to live upright lives. There’s very little spoken about the common good, about how one should understand Scripture, or about church history–at least church history before Jan Hus and Martin Luther. Theirs is more a via negativa than a specific theology that they have embraced: We don’t worship Mary; we don’t believe in the Eucharist; we don’t have a pope. But when you ask them what they do stand for, you get something very basic and lacking in depth. Great sincerity (which is why many lukewarm Catholics are attracted), but not much undergirding that sincerity.
Sean, you wrote:
“When I read Commonweal and it blog and other “progesssive” Catholic sources, their criticism of Evangelical Protestants always centers their politics, not their religious beliefs.”
I agree with this observation, but that politics and religion are, to a large degree, of a piece. One’s political convictions tend to say quite a bit about one’s theological presuppositions–or lack thereof. As I said above about my Evangelical friends, their theology tends not to influence their politics simply because they don’t have much theology to draw upon. And since nature abhors a vacuum, the politicians who are more adept at wrapping their policies in religious rhetoric tend to win their support.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noted the evangelical zeal that President Bush brings to his foreign policy. He is out to convert the nations of the Middle East to American style democracy, just as a starry-eyed campus crusader for Christ is out to get everyone in his dorm born again by the end of the semester. Great enthusiasm, great optimism and trust in the power of his message. But frighteningly little thought as to the demands of the task, the pesonalities of those to whom he is preaching, and the long road that such a conversion may well entail.
You can’t separate one’s politics from his or her religion, Sean, and I suspect that the reason why forums like this one focus on the politics of the Evangelical wing of Christianity is that this is where Evangelicalism is heading. This is all they seem to be about. Why else would Joel Hunter, president-elect of the Christian Coalition, decline the post? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-11-28-christian-coalition_x.htm)
MLJ,
I don’t know that there’s necessarily anything wrong with the alliance among political conservatives in the Catholic and Evangelical communities. Politics is a pragmatic activity, and hence any political alliance is a marriage of convenience, to some degree.
By that standard, though, I think way to evaluate the alliances that make up the religious right is to ask, “does it work?”
On abortion, for instance, the alliance has been successful in making abortion a highly visible issue that anyone running for higher office must address. I don’t know how successful it has been in actually reducing abortions, though. The assumption among most conservatives seems to be that the best (if not the only acceptable) approach is to outlaw abortion, as if it can simply be legislated out of existence. There is a marked reluctance to investigate whether this is, in fact, a supportable assumption. Rather than a pragmatic approach (i.e. how can the nation most effectively end abortion as a common practice), the conservative alliance seems to prefer an approach that conflates morality and politics (abortion is immoral, hence it ought to be illegal).
In a nutshell, I suppose you could say I fault the alliance for being ideological rather than pragmatic, and you could respond that the political left is equally at fault. I’m not sure that’s true, at least currently. There seems to be a far more diverse take on policy issues among those on the left, and their arguments tend to appeal more to pragmatism and empirical data. Of course, this could simply be a function of being out of power; should, say, Democrats take the presidency in 2008, maybe we’ll see a political left that mirrors the ideological rigidity that currently characterizes the right. I’d like to think not, but then again, the temptation to see your way as the only way, especially when you have power, is a temptation common to humanity at large, regardless of political preference.
>>I think way to evaluate the alliances that make up the religious right is to ask, “does it work?”<<
A valid question. Would this mean, then, the objections to ECT are because they aren’t making *enough* headway on these two issues?
I haven’t read all the comments, and I’m not even sure this is relevant to the thread.
However, I used to participate in many ecumenical activities believing it to be in everyone’s best interest to contemplate our common beliefs and use those to work towards the solutions of social problems.
It looked good on paper anyway.
My experiences at many ecumenical events were not ones that made me feel welcome as a fellow Christian, but instead seemed to invite me to apologize for being Catholic.
As a musician who has played at numerous ecumenical affairs, I was repeatedly cautioned to not choose hymns or songs that reflected a “too Catholic” theology. While I can understand the need for a certain degree of tailoring the program to meet the needs of the audience, the bottom line is I’m Catholic. The group I directed was made up of other Catholics. The event coordinators asked a Catholic group to come play at ecumenical events where the theme typically was a celebration of many faiths. Yet, I could not appear to be “too Catholic” for fear of offending members of the many other faiths, all of whom had a part in the program where they got to draw on their religious heritage and speak or chant or sing accordingly.
I’m not talking about a single, one-time event either. I’ve done dozens of similar events and the outcome is always the same. “Don’t make it too Catholic.”
It is rare that you will see a Catholic priest invited to speak at an ecumenical event in my area. Perhaps they are invited and do not attend. However, I wouldn’t be too quick at criticizing Catholic clergy for missing out on these multi-faith gatherings because the last priest I did hear speak at one of these events showed up in street clothes rather than clerics.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not all about the uniform, but every other religious leader showed up in their respective clothes and head gear, and yet the Catholic priest apparently felt ill at ease at the thought of showing up wearing a collar.
This is not a political division, but a division of faith where I have felt very much on the fringes of what seemed to be an exclusive club of Christianity and supposed ecumenism. I was welcome as long as I checked my faith at the door.
For all the problems the Church has and that I have with the Church, and as willing as I am to be considerate of other people’s beliefs, I will not….will not….apologize for being Catholic.
Anybody who thinks liberal Catholics object to evangelicals and fundies on political grounds just isn’t reading carefully.
Fundies and evangelicals may vary from denomination to denomination, and the non-denoms even more. But in general they:
-Reject the primacy of the Pope
-Do not accept that any Catholic teaching is infallible (they have inerrancy of the Bible)
-Discourage veneration of the saints and may prohibit depiction of the saints, God and Jesus Christ
-Deny the existence of Purgatory
-May require that some sinners be re-baptized
-Do not believe in transubstantiation or even the real presence in the Eucharist
-Do not subscribe to Church teaching on contraception or capital punishment
-May be suspicious of social justice teachings because it “creates a false sense of security” regarding salvation
-Do not accept, practice or offer some sacraments
-Believe that where Catholics do not believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture, they are in danger of going to Hell, particularly regarding Revelation and the Rapture
-Believe it is a sin to offer wine in communion
Individual fundies and evangelicals may tolerate Catholics who fall in with their social conservatism. They may even like and admire some Catholics they know.
But here in my rural and unvarnished area, they are on my doorstep two or three times a year warning me that churchgoing is not a guarantee of salvation, importuning my son to their vacation Bible school, and trying to get me to contribute to missions to Catholic countries.
Jean,
I rather like your idea about the “marks” of Catholicism. I quite agree.
But 100% of non-Catholics are going to agree with some of those statements, right?
I am merely responding to the original assertion, that liberal Catholics object to joining forces with fundies and evangelicals b/c of their politics.
I object to joining forces with them because their church teachings make them antagonistic to Catholicism.
I suppose, if you are a conservative Catholic, you might believe that liberal Catholics are just as antagonistic to Catholic teaching. I would say that exhibits a lack of understand of what liberal Catholics are about.
But I can see how it might make you less fussy about allying yourself with evangelicals and fundies.
MLJ — I think the question is whether this alliance — notwithstanding its logic from the narrow perspective of abortion and homosexuality — might have some consequences that are negative even from the point of view of conservative Catholics. One example is the one mentioned in the post, namely, the possibility that when the alliance produces some “victories” in the Establishment Clause area, those very victories might empower the conservative Catholics’ erstwhile allies to take actions that work to the disadvantage of Catholics.
Another is the possibility of “mission creep,” namely, that conservative Catholics will begin to absorb bad ideas from their allies. I think you see this in Neuhaus’s support for Intelligent Design, which is something wholly borrowed from his Evangelical friends and is in great tension with traditional Catholic approaches to science. There’ s nothing wrong with alliances of convenience, but they carry their dangers, and the question is whether those risks are worth the costs.
Finally, there’s Jean’s excellent (and neglected) question above: why are conservative Catholics so tolerant of theological dissent among Evangelicals and so intolerant with respect to liberal Catholics, with whom (I believe) they share many more core theological convictions?
“Why are conservative Catholics so tolerant of theological dissent among Evangelicals and so intolerant with respect to liberal Catholics, with whom (I believe) they share many more core theological convictions?”
If the premise is correct, the answer is likely that Evangelicals don’t have a magisterium or traditon. So they’re not “dissenting.”
But I’m not sure about the assumption about “tolerance,” which is perhaps not quite the right word. It might be more accurate to understand the differences as barriers to full communion. On the other hand, all Catholics, conservative or liberal should be in full communion. The first ECT statement is admirably clear about differences and has a nice list not very different from Jean Raber’s:
“-The church as an integral part of the Gospel or the church as a communal consequence of the Gospel.
-The church as visible communion or invisible fellowship of true believers.
-The sole authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) or Scripture as authoritatively interpreted in the church.
-The “soul freedom” of the individual Christian or the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the community.
-The church as local congregation or universal communion.
-Ministry ordered in apostolic succession or the priesthood of all believers.
-Sacraments and ordinances as symbols of grace or means of grace.
-The Lord’s Supper as eucharistic sacrifice or memorial meal.
-Remembrance of Mary and the saints or devotion to Mary and the saints.
-Baptism as sacrament of regeneration or testimony to regeneration.”
James — surely they’re dissenting from Catholic teaching. The historical origins of their dissent simply go farther back in time. I agree that it’s useful to distinguish intra-denominational and inter-denominational differences regarding theology. But I think Jean’s point — though she can surely speak for herself — has more to do with the tone of openness in the ECT documents in contrast with the venom often directed towards liberal Catholics.
>>I object to joining forces with them because their church teachings make them antagonistic to Catholicism.<<
Surely this is not saying enough, right? I mean, Jews believe we worship Santa Claus, and yet we have no theological reason forbidding us from making common moral cause with them.
The Orthodox notwithstanding, the evanglicals are closer to us than anybody else.
Eduardo,
Four or five centuries makes a difference, though. I’m not sure you can dissent from an authority you don’t recognize. It was different for Luther. And I agree that inter-denominational or intra-Church venom should be avoided (so long as Fr. Neuhaus can still go after the Times editorial page).
But it would be very strange to construct a ‘Conservative Catholics and Liberal Catholics Together” series of statements. We already have the Nicene Creed — who needs openness when you’ve got full communion? I like it that Stephen Colbert has recited the Creed several times — I take it, perhaps wrongly, to be one of those things which the SC persona and the real SC agree upon, though their politics are very different.
Ultimately, I think that religious denominations that are publicly identified for their active, overt, forays into political issues will suffer for it. Some of the posters here must have noted that the newly elected leader of the Southern Baptist Convention tried to distance himself from the politicized wing of the convention. He did that, no doubt, because the membership of SBC churches has plateaued, and is clearly dropping among younger members. Many more “moderate” churches have pulled out and created their own alliances that de-emphasize political posturing.
This trend, I think, could be even more ominous for Catholics because focusing on internal division is one of the surest ways to fail to see what is happening in the larger world. In particular, making common cause with denominations who have no use for Catholic theology while actively condemning co-religionists can only undermine theological claims. The inability to have a theological argument without being accused of apostasy is not a message that will appeal to increasing numbers of people who have no use for theology whatsoever and who join megachurches for ready-made communities that ask for minimal adherence to any position, political or theological.
And fwiw, I think this is true whether the issues being pursued pull you leftward or rightward. It just seems to be the province of rightward leaning groups to pursue a more straightforward authoritarian agenda (i.e., legislate to prohibit immoral behavior).
Eduardo,
I have to admit, I find it hard to believe that you are asking the question, “why are conservative Catholics so tolerant of theological dissent among Evangelicals and so intolerant with respect to liberal Catholics, with whom (I believe) they share many more core theological convictions?”
First, I don’t think it is safe to assume that they share many more core convictions. For example, I will note in Jean’s list of such convictions is the acceptance of the Church’s infallible teachings. It is pretty clear from my reading of Commonweal, for example, that many progressive Catholics pick and chose what they think is infallible regardless of what the Church teaches – which is itself a denial of the doctrine.
That being said, why should I care what evangelicals think about, for example, priestesses? Their goal is to convert me from my Faith, not to change my Faith and its practice to suit them. I am much less concerned about the person who criticizes my home’s decor than I am about someone who’s painting the walls and changing the furniture.
Sean — that’s only because Protestants have so completely changed the walls and furniture of the Faith that you no longer recognize a big chunk of what used to be your “house” (to adopt your metaphor). We’re all Christians after all. One baptism and all that. Your comment perfectly illustrates Jean’s point.
Sean,
You just remarked “I don’t think it is safe to assume that [orthodox Catholics] share many more core convictions” with liberal Catholics than they do with evangelicals. Did I get that right? If so, I would like to hear you expand on that thought if you have a spare moment.
I invite mlj to provide evidence that proves this contention:
“The Orthodox notwithstanding, the evanglicals are closer to us than anybody else. ”
And by “closer,” I think you have to cite doctrinal similarities. You cannot simply say, well, they agree with us about abortion.
Because while they may agree with us about abortion, it’s not for the same sanctity of life reasons Catholics espouse. They believe it’s wrong to take an innocent life–which is laudable–but they’ll fight you on contraception and capital punishment, which Catholics see as part and parcel of the larger doctrine of the sanctity of life.
I also invite Sean to discuss this statement more:
“I don’t think it is safe to assume that they [liberal Catholics] share many more core convictions. For example, I will note in Jean’s list of such convictions is the acceptance of the Church’s infallible teachings. It is pretty clear from my reading of Commonweal, for example, that many progressive Catholics pick and chose what they think is infallible regardless of what the Church teaches – which is itself a denial of the doctrine.”
What doctrines have people denied here? I mean flat out denied, said were utterly wrong, and not just expressed doubt, questions or puzzlement about how those doctrines apply to Real Life?
What troubles me most about your comment is that I assume “progressive” Catholics go to confession like me. And I assume that, like me, they’re pretty blunt about what they’ve done, said, felt and believe.
And if, after all that, the priest absolves my sin and I fulfill my penance, then where do you get off telling me I’m no scarcely a better Catholic than some Baptist or Bible-Believing Church of the Holy Snake Handlers?
Evangelicals aren’t interested in rearranging your furniture or criticizing your decor so much as they are in tearing down your existing house and having you rebuild with their assistance, and I am astonished if you think the resulting house would be closer to the one your currently live in if they rather than liberal Catholics were the architect. Really? Do you really think that?
On Donna’s point about objections to “too Catholic” music. Many years ago (before we’d met) my Baptist wife sang for extra money in a Christian Science Church. One Sunday she suggested a hymn she was familiar with from her home church as a solo — I believe it is called “The Holy City.” The shocked response was that that was totally unacceptable since it was a Catholic hymn. When she first told me this story I tried — and failed — to find a Catholic that had ever heard of the hymn. (I realize that CS are not evangelicals, but I’ve had similar experiences with other denominations.)
Perhaps it’s living for so many years (California), but no one seems to have taken up the Mormon part of the initial equation. The pretty general Catholic feeling there was Mormons were people we could talk to, evangelicals rarely so. I never had a Mormon express anything but respect for the Catholic faith (albeit with an implicit offer of conversion in some cases), but have had many experiences with “evangelicals” such as the conversation with a long ago boss in which she informed me that being Catholic was at the bare minimum of religion, since Catholicism is a “low’ religion (reference to alcohol). In that same conversation she also allowed as how she never could forgive her old boy friend for not leaving his wife to marry her. (In her defence she was in the early stages of both pregnancy and multiple sclerosis at the time, so some allowance may be made.)
In my initial post on Mormons and going to hell I should have mentioned a story that actually happened to me. I happened to be in Saint George on vacation the year the Southern Baptists had their convention in Salt Lake City. Just before closing time one afternoon I decided I had to go back to the DUP museum to get a copy of the biography of Melissa Corey Kimball (bonus points to anyone who’s heard of her). The two quiet volunteers I’d seen in the morning had somehow been transformed into octogenarian teenagers, laughing, whooping, and dancing. I said, “You ladies seem pretty lively this afternoon,” and one of them told me, interrupted by laughter, “It’s because we’re going to hell. Some Baptists coming home from their convocation in Salt Lake just stopped in and told us how we were going to hell.” Suspecting a little of the kind of lives they’d lead I could see why they’d laugh.
mlj,
As to my comment. Eduardo made the assertion that liberal and orthodox Catholics share more core convictions than orthodox Catholics and fundamentalists. That may or may not be true. I hope it is. Unfortunately, I see a lot of evidence that many “progressive” Catholics share more in common with “progressive” Protestants than with orthodox Catholics. I have seen many indications that “progressive” Catholics, such as those that write for Commonweal don’t accept what I believe are core Catholic doctrines and litugical matters. The point of my statement was that I don’t assume that we share more in common than we don’t.
Jean,
You have to admit that here, meaning this blog and magazine, there have been numerous statements promoting priestesses, and denying the sinfulness of hosexuality. I have seen statements and articles that implicitly challenge the primacy of the Pope and the doctrine of infallibility, and others that promote positions on abortion and euthansasia that are clearly at odds with Church doctrine. I have seen some even mocking Marian devotion.
As to your assertion that progressive Catholics oppose “fundies” for primarily theological reasons, please show me some evidence of this. I have seen lots of criticism of the “fundies” with the word Bush in them, but never once with the words “Real Presence.”
Again, when I look at who is taking on the Evangelicals on matters of theology, they are all orthodox. Name me one “progressive” who is doing this. Even if you could, I can name you ten to one prominent orthodox Catholics who are. They may be willing to make common cause with them on life issues, but that doesn’t mean they are abandoning the Faith.
Sean,
Thanks for your response. I think we share many of the same hunches–though it also sounds like we would both like to be proven wrong. Take one random example: If I had the chance, I would much rather send my children to one of the newer Christian academies run by evangelicals than to an older RC high school run by a religious order. You can be assured that in the former they will receive serious intellectual and spiritual formation. The same cannot be said about the latter. It pains me to say that.
Sean and mlj,
Clearly, the two of you are entrenched in the church of dogma. Unfortunate, that you do not see the danger of that.
You really miss the point about those of who are less dogmatic than you. And in point of fact we may be living as good as if not truer Christian lives than you two.
The bottom line is that we are all sinners. No one here believes in a laissez faire life. Au contrere, people here are very much principled.
Your “newer Christian academies” are just that, new. The proof will be when they leave there.
So your statement is more wishful than real. If past results of similar schools are any indicator, and we have had many of the same, then the prospects are not encouraging.
>>Clearly…you are entrenched in the church of dogma.”
This is one of the nicest things anybody has ever said to me.
>>And in point of fact we may be living as good as if not truer Christian lives than you two.<<
That wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
Sean says: You have to admit that here, meaning this blog and magazine, there have been numerous statements promoting priestesses, and denying the sinfulness of hosexuality. I have seen statements and articles that implicitly challenge the primacy of the Pope and the doctrine of infallibility, and others that promote positions on abortion and euthansasia that are clearly at odds with Church doctrine. I have seen some even mocking Marian devotion.
Jean asks: I admit nothing of the kind, but I would be happy to entertain specific examples, which you have so far not provided.
If you are going to accuse “progressive” Catholics of unorthodoxy, heresy and the like, it seems to me the burden is on you to make the case.
I respectfully submit that what you see as denial are merely doubts and questions that honest people are not afraid to ask.
God sees what’s in our hearts, knows if we try to “fake” belief, and being able to express those doubts and questions here allows some of us to deepen and appreciate our faith more.
Perhaps this analogy might make sense: Say you marry a perfect spouse. I assume that’s something like what happened when I converted.
Marrying the perfect spouse only shows that I have a certain amount of discernment. But it doesn’t make me perfect. I will still question that spouse, argue with it, demand to know WHY my spouse asks me to do things I don’t want to do, etc. etc.
None of this is going to wear down my spouse if he is perfect, of course. And, knowing my spouse is perfect, I will continue to poke at those places where I differ with my spouse. For therein live the places I have a chance to make true spiritual progress.
Perhaps you and others are beyond the point where you question, or you feel that questioning doesn’t get you anywhere. Or perhaps you feel it’s wrong/futile/disrespectiful to question and argue at all.
Bill,
Thank you. Dogma, as you may know, is Truth. That is Truth with a capital T. As is divinely revealed Truth. Yes, I am a dogmatic Catholic.
Jean,
I accused no one of anything. My point was that you are assuming that anyone who is Catholic agrees with you on essential elements of the Faith, and I am saying that is not a very safe assumption to make. I am also not saying people should not question or even argue, but at some point in every argument and as to every question, there is a right and wrong side, otherwise what’s the use in questioning. Sometimes, what I read here is not just questioning, it is taking sides – it is advocating a position. That I may point to what I understand the Church’s position to be and if I agree with that position is nothing more than taking a side too.
As for my statement about some evidence on this in Commonweal, Paul Stanosz’s article in last month’s Commonweal, certainly implied if it did not outright advocate, the ordination of women. Blog postings and other articles adressing this issue, same sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia do more than question or even argue. They advocate. I can cut and paste some quotes with dates if you like me to prove the point. I have already found about a half dozen, but that’s not the point.
The point is that the underlying assumption of this particular posting is false. That somehow this coalition of the “orthodox” is a sell out for the Catholics or that they somehow don’t appreciate the great theological differences between Catholics and evangelicals, is just contrary to the facts. Again I ask, because no one has yet answered the question, what notable liberal Catholic is actively engaging Protestant Evangelicals on anything other than purely political grounds? The point being, who is it that is blinded by politics?
.
Sean,
So you can still go on denying that it is/was mainly dogmatic Catholics who kept covering up actively abusing priests. Kept sending them out to abuse more.
And it was not that they got poor advice from psychologists–saying rehabilitation was possible.
Rome and the American bishops were silent about it a long time. And it was only the intolerance of the public at large which pushed this gross abuse into the secular criminal courts.
It is this dogmatic church which did this which you choose to deny.
Dogma will save no one. Practice according to Matt 25:36-41 will.
Also Matthew 7:21:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” (NAB)
Alleged right belive without right action doesn’t hack it.
Sean, I didn’t see any point in trying to produce liberal theologians opposed to fundamentalist/evangelical theology. You said even if I could find one, you could produce 10 conservative theologians who were making cogent arguments against conservative Protestants, so I didn’t think you were interested.
I believe Church teaching must be approached with reverence to be sure. It incorporates 2,000 years of thought, tradition and Scriptural scholarship. One must assume it is probably closer to the Truth than one’s own half-baked ideas.
I also believe that the Church–all of us Catholics–is the true repository of the teachings of Christ.
But I am skeptical that everything in the Catechism is the Truth or is an adequate expression of the Truth.
Anyway, I think this attempt at finding common ground is about played out. I wish you a joyous holiday.
A joyous Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year to you as well, Jean.
Bill,
I said nothing at all about the abuse crisis, but there is no corelation, as far as I can see, between where Bishops stood on matters of faith, liturgy, and theology, and how they behaved in relation to the sex abuse crisis.
It is a myth, for example, that Cardinal Law was some sort of archconservative. He was considered by most to be moderate and some to be even liberal. He was very well thought of by P&J activists. Cardinal Mahony’s hardly an ultramontanist, and I think his behavior, for example, in invoking something akin to priest-penitent confidentiality in keeping documents from law enforcement was disgraceful.
There was plenty of disgraceful behavior accross the theological spectrum on this issue.
Jimmy,
You are absolutely right, but know one said that it did. How can I do what is right and do the Father’s will unless I try to understand what it is? I can’t just ignore the bits of Scripture and Tradition about moral behavior and justice and go on my merry way relying on His mercy alone.