Commonweal attacks!
Robby George sounds the alarm. All conservatives — run for the fallout shelters! Or something like that, as he posts at Mirror of Justice, flagging two issues covered at Public Discourse, one of the media outlets he helps oversee. One refers to two of their articles on abortion and healthcare reform, which he says are “responding to an attack launched by the editors of Commonweal.” That “attack” would be the magazine’s editorials on health care reform, and discussions at dotComm posts like this one.
The content and tone of Commonweal’s editorials hardly strike me as an “attack,” and I realize I generally agree with their arguments. But the defensive language of injury and persecution seem to me to be a conservative tic, at least these days. We see repeatedly in threads on dotCommonweal that arguments and criticisms on an issue are answered quite often by conservatives in hurt and angry tones that not surprisingly translate into critiques of a poster or commenter’s character rather than a response to the facts or claims.
Archbishop Chaput, no liberal wallflower, has made an interesting observation about this in several places — the one I found being in this Pew Forum discussion in which he notes that the worst emails and hate mail he gets are from Catholic conservatives:
“Nobody can tone down this group. I don’t know who can tone down the left because they usually just – it’s really interesting, the left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul.”
This dynamic seems to play out across the culture, from church to politics. Whence the conservative neuralgia? It always strikes me as an odd response for a group generally associated with toughness of mind and thickness of skin — not to mention charity of spirit.
Speaking just for myself, arguing with the most vitriolic liberal rhetoric (like this particular post of yours) feels like playing tennis with someone who makes rules and breaks them at the same time. It doesn’t feel like a fair game. It feels like you want to be both referee and player. It also feels like you want to be prejudicial and insulting at the same time you’re trying to define civility.
It’s sort of natural to feel defensive in situations that seem unfair, I guess. One can’t always summon up the energy to take the high road–although that would be best.
That’s a good insight, Kathy, thanks. QED!
It would be easier to take Robbie George seriously if he stopped acting as Glenn Beck’s court theologian.
I really enjoy reading Mirror of Justice, but one of the things that I find annoying is that Robert George never enables comments on his posts.
This is the second time Robert George has accused Commonweal of having “launched an attack.” Last time it was the bishops conference Commonweal was supposed to have attacked, and the word “attack,” in that context, seemed to mean little more than “disagree with.” This time Commonweal is said to have launched an attack on Public Discourse, and here “launch an attack” seems only to mean “respond, without apology, to criticism.” In what they billed as “a first-time feature,” the editors of Public Discourse rebuked the editors of Commonweal for our disagreement with the bishops conference and certain prolife organizations. We said nothing. Then, when they published another piece that faulted Commonweal for not trusting the bishops conference, we answered them. It’s a strange lexicon in which the only alternatives to “attack” are silence or an admission of error. It puzzles me that a man so careful in his arguments should be so careless in his language.
I look at conservative Catholic Blogs [mea culpa] to see what’s up. they only post what they like and some for only donors and 10c doesn’t do it. e.g. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/
Is this not an awkward sign of a full course press for propaganda rather then discussion?.
I stand corrected. George wrote that we “launched an assault,” not an attack, on the bishops. I guess my memory softened the insult.
Poor Robby! He doesn’t know an “Attack” from serious discussion.
Commonwealmagazine editorials (and the responders) are very polite, and are objective in presenting the (their) points. I get on a few Catholic websites from other countries as well.
The Australian ‘Catholica’ and the Canadian ‘NewCatholicTimes’—both of which are, in many ways like Commonwealmagazine. They inform, analyze, defend, don’t run away from serious discussion, either—and are warm and friendly at the same time.
Another of my favorite Catholic websites is NCRonline. Now Robby should visit that site—Attacks, Robby? Duck, while you can! :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMdC45S79uQ
Mirror of Justice is not a conservative Catholic web site. For example, Eduardo Peñalver is an official contributor here on dotCommonweal, on ReligiousLeftLaw.com, and on Mirror of Justice. Bob Hockett, Michael Perry, and Steve Shiffrin are official contributors to both Mirror of Justice and ReligiousLeftLaw.com.
By the way, I didn’t intend any criticism of MOJ as such, not did I mean to classify it as a conservative blog. I am a regular reader, and find that it admirably includes a range of voices (as does dotCommonweal) which is such a rarity in the blogosphere. I agree I wish that Robert George allowed comments.
But David Nickol’s comment about MOJ recalled that Patrick Brennan posted his less-than-classy jibe at Lisa Fullam’s post about liturgy here, and his anger at Lisa and those who agreed with her also seemed echo the dynamic sketched out above.
Maybe a little historical perspective might help. Conservative Catholics — like conservative Protestants, who often voice a similar tone of embattlement — are pining for a time when theirs was pretty much the only opinion expressed. Now that they don’t monopolize the stage, it feels like “attack.” When such people lament being “attacked” or, God help us, “oppressed,” what they’re really saying is that they have to contend with opposition now. Their “neuralgia” is the spite of their nostalgia.
We always feel attacked when our worldview is questioned (to say nothing of when it’s threatened). If the CW Editorial is right about the health care policy, for example, it challenges the authority of the Bishops. If your worldview requires them to be right de facto, you will feel that a challenge to their interpretation of the bill is an affront to the order of the world, and by extension, yourself, who subscribes to that worldview. Hence, differences of opinion are perceived as “attacks.”
There’s an excellent book on the topic called “Don’t think of an elephant” by George Lakoff.
He makes the point that liberals tend to value flexibility of mind and positions, whereas conservatives tend to value “right thinking.” (It’s not a value judgment, by the way, just an observation.) This may explain why conservatives take things as an “attack” – it is simply more jarring to them for their worldview to be questioned.
It also occurs to me that the conservative rhetoric of persecution is also, in part, a phony populist move. It’s been a four-decade-long gambit on the part of George, Michael Novak, etc., to depict themselves as the vox populi railing against the snotty liberal secular communist elites who look down on Ordinary Americans.
Well, I do think that feelings of persecution run highest when you feel that you are losing status (culturally speaking), no matter how dominant you remain.
However, I think that, at least for conservative Catholics, another dynamic is simple frustration that arguments from authority are deemed to be insufficient. Since acceptance of magisterial authority is supposed to be part of Catholic identity, non-acceptance (or arguments about it, anyway) can start to seem like a personal failing — or at least a Catholic failing, which, combined with the notion that you shouldn’t have to persuade others based on logic anyway on what are supposed to be matters of faith and obedience (and maybe can’t — depends on the person and the subject), leads to ad hominem arguments. The truest believers are often the least persuasive to others.
It’s just another way to calumniate your opponents–portray them as a vicious enemy to be defended against, rather than a reasonable interlocutor with a position worthy of being engaged or disputed. Typical, unfortunately. Reasoned arguments are described as “rants,” thoughtful essays taking a strong position caricatured as “attacks.” I do think Eugene is correct in both of his observations above.
I really think George is pulling down the quality of MOJ. There are a good number of very smart “conservatives” who always have interesting things to say, such as Rick Garnett. But George will forever the associated with his “American Principles Project”, a set of neocon/ Fox News talking points.
Both sides too far from the middle use the “rhetoric of persecution”. Neither are flexible, that is, interested in consensus. During the presidential campaign, the conservatives inferred they were on the side of “real Americans” and liberals announced they were interested in helping “real people”. Are they the same? I see it as conservatives thinking and letting the people do; liberals thinking and letting the government do. Regarding attacking the other side, conservatives shoot from the hip, confident they have the right way (can lead to pride); liberals devise ways secretly, confident they have the right way (can lead to arrogance).
David Gibson: “We see repeatedly in threads on dotCommonweal that arguments and criticisms on an issue are answered quite often by conservatives in hurt and angry tones that not surprisingly translate into critiques of a poster or commenter’s character rather than a response to the facts or claims.”
Morning’s Minion: “It would be easier to take Robbie George seriously if he stopped acting as Glenn Beck’s court theologian.”
Ahem.
Morning’s Minion:
Robert George is just as smart as any of the other conservative contributors to MOJ, and few have done as good a job as he has at making a nonsectarian case for the rights of the unborn. I think it’s just wrong to say his reputation rests on the American Principles Project — or on Public Discourse for that matter. The problem here is that he is not always as fastidious about his rhetoric as he is about his theoretical positions, and he seems to become less and less fastidious, more and more presumptuous, when he is writing about the nuts and bolts of public policy and electoral politics. On those topics, he is always singing “Which Side Are You On?” to every Catholic on his left.
The thing about conservatives seeing themselves as a persecuted minority is that they’re demonstratively not…(Although I’d argue “genuine” conservatives like the David Frums et al are closer to an embattled sect, though “attacked” mainly by their erstwhile confreres). Conservatives had eight years of Bush, e.g., and a great run in Congress under Clinton, and they’ve dominated the Supreme Court, and Americans embrace many conservative values, and are arguably becoming more “pro-life” on abortion. The overreaction seems to require a bit of cognitive dissonance.
The persecution complex that is said to be characteristic of conservatives may be based on feelings of low self esteem. Progressives can help by giving, in addition to all their usual excellent advice, therapeutic pep talks to conservatives, emphasizing their many positive achievements.
Many cite Hofsatdter on the Paranoid Style to great effect these days, and have a point for the real fringe. (Though that fringe seems to be coopting the party apparatus to a dgeree.) But this dynamic seems more typical of many garden variety conservatives.
Andrew Sullivan has many posts on conservatism that I admire, and just had this item, which strikes me as informative:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/the-conservativeliberal-delusion.html
Someone is protesting too much me thinks, and it isn’t George.
When aren’t the posters around here complaining and railing about something? When aren’t they on the attack? Whether it is the Pope, the Vatican curia, the bishops, the priesthood, or Catholic doctrine, and on and on, the common theme of posts and comments is that these things in the Church are all awful.
Indeed, I’ve asked if folks can’t cite something they like about the Church, if they can’t find it in themselves to love the Church, and I gotten responses to the effect of, “what’s there to love”?
A commune of warm and fuzzy love and charity this place is not. True, some of the traditionalist websites have their own foaming-at-the-mouth problem, but that does not provide an excuse or license to do the same. The fact is, places like Commonweal and the Rad-Trad sites are nothing more than flip-sides of the same coin.
And now a selection from The Very Best of Bender:
“Progressives can help by giving, in addition to all their usual excellent advice, therapeutic pep talks to conservatives, emphasizing their many positive achievements.”
Goodness knows, we’ve witnessed an effusion of psychological diagnoses in the comments here :-)
Mr. Gibson:
Your sarcastic comment “Robby George sounds the alarm. All conservatives — run for the fallout shelters!” is premised upon a misleading reference to Robert George’s post at Mirror of Justice. You wrote:
“One (of George’s posts) refers to two of (Public Discourse’s) articles on abortion and healthcare reform, which he says are ‘responding to an attack launched by the editors of Commonweal.’” You then wrote “That ‘attack’ would be the magazine’s editorials on health care reform, and discussions at dotComm posts like (“Jost Jousts”). The content and tone of Commonweal’s editorials hardly strike me as an “attack …”
In fact, Robert George did not suggest in his post that more than one Commonwealth editorial constituted an “attack”. Rather, he linked to a Public Discourse article that responded just to one particular editorial, “Jost Jousts”. By prefacing the title of that editorial with the word “like” you misleadingly suggested that George claimed in his post that editorials in addition to “Jost Jousts” constituted attacks on Public Discourse.
Whether Professor George believes that previous Commonwealth editorial also constituted “attacks” and whether you believe that any previous Commonweal editorial “hardly” can fairly be characterized as an “attack” is beside the point. The fact is, the editorial to which George was referring, “Jost Jousts”, did constitute a personal attack on the Helen Alvare’, the author of the Public Discourse article that was the subject of the editorial, by advancing a dishonest mischaracterization of her argument and falsely attributing to her a sarcastic attitude toward Professor Jost’s religious affiliation. (See the first comment in response to the editorial and see “Helen Alvare vs. Commonweal” at http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/07/helen-alvare-vs-commonweal.html )
By the way, I note that your post begins with an unwarranted sarcasm toward Robert George and the unsigned editorial “Jost Jousts” was replete with similarly lame sarcasm, and that your post was misleading in reference to what Robert George wrote just as the editorial mischaracterized Helen Alvare’s article. Is that just a coincidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Yes, Mr. Kelly, that is just a coincidence. David Gibson is not an editor here. Textual criticism seems not to be your strong suit. For example, you confuse the attribution of sarcasm with sarcasm itself. There was not a hint of sarcasm (or any other kind of humor) in Helen Alvare’s first Public Discourse piece, and we did not say there was. We sarcastically suggested that it was impertinent for Alvare to fault us for not “trusting” the bishops conference and for giving “the benefit of the doubt” to someone with no public record of cooperation with the bishops conference — someone who, as a matter of public record, is a Mennonite. We asked what Timothy Jost’s relationship to, or opinion of, the bishops conference had to do with a legal analysis of the new health-care law. We’re sorry this gave you the vapors.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Another allusion, this one something of a concession. In his Love ine the Ruins, Walker Percy’s hero is able to gauge peoples’ souls using an Ontological Lapsometer, a handheld diagnostic instrument. When he points the Lapsometer at a conservative, on a rant, it registers “red nucleus rage.”
I don’t think this is entirely inapt.
Michael J. Kelly: What Matthew Boudway said. I’m not sure what your “gotcha” point was. I actually didn’t want to narrow down R. George’s targets, though I suspect that yes, the “Jost Jousts” editorial was his principal issue. Again, I’m not sure what point you’re making or how it advances your claims. But rage on.
PS: Re Kathy’s point, Walker Percy, a favorite, was a piercing diagnostician of all typologies.
“A commune of warm and fuzzy love and charity this place is not.”
I don’t see it exactly as a hotbed of dissent, either, but I think it’s interesting to note that conservatives/liberals in the blogosphere and in real life tend to be different creatures.
On here there are certainly there are lots of sympathetic liberal “cyberfriends” pushing me back to the middle (not that I act on their good advice). I can’t imagine anybody would even bother with me on a conservative site, and certainly there are a lot of conservatives here who think I’m an ill-informed, sharp-tongued biddy–or a similar word that starts with “b.”
On the other hand, my real-life conservative friends are probably more interested in my continuing struggle with/against the Church (depending on what day it is) than my liberal friends. Liberals tend to feel fairly mushy about rules and theology, and stay connected to the Church b/c it’s a family thing.
FWIW, the Newmania 3 below was discussing argument (when it wasn’t talking about lard and piecrust).
Telling is Caput’s recounting of criticism from the right and the left. Many of us have gotten it from both sides as it were. Right here, for example. All of this, however, should come as no surprise as the hierarchy has specialized in polemics for centuries. And what message is sent when such a terms a “hammer of heretics”, “defender of the faith” are used. Same thing with the trumping of Apologetics. As if explaining the faith is more important than living it. When Peter writes that we should give an “explanation for the hope that is in us”, he does not mean that we should do it with all this vitriol and especially not employ the state as too many officials did throughout the ages. Simply put, our words are excessive while are actions are minimal. As the old saying goes: “Verb Volent, exempla trahunt.” Words fly while example attracts.
To put it another way we should have more bishops visiting Haiti than going to Ad Limina visits. Less speeches and more appearance in the poor spots of India and Africa. ETC.
Just btw, in the Percy novel it was the warm and fuzzy commune that was perpetrating atrocities under the cover of darkness.
“To put it another way we should have more bishops visiting Haiti than going to Ad Limina visits. Less speeches and more appearance in the poor spots of India and Africa. ETC.”
Why? What value do you think they would add there? I would think as a purely mathematical matter a speech given in a developing country which encouraged two or more younger, more physically fit individuals to perform corporal works of mercy in the countries and continents you mention would add more value to those being served actually than having one bishop go.
MAT? “as a purely mathematical matter a speech given in a developing country[India?] which encouraged two or more younger, more physically fit individuals to perform corporal works of mercy in the countries and continents you mention would add more value to those being served actually than having one bishop go.’
Right? Gandi should have listened to your wise ‘mathematical’ advice instead of taking that long march for salt.
[ I say let's start a new thread called.... How can we be losing to these guys?]
“Right? Gandi should have listened to your wise ‘mathematical’ advice instead of taking that long march for salt.”
What advice? Is English not your first language? It is not mine either so I sympathize with your literacy struggles.
I think both MAT and Ed make excellent points. Certainly making a change requires fit, young people to get out there and do the works of corporal mercy.
But I’d say that one charismatic old man–and many of our bishops are late middle-aged to elderly–setting the example might be needed to inspire/shame them into starting.
What this has to do with the topic of David’s thread, though, I don’t quite know.
“Just btw, in the Percy novel it was the warm and fuzzy commune that was perpetrating atrocities under the cover of darkness.”
Golly, isn’t that just the way it happens? Get those softly strumming gee-tars going on “Here I Am, Lord,” and people turn into vicious Kumbaya zombie jackals, attacking God-fearing Christians in their beds at night!
Frankly, I’d like to see a moratorium on all hymns using the first person singular, not because of the warm fuzzy thing, but because it smacks of the “Jesus, my personal Lord and Savior” of the fundie-gelicals. If the Church is the collective body of Christ, “we” would be a more appropriate pronoun.
What it has to do with the topic is that we would be doing less “attacking” if we concentrated on doing instead of verbalizing ourselves into vitriol. unproductive rhetoric. Then again it was that famous rhetorician who, has become the idol of the Western Church who specialized in rhetoric.
See, Bill, I think this is a case of both/and rather than either/or when it comes to acts of mercy and vitriolic rhetoric.
For example, I spent most of last week performing corporal acts of mercy by helping my elderly uncle deal with a hip replacement gone bad and my elderly mother who says she’s too nervous to even comb her hair since Dad died.
This week I got on the e-mail and engaged in some vitriolic rhetoric at my brother who seems to have made himself pretty scarce in the last couple of weeks. The fact that I did all that good stuff last week means I can feel warm and fuzzy about bitching out my brother, because it might inspire him to be more like me.
See? and/both!
I think Percy’s point was that anyone who fools himself into thinking he is on the *innocent* side, ie anyone who truly feels herself to be exempt from original sin and all its effects, is an even greater danger to society than all the rest of us sinners. “I’m one of the uncorrupted”–that’s dangerous. Perhaps fatal for a Christian.
Jean, Bitching out your brother to do the right thing is different than bitching him about his understanding of the Trinity. I am not sure about the vitriol. But forceful correction makes sense when it comes to Matthew 25:36. It is the polemics about dogma that are misdirected, I submit.
Flannery O’Connor’s version: “I am not a warthog from hell!”
For those not familiar with the Robert George being discussed here his recent discussion with Robert Wright on natural law might serve as a good introduction:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/29451
Evidence of psychological disorder on the part of George is not readily apparent in this dialogue. Perhaps an observer as acute as Hofstadter might find sufficiient status insecurities in his background to explain his strange non-progressive views but I would imagine that for the rest of us he will appear to be fairly civilized and actually perfectlly at home even outside a nourishing conservative habitat.
If progressives ever think to solicit instruction regarding their own psychological shortcomings he might be a good one to recommend a skilled practitioner since he seems thoroughly familiar with the customs and folkways of his interlocutors.
Mr. Boudway and Mr. Gibson:
First, my apologies, Mr. Gibson, for insinuating that you may have been responsible for the dishonest Commonweal editorial, “Jost Jousts”.
Second, regarding David Gibson’s comment “I’m not sure what your “gotcha” point was … I actually didn’t want to narrow down R. George’s targets, though I suspect that yes, the “Jost Jousts” editorial was his principal issue”: I think you understood the point very well. Your post was about conservative Catholics’ supposed “defensive language of injury and persecution” and you cited George’s “attack” comment as exhibit no. 1. But as George’s post at MOJ makes clear, the editorial was in fact an attack.
(See “Helen Alvare’ vs. Commonweal” http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/07/helen-alvare-vs-commonweal.html)
However, I accept Matthew Boudway’s criticism that my statement that the editorial attributed a sarcastic attitude on the part of Ms. Alvare’ toward Mr. Jost’s religious affiliation was incorrect. I should have said that the editorial sarcastically attributed prejudice on Ms. Alvare’s part toward Professor Jost. (“Take that, you Mennonite” and “Oops. The Mennonite was right after all.”)
As for your incessant need to use sarcasm in response to posters who dare criticize you (e.g. “vapors”, and “rage on” – ironically, terms which aptly describe your mindset and commentary in responding to conservative commentators such as Robert George), I’ll leave it to the Patrick Malloy to recommend a therapist in view of his evident expertise in psychological analysis (assuming his expertise is not limited to analyzing persons who hold “strange non-progressive views”).
Good lord.
But I can’t help but wondering if anyone at MOJ or Public Discourse watches “Mad Men.”
This whole thing reminds me of a recent episode when Peggy Olson staged a fight between two actresses over a ham in a supermarket in order to drive up attention and sales for honey baked hams. I’d love to see the Public Discourse blog numbers–was there a jump?
Oh well. It’s August. People are cranky. Vacations are over. Mine certainly is.
“I am not a warthog from hell!”
My brother thinks so. And he’s not so far off. I might couch my arguments in terms of his not loving our mother and uncle enough. But what’s really ticking me off is having to carry these burdens I don’t want in the first place. When he’s as miserable and frazzled as I am, then I might be satisifed.
What a lovely person! What a loving sister!
And that’s essentially how I see blogosphere conservatives: ticked off because they feel they’re carrying around the burden of the Body of Christ all on their own while liberals/progressives just play at being good Catholics or love God enough.
Examples: If liberals loved God enough, they’d “solicit instruction regarding your own psychological shortcomings”; vote for the pro-life Republican they think is wrong-headed about everything else because the most helpless life is the most important life to protect; stop having sex if they’re single, gay, or not validly married in the eyes of the Church; stop using artificial birth control to have sex without consequences any damn time they want; see affronts to their faith when the Empire State Building won’t light up for Mother Teresa Day and harrumph about these affronts frequently; sing the right hymns; stop feminizing the Church.
In my view NONE of us loves God enough, but we fail to love God in our own special ways. Fortunately, God loves us enough back to make up for it.
At least that’s what I’m hoping.
Jean,
The frustrations I feel are not about personal growth or personal morality. I pray for folks (including my own poor self) and I take the long view. All of us are on the road to conversion of heart. God is in charge of the faith journey, thank goodness.
My frustrations come down to this: Why are people trying to run the Catholic Church if they don’t buy into it?
It is ironic that the Public Discourse piece is more substantive and less concerned about the meanness of its opponents than is this blog post itself.
“Why are people trying to run the Catholic Church if they don’t buy into it?”
Yes, same old conservative lament–people don’t love the Church enough by not “buying into it” (whatever that means), yet they want to “run” it (again, don’t know what that means).
Is criticizing the Church or wanting to reform it not buying into it or wanting to run it?
If so, somebody better tell St. Francis, that damn liberal.
Jean (and Kathy), I think you raise an interesting point — Jody Bottum at First Things had an essay the other day about the problem of “freeloaders” in the church and in a culture, that is, those who can take advantage of a dominant ethos by rebelling because they know the ethos will remain. He worries that atheists and many insufficiently devout Christians will lead to a tipping point so the dominant ethos is a minority and the culture (and church go down the toilet:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/08/the-freeloader8217s-culture
I think the sense of self-congratulation can work in reverse, with those who faithful uphold the culture/religion feeling good about themselves precisely because of the “freeloaders” (though that’s not what I’d call them in the church context). So both orthodox and freeloader need each other, I guess.
But if one feels particularly burdened as the bearer of culture and faith could make one especially resentful, I suspect.
Why not put this one to rest by supporting the Protect Life Act?
Jean (and David),
By “running it” I mean holding positions of influence.
“I think the sense of self-congratulation can work in reverse, with those who faithful uphold the culture/religion feeling good about themselves precisely because of the “freeloaders” (though that’s not what I’d call them in the church context). ”
As in, “I thank you, Lord, that I am not a sinner like everybody else, especially that tax collector there!” :-)
“So both orthodox and freeloader need each other, I guess.”
What a radical thought :-) We really do, and not just in this dysfunctional, codependent way!
“But if one feels particularly burdened as the bearer of culture and faith (this) could make one especially resentful.”
Resentful like the elder son in the Prodigal Son story?
I am always impressed by the Prodigal Son scene in the movie Jesus of Nazareth. Peter despises Matthew because he is a Jew and yet works as a tax collector for the Romans (a “freeloading Jew) – Jesus then asks the “freeloader”(Matthew) if he could dine with him. Peter is shocked that Jesus would eat with a sinner (freeloader), in fact, another disciple tells Jesus that associating with Matthew could contaminate him. Peter at first refuses to accompany Jesus to Matthew’s home and then is drawn there. We know the rest: Jesus tells the Prodigal Son story and Peter recognizes he is the elder son and Matthew the prodigal son, and both are converted and TOGETHER begin to follow Jesus. “You are always with Me, but it is right that we celebrate for your brother was lost and is found, was dead and is alive again.”
David, not sure if I understand what you’re saying–that the freeloaders need the faithful to maintain a stable society? But that the faithful need the freeloaders as some sort of irritant to maintain their commitment to the faith?
I guess I see the symbiosis of the faithful and the dubious (for lack of any better term) somewhat differently.
I think the faithful, quite properly, ask us to consider the consequences of rejecting various teachings of the Church. I was raised a Unitarian, and if you’d like me to speak about the futility of belonging to a sect dominated by the dubious I’ll be happy to go on at some length, and I’d probably sound like a good Catholic, which I’m not.
I think the dubious, quite properly, ask us to regularly examine whether certain teachings of the Church are wholly in line with the spirit of Christ’s teaching. A sect dominated by the orthodox runs the risk of creating ever more rigid rules and tests (see, for example, Nancy Danielson’s challenge to support the Protect Life Act), which ultimately dishearten and turn away the faltering but sincere.
Kathy, oh. Like who? In what positions? By what groups, individuals do you feel most frustrated? What would be your proposed solution? To have them leave? I always figure that, even though I don’t receive or believe in the many of the Church’s teachings about openness to life, it’s better I show up where maybe I can hear something that will offer a change of heart than to revert entirely.
I should make it clear that I don’t want to “run” anything except my big mouth. Just ask my brother.
Jean,
I realize you aren’t trying to run anything.
My proposed solution for those who are, but who don’t actually subscribe to the Creed, or to the Councils, is to PLEASE step down. Change careers. Be a regular Catholic, at least for the time being, instead of a professional one.
Kathy, I am not a professional Catholic, and I note that a lot of the people you deride for “trying to run things” are, nonetheless, actually making things run in the form of unpaid service on behalf of the Church. What would the Church do without them? Why should their influence be so suspect?
As for Montaigne — Montaigne has the very considerable virtue of honesty. He openly fails to participate in Church, even as he questions whether he would want everyone else to be like him. What excuse does the hierarchy have for overlooking child sexual abuse while proclaiming ironclad sexual codes even for people who are married to each other? I quote Andrew Sullivan on Newt Gingrich, who rather encapsulates the flipside of Montaigne:
“This notion that the elite’s responsibility is to preach values they do not believe in and do not practice is not the same as failing to live up to norms we all aspire to. It is not simply being human; it is cynicism. You see it in the neoconservative flattery of crude religious faith they quietly feel alienated from – and then the bashing of “liberals” for being more honest about it. Everyone who fails to live up to ideals deserves support. Those who lie about the ideals they actually hold, and use that as a cynical bludgeon in political warfare deserve no such thing.”
My biggest complaint with conservatives isn’t their inability to muster real live arguments in support of what they believe, though I often find that’s the case, it’s with their refusal to see how damaging the current hierarchy is to the continuing vitality of the Church and to make excuses and point the finger back in the other direction. You seem to think that if we all just stop talking about these things (for instance: all-male celibate priesthood) they will magically resolve themselves. No, that is emphatically not true.
Barbara,
We must be referring to different people.
Augustine and the Caesellians did not subscribe to the majority church in Africa but rather worked on dominating them which they eventually did with the help of the Empire. Kathy you should know that being a regular Catholic would mean making some terribly ethical mistakes. You might make up for your lacuna by seriously learning your history. This is not an attack. Its an invitation.
E.G. All unbaptized infants go the hell.
One must follow the magisterium even tho it has been wrong in the past
Enjoying pleasure in marital sex is a sin.
To fight Muslims earns indulgences….etc.
Studebaker, where exactly is the irony? If you want to compare those two Public Discourse pieces to something, compare them to this and this, not to David Gibson’s blog post, which was not a response to the Public Discourse pieces but a comment on the manner of Robert George’s presentation of them at MOJ.
To Michael J. Kelly — For the record my comments above about therapy were written tongue in cheek. I do not think Robert George needs advice on how to shed any conservative tic that has been identified in this thread. Nor should he look to David Frum or Andrew Sullivan (why no mention of David Gergen?) to learn about an authentic conservatism.
“But if one feels particularly burdened as the bearer of culture and faith could make one especially resentful, I suspect.”
David G. –
I read not so recently (can’t remember where) that the psychologists who have studied the psychological differences between conservatives and liberals have come up with one and only one marker: conservatives have a heightened capacity for feeling disgust. There are, according to the article, four basic emotions, and disgust is one of them. It relates to all sort of things. Hmmm.
Might I ask the conservatives on the list: what is there about liberals that disgusts you? I”m serious.
(Why is there no experimental psychologist on the blog? What is there about Catholicism that doesn’t seem to attract them?)
I have always heard the five “basic” emotions are joy, sadness, fear, anger and disgust. Of these, I believe disgust is the one that developed latest, because my (late) dog was definitely capable of the first four, but he never really got disgust down. In fact, things that are normally considered disgusting (excrement, carrion) were some of his favorite sniffables.
I am not a conservative but what I find disgusting about liberals is their insistence on eliminating everything that makes human life at all elevated, worthwhile or inspiring. The dumbing down of school curricula so stupid children don’t feel bad. Lowered mortgage qualifications irresponsible people can have them anyway, without having to change their financial habits. The specialization and atomization of academic disciplines so everybody, however mediocre his talents, can be an expert in something. The stigmatization of any and all restrictions on carnal intercourse so every degenerate can consider himself morally equal to the chaste. Liberalism is disgusting when it appears to be driven by envy.
Conservatives are disgusting when they indulge in the kind of sadistic, subhuman behavior this thread started with. There is a definite tendency among conservatives to act like life is high-school, where it’s kind of cool to beat up the little guy, the crippled guy and the guy who stutters. I don’t know how that sort of behavior ever got to be associated with conservatives, but it’s as disgusting and subhuman as anything liberals do.
Basically, I think Archbishop Chaput is about right. The liberals I’ve met are intellectually sloppy, but generally pleasant people. The conservatives make more sense when they talk, but they’re a bunch of insufferable jerks. I really miss my dog.
Patrick @ 12:29: Who do you think represents authentic conservatives? Which school of conservatism?
Felapton @ 2:37: you are NOT a conservative ? What is all of this if not conservativism of the more odious stripe? —
“The dumbing down of school curricula so stupid children don’t feel bad. Lowered mortgage qualifications irresponsible people can have them anyway, without having to change their financial habits. The specialization and atomization of academic disciplines so everybody, however mediocre his talents, can be an expert in something. The stigmatization of any and all restrictions on carnal intercourse so every degenerate can consider himself morally equal to the chaste.”
This seems a good time and place to slip these in —
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith
“A progressive is someone who keeps making the same mistake, while a conservative is someone who prevents a mistake from ever being corrected.” G. K. Chesterton
Ann O: I recall that article as well, and I suppose it makes some sense, though there seems to be plenty of disgust on the liberal side for many conservatives. I think it is a question of how such disgust is expressed; perhaps by snark and sarcasm from the left, and outrage and opprobrium from the right?
Barbara, I think Kathy was referring to the bishops, everyone’s favorite whipping boys. At least left and right have that in common!
David,
Nope.
Kathy, no guessing games then. Either be clear in the target of your indictments, or better yet keep them to yourself.
David, ow could I possibly know who teaches the Catholic faith while denying articles of the Creed, or makes policy for the Church without believing the teachings of the Councils? So few people actually come out and say so. And of those who do say so, well, who wants to scandalize people by repeating that?
In any case I’m not indicting anyone. How can the subject of an indictment be unnamed? I’m simply saying that this is what frustrates conservatives, in response to a question that has been posed in a hundred ways in this thread, sometimes in really funny ways (Ann).
That’s McCarthyism, Kathy.
No, no, I don’t mean to be pointing fingers. It’s very practical. Look, I happen to disbelieve in calculus. Thus I would be the wrong person to be teaching higher math, or making up curricula for engineering schools, or working at NASA.
I’m just suggesting (begging) that anyone who disbelieves major aspects of Catholicism would not put themselves in a position in which they would be in charge of any aspect of its promotion. It’s an easy self-selection. Read the documents of Vatican II. Can you agree? If not, take a sabbatical or whatever. (This could happen on right or left.)
“My frustrations come down to this: Why are people trying to run the Catholic Church if they don’t buy into it?” 8/11 @ 8:54
“[H]ow could I possibly know who teaches the Catholic faith while denying articles of the Creed, or makes policy for the Church without believing the teachings of the Councils?” 8/11 @ 3:54
“By “running it” I mean holding positions of influence.” 8/11 @ 9:18
“I’m just suggesting (begging) that anyone who disbelieves major aspects of Catholicism would not put themselves in a position in which they would be in charge of any aspect of its promotion.” 8/11 @4:19
OK, so, if you don’t know of any particular individuals in positions of influence who are don’t buy into the faith, then whence comes your frustration at 8:54?
Just trying to stay with the argument and account for what looks like inconsistencies and back-pedaling.
kathy, you still fail to be specific. So David has described you correctly. Are you talking about the Councils called, approved and enforced by emperors and trying to tell us that is the teaching of Jesus Christ. The hierarchichal church has clearly made numerous errors and still has fairly intelligent people repeating the “always taught” escape hatch. And do you still suggest that Catholics obey all those clergy thugs Andrew Greeley describes, right up to the Vatican.
Again, as far as attacks go the overwhelming fact is we learned these blistering polemics from Augustine who never met a quarrel he did not relish. Then he used the State to help him physically win the argument he could not by Christian persuasion. Augustine gave nasty polemics a good name. He talked a sweet game but never dialogued truly with his adversaries. When we stop idolizing Augustine we will learn how to get along as Christians again.
I apologize for being vague. I’ve been accused of indicting people, which I have no wish to do. What good would come of naming names? I have two examples in mind at the moment. One person denied the resurrection, an article of the Creed. Another denied the article “life everlasting.” The denials were not subtle or easy to misunderstand. Both of these people were professed Religious with considerable authority. These are not the only examples I can think of, but it’s really not my point, or my place, to name names.
I am, however, very sympathetic to those the Pope calls “simple believers.” There’s a Communion antiphon–I’ve forgotten if it’s part of the Common of Confessors or of Doctors–that says “This is the wise and loyal servant whom the master placed at the head of his household, to give them their share of bread at the proper time.” (Or in similar words, you recognize the text, I’m sure.) That’s how I feel about the People of God, that they are waiting for their food, which is the Word of God. I just don’t understand how the kind of nourishment they are looking for can be given by people who don’t value this bread enough to take it meaningfully into their own life. They can give something, but I don’t see how they can give bread.
I didn’t mean to draw this thread off course, my apologies.
Jimmy Mac,
You ask “Who do you think represents authentic conservatives? Which school of conservatism?”
It would take too long to outline my view of conservatism. Some day I’ll reveal to the waiting world my rigorous philosophical definition and then all will be clear. In the meantime I’ll let magazines like The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Commentary handle the job.
What I find unhelpful is for progressives to try to define “genuine” conservatives and then chastize the rest for falling outside the newly established “legitimate” boundaries. It’s just as unwelcome as if conservatives iwere to identify, say, Senator Lieberman as a true progressive and then condemn the other progressives for not acknowledging his primacy.
This practice is an old one. Sixty years ago Arthur Schlesinger was arguing that Republicans should be reasonable and be more willing to emulate Harold Stassen. In an essay of 1951 William F. Buckley found it “Too Much to Take.” The essay begins:
“We conservatives have suffered a great deal. Twenty years of political impotence; two score years of intellectual inertia; abusive speeches, articles, columns and books that, piled on top of one another, would tower arrogantly over the gates of Heaven–all this our dwindling cadre has borne, and withal patiently. But I for one, am now suffering from a sprained back.
“For in the last year or so, confident no doubt that there is little left to be said with respect to how this country ought to be run, our restless and expansive collectivists have wandered afield, this time to ravish us in the inner sanctity of our boudoirs: They are now telling us how we conservatives ought to act, and, in the course of it all, what ‘conservatism’ really is!”
(It’s in a new selection of his work, Athwart History)
Kathy – that might be from the Common of Pastors.
FWIW – I’ve had several experiences, as an undergrad and in deacon formation, when instructors in a classroom expressed personal opinions that were at variance with what the church teaches. I wish they wouldn’t – but I’m also sympathetic with people who struggle with the faith. The people who have made the greatest commitment are our teachers and pastors, and serious Christians are the ones who are most likely to struggle at some point in their lives, istm.
“I have two examples in mind at the moment…. I just don’t understand how the kind of nourishment they are looking for can be given by people who don’t value this bread enough to take it meaningfully into their own life. They can give something, but I don’t see how they can give bread.”
I don’t think this comment exactly reflects the tone of injury and persecution David Gibson was getting at about in his post above, and I don’t see how individuals who deny not only Catholic but Christian teaching, are fit to provide bread to “simple” believers or otherwise.
On the other hand, two individuals doesn’t exactly look like a pandemic of heresy among the hierarchy.
Which raises the question: To what extent do liberals and conservatives assess “what’s wrong with the Church today” based on what they see in their parish or diocese rather than hard evidence?
However, even where hard evidence available, I think there’s still a tendency to construe those numbers along certain philosophical lines. For instance, some conservatives (George Weigel) doesn’t see clerical abuse as a big problem when you compare the number of abusive priests to funny uncles or public school teachers. Liberals (let’s say some members of VOTF) look at the same evidence and say bishops have not dealt adequately with these problems, which points to systemic dysfunction, the solution to which is more lay input.
Or maybe, as an intellectually sloppy liberal, I don’t know what I’m even talking about, though I am being real pleasant about it!
“However, even where hard evidence available, I think there’s still a tendency to construe those numbers along certain philosophical lines. For instance, some conservatives (George Weigel) doesn’t see clerical abuse as a big problem when you compare the number of abusive priests to funny uncles or public school teachers. Liberals (let’s say some members of VOTF) look at the same evidence and say bishops have not dealt adequately with these problems, which points to systemic dysfunction, the solution to which is more lay input.”
Pretty astute, I’d say.
Kathy,
Two things. If a person goes public with a belief there is no attack nor calumny to name the person. Second, how do those persons understand the resurrection or everlasting life.
? No matter how one looks at these questions, it is certainly not Christian to believe that Jesus is not now with God. Similarly, it is unquestionable that God promises eternal life to those who serve God.
Jim, Jean, Bill,
It happens all the time. These are two instances I’ve pulled out of a hat that is full of similar anecdotes. It’s happened to Jim in at least two different educational settings, it’s happened to me in educational and pastoral contexts on both coasts and in between.
If folks have struggles, then don’t you agree that they should be worked out in pastoral settings of a different sort? The person should be expressing these concerns as a recipient of spiritual direction, rather than as a teacher.
In any case, why not take a little break from teaching high school theology, or whatever, if you are pretty well convinced that what you’re supposed to be teaching isn’t true?
“If folks have struggles, then don’t you agree that they should be worked out in pastoral settings of a different sort? The person should be expressing these concerns as a recipient of spiritual direction, rather than as a teacher.”
I agree, but I’d like to hear other folks’ opinions on it as well.
“In any case, why not take a little break from teaching high school theology, or whatever, if you are pretty well convinced that what you’re supposed to be teaching isn’t true?”
Probably because teachers and other pastoral workers responded to what a calling – for them it is a vocation – and that is not lightly abandoned. Also, they probably find the work satisfying. (Just guessing).
Kathy –
What you say would make sense under one condition: that the Church would never change its thinking or interpretations of the different parts of the faith.
But historically the Church has changed some teachings outright (e.g., slavery was OK and charging interest is always wrong) and has changed its interpretations of some matters (e.g., Adam and Eve were actually individual human beings).
These changes for the better would not have happened if no one questioned what was being taught.
No, teachers aren’t there for the main purpose of shaking up students beliefs (though I’ve known some Enlightenment teachers who thought that’s what they’re for). Religion teachers are for preserving, teaching and extending what we know of the truths of Christ’s teachings. They are not supposed to duck hard questions and it is a sin for them to say they believe something when they don’t. But they ought to present the teachings of the official Church fairly. And, granted, some don’t.
There;s a semantic problem running through this exchange, I think. First, what *you* mean by “the teachings of the Catholic Church” and what some others (me included) mean by that phrase are not exactly the same thing. The problem is: who is the genuine orthodox Catholic — you or me? Put another way: who is the pseudo- orthodox Catholic, you or me? Both of us think we are the genuine article. But one of us has to be at least somewhat wrong.
Another big semantic problem in this thread: the meanings of “conservative” and “liberal”. I say there is no one definition of either of them that everyone uses. There isn’t any one defining characteristic of either of them. So there is no “true” conservative or liberal, somebody who measures up to some Platonic pie in the sky Conservative or Liberal.
Both are “family resemblance terms” or “rainbow terms” as Wittgenstein call them. Consider the Joneses in a small town. Some people named “JOnes” have eyes that are crossed and a peculiar shade of green. They’re called “Jones” eyes. Some have noses with three nostrils. They’re called “Jones” noses. Some of the Joneses have upper lips that hang over their bottom lips. They’re said to have “Jones mouths”. All of the Jones have one or two of those features, but not one of the Joneses has *all* of those features. Still we call then all “Jones” and it works just fine ==until we start to look for “the one” thing they have in common. (You might say that they do share something in common — they’re all called Jones, but that is not a characteristic, it’s only a name.)
Well, same with “conservative” There is no one defining characteristic shared by everyone in the group. but there are lots of characteristics that many called “conservative” do share. And the same is true of “liberal”. So it really is imperative to give our own meanings if we are genuinely trying to communicate.
Ann, yes, the difference between “liberal” and “conservative” remains a sticking point, doesn’t it? At least until Patrick M’s book comes out to set us all straight.
I see “conservatives” as those who want to conserve/preserve tradition and teachings. Changes in the world outside the church must be judged against those traditions and teachings, and individuals must accommodate themselves to that judgment. Ex., no artificial birth control for any reason whatever.
I see “liberals” as those who believe that tradition and teachings may be revisited and refined if it can be shown that the refinement or change does not run contrary to the spirit of Christ’s teachings. Ex., artficial birth control held morally neutral when used to preserve life, such as to prevent spread of disease (condoms/AIDS) or ensure against life-threatening pregnancy (tubal ligations for severely diabetic women).
All Catholics, liberal or conservative, are united by a common creed and interpretation of that creed, accept the sacraments, and recognize that teaching authority re faith and morals rests with the Church under the direction of the Pope.
Not sure how others define those terms, but maybe that’s another thread.
Except Jean, that there was no pope until the fifth century. So how did those Christians manage without. More to it than that. Uniformity can be quite counter-productive as the centuries have shown.
Jean –
I agree that the largest group of people called “conservatives” do want to preserve what went before. But *why* they want to preserve the old stuff can differ wildly. Consider the factions in the Republican Party, the political home of most who call themselves “conservative. Some factions are most interested in conserving the freedom of religion. while those of a more material bent, some business people, want to preserve the tax laws. Then there is the social conservative wing of the party which wants to preserve the old laws relating to family matters. But, as with the Jones family’s facial features, not all conservatives have made all these issues their own. At their most extreme are the libertarian conservatives who have a great deal in common with extreme liberals — both want the least amount of government regulation of personal behavior possible. And this doesn’t even touch on typical conservative behavior (e.g., delight in insulting extreme liberals).
As to liberals, I think that (again, as the word implies) they are concerned with freedom, both to do and not do, though again, what they want to do/not do varies with the individuals. The extreme ones are almost libertarians about their private actions and freedom of speech especially (I’m with the latter ones). Others are concerned about the freedom of *other people* to be able to participate in our generic freedoms (e.g., to apply for a decent wage, buy a decent house). Conservatives, in contrast, often but not always think people ought to provide for themselves without government assistance.
There’s also a difference in what people think of as “community”. Conservatives seem to take a narrower view, with the family being the focus of their attention and the group for which they are willing to accept a great deal of responsibility. Liberals are more willing to see a wider group, the city or state or national community as something we are all responsible for maintaining even materially. (That’s why we are willing to pay more taxes, relatively speaking and give more to charities, or so I’ve read.)
These categories mostly don’t apply to religious conservatives and liberals, though the insistence that nothing ever be changed is certainy present in the religious conservatives. I’m not sure how else we differ, and I”d like to hear from the conservatives especiailly on this point.
What do many people who are called “liberals” have in common??
The article on Cardinal Dulles in the August issue of CWL in cludes this quotation from the learned theologian”
“little is gained by passionate insistence on “religious submission of mind and will.” The precise point at issue is whether such submission is morally responsible and whether the alleged charisms of the episcopal office (to which appeal is made) can in fact compensate for the apparent lack of professional competence. The plea for obedience often fails to answer this question, for it overlooks the fact that assent to teaching cannot normally be a matter of sheer voluntary obedience. As an intellectual act, it demands grounds for honest conviction.”
It seems to me that this is at the crux of many disputes between “liberal” and “conservative” Catholics: whether or not one is obliged to accept an official teaching when it seems to be false. I would ask: is it even *possible* to accept as true what what sees as false? We need a thread about it, I think.
“Probably because teachers and other pastoral workers responded to what a calling – for them it is a vocation – and that is not lightly abandoned. Also, they probably find the work satisfying. (Just guessing).”
Jim,
I would suggest that one of the most responsible things any professional can do is recognize a slip in his/her competency, and act on it. A surgeon whose hands shake, a pilot whose eyesight changes–they have other people’s welfare to consider, not just their own.
“What do many people who are called “liberals” have in common?”
I think as far as political liberalism goes, the use of the word is a little bit ambiguous, but works kind of like this:
In many places, liberals are people who believe the markets should be as free as possible from regulation and taxation. That’s not the way the word is used in America. Here, long ago, liberals were people who believed people should be as free as possible from government intrusion into their private lives. They were against things like speech codes, loyalty oaths, religious tests for office, confiscation of property. Then, some decades ago, this emphasis changed and liberals became people who believed people should be as free as possible from public standards of decency. “Liberalism” became identified with things like the right to wear obscene T-shirts, burn the flag, use vulgar language, be drunk or semi-naked or both in public and so forth. This is why virtually all politicians now avoid the word “liberal.”
In religion, specifically ours, it’s harder to say who gets thought of as a “liberal.” Everybody agrees people should be as free as possible from nonsensical rules. The disagreement centers around which rules are nonsensical traditions and which are Holy Tradition.
Maybe it’s easier to work with the terms “conservative” and “progressive.” These can be defined by genus and differentia. A conservative is an individual who holds opinions on political questions and usually thinks no change or incremental change should be the default course of action when it is not clear what should be done. (A “Don’t break it” type.) A progressive is an individual who holds opinions on political questions and who usually thinks substantial change should be the default course of action. (The “Hey, we can improve this” type.)
I estimate in both religious and political questions, people are about 20/20/20/40, conservative/moderate/progressive/indifferent.
Hey, everyone, I didn’t hold out my definition of liberal and conservative as anything but a conversation starter. I find these terms difficult to define in religious terms, because I live like a liberal who thinks she ought to be more conservative.
Also the problem in differentiating liberals and conservatives in the Church is that the definitions often leave out the most important element: charity.
OK, exhausted by this thread now, so will leave the topic to bigger brains.
“Maybe it’s easier to work with the terms “conservative” and “progressive.”
Why not simply state that in order to be Catholic, one first must be in communion with the Catholic Church.
Kathy reminds me why I don’t go to Church anymore, because for many it has simply become a cartoonish place, where one is either, on the one hand, The Evil Apostate, or on the other, The Heroic Simple Believer trying his best to follow his Superman Pope. And there is no intellectual space in between, where basically good people have doubts about the day to day governance of their church and the application of dogma to modern questions.
I am reminded of the fact that Christ Has Founded His Church and Has ensured that The Word remains consistent.
Barbara,
Perhaps you are attributing this cartoon-world to me? If so, you are misreading. I think the Church is exactly the place for people to “work out their salvation in fear and trembling.” Going to Mass helps with doubts. I’m really not talking about the honest Christian living with the rhythms of the life of faith.
Barbara – I’ve belonged to faith communities over the years that give some space for people to try to work through their issues – tolerant, welcoming communities. I wish/hope there is an option like that in your area.
If I didn’t find dotCom a friendly, stimulating place, I wouldn’t hang out here, but it’s quite different than my parish. By that I don’t mean that my parish is somehow less friendly or interesting. It’s just that the collection of people who gather there don’t seem to dwell on the same things we dwell on here – at least not with me. My conversations there tend to be more about people’s everyday lives – sick or dying parents, trying to rear and form our children, that sort of thing. Of course, it has its own politics, writ much smaller than the political issues we kick around here, but no less intense.
Jim, yes, of course, much that happens at the parish level is personal. But I think we delude ourselves that these “higher level” theological and governance disputes have no practical significance even at that level. Just, for instance, the determination to continue with an all male celibate priesthood is changing the dynamics and sometimes the feasibility of parish life. It changes who your priest is, whether you have a priest, how many families are in a parish, and so on. In many respects, as was evident on the other thread, it basically means priests are just not available as witnesses to those who don’t have an imminent need for official services that priests alone can offer. No informally going out for coffee with a few of the high school kids who have questions about the faith. And this is just for me personally, but I began feeling more and more like a complete hypocrite showing up when there were so many things I disagreed with, and there was certainly no real way to discuss those things (at least in my parish) without some parishioner rebuking you for making it a point of discussion at all.
Ann asks: “The problem is: who is the genuine orthodox Catholic — you or me? Put another way: who is the pseudo- orthodox Catholic, you or me? Both of us think we are the genuine article. But one of us has to be at least somewhat wrong.”
There are no easy answers (although there are some who post here who will disagree, even vehemently, with me). These people has something to say about this:
“Notice everything. Overlook much. Improve a little.” John XXIII
Omnia videre, multa dissumulare, pauca corriegere = See all, keep a lot to yourself and correct a few things. Motto of Pope Gregory the Great.
“A century ago, the church was deeply divided over Pope Pius X’s campaign against “Modernism,” which was a catchall for anything Rome deemed suspicious. When Pius X died, the conclave of 1914 elected Benedict XV, who immediately issued an encyclical calling on Catholics ‘to appease dissension and strife” so that “no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith.’
‘There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism,’ he concluded. ‘It is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname’ “
(David Gibson, “Who Is a Real Catholic?” The Washington Post, Sunday, May 17, 2009)
Barbara: why is it necessary that a priest be the one to answer your questions? Most of us, unless we are in a small rural parish far from everywhere else, have access to religious, laity, academics and others who can be helpful in aiding in the discussion of points of contention, discomfort or unbelief. To insist on only having a priest doing so is to give undeserved credibility to clericalism. This is not 100 years ago!
And remember what I have quote more than once here: “What you need is sustained outrage…there’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority.” Molly Ivins
… [Trackback] …
[...] Read More here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=9508 [...] …