“The Catholic does not shrink from the world’s boundless horizon, and he does not abandon a supposedly ‘secularized age’ for some safe inner sanctum; rather, he robustly spells out everything—Church and world—using the alphabet he has learned from Christ.”—Hans Urs von Balthasar1
Perhaps the saddest characteristic of the battles going on within the Church these days is the fact that both sides so easily allow themselves to frame the issues in modern, political terms. If the world shall have its New York Times and its New York Post, then the Church shall have its National Catholic Reporter and its National Catholic Register, and one side shall be called “liberal” and the other shall be called “conservative.”
Part of the problem is the assumption that one can work out one’s Catholicism within the categories and presuppositions of secular modernity and the Classical Liberalism that gave birth to it. This needs to be challenged.
Classical Liberalism arose as a response to the fragmentation of Christendom resulting from the Protestant Reformation and the resulting loss of the unifying vision of reality which Catholicism provided for the Middle Ages. Of course, I do not deny the real divisions and debates of the Middle Ages.
The solution, in broad terms, was to invent a purely “secular” politics, one based on a very thin description of the origins and role of the political, coupled with the privatization and marginalization of religion and, over time, even any thick description of the good. What was to unify people going forward was something like a “lowest common denominator” upon which all (private) parties could agree. Only secularism, so the story goes, secures peace.
While this doesn’t sound like a bad solution on the surface, there are serious problems. First, the “thin” understanding of the origin and role of the political and the “lowest common denominator” values to which all parties could allegedly commit themselves, turns out, under scrutiny, not to be so thin or common as claimed. On the one hand, the account was much more indebted to standard Christian thought than it cared to admit. This is one of Nietzsche’s central insights. The things which Thomas Jefferson, to take one example, holds to be “self-evident” are simply not self-evident to, say, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Marxist, a determinist, a nihilist, an atheist, and so on.
On the other hand, the values turned out to be decidedly Protestant and even distinctively modern, as in, based on a novel understanding of nature, human knowledge, freedom, the human person, the political, the religious, the Church, to name just a few of the more important topics. In each of these cases, in thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and all the way down to Rawls, we see a rejection of the Greco-Catholic synthesis which reached its high point in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, but also finds expression in the Church’s social doctrine (a “third” way!).
This is not the place to go into the details, but to mention just a few things, the mainstream modern view is a rejection: 1) of truth as a transcendental property of being: which is just a fancy way of saying that truth, which has its origins in God, is in the objects we encounter in the world; 2) of the philosophical realism that goes with this: that is, that our minds put us in touch with the truth of things as they really are, even if in an always imperfect way; 3) of the notion that human freedom is natural and not, first, by choice ordered to the Good and has a natural obligation to it; 4) that the human person is naturally social and that, therefore, the political does not arise, first, out of a social contract, but stems from and fulfils our human nature; 5) that religion is a natural human phenomenon that comes with a natural obligation to give thanks to the Origin of all that is (i.e., that “religion” is not first a matter of private, individual choice).
What happens in this new order is that old words get filled with new meanings: freedom, rights, religion, secular, politics, economics, sex, human being, and so forth. It is here that my friend D. C. Schindler likes to remind us of the old Steven Wright joke wherein a man steps out into his apartment one morning only to find that all of his things have been swapped out for identical replicas. When his roommate comes out, he asks, “Did you notice that all of our things have been swapped out?” To which the roommate replies, “Do I know you?”
In other words, we Catholics have gone on using these words without realizing that although they sound and look the same, they have taken on radically—to the root—different meanings in our now Liberal order.
Notice how “conservative” and “liberal” Catholics, for instance, agree to frame the abortion debate in terms of a rights struggle between two Hobbesian (and therefore competing) individuals! Notice how such a debate presupposes without question the Classical Liberal notion that there are scarce goods and that we are fundamentally and selfishly pursuing those goods and that, therefore, we need a State to come in and protect our rights from each other. In what commonsense view of the world would we ever come to think of an unborn baby as being in competition with its mother for scarce goods, and vice versa? We fail to realize, because we’ve unthinkingly thought this way for so long, how thoroughly ideological is such an account of the issues at hand. Not to mention how antithetical it is to a Christian account. When Adam sees Eve in the Garden he doesn’t say, “Oh no, she’s going to take my stuff!” He sings, with Etta James, “At last….”
This commitment to modernity, which has a particularly Americanist flavor on this side of the pond, is nothing less that mind-boggling. And it renders impossible genuine dialogue within the Church, for genuine dia-logos (literally, “through reason”) is impossible without an agreed set of first principles. The first principles of all genuinely Catholic dialogue would be the articles of faith, and the worldview that grows out of those articles, and it should be noted that those articles were defined as carefully as they were because of the Greco-Roman-Christian synthesis which provided the foundation for discourse between Christians (even of East and West!) until this synthesis was rejected at the beginning of the modern era.
Alas, it is this dominant strand of modern thought that has formed what Charles Taylor calls our “social imaginary,” that is, the milieu out of which we think, even we Catholics.
It should go without saying that the solution to our problem does not consist in our abandonment of the modern, secular world and a retreat to the Middle Ages. The questions raised by modernity, like the questions raised in previous eras of the Church (e.g., What do we do with this Aristotle fellow? Or, “Is Jesus just a creature?”), can aid the Church in various ways in its self-understanding. This is the central and correct insight of Vatican II, and it would be a failure of mission and of evangelization to abandon the modern world.
But the Catholic can do the modern world no good whatsoever if he has forgotten how to think and talk like a Catholic, if he has so deeply breathed the air of modern secularism that his talk has become indistinguishable from that of Terry Gross or Tucker Carlson.
Allow me to close by stating the thesis as boldly as I know how. Human beings who live in space and time are always going to interpret the world through a cultural-linguistic lens. Because of the weakness of human reason (see the first question of Thomas’s Summa), God has not seen fit to leave us groping for the ultimate meaning of things. Rather, he has offered us his definitive self-revelation in the person of Jesus Christ, the Truth in person. With the aid of natural reason (and philosophy), the Church has given us a grammar for how to think of the world in the light of Christ, “whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the ages” (Heb 1:2), and through whom “all things were made…and without [whom] not anything was made that was made” (Jn 1: 3).
We will either interpret the world through this God-given grammar, as safe-guarded in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, or we will interpret it through some other grammar.
Alas, the dialogue that occurs in the medium of the predominant grammar of our age will only ever rise to the level of a dialogue between two Liberals, even if one is “conservative” and the other is “liberal.” The time is ripe, then, for us Catholics to re-learn how to think and speak and even frame the issues as Catholics, for only then will we be able to dialogue with each other within the common language/grammar which makes all genuine dialogue possible, but also with the world who so desperately needs a perspective from outside of the cave of hegemonic Liberalism.
Indeed, those of us who have caught a glimpse of and taken every thought captive to Jesus Christ must be willing to enter back into that cave with new eyes in order to be its light. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn 1: 5), even if it feels like sometimes it has.
Endnotes:
1 “On the Christian’s Capacity to See,” in Explorations in Theology, V: Man Is Created (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), 71.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
If the “now liberal order” is admitted as having usurped the anti-liberalism Catholic order Ad33-Ad1962, then the “we” who follow that new ecumenical liberal order are quite simply no longer really Catholic.
“The time will surely come, when men will grow tired of sound doctrine, always itching to hear something fresh; and so they will provide themselves with a continuous succession of new teachers, as the whim takes them, turning a deaf ear to the truth, bestowing their attention on false fables instead. It is for thee to be on the watch…” (Timothy 2.4 v 1-5 / Knox)
Well commented, dear MCN.
The chronic disease of worldly conflation – as if the Body of Jesus Christ were merely an add on to the world – is wreaking its worst damage in our day.
Church leaders and many theologians are fatally myopic. They need the larger vision of Christ & His Apostles.
Our whole universe of space-time/energy-matter evidences GOD, who is Love, deliberately confronting the totality of all that is not of GOD.
The life of our LORD Jesus Christ speaks of that decisive, cosmic ethical encounter in maximally human terms. This is an encounter originating from Him, by His methodology, for His good purpose of incorporating saved souls in His Body.
Every Catholic who is a single-hearted follower of Jesus Christ (&, today, many are not) will obviously be an agent of GOD’s grand ethical encounter with the world.
“If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me before you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you do not belong to the world, because My choice withdrew you from the world, therefore the world hates you.” John 15:18-19
All CFCs (Christ Following Catholics) are recognisable through their unjust persecution by the worldly. This is a clash of spirits: the spirit of this world attempting to eradicate the Holy Spirit of Christ in us.
“Think of the love that The Father has lavished on us by letting us, be called GOD’s children; and that is what we are. Because the world refused to acknowledge Him, therefore it does not acknowledge us.” 1 John 3:1.
For an alternative to HUvB’s elaborate romance with this world, try the ‘Ethical Encounter Theology’ approach – references in:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326247275_Ethical_Ontology_Harmonises_Science_Revelation_and_Human_Lives_Physical_Temporality_Yields_Supra-Universal_Ethical_Distillates
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
“The first principles of all genuinely Catholic dialogue would be the articles of faith.”
True, only the fact is, if you deny that God, The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, then you begin the dialogue by denying the articles of Faith, rendering onto Caesar or oneself, what Has Always, And Will Always belong to God, and you are no longer engaging in genuinely Catholic Dialogue. In fact, those Baptized Catholic , who deny the articles of Faith may claim to be Catholic, but they are , in essence, Baptized Catholics who no longer profess The Catholic Faith, and thus have defected from The Catholic Faith, having created a god in their own image. Only dialogue that begins and ends with affirming The Deposit Of Faith, can In essence be, Catholic Dialogue.
Thank you. “We will either interpret the world through this God-given grammar, as safe-guarded in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, or we will interpret it through some other grammar.” Agreed.
But what if Sacred Scripture and Tradition are not being safeguarded and authentically developed by the Magisterium? What is to be done if the faithful are not being confirmed in the Faith but undermined by a pontificate that uses an ambiguous or even deceptive grammar of dissent? What if the current pontificate disagrees with all previous pontificates on certain dogmas, misleading the faithful to remain in their sins?
I guess the solution is to live the Faith, teach the traditional Truth of Christ, the Word of God, and wait for a better day.
Dear GF
You guess correctly imho.
“live the Faith, teach the traditional Truth of Christ, the Word of God, and wait for a better day.”
In 1975 other Catholics took the same resolution as yourself, as holy mass was transformed into Protestant Luther’s cene and thousands upon thousands of priests and religious abandonned the Apostasy: 144.000.
What is Traditional Truth if not the Magisterium Ad33-ad1962?
God bless GF,
Mr CN
In light of Howsare’s just essay, let’s consider the first sentence of the preface of VCII’s Gaudium et spes:
“1. The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ.”
So there is that.
Meanwhile, the current synodal Church cocoons the perennial articles of faith and discipline—for further study and progressive evolution—within extra-synodal study groups. Many leaders of the ‘synodal church’ seem intent to return and keep Jesus Christ and His Deposit of Faith in the ‘Endarkenment.’
We are all horribly alone in hell on earth, individually and collectively, without Church leaders and followers continually centering and focusing on Christ and the perennial traditional magisterium of His Catholic Church.
May the Holy Spirit of Jesus and the Father strengthen the wayward Church.
Exactly! I tell my students that Western culture went through a period of “detranscendentalization” during the Enlightenment (so-called) and none of the words we use today to talk about the Church, etc. mean what they once did. Getting them to learn and use the proper definitions is my #1 goal every semester.
We read: “The things which Thomas Jefferson, to take one example, holds to be ‘self-evident’ are simply not self-evident to, say, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Marxist, a determinist, a nihilist, an atheist, and so on.”
Not to question the main point, but as a fine detail the expression ‘self-evident” is an edit by Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson’s original draft said “sacred and undeniable.”
Even the example of the Church’s Social Teaching (CST)—which really is not a “third way.” The CST is the negation of all ideology, since it “belongs to the field…of theology and particularly moral theology” (as still clearly articulated by St. John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, n.46; and n. 54 citing Rerum Novarum, n. 143).
In total agreement with Howsare’s main point, if Uncle Remus’s “Tar baby Story” weren’t banned from the shelves, even a child could see in an instant what’s happening when we’re stuck on the “cultural-linguistic” word-games of today.
I don’t get what this means:” Even the example of the Church’s Social Teaching (CST)—which really is not a “third way.” The CST is the negation of all ideology, since it “belongs to the field…of theology and particularly moral theology” (as still clearly articulated by St. John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, n.46; and n. 54 citing Rerum Novarum, n. 143).”
The Catholic can do the modern world no good whatsoever if he has forgotten how to think and talk like a Catholic, if his talk has become indistinguishable from that of Tucker Carlson (precise of Howsare).
Tucker Carlson is a pretty good apologist for justice, even Catholic values. How Catholic must we be, say like Ignatius of Antioch? It’s different when we have a captive audience as a professor from his lecture podium or a priest from his pulpit. Nevertheless there must be a way to be more effective since Catholic apologists aren’t doing terrifically well out there among the plebeians.
William F Buckley was perhaps the more successful among us but few possess his abilities. Furthermore, he excelled in one on one debates as he did with Saul Alinsky.
Prof Howsare alludes to Thomas Aquinas as a source for presenting Catholicism to an intellectually jaded world. As a Thomistic philosopher I think he’s right. Each person differs even if armed with the best of Catholicism. It would have to be a personal spiritual effort flowing from his own temperament and gifts. Howsare urges we make the effort. Within our lost world in which the irrational prevails it would require art. Regardless, Howsare cannot be denied that we must be a light in the darkness of this quite dark moment.
J.M.J.
https://stream.org/pope-francis-and-the-fast-approaching-future/
🙏💕🌹
There are good things too that came out of Modernism, if not only in terms of hard rocks to sharpen the sword of faith.
“Conservative” is not an accurate term to describe people politically and ecclesially. For example, the SCOTUS “conservative” justices are actually and best tagged as “Republican” justices. In the Church, Catholics who proudly identify themselves as “conservative” are actually and best understood as retrograde, backwardist, rigorist, and fundamentalist “Taliban” (not “Traditionalist”) Catholics.
“It should go without saying that the solution to our problem does not consist in our abandonment of the modern, secular world and a retreat to the Middle Ages . . .”
It should go without saying that this “retreat” is simply impossible — so only a fantasist would entertain the thought. But, at the same time, it should go without saying that we have already *left* the “modern” behind. Thus the futility of “debate” framed in those terms. So, where are we now . . . ??
We live in a DIGITAL world. Robots. AI. Artificial Humans. Instant global communications. Along with the “modern,” what it brought along with it is also gone. No more “United Nations.”” No more “Family of Man.” Globalism is dead.
And, in terms of sensibilities, DIGITAL does, in many ways, *retrieve* the Medieval ways of considering the world. “Tradition” is on the up-swing everywhere — particularly in the non-West. China teaches its “classics” beginning in grade-school. Their national leadership is Daoist — not “Confucian” — and they have deeply addressed the issues raised by Joseph Needham &al.
I have it on good authority (in Rome) that the Church just isn’t ready for this radical Paradigm Shift. No wonder they talk as-if nothing has happened. Understanding these changes will no doubt await another generation (or two).
Could you post examples please?