I just finished reading the article in The Atlantic on William F. Buckley, the classy conservative of the 60’s and 70’s. The article was written by Gary Wills, who worked for Buckley at his National Review magazine. Wills shared many of Buckley’s political and philosophical viewpoints until the late 60’s and early 70’s, when Wills could no longer defend Nixon and the Vietnam War. Wills, being a devoted Roman Catholic, says quite a bit in his article about Buckley’s strong concern for “The Church”. Buckley was a life-long Roman Catholic and a true defender of the bishops and popes, who are generally conservative themselves.
This made me ponder something about how liberals and conservatives relate to the Catholic Church, especially if they are Catholics themselves. I’m no expert, but my general impression is that the liberals usually focus on Jesus. They paint a picture of Jesus as a guy much like themselves, someone who is quite progressive, someone who wants to change things, someone who wants to overcome the existing power structures and replace it with a proletariat revolution. They want to give the world to the downtrodden, to the “anawim”(a word that is fashionable amidst the liberal Catholic set). And they figure that Jesus had much the same ideas as they did.
By contrast, the conservatives don’t talk too much about Jesus. They focus more on “The Church”, on its strong institutional aspects, on the role that religious tradition has played over the centuries in defending the progress of civilization. They occasionally tip their hats to Jesus (denying that he was a secular revolutionary, focusing more on his role as “Son of God” and personal savior), but in their hearts they look more to the popes and the monks who held Europe together during the Dark ages. What to make of this difference?
First off, I myself believe that the liberals purposely avoid the whole of what we know about Jesus. The scriptures, as historical documents, make it fairly clear that Jesus was urging a momentous change to everyday life in Jewish Palestine of the First Century. And he was citing this upcoming “revolution” as one that would benefit the poor and disempowered, one that would cast down those who were rich and powerful (unless they heard his word and repented in preparation for the big event). Sounds pretty liberal thus far. But the method by which Jesus envisioned this change being brought about was quite different from what modern liberals would have in mind. Jesus did not arrange mass demonstrations or put forward proposals for land distribution, universal health care, or democratic constitutions. He said that God was going to take care of all of that.
In that notion, the notion of God’s apocalyptic intervention into history, the liberal balloon loses some of its helium. Jesus did indeed seem to think that the problems of the world, the political injustices and economic inequalities, were too big for humans to fix. There’s no real sense in us overcoming Caesar and the Temple priests, as we will eventually become priests and Caesars ourselves. The only way to get any real change, according to Jesus, is to provoke God to come down and fix things amongst us himself (oh, Himself, sorry). He made us, He knows our nature, He drew the blueprints; so only He can set things up so that we can all live peaceful, just and fruitful lives here on earth. So how do you provoke God to do that?
Jesus had a good answer: by starting to live as righteously as we know how, right away. I.e., by showing God some good faith effort. Jesus figured that if he could get enough people working on this, God would surely respond. The man from Galilee just knew in his bones that “the time is drawing near”, that he was the man chosen to make it happen. He obviously figured that his crucifixion would be a really good time for God to make his (His) grand dramatic entrance. And thus Jesus went to the cross with much equanimity, as scripture tells us. But later on in the day, when the skies didn’t open up with bright lights and the angels didn’t come down to save him, Jesus started getting upset. “My God, why have you forsaken me?” Yea, the plan wasn’t going to work.
So, Jesus and the liberals both share the same recognition of social, political and economic injustice. However, the response of the Jesus Program to injustice is something that the conservatives do a better job of sympathizing with; i.e., personal virtue and faith in God, as opposed to collective action. In the end, it didn’t work (supporting the liberals notion that personal virtue is not enough); but it did lead through a series of historical accidents to the establishment of a strong tradition and institutional manifestation that arguably did forward the cause of a better, more civilized world (i.e., Christianity and The Church). Certainly Christianity and its Church (or cluster of churches, depending on how you wish to look at things) have harmed and killed people over the centuries; they are far from sinless. Many people (e.g. Christopher Hitchens) argue that they have done more harm than good. But the conservatives make arguments, some quite strong in my opinion, that the overall balance does tip toward the positive side.
So, the political and religious matrix between liberals, conservatives, the Catholic Church, and the legacy of Jesus, is a complicated one. Newt Gingrich’s recent conversion to Roman Catholicism seems good evidence that conservatives still like the Vatican. Interestingly, William F. Buckley’s son Christopher is a lapsed Catholic, and had some amused comments about the Gingrich conversion (with his father’s semi-haughtiness).
Another recent news item that may be relevant regards the Vatican’s current investigation of American nuns, i.e. the many women’s religious orders in the USA. Many American nuns and their orders have maintained the social activist tradition of the 1960s (i.e., the time of the Vatican 2 enclave that seemingly brought the Catholic world in line with modernity). However, Pope Benedict seems a bit more sympathetic to the conservative notions of the Church and its worldly role, despite occasional statements about openness and justice. Some suspect that Benedict is going to put pressure on the nuns to get back to the convent, get back to prayer, and get that habit back on the head. It’s not a good time for “sensus fidelium” (how the faithful practice their religion and respond to conscience in the modern world). This will be interesting to watch.
Of course, this makes one think about the recent “green revolution” in Iran. For a few days, there seemed new hope amidst the youth in Tehran of changes; perhaps women would soon be free to walk in public without head coverings, and not face the risk of forceful retribution from the Basij or some other semi-governmental agents. For now, the winds within Iran and Rome seem to be blowing towards conservatism, towards NOT changing things (or revoking changes made within recent years).
Both liberalism and conservatism, when taken too far, lead to injustices in our imperfect world of unintended, ironic consequences. Both fatalism based on leaving all in the hands of God, and activism inspired on doing God’s will, can likewise go too far. Right now, the establishments in the Vatican and in Tehran seem to be going too far towards fatalism and no change (or anti-change). Some day, they will be overcome. Let’s just hope that when the reformers’ days do come, they will themselves have the wisdom not to go too far the other way – as is always so tempting in the heat of a revolution.
Jim,
After reading your description of “liberal” vs. “conservative” as regards the Roman Catholic Church, I think there is some confusion regarding the terms and their definitions.
Specifically, just previous to reading your blog I had read John Allen’s article in the National Catholic Reporter (http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/key-reading-benedicts-social-encyclical) on Benedict’s soon-to-be-published social encyclical. (John Allen is the NCR’s reporter in the Vatican and seems very informed in a truly objective way on things “Vatican.”) Although Allen calls them “artificial dichotomies,” he is really talking about “liberal” and “conservative.” Under “liberal” he classified social reform, peace and justice commitments, and horizontal spirituality (“emphasizing the community of the faithful and broader engagement with the world”). Under conservative he talks about personal conversion, pro-life and vertical spirituality (emphasizing the “believer’s personal faith life and relationship with God”). [And while some people may give short shrift to the NCR, I do not; the reporting is as good as one can get in the NYTimes. Furthermore, when getting news about the RC Church, the NCR, dedicated to things Catholic, seems to me a better source than a secular publication that may/may not have a good understanding of the Roman Catholic Church.]
I do understand your points of “division” between the liberals and the conservatives among the RCs. Yet I do have some areas where I’d tweak the distinctions you make. First, rather than use the word “conservative”, I’d tend to use the word “fundamentalist.” Perhaps just a point of semantics.
Second, as to the “conservatives [who]…focus more on ‘The Church’, on its strong institutional aspects”: I’d tend to say that the conservatives (fundamentalists) focus not so much on the CHURCH as they focus on the HIERARCHY of the church—most specifically the Pope. In fact there has been a tendency, most especially in the John Paul II reign to focus on ultramontane-ism—that is, centralization of the administration in the Church. Under this system, all ADMINISTRATIVE questions, no matter how small must be referred to the central authority, most specifically the Pope; in this system the bishops are mere figureheads with no real authority. The more “liberal” (non-ultra-montaine) approach to the administration of the Church is that of collegiality—where the bishops, for the most part, deal with the situations arising in their dioceses and only limited, very specific and special, problems are referred to the Pope.
Continued below……
Comment by MCS — July 4, 2009 @ 6:49 am
Jim,
After reading your description of “liberal” vs. “conservative” as regards the Roman Catholic Church, I think there is some confusion regarding the terms and their definitions.
Specifically, just previous to reading your blog I had read John Allen’s article in the National Catholic Reporter (http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/key-reading-benedicts-social-encyclical) on Benedict’s soon-to-be-published social encyclical. (John Allen is the NCR’s reporter in the Vatican and seems very informed in a truly objective way on things “Vatican.”) Although Allen calls them “artificial dichotomies,” he is really talking about “liberal” and “conservative.” Under “liberal” he classified social reform, peace and justice commitments, and horizontal spirituality (“emphasizing the community of the faithful and broader engagement with the world”). Under conservative he talks about personal conversion, pro-life and vertical spirituality (emphasizing the “believer’s personal faith life and relationship with God”). [And while some people may give short shrift to the NCR, I do not; the reporting is as good as one can get in the NYTimes. Furthermore, when getting news about the RC Church, the NCR, dedicated to things Catholic, seems to me a better source than a secular publication that may/may not have a good understanding of the Roman Catholic Church.]
I do understand your points of “division” between the liberals and the conservatives among the RCs. Yet I do have some areas where I’d tweak the distinctions you make. First, rather than use the word “conservative”, I’d tend to use the word “fundamentalist.” Perhaps just a point of semantics.
Second, as to the “conservatives [who]…focus more on ‘The Church’, on its strong institutional aspects”: I’d tend to say that the conservatives (fundamentalists) focus not so much on the CHURCH as they focus on the HIERARCHY of the church—most specifically the Pope. In fact there has been a tendency, most especially in the John Paul II reign to focus on ultramontane-ism—that is, centralization of the administration in the Church. Under this system, all ADMINISTRATIVE questions, no matter how small must be referred to the central authority, most specifically the Pope; in this system the bishops are mere figureheads with no real authority. The more “liberal” (non-ultra-montaine) approach to the administration of the Church is that of collegiality—where the bishops, for the most part, deal with the situations arising in their dioceses and only limited, very specific and special, problems are referred to the Pope.
Continued below……
Comment by MCS — July 4, 2009 @ 6:49 am
It seems Benedict’s soon-to-be-published encyclical specifies that without what you call “starting to live as righteously as we know how, right away” there is no way that social reform can take place. Well, I certainly can see that point. However, I also have a problem with the reality of the many (literally) starving-to-death people in the world, the terrible injustices that are simply a part of life in many parts of the world. As an example of this last, I cite the recent movie, Slumdog Millionaire. I had tho’t to sit down and see a “happy” movie where a poor guy from the slums of India earns a million dollars on a game show and lives happily ever after. How wrong could I have possibly been? The movie is a horror—depicting the realities of the lives of the people of India who live in its slums. I found the horror of the inequities to be completely outrageous and unrelenting. Only at the ending credits, and somehow completely unrelated to the rest of the movie, is there the supposed fairy tale ending where all live happily ever after. And further, news reports now say that the young actors in the movie who came from the slums were summarily thrown back into the horrible conditions from which they were recruited for the movie.
I mention this example because I found myself wondering: Yes, indeed, “living righteously” is certainly what Christ talked about. But then there are the people(s) of the world who need some concrete help RIGHT NOW. Praying won’t do it for them—except for prayers from those who are helpless to do anything at all other than pray.
And I have to say that Newt Gingrich particularly sticks in my craw. He was most vocal when Clinton had his “sexcapades troubles”—all the while himself doing essentially the same thing as Clinton and at approximately the same time. Then he converts to RC and suddenly, he’s got all the answers yet again. Please!! Give me a break! I don’t care if the man saw Jesus Christ himself; I’d find it hard to accept what he has to say.
As to the nuns and the current Vatican visitation going on: Don’t be surprised if you find that many of the current nuns in the U.S. simply opt out of being affiliated with Rome. They may pull what the IHMs (Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters) “pulled” back in the 1960s when they were forced to make a choice of “being good sisters” and “doing what they were told” or finding their own ministry and following it. Most of the IHMs broke from the original group, moved to California, divested themselves of Rome (so to speak) and went on with their work. (My sister was taught by this latter group and it has shown in her life; she has devoted her life to the poor, no vows, no outward religious trappings, just lived her life consciously devoted to the poor.)
Furthermore, Laurie Goodstein (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02nuns.html?em) (courtesy of your calling the article to my attention) notes that Benedict in going after only the American sisters who practice an active ministry (thus contemplative nuns are excluded) is really looking for a way to get the sisters back as a cheap “work force” within the Church. Some few of the sisters may “go for that”; however, I doubt most of them will. As Sister Sandra Schneiders says: the Vatican is simply “not on the same planet” as the sisters are. (And here I distinguish between “sisters” and “nuns”: “nuns” have solemn vows, live contemplative lives, and generally take a vow of stability; “sisters” have simple vows, live “active” lives, and do not take a vow of stability.)
Continued below…..
Comment by MCS — July 4, 2009 @ 6:51 am
It seems Benedict’s soon-to-be-published encyclical specifies that without what you call “starting to live as righteously as we know how, right away” there is no way that social reform can take place. Well, I certainly can see that point. However, I also have a problem with the reality of the many (literally) starving-to-death people in the world, the terrible injustices that are simply a part of life in many parts of the world. As an example of this last, I cite the recent movie, Slumdog Millionaire. I had tho’t to sit down and see a “happy” movie where a poor guy from the slums of India earns a million dollars on a game show and lives happily ever after. How wrong could I have possibly been? The movie is a horror—depicting the realities of the lives of the people of India who live in its slums. I found the horror of the inequities to be completely outrageous and unrelenting. Only at the ending credits, and somehow completely unrelated to the rest of the movie, is there the supposed fairy tale ending where all live happily ever after. And further, news reports now say that the young actors in the movie who came from the slums were summarily thrown back into the horrible conditions from which they were recruited for the movie.
I mention this example because I found myself wondering: Yes, indeed, “living righteously” is certainly what Christ talked about. But then there are the people(s) of the world who need some concrete help RIGHT NOW. Praying won’t do it for them—except for prayers from those who are helpless to do anything at all other than pray.
And I have to say that Newt Gingrich particularly sticks in my craw. He was most vocal when Clinton had his “sexcapades troubles”—all the while himself doing essentially the same thing as Clinton and at approximately the same time. Then he converts to RC and suddenly, he’s got all the answers yet again. Please!! Give me a break! I don’t care if the man saw Jesus Christ himself; I’d find it hard to accept what he has to say.
As to the nuns and the current Vatican visitation going on: Don’t be surprised if you find that many of the current nuns in the U.S. simply opt out of being affiliated with Rome. They may pull what the IHMs (Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters) “pulled” back in the 1960s when they were forced to make a choice of “being good sisters” and “doing what they were told” or finding their own ministry and following it. Most of the IHMs broke from the original group, moved to California, divested themselves of Rome (so to speak) and went on with their work. (My sister was taught by this latter group and it has shown in her life; she has devoted her life to the poor, no vows, no outward religious trappings, just lived her life consciously devoted to the poor.)
Furthermore, Laurie Goodstein (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02nuns.html?em) (courtesy of your calling the article to my attention) notes that Benedict in going after only the American sisters who practice an active ministry (thus contemplative nuns are excluded) is really looking for a way to get the sisters back as a cheap “work force” within the Church. Some few of the sisters may “go for that”; however, I doubt most of them will. As Sister Sandra Schneiders says: the Vatican is simply “not on the same planet” as the sisters are. (And here I distinguish between “sisters” and “nuns”: “nuns” have solemn vows, live contemplative lives, and generally take a vow of stability; “sisters” have simple vows, live “active” lives, and do not take a vow of stability.)
Continued below…..
Comment by MCS — July 4, 2009 @ 6:51 am
Call the whole “conservative/fundamental”/”liberal” dichotomy what you will: The simple fact of the matter is: The real problem is where the POWER lies. Does every, simple, little (relatively) issue that arises within a parish have to be referred to Rome for solution? Or do the bishops have collegiality where they share power with the Pope have authority in their own dioceses? In effect, is the Pope just another bishop? It all comes down to a power struggle as I see it. And when it comes to power struggles, I wash my hands of them. I could care less about holding power myself. I would think that only the most egregious, serious, large problems should be referred to the hierarchy—regardless of the hierarchical power being a bishop or the Pope. Let those who want power fight for it; the rest of us don’t care. If those who want power want a “smaller church”, let them have it. In the end, the sensus fidelium prevails whether those fighting over power like it or not.
And I also must add: In the 15 years I spent in religious life as a sister, I experienced two such canonical visitations. I am here to say what I experienced. We were told: All is confidential; say anything you wish to say. I didn’t have much to say as I generally did not believe in “tattling” on others. Yet there were some individuals who “unloaded” on every little irritation that in their opinion was “improper.” Thus, complaints from unacknowledged/unknown sources were lodged against some individuals who then were put in a position to have to defend themselves against complaints from unknown parties. How does one answer such accusations? Almost impossible. I found such visitations nothing but an excuse for accusations to be made which then had to be defended with no knowledge whatsoever of the source of such accusations. Once again, I say: Please! Give me a break! And however the RC Church shakes down, it shakes down. I still say: They can say what they want about the sensus fidelium; it still holds.
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 4, 2009 @ 6:52 am
Call the whole “conservative/fundamental”/”liberal” dichotomy what you will: The simple fact of the matter is: The real problem is where the POWER lies. Does every, simple, little (relatively) issue that arises within a parish have to be referred to Rome for solution? Or do the bishops have collegiality where they share power with the Pope have authority in their own dioceses? In effect, is the Pope just another bishop? It all comes down to a power struggle as I see it. And when it comes to power struggles, I wash my hands of them. I could care less about holding power myself. I would think that only the most egregious, serious, large problems should be referred to the hierarchy—regardless of the hierarchical power being a bishop or the Pope. Let those who want power fight for it; the rest of us don’t care. If those who want power want a “smaller church”, let them have it. In the end, the sensus fidelium prevails whether those fighting over power like it or not.
And I also must add: In the 15 years I spent in religious life as a sister, I experienced two such canonical visitations. I am here to say what I experienced. We were told: All is confidential; say anything you wish to say. I didn’t have much to say as I generally did not believe in “tattling” on others. Yet there were some individuals who “unloaded” on every little irritation that in their opinion was “improper.” Thus, complaints from unacknowledged/unknown sources were lodged against some individuals who then were put in a position to have to defend themselves against complaints from unknown parties. How does one answer such accusations? Almost impossible. I found such visitations nothing but an excuse for accusations to be made which then had to be defended with no knowledge whatsoever of the source of such accusations. Once again, I say: Please! Give me a break! And however the RC Church shakes down, it shakes down. I still say: They can say what they want about the sensus fidelium; it still holds.
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 4, 2009 @ 6:52 am