Two Catholicisms
by modestinus
A comment to my previous post inspired these thoughts. Apologies in advance if they are more disjointed than usual.
There is no small irony in the fact that to most (not all) traditionalist Catholics the Church is a shell of her former self. Instead of “the pillar and ground of truth,” she favors an endless discussion. Instead of proclaiming herself against false religions, she is open to ecumenical dialogue. Religious liberty, not the reign of Christ the King, is the order of the day and instead of the Latin tongue expressing dogma and liturgy, a washed-out vernacular conveys a supposedly watered-down Mass. You would think that the Church had not only become palatable to the world, but a joke as well. Next to the Unitarians and the United Church of Christ (sic), could there be a greater ecclesial laughing stock? Ah, but that is the perception of the trads; it is not the view of everybody else.
The Catholic Church remains, rightly or wrongly, the epitome of medievalism in the eyes of popular culture (American or European). If you didn’t know any better (and some don’t), you would think the burning of witches and the torturing of Jews was the order of the day. Why, don’t you know, Pope Pius XII singlehandedly orchestrated the Holocaust? African men with AIDS are ordered, on pain of death, to have unprotected intercourse with their wives and, when he’s not clubbing baby seals, Pope Benedict XVI is busy signing off on transfers of pedophile priests to remote-town parishes where the local yokels feed their prepubescent boys to the lecherous yearnings of unrepentant predators. That is the Catholic Church, or so a certain tall tale goes. Hatred of women is a virtue, and the greatest vice is daring to question the sacred dogma that the Pope can, by an infallible act of sheer will, make it rain (albeit a spiritual rain us sinners rarely get to see).
All hyperbole aside, there is nothing more indicative of our present state of affairs than the manner in which the Catholic Church, even after the needless surrenders made at Vatican II, is still perceived as the quintessential outmoded throwback to bygone eras before ours, the one of “enlightened humanity.” To those who claim to be “in the know,” the Church limps on and weakly hurls platitudes against an indifferent world. To those dwelling outside, she remains a potent force in service to the most supreme evil: the belief in Truth.
Darker days are inevitably ahead.
So I guess the prostitution of the Church to the world (aka “aggiornamento(?)”) has done absolutely nothing to fix her perennial “image problem?”
One has to wonder why the Council Fathers etc. even bothered.
I recently happened upon a site where an educated, informed Calvinist (not a benighted toothless backwoods fundy, but a guy who’d actually acquired a genuine degree somewhere) claimed that the Jesuits are trying to take over the world as part of a great Vatican conspiracy to force everyone to convert to Catholicism.
I wish.
Diane, there’s a post on the previous essay that you should read.
Now…regarding what modestinus considers the two Catholicisms;
Please read this from the NCR;
http://ncronline.org/news/theology/editorial-cardinals-letter-stocked-more-what-we-don-t-need
I think it must be admitted that the Cardinal (!!- not a mere priest or bishop but a cardinal!), has a distinctly medieval view of anthropology. It’s lovely in its romanticism but brutally naive in its understanding of how human beings actually interact in society.
That’s the first version of Catholicism- one which directly caters to the numerous outsiders who see it as a relic.
The second version; http://ncronline.org/node/42701
is that of Benedictine Abbot Peter von Sury who is urging the Church to go “back” to the pre-schism Church and have elections of bishops decided by the priests and laity whose diocese the bishop will preside over. You may also read articles about Abbot Martin Werlen who has advocated more changes in the way the Church is governed.
Benedictines are not revolutionaries. They are quite “conservative” in their attitudes. They are quite knowledgeable about Tradition and strive to be faithful to it. It’s true that they are in the forefront of dialogue with other religions, especially Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. They have many fine scholars who have contributed some of the best writings on intra-religious dialogue.
But they are Benedictines- faithful to the monastic tradition that has roots in Egypt with the Desert Fathers and so forth.
These are the other face of Catholicism. They speak from a deep source and only speak now when the crisis in the Church is so clear.
There is not much chance for changing how the Church is perceived by the modern world.
For example, take the role of women in the Church. Anything short of a female pope will not satisfy modern sensibilities. The Church has repeatedly taught that men and women have equal dignity. But unless we grant women the fullness of ecclesiastical power, no one will believe us when we use terms like “equal.” There is simply nothing that can be done about this.
There is a long list of issues upon which the Church cannot help but appear out of date. Her teachings on the Bible come to mind. As does her teaching on transubstantiation.
What can be done about this? Probably not much.
Interesting, your remarks about women in the Church. They remind me of the “separate but equal” arguments made by segregationists.
As for the Bible….considering that Catholic scholars have been at the forefront of scholarship in this regard your statement is puzzling unless you mean that the Church endorses a “fundamentalist” or “inerrant” opinion of the Bible which it never has held as far as I know.
As for transubstantiation, that’s one theological explanation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that is, the Bread and Wine are truly and really Christ. How it’s the Real Presence is a matter of explanation. That it is the Real Presence is a matter of belief.
On women in the Church, I think your considering my words as reminiscent of segregationist only strengthens my point: the Church will have a hard time persuading people she is serious about equality between the sexes when they have very different roles.
With respect to the Bible, the Church teaches that it is divinely inspired and that certain events really happened. A lot of people have a hard time believing the Bible is authoritative in such a way and consider such a belief a hold-over from simpler times. Also, moderns scholarship has a certain degree of difficulty harmonizing with various parts of the Catholic tradition, such as certain papal encyclicals and passages from the Church Fathers that indicate a belief in Biblical inerrancy.
As for transubstantiation, it is not simply one explanation. It is the one with which the Catholic Church is irrevocably associated in the popular mind. And it is a concept straight out the Middle Ages.
When dealing with perceptions, there is not much that can be done. People won’t just forget about the way things have been. Also, there is not much agreement about what can be changed and what can’t be.
Are you truly a dolt or do you just put on an act for my benefit? I think it’s about time you find a new blog to haunt. Let me fetch your hat…
Are you referring to me or evagrius?
Evagrius. Always Evagrius.
Are you writing remarks to me?
I’m always curious about opinions differing from mine or what is now described as “mainstream”, ( not that I have “mainstream” opinions).
You fit the bill, being a fairly well-educated individual though I think a tad too insulated from certain realities due, no doubt, to the fairly privileged background that you probably had.
I’m fascinated as to how someone who claims to have been Orthodox and is now Catholic, ( not really much of a change in some ways), can actually think in a way that is almost, almost, diametrically opposed to previous belief. I mean by that a fascination with the “trads” to the point of obsession. But then, there are plenty of Orthodox who are blood kin to the Catholic “trads”, ( take away fixation on Papal power and the filioque and voila, an Orthodox trad).
I think it’s a matter of psychology and maturity coming from life experience. When I was a young student I had a fascination with the Middle Ages and the faith that it expressed. My favorite professor, an expert on the Middle Ages and a devout Catholic, quite honestly thought that I was being a little unreflective and naive on the matter and, of course, many years later I saw the wisdom of his remarks.
You write about an unbelief in the Truth, yet the Truth is not an obvious thing, ( indeed, if one thinks of the Truth as a Person it obviously isn’t). The Truth can be quite grey, ambiguous, provocative, questioning. The Truth should lead one to question one’s own self, or ego if you like, showing how that ego actually blinds one to the Truth itself.
What you’re upset about is that the world isn’t in black and white, life isn’t black and white, and morality and right living isn’t black and white. Those who do see reality as consisting of clear, obvious choices of black and white are to be distrusted and avoided.
Is this “doltish” enough for you?
“Evagrius”,
In reading your instruction to Modestinus, I just realized that you once had a music career. Here you are singing your big hit:
Cool psychoanalysis man. Tell us more about our authoritarian personalities, and how we’ll reach psychological integration and maturity by converting to content-neutral moral therapeutic agnosticism.
Man, I barely avoided being white trash — and I’ll just leave it at that.
I don’t think so. With a last name like Sanchez, you couldn’t be “white trash”.. I should know since I’m “white” with a Hispanic last name, as you know.
So…grow up.
You don’t want to know, if that’s the right word, the great Mystery. You just want to be told what to do.
Is that right? Given your intellect and knowledge?
You’d be surprised what you can be when other people are doing the looking. Anyway…
“Evagrius” wrote:
Those who do see reality as consisting of clear, obvious choices of black and white are to be distrusted and avoided.
You need to take your own advice. If this blog is frequented by people who “see reality as consisting of clear, obvious choices of black and white,” then, by your own admission, this blog is to be avoided.
Go on; make like a tree and leave.
Why should I? Is this blog an “Amen corner”?
Are you really so imperceptive that you do not see that this blog’s emphasis is opposed to that of modernist buffoons such as yourself who are so infatuated with that old demon known as the Zeitgeist? Are you completely un-self-aware or are you truly a glutton for punishment, a masochist? Do you actually believe that you can convert anybody who is drawn to this sort of blog to your childish, unbelieving, nihilistic point of view? No, surely you do not. Instead you simply get off on arousing the passions of those with whom you come into contact. All you are ever doing with this shtick is feeding your demon.
Oh, that’s right, you do not believe in demons! I guess that means that you do not have one then since you are the sole arbiter of reality. (Note that the rest of us turn to Tradition because we recognize, in all humility, that we on our own are only capable of seeing the shadows on the cave wall…so much for your world in black and white) Yes, in a world full of aches and pains, murder and mayhem, pedophiles and sadists, you with your childish, undiscerning belief in undifferentiated spirit proclaim, “It’s all good!” You’re a moron who refuses to deal with reality, and this is why you get no traction here, and, furthermore, you know it. But you must keep feeding that demon, so you stay.
Incidentally, one does not have to consult the Vatican to be cautioned against Centering Prayer. The Orthodox would not automatically agree with you (and you call yourself Orthodox…pshaw!) that the “experience mirrors that of Jesus and his disciples, or the Desert Fathers who followed Him.” The concern is that Centering Prayer, unlike Hesychasm, potentially exposes one to demonic influence.
Oh, but there it is again! You refuse to deal with reality and do not actually believe in anything, so what do you care! Yeah, it’s all good, man! Moron.
You really need to join the Episcopal Church where you will find many such as yourself who believe in nothing and, therefore, will try anything. That is where your true audience lies. Ah, but you could not feed your demon there in such a harmonious atmosphere. I guess that means you will be staying here then. Pity.
Well. I’m glad to elicit such a response!
Interesting….A blog which is open to the public somehow cannot accept comments that question it.
I see that someone is cognizant enough to notice that the “authoritarian” label can be applied to the blog.
I don’t think that modestinus is completely authoritarian. He’s too much intelligent for that but his readers may not be that astute.
Here’s a challenge for modestinus and his devoted readers;
Follow the instructions for Centering Prayer and follow them for the requisite time.
Given what I know from “authoritarian” personalities, I doubt that anyone will actually do it.
Why? Because the experience will expose the individual’s experience to the ambiguity and darkness that is the actual reality of being a living being in this world.
Never mind that the experience mirrors that of Jesus and his disciples, or the Desert Fathers who followed Him….it doesn’t accord with with the Truth as enunciated by the One who knows who lives in the Vatican.
Oohh,
Modestinus, I hope you now see who thinks you’re “hot stuff”, intellectually speaking, of course.
Mr. Farging Barstage, you’re the expert on contemplative prayer?
Don’t you know that demons prefer Wall Street above all else?
Bizarre. You give new meaning to the term “non-sequitur.”
Well, I certainly hope I was entertaining.
In addition to Godwin’s Law, and the more parochial to Orthodox and Catholic blogging circles rule that someone on a thread will eventually call his interlocutor a Protestant, we might add the inevitability of cartoon psychoanalysis and the “you cannot accept comments that question your paradigm” tracts. There should be shorthand terms for those as there is with Godwin’s law.
But the appeal to maturity in “I think it’s a matter of psychology and maturity coming from life experience” isn’t something you see in threads everyday, or in new media generally. Coming from any other source I would appreciate the irony.
Ev, I consider Catholic (and Orthodox) trad movements to be modern phenomena, and as is the case with all reactionary movements, phenomena which unwittingly, though at the same time expediently, embraces modernism to degrees which make their claims against modernity farcical. Essentially, I view trad Catholicism as a vehicle for bitching (and living a life oriented toward the piety of uberbitching) over losses of power, and over the fact that preferred chauvinisms are no longer a part of the cultural nomenclature. So I am quite open to criticisms of trad orientations. But you, sir, are a clown, and were it not for the fact that I have seen your game on so many forums over the years, I’d assume that you were actually an agent provocateur troll posing as the caricature of a 70s era sentimental liberal Christian in order to set up easy straw men for your real intellectual allies to knock down. Maturity? Good god man, you’ve got the cheap narcissism of your generation down pat.
If we want to talk psychologies on grand scales, I’d like to again whine about the new left having given us a world of perpetual adolescence, and having instilled in us a sense that such a world is our birthright.
Mr. White,
I don’t think the new left has given us a world of perpetual adolescence. I think the consumer society has. The question is who runs and benefits from that.
You’re certainly quite eloquent and I certainly won’t bore you with attempting a response.
But I am interested in why there’s been no response to the links I provided; the cardinal’s praise of priests’ mothers was certainly a classic. The Benedictine abbots’ response was also quite interesting. Still, I notice that no one has responded which reveals much.
Well, being a kind of internet gong-farmer, I went to the two sites that Pseudo-Evagrius Oukpontikos (who sounds rather Kalifournikos) linked to above, and what did I find?
First, a kind of Italian clerical Marian screed, which is charming in its way, if not my cup of tea — embedded in an NCR anti-screed which sounds all the screech-tones of modern “We Are Church” Liberal Catholicism, and which I regard as purveying far more noxious twaddle than the Italian fervorino.
Second, a reprise of the “We Are Church” screed line from the previous post. It is, however, presented in such a winsome “butter would not melt in his mouth” sort of way that one might well take it as an example of what was termed “resourcissement” (as opposed to the vaguer, and in the event more dangerous, “aggiornamento”), were it not for its penultimate paragraph, which I excerpt in part here:
“Meanwhile, members of the Swiss Parish Initiative, which was founded in September 2012 and is modeled on the Austrian Priests’ Initiative, is calling for far-reaching church reforms, such as intercommunion.”
(One can always rely on Ms. Pongratz-Lippit to slip up and let show her own ecclesiastical cloven hoof; cf.:
http://ncronline.org/authors/christa-pongratz-lippitt )
“Such as intercommunion;” — and, no doubt, the acceptance of homosexual pseudogamy, of admittance of remarried divorce(e)s to communion “with no questions asked,” of the pretended “ordination” of women, and the like (every item of which, I hasten to add, is endorsed by the “Austrian Priests’ Initiative”). All of which makes one wonder whether Abbot von Sury supports aspects of this agenda, and is using this “back to the pre-schism Church” notion as a means to advance this agenda at the local level, and so do an end-run around Rome, or whether he is the ecclesiastical equivalent of those liberal bourgeois intellectuals whom Lenin so well characterized as “useful idiots,” who at one and the same time are supporting the advance of an agenda the successful acheivement of which will result in their own marginalization and destruction.
A thought occurred to me recently that is pertinent to this discussion.
I follow the usual suspect public intellectual leftists on Facebook, and of late quite a few of them have been discussing BenXVI’s quoting of Adorno and Horkheimer here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html#_ftnref30
It strikes me that none of these secular leftists ever, ever engages the sort of theology that our pixel dilettante Ev likes. It also strikes me that the theology that Ev pushes rarely engages with leftist thinkers like Adorno and Horkheimer, even though that theology shares an intellectual pedigree with thinkers like (especially) Adorno, and never in such a way that elicits response from the intellectual circles that still claims thinkers coming from that general ideological perspective.
It says something that the left doesn’t give a damn about liberal Christianities, and sees no point in bothering with them or engaging them, while at the same time it is fascinated by a BenXVI engaging with folks like Adorno and Horkheimer. Even the secular left apparently intuits that 70s style liberal Christianities and their projects are pointless, and intellectually vacuous.
Sorry, the link I provide takes you to the middle of 42. Read all of 42, by scrolling above a bit.
Interesting obervation. Not to detract from it, but I do wonder if the Left’s fascination with a figure like B16 engaging/citing “their camp” isn’t the flipside of Christians who go ga-ga over folks like Agamben, Badiou, and Zizek writing about St. Paul and Christian theology/history. Too much of the latter line of fascination is predicated, in my view, on some serious misunderstandings of that what gang of three are up to, but nevertheless, the fact that thinkers who should be “toxic” to Christians are, seemingly, taking Christianity (or elements of it) seriously (albeit in radically different ways).
I don’t think any of these leftists view BenXVI as anything other than an absolute enemy, even if a fascinating one, so I’m not sure that their fascination with him is analogous to hipster Christians wanting to play ball with Zizek. Those hipster Christians want to pretend that there are meaningful bridges between themselves and the Zizeks of public intellectual fame. The leftists I describe are curious, but are primarily motivated by a desire to know their enemy so as to better destroy him. Though to return to Schmitt, engagements between actual enemies are sometimes grown up engagements, and can actually offer a hell of a lot more ‘promise’ than those popular intellectual projects today which think that they hold ‘promise’ because they involve something so (not)profound as a dude who went to seminary writing about Zizek and thinking himself cutting edge and bridge building.
True. I cut my response off before I finished because, sadly, work called, but anyway…
To add to what I was going to write, I agree with you that the Left views B16 as the enemy here. But what B16 offers, and which no “lefty/emotive” Christianity can deliver, is a concrete force. The Pope is the most visible Christian in the world, and it just happens to be that our current Pontiff is also one of the most accomplished Christian theologians/intellectuals of the last century. If he is going to name-drop the Frankfurt School, people are going to take notice — for good or ill. The fact that his bona fides are decidedly to the right of what most hipster Christians are dropping (though don’t tell the SSPX that) only makes his engagement that much more intriguing. I’m not sure it adds up to a whole lot, but this is the Internet. We’ll take what we can get.
How to appropriate Zizek? Gah!!! But, Owen, sometimes there are events that simply beg for a Hegelian/Marxist/Lacanian reading–not to support the Church but to critique Her:
“The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”
“As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”
Full article: http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people
I think I’ve ranted about Zizek enough on Owen’s old weblogs that I need not rehearse my complaints. But those two graphs above make it too easy.
The above is no way to imply that Orthodoxy is immune from such (ante)(post)(post) mo-dern con-fli(cts).
But what does that prove other than the fact the defendants in the case had “zealous advocates” (a requirement under every state code of legal ethics that I am aware of) at their disposal?
I’ll bracket for a moment what I believe should have been done in that case with the realities of the contemporary American judicial system: you play with the cards you are dealt. No lawyer worth his salt is going to forego a viable defense of their client because it happens to run afoul of theological-ethical principles which, quite frankly, are not their concern. The theory of the Plaintiffs case rested on an assertion which the law of Colorado does not recognize. The lawyers in the case pointed out that fact in their defense. So, to put on my lawyer cap for a moment, what’s your point? That they should have overlooked the law as it stands? Even if the lawyers for the defendant argued otherwise, it’s not as if a civil trial court could go, “Oh, ok, well actually we can redefine the statute to actually align with Catholic teaching.” Impossible. No subsequent court would have (or probably could have) relied on the decision as precedent, and certainly no higher court which is more fit to adjudicate such contentious matters of statutory interpretation would have paid it a moment’s notice. The next case that came down the pipe which might — and I stress might — have relied on this particular trial court’s ruling would have chucked it in an instant and nothing would be changed. Moreover, there’s a compelling argument to be had over whether or not such courts are fit or competent to rewrite Colorado law. So, again, why would a lawyer effective suicide his case for what amounts to nothing?
I recognize there are other points of view out there (some more viable in my estimation), but hey, if I can’t play the devil’s (i.e., legal profession’s) advocate sometimes, what the heck did I go to law school for?
Hey, Mod., that’s why I threw this one out there. It seems to play right into the Two Catholicisms theme of the post, and yet begs for a Zizekian analysis.
I appreciate your devil’s advocacy: it’s what lawyers are bred for. I just wonder in what way your lawyerliness (even if feigned) becomes part of these two Catholicisms. Even worse, what if there aren’t two, but (in my twitchy Zizek fashion), “in fact three Catholicisms,” etc. It’s just going to make our heads spin when HHS complaints come rolling in–you know with the whole Catholic conscience thing. Sometimes we’re medieval, sometimes, well, not so much.
Every sperm is a human, except when it’s a fetus and we can hide behind the law. To appropriate the law here is simply to appropriate the modern, but even more so to appropriate the choice to be able to choose to be able to appropriate the modern or the medieval, which ever suits (no pun intended) our financial well-being.
And on and on. Again, I mean no disrespect–just goofy devil-advocatish observations. I like the idea of two Catholicisms because it extends so far through much of (blah, blah) modernity.
Yes. B16 is certainly the most visible Christian abd certainly quite intelligent.
Given that, why is he so incapable of figuring out approaches that deal concretely with the erosion?
By the way, I’m impressed by the Tres Amigos routine. Very nice. And the reference to trendy theology is certainly nice.
By the way, what’s “70′s liberal Christianities”?
Because he works within one of the most complex, convoluted, and corrupt organizations in Christian history: the Church. If anybody expected otherwise, they obviously didn’t read their Bible close enough.
I would submit that there is no other Christian, nay, religious entity on earth that approaches the nature of the Catholic Church (and I am speaking about it here in purely human, i.e., sinful terms). The closest you might find is one of the individual Patriarchates of the East, but even then you would probably have to limit your analysis to Constantinople or Moscow. But of course there you’re speaking about a greater deal of homogeneity than you find (or have ever found) in Catholicism, and that means something. It means a lot. I disagree vehemently with trad Caths who believe that if the Church just chucked Vatican II that it would be free from its present woes. Too much has changed to make that “solution” (and it was never a real solution to begin with) plausible, to say nothing of viable.
Well, I certainly agree with your view of the Church and your view about “trads”.
Still, given the fact that the Pope is so highly visible etc; you’d think there could be a better approach.
I’m partial to the Pope leaving the Vatican to itself and moving, just himself, to somewhere else. Just a symbolic move with not much impact but still…
The Vatican…what a golden cage.
“Because he works within one of the most complex, convoluted, and corrupt organizations in Christian history: the Church. If anybody expected otherwise, they obviously didn’t read their Bible close enough.”
*** Bravo, Mod. We can hope for something more but should expect nothing less.
My Orthodox friends get irritated with how much I rely on Catholic Social Teaching (with my own economic glosses mostly learned from Catholic thinkers). Only an institution that knows its own temptations (and depravity) can come up with such magnificent documents, a true engagement of the world.