Are You Liberal or Conservative?
Well we made it to Saranac from Rochester. Everything went as planned with our trip but my brother’s plane . . ., well, that was another matter. Short story long, when it comes to my brothers lately, it seems they have me racing the weather for some reason or another. I had to take the ferry over to pick him up along with his family at the Burlington airport and try to catch the ferry back before the big storm hit . . . we made it. At least this time it was not a hurricane (see 7 July post). Any time I go to Vermont, for some reason, the trip has me thinking about politics. I’m not exactly sure why, the first strike in the same sex union war perhaps; but in that vein . . .
I recognize that many a keyboard has been burnt up with this issue but the nice thing about a blog is that you can always throw in your two cents and you don’t have to know that you are being ignored. So here go mine . . .
Now I understand the desire to know where someone is coming from and the convenience of placing him into an intellectual box. However, it seems to me that the importation of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” by those trying to classify any particular Catholic, is problematic for various reasons.
First, there is more often than not a lack of clarity as to what the user intends by the terms. For example, neo-conservatives claim that they are more in line with classical liberalism than today’s neo-liberals. In fact, they say, modern liberals actually espouse many liberty depriving policies through government “interference,” especially in the economic sphere, that would be anathema to classical liberalism. Moreover, these terms can mean a variety of things, even limiting the ascription to the political, economic, fiscal, or social spheres. Beyond that, it is sometimes difficult to know what is really intended when they are applied to Catholics in terms of Church teaching. Is the reference to their ecclesiology, their Christology, their understanding of Catholic social doctrine, their anthropology . . . ?
Second, the classifications are overly simplistic and fail to take into account that many Catholics do not submit to particular, secular ideologies. Along these lines, a further problem is that it seems to me that once classified, there is a tendency by some to dismiss others with whom they disagree without actually listening to what is said or engaging their arguments.
Third, unfortunately, too often the term “liberal” is simply used as a euphemism by those who think that their ideology justifies their dissent from authoritative Church teaching. Conversely, “conservative” often means one need not seriously consider judgments from the Church in conflict with his ideology if the judgment can be classified as prudential.
Fourth, it exacerbates the problem that both “conservatives” and “liberals” can unthinkingly presume that their _________ (political, economic, etc., fill in the blank) philosophy is foundational and that the Church must some how fit into it. This leads to an over self-identification with their respective ideologies and the tendency to view Church teaching through these ideological lenses. For example, many Catholics, who espouse social liberalism seem to conflate Catholic social doctrine with liberal social policies. On the other hand, some Catholics who consider themselves to be conservative, can often appear to dismiss out of hand consistent and repeated magisterial application of Church teaching about the death penalty because it contradicts their “law and order” ideology.
I suggest that we call a spade a spade. If one is a dissenter from Church teaching, admit it. If one accepts Church authority only when it aligns with one’s politically conservative ideology then don’t call yourself a conservative Catholic. Perhaps both of these tendencies would more fairly self-identify as Protestant “liberals” or “conservatives” who happen to agree with much of what the Catholic Church teaches.
O.K., I’m done.
.jpg)
Really a grand post. You’ve pinpointed all the reasons I’ve disregarded those labels entirely for myself.
If pressed, I’ll call myself a McCain Republican or a Moderate, but I tend to say “I am neither conservative nor liberal. I am Catholic.” That is, my faith informs my politics, which really kind of sucks for me because it means I will probably be writing in candidates for the _rest of my life_. So disgusted with both parties am I!
Comment by Visaggio — July 27, 2005 @ 9:16 am
There was some initial confusion oh how to label JP II when he died. The network and cable talking heads couldn’t figure out how he could be pro-life and, at the same time, take a stand on social justice. In the end, his stand on abortion, same sex marriage and contraception was just too much to deserve anything else than the conservative stamp.
Comment by Anonymous — July 27, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
I’m unsure of the current trend for some Catholics to distance themselves from conservativism per se.
I think a wise Catholic (or any person, for that matter) will have opinions on issues that do not reflect the plank statements of political parties nor the editorial positions of certain media outlets. I had a classmate who could be described as a traditionalist Catholic, but he was also an ardent pacifist.
I think some Catholics are liberal or conservative in general outlook. There are also degrees of dissent from both authoritative and prudential church teaching–those lines are not always as clear as either conservative or liberal proponents sometimes suggest. Does dissent need to be the “take-out-an-ad” or “ordain-your-own-pope” in-your-face variety? Can a good Catholic have interior reservations about women’s ordination? Or does it become problematic only when mentioned during cocktail hour, to one’s parish priest, or by attending an ordination cruise?
I confess my own theological reservations about women’s ordination, so does that make me a damned dissenter? I’m hardly going to attend the ordination of a woman, and at this point, I think the value of Church unity supercedes people taking matters into their own hands. So if I’m not going to actively support women priests or urge others to consider my reservations, is that enough?
Frankly, I’m not about to let traditionalist Catholics, either clergy or lay, decide that for me. (Though I’m sure people have their opinions ready formed.)
The real challenge is not to eliminate name-calling (or box-putting, or whatever) but to induce working together. In my experience, I’ve worked wonderfully well with many Catholics of traditional sensibility. My question is more pragmatic: Will you lead music at a Mass with me? Will you join or even chair a committee in my parish for me? Would you write a book on good liturgy with me?
Dropping labels and watching language is fine as it goes. But I want to see some action behind the sentiment, if you know what I mean.
Comment by Todd — July 28, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
The real challenge is not to eliminate name-calling (or box-putting, or whatever) but to induce working together.
I do not think that a pragmatist approach is an authentic path to a unity of faith. Neither is it possible to arrive at the truths of faith through reason alone.
A real unity is first a unity of faith based upon trust in Christ and therefore, trust in his Church. Unity is real because of our unity with Christ and his mystical body. We separate ourselves from Christ to the degree we separate ourselves from his Church and the truths she teaches.
If we do not first trust in the authority of the Church to teach us the truth about, for example, the real character of the priesthood, then the rest of our faith seems to be accidental. I mean that we just seem to have a common agreement with the Church. The type of “unity” that you speak about will end in the fractioning we see in Protestantism. The most emblematic instance being the fractioning we see taking place in the Anglican communion today.
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2005 @ 8:55 am
“If we do not first trust in the authority of the Church to teach us the truth about …”
For almost all Catholics, including the so-called “orthodox” ones, personality has gotten too confused with authority. In some cases, bishops and pope are not transparent enough, and themselves become an obstacle to the truth of which you speak. In others, Catholics on all sides of the divide are too ready to heap scorn on the bad bishop of their choice, seriously short-circuiting the traditional approach and rendering the holder of orthodoxy to be the self.
I remain doubtful of your definition of unity; it seems too much like uniformity to me. Liberals and conservatives can still work together. Those who opt out of such arrangements, no matter what their views on crystallized Church teaching on gender and sex, are no better than the garden variety of cafeteria Catholics they vilify.
Comment by Todd — July 30, 2005 @ 10:02 am
For almost all Catholics, including the so-called “orthodox” ones, personality has gotten too confused with authority.
That may or may not be so, but it does not negate the Magisterium’s authority which the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) has pointed out is codified within the Catechism itself. That is a sure source of authoritative teaching which is not conflated with personality.
I remain doubtful of your definition of unity; it seems too much like uniformity to me.
It’s not mine; check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church on unity:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#ONE
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2005 @ 11:53 pm
Here’s a problem not mentioned so far: Pope Benedict XVI is NOW considered a hardline conservative — but that tells us more about the yardstick used than about His Holiness. John Paul was labelled an extremist for teaching what the Church has always taught. How is staying in the same place an “extreme” policy, in and of itself?
Chris Garton-Zavesky
Comment by Anonymous — August 5, 2005 @ 6:25 pm
[...] However, Sullivan then does exactly that of which he accuses Fr. Neuhaus. Sullivan attempts to dismiss the arguments by undermining the credibility of a “far-right Catholic website” that uses a review done by “Pat Robertson’s ‘Regent University’” which analyzed a study done by Dr. Paul Cameron. Hmmm, I wonder how he knows we are “far-right.” You might have noticed that we have absolutely no political postings here by design. I suppose he falls into the trap of misapplying 18th century political constructs as euphemisms for whether or not one follows his personal desires or the Truth of Christ as taught by His Church (see here for some further thoughts on this). I suppose the ad hominem approach is quite conveneint for those who wish to be able to dismiss someone as having no credibility rather than having to deal with his arguments. [...]
Pingback by COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » C-L-S: “A Far-Right Catholic Website”? — March 27, 2006 @ 12:28 pm