Fr. Reese hits the nail on the head: he identifies the fragile, incoherent, unstable and parasitic nature of liberal Catholicism with his metaphor of a Catholic unicorn.
In a thoughtful, much-read piece last week he suggested that his colon surgery may be the beginning of the end of the pontificate of Francis. I think this speculation is silly: we watched my mother, who recently passed at 101, snap back a number of times through her 80s and 90s when she should have been down for the count. Franics is like my mother, a tough old bird. He is more than capable of a resurge. He may be around for quite a while. If so, I hope he will do more good than harm. His is a strange papacy. It is like watching film noir. His two immediate predecessors were like a Jason Bourne movie: when things get terrible, Bourne gets smarter, tougher, stronger. So,everything from JPII and B16 (not the Vatican) was unerringly, serendipitously inspiring, hopeful, truthful. Their predecessors, in living memory, were solid, steady, safe, grounded. But Francis is like the noir genre: you just don't know what is coming next! Noir is thrilling because the good characters may turn evil; the worst might turn to the good; the femme fatale may finaly surrender to love or hatred; the ending could be happy sad and nihilistic. In that sense, Francis is like the rest of life: we just don't know the outcome. It is high drama! (But not always in the best sense!)
Back to the Reese piece: the rest of the article point on: he regrets that the papacy has been a failure in that Francis has not recreated the clergy/episcopacy in his own image. Even as more than half of the current cardinals were appointed by him, the American bishops who support him are only 20 to 40 of about 240. The triumph of his vision requires a successor in his likeness but even with that Reese identifies the deeper problem: most of the younger priests are in the mold of John Paul. New, liberal bishops will find for themselves that most priests, including the most trustworthy and reliable, are of a conservative mode. Hence: the dilemna of liberal Catholicism is that it is not procreating itself.
The liberal Catholicism of the last half century since the Council has three features: First, the sterilization of sexuality and the disenchantment of the Mystery of masculinity/femininity (and ultimately of romance itself). Second, a break with tradition which it disparages from a posture of enlightenend superiority rather than filial reverence, loyalty and gratitude. Thirdly, a search for salvation from the leftwing politics of the expansive state as well as a turn to psychology as religion. Because of its embrace of sterility it is not fruitful; as it breaks with the past it has no organic future. And so the surge of expectant energy in the Church has been in overwhelmingly "conservative" and in tune with John Paul: young priests, new orders, lay renewal movements, return to tradition, home schooling, and so forth. The recent repression of the Latin mass shows the anxiety and insecurity of the liberal psyche.
The "Spirit of Vatican II" generation, now in their 70s and 80s are retiring to nursing homes. They were, to me, a noble generation in their embrace of the poor and suffering, their ecumenical spirit, their enthusiastic openness to new ideas. The young could learn a lot from them and I hope they do. But the dark side was the break with tradition, the weakening of the Catholic sexual ethic and the accomadation to the Cultural/Sexual Revolution. And so a sadness hangs over them: they leave no legacy.Yes there has been a resurgence of liberalism under Francis, but his advocacy has been inconsistent and so he has disappointed.
He himself is a puzzling combination of conservative and progressive and in that he is emblematic of the Church herself, although his is an incoherent synthesis.
St. Thomas says the human will protects the good that is present (conserve) and seeks the good that is absent (progress). Being in itself is stable and yet in movement: continuing the Good/True/Beautiful even in movement towards it. As is the Church! But for Catholicism there is a primacy of the given, the actual, the received: life itself as created gratuitously and salvation as definitively given in the Gracious Act of Jesus Christ. Growth, movement and liberation always flow organically out of the primacy of Gift. The Resourcement Theology that was cooking in the Church quietly after the war and birthed the Council (DeLubac, Ratzinger, Danielou) was the epitome of Catholicism as rooted in tradition and yet organically fresh and creative; it continues in the legacy of JPII and B16 and the Communio community.
There is inherently a tension between tradition and progress. We might think of the prodigal son and his stay-at-home brother: the later was close to the Father, always, but with a terrible attitude; the former strayed but did come back to receive the paternal embrace. We will always have both types: the explorers and the homesteaders.
The Church, like every community of value and purpose, is like an onion with different levels of depth, intensity and involvement. The inner core give their very lives for the cause; the outer layers are less engaged. And so the inner core of Catholicism will always be the saints, with Mary and Joseph, who give their entire selves to the Bridegroom, whether anonymously and quietly, or in the vowed or ordained vocations, or otherwise. But the Catholic Church is the opposite of a cult in that it seeks to include and welcome, even those who rebel. So the Church will always have the inner core of true believers and the outer layers of accomadationists, those who straddle, a foot in the Church and one in the world. For example, the Church is highly valued by liberal activists: the cultural side of liberalism despises the vigorous, rigorous sexual ethic, but the political side sees that it is the strongest consistent force in the world defending the poor and suffering. So social justice warriors will tend to a parasitic dependence on the Church, even as they reject essential interior beliefs.
And so, the accomadating wing of the Church will always be with us; and sometimes they are right; and sometimes they will prevail (like the Arians over Athanasius); but they will be dependent upon graces and riches...Marian, hierarchical, liturgical, anonymous...that they are unable to recognize as they hold themselves above the Tradition. They can be at times resentful; and at times sad and discouraged. Let us hold them in tenderness and esteem, as we fight them in the relentless Culture War.
No comments:
Post a Comment