There are three parts to his argument. In the first he recalls the ultra-conservative Catholic periodical Triumph of the 1960s and its startlingly radical approval of the violence of the Black Power movement as a justifiable resistance to the "souless tyranny of secular liberalism." In the second section, he asserts that there is a third way, a distinctively Catholic position, as alternative to the two mainstream options of conservative/progressive. Finally, he calls for the strengthening of a Catholic culture as the sourse of this new politics.
While critical of the tolerance for violence, Matthews seems to approve of the radical Triumph critique of the reiging secular liberalism in a systemic way. On the far left we find such an absolute renunciation in the pacifism/anarchism of the Catholic Worker. Currently, the Benedict Option of Rod Dreher mirrors this harsh negativity about the West.
The second part, the heart of the article, takes a different approach: he advocates a distinctive Catholic approach to the various issues. The tone here is positive by comparison with the beginning: that a moderating Catholic approach will bring together, purify and correct what is best of both alternatives. This seems less than realistic. But more problematic is the very assertion of a "distinctive Catholic political position." The Church proposes no political position, party or ideology. The Church teaches moral truths, but the application is almost always complicated in politics. There are three political positions that are intrinsic to our faith: the protection of the innocent and powerless; the protection of our freedom to live our faith; and the protection of the family. On all other issues that are not intrinsically evil (genocide, infanticide, slavery, torture, etc.) it is a huge mistake to baptise some option as Catholic. Health care, war, immigration, guns, death penalty...and all the rest...are dense, complex, ambiguous, uncertain issues about which perfectly good Catholics can have a wide variety of views. At the Eucharist, we kneel with anarchists, Visigoths, libertarians, tea party people, Tradinistas, and so forth. It is divisive and clerical in the worst sense to sacrilize some policy or ideology as Catholic.
A case in point is his comparison, negatively, of EWTN's dismissal of BLM sympatizer, Gloria Purvis, with Mother Angelic's admiration for the Civil Rights movement. He implies that Purvis view is the Catholic one. That is a problem. Racism is surely a sin. But the allegation of systemic white racism in the USA 2021 is disputable to say the least. There is not Catholic position on this: neither the affirmation not the denial of it. The bishops are prone to wade carelessly into such muddy waters in a presumptuos clericalism that assumes their competence in such practical matters. EWTN has a problem: they are not the hierarchy but a quasi-ecclesial body that presumes to be avoice of Catholic orthodoxy. My view is that their weakness is precisely in politics as when Raymong Aroyo moves back and forth between Fox News and the World Over. His witness to the faith is muddied by his alliance with the Right.
Matthews' argument is strong in the first and last section. Our world has gone into deep darkness. We face three competing totalitarianisms: Jihadism, Communism and Secular Liberalism. We fight to protect our the practice of our faith, our children and the innocent/powerless. We have no global vision to offer. We are genuinely post-modern: minimalist, defensive, humble, concrete, local, personal. We cannot detach from national and global politics but we do so with painful realism, with small expectations, with an eye always on the next life.
No comments:
Post a Comment