The Moral Ambiguity of Cultural Liberalism as a Form of Christianity, However Deviant and Deprived

 Cultural liberalism is better understood as a form, heretical, of Christianity rather than neo-paganism or post-Christianity. This was the suggestion some time ago in an article in First Things. I think that is correct. It is surely not genuine, integral Christianity in morals, ontology, and practice. But it is a deviation from Christianity. In this it resembles Islam, Mormonism, traditionalist fascisms (e.g. Putin) and Communism. 

Nazism in Germany was a pure form of neo-paganism, although that was not evident to everyone early on. Monsignor John Oesterreicher famously clarified that Hitler's hated for the Jews expressed a loathing of the God of the Torah and therefore a renunciation, complete, of the Gospel. That was neo-paganism.

But the Cultural Liberalism that erupted in the 1960s does not so self-define. Rather, it presents itself as a more enlightened, up-to-date, intelligent and compassionate development of the love message of Jesus Christ. This is manifest of course in liberal theology, but implicit as well in wholly secular activism which sees itself as defensive of the oppressed, downtrodden, marginalized. Identity politics, feminism, BLM, LGBTQ, and so forth. 

So we are not now living in post-Christendom, but in a Christendom now weakened and fragmented by emergence of a powerful and appealing heresy that presents itself as an improvement upon traditional religion. The good news here is that the gospel has deeply penetrated the West, and indeed the globe, with values and attitudes, that have however become twisted and perverted. This means we are not two families at war with each other; but one family with a huge internal conflict. This is a more hopeful, positive take on the Culture War. I will give a case study:  social workers.

In my work over the last 13 years, I have known perhaps 30 social workers who serve the residents in our boarding homes. They are always the same: young, female, very attractive, competent, professional, modest, dignified, very compassionate. They like me and what I do: they see me as a kind uncle or something like that. I immediately fall in love with them. But it is okay: they remind me of my daughters (one a social worker, another a psychologist) so my fatherly tenderness allows me to enjoy a low-level ecstasy in wholesome serenity and sobriety. Just this week two, both very competent and ravishing Hispanic beauties, asked me for recommendations for graduate work. I happily comply of course. 

We  have never come even close to discussing politics, religion or sexuality. We work happily, fruitfully together to help the women entrusted to our care. It is good. It is untroubled. It is delightful.

Yet, I am sure that almost all of them are pro-choice, BLM-supportive, and LGBTQ-friendly. They are mostly not going to Church or praying with those closest to them. They are or have been or will be contracepting and cohabitating. They may be bringing clients to the abortion clinic. In the Culture War they are all my adversaries. But I do not engage.

At the same time, they are in harmony with my  deepest values. We are working together to serve the poor and suffering. I am sure they ambition for themselves what I have enjoyed: a stable, permanent, loyal, exclusive and fruitful (however imperfect) marriage. Were it appropriate, they would mostly welcome an occasion to pray with me. Deep down, they are Christian. Their catechesis, ethics and metaphysics is weak.

So it is best to dwell in the light. To support each other in the works of mercy. To see the good in each other. To share enthusiasm, synergy and delight. To hope that what is most true, good and beautiful in my life awakens also what is so in theirs.