Racists and anti-racists now agree ...

Racists and anti-racists now seem to agree that freedom and reason are peculiar to white males and exist primarily for their benefit. They just disagree on whether that makes them good or bad things.

Science and reform

I stated that conservative Catholics only accept revision of Church teaching when it emerges from within the tradition and higher up in the hierarchy of truths. I think, in practice at least, there is an exception to this: conservative Catholics will accept revision to Church teaching based on clearly demonstrated scientific or historical facts.

For instance, I don't really know that the biblical creation account was ever taught definitively and formally as being literally true, but I'm pretty sure that it was more or less taken for granted that it was so until clear evidence emerged to the contrary. Similarly, with medieval geocentric cosmology. Likewise, I think that at least some of the conclusions of modern critical biblical scholarship (e.g. regarding authorship of the biblical books) are in this category. And, at least in this case, there were preliminary negative responses to these ideas from the Vatican--though nothing ex cathedra. While it's true that that these new facts were able to be assimilated because there was not clear, definitive teaching to the contrary and openings could be found within the tradition, it remains the case that what was assimilated was new information from outside the tradition.

Perhaps, then, what differentiates liberals from conservatives within the Church, to some extent at least, is that certain developments in modern society and thinking that conservatives view as errors to be rejected or resisted are held by liberals to be in this category of clearly demonstrated empirical truths--so the felt needs of the day are new "facts" that traditional teachings have to be weighed against. For example, the difficult situation of civilly divorced and remarried people is a new (or newly recognized) fact that in some way relativizes the authority of the anathemas of Trent. Likewise, modern psychology gives us new facts that force us to adjust traditional understandings of sin and culpability.

Things at this level involve conceptual errors about the meaning of moral truth and too slavish following of modern expert opinion claimed in the name of science and complete servility to the modern political order ... but it can still be seen as a difference in degree rather than in kind from the sort of development that a conservative would view as possible. In other words, not necessarily heresy.

However, many liberals tend to accept modern "facts" that work at a meta level to negate the tradition as a whole: so they also say that the facts of comparative cultural anthropology undermine any attempt to posit a universal, idea of unchanging human nature, making the teaching of universal moral truths impossible in principle; the facts of modern historical research force us to reject the naive idea that the tradition is continuous and binding; and the facts of post-modern Cultural Marxism force us to subject the entire narrative to critique in the name of the oppressed and marginalized.

This, surely, is the synthesis of all heresies.

Own your heresy

Ross Douthat's (in)famous tweet encouraged those who find themselves advocating positions that the Church has consistently rejected to "own" their heresy.

As he has explained, not all liberals are heretics, and not all liberal Catholic ideas are heresy, but a significant element of Catholic liberals seem to think that pretty much everything (aside from the Creed and maybe some clearly infallible core of later councils and papal teaching) is up for grabs. And this is clearly heresy.

While John Paul II and Benedict XVI worked vigorously against this heresy, for whatever reason--most likely fear of making division within the Church worse--they didn't name it as heresy.

But what heresy is it? Is it just modernism redux? It it even a single heresy? Many of have claimed (plausibly) that "modernism" doesn't really describe an actual heresy or coherent school of thought. And, when you look at the condemnations from Pius IX and Pius X, it does seem to be kind of grab-bag of modern ideas or attempts to modernize the Church.

And, of course, the heresy that goes under the name of liberalism is similar. There's not one identifiable, consistent error or line of reasoning that defines it. It is rather--like modernism--defined by its desire to fully reconcile the Church to the times, and it's pretty much willing to throw any line of reasoning at that project that will stick.

So, in a sense, whatever common thread--however thin--joined together the ideas that got condemned as "modernism" in the nineteenth century, it could be argued that contemporary liberal Catholicism (in its more radical forms, at least), shares that thread, even if its particular claims and ideas aren't identical with those of the nineteenth century modernists.

As both traditionalists and liberals like to point out, at least some of the ideas once condemned as modernism seemed to have been adopted by Vatican II (and, actually, to some extent, before that). Traditionalists point this out to condemn the council and the popes since John XXIII as modernist heretics. Liberals point this out in order to claim that the Church changed her mind about modernism.

There's obviously some truth in this. There was, at least, a moderate appropriation of certain ideas that were once condemned with modernism, such as historical-critical study of the Scriptures, and acceptance of democratic forms of civic government and religious freedom. Likewise, the idea of aggiornamento is an acceptance that the Church--to some degree at least--can and should be reconciled to the modern world.

Still, the official line and intent of the Council and the popes has not been an embrace of modernism, but a kind of moderate and flexible response to modernity that seeks to distinguish what is essential, internal, and unchangeable and from what is non-essential, external, and changeable. An adaptation of approach, but not a wholesale reevaluation of Catholic teaching or practice.

I'm sympathetic to a traditionalist critique that views that approach to be naive and, in some ways, wrongheaded. At least when it comes to actual human beings rather than intellectual abstractions, there is no "mere" external that you can modify without affecting in some way the internal. The reform of the liturgy has, in fact, changed the faith, despite the benign intentions of Paul VI. (I won't speak of whether the intentions of the liturgical reformers were benign.)

Even so, it remains that the Church did not accept the core premise or project of modernism. While the Church did acknowledge that there is a hierarchy of truth--with essential and more certain things at the center and less essential and certain things at the peripheries--it has, to this point, maintained that the standard of truth and reform comes from within that hierarchy--not from the world.

And this, perhaps, is the key distinction between genuine reform and adaptation to the times and heresy of modernism/liberalism. The latter believes that the modern world is to be set up as judge over the faith and not vice versa.

An asymmetrical debate

Watching the debate between Douthat and the liberal theologians has been rather instructive. Conservatives are interested in demonstrating from Church tradition that their position is correct and obligatory. Liberals just don't seem to be interested in engaging this argument. For them, the general facts that the Church has changed in the past and that theology and history are complex are apparently adequate for putting aside just about any argument from tradition. They want a certain result, and if there are specific discontinuities with the tradition, they are happy to let the professional theologians paper over them.

Intelligent and educated conservative Catholics like Douthat are quite aware that the Church has changed, that doctrine has developed, and that history doesn't lend itself to an easy argument for a broad understanding of the infallibility of the Church. For liberals, this historical consciousness has resulted in a kind of demythologizing of the tradition of the Church (or, at least, of all but its very core) and of any arguments made from it. Arguments from tradition were used in the past to claim that the Church never innovates, but simply reiterates what has been handed down, but this can be demonstrated to be false, so these arguments can no longer be made in earnest. At best, they are a form of discourse for governing how the Church changes to meet changing times. But they do not determine the result. The result is determined by the needs of day. For historically aware conservatives (i.e., not "fundamentalists"), though, this demythologization has not occurred (or has not proceeded to the same extent). They still see fundamental continuity in the development of doctrine as a whole and not just in the very core of Church teaching. Thus, they still make arguments from tradition in earnest.

Unlike the liberal, what they seek primarily in such arguments is not the "best" solution as determined by the needs of the day, but the best expression of faithfulness to the tradition. If there is innovation, it needs to be continuous with the tradition and come out of it--a clarification or synthesis that takes better account of the data of tradition. (This is how non-traditionalist conservatives view Vatican II.)

Liberals seem to be content with showing that a proposed innovation meets the felt needs of the day and does not contradict a clearly infallible teaching of the Church. It is not that conservatives view all magisterial statements as infallible, but they put the burden of proof on the innovators and that they regard the tradition as always authoritative, even if not infallible. This means that, if past magisterial statements are to be revised, they should be revised from within the tradition and from higher in the "hierarchy of truths," not just based on the perceived needs of the day.

The radicalized papacy

The papacy is credited by conservative Catholics as the rock that has kept the Church steady and faithful in the winds of historical change and heresy. If it instead becomes an obvious, visible, instrument for the destruction of Catholic tradition, conservative Catholics will be forced to revise that assessment. They will either be forced (to some degree at least) into the position of Catholic traditionalists, who already view the modern papacy this way because of the changes of Vatican II, or they will flee to Eastern Orthodoxy, which views the modern papacy as the fruit of centuries of papal error.

While the former is a smaller bridge to cross, there's a certain absurdity to anti-papal traditionalism, that will make Orthodoxy seem more consistent (and stable and attractive) to many. I would expect especially that the waves of converts from Protestantism that were once attracted by the apparent permanence of Catholicism and the strength of the papacy, having found that their trust has been harshly betrayed, will move on to Orthodoxy. (And, for those Protestants who are now looking for a more historical form of Christianity, Orthodoxy is going to start to look more attractive and viable in comparison to Rome.)

One wonders too about the bishops with traditionalist leanings appointed by Benedict XVI. Will they hang in there, providing some cover for traditionalists? (Will some of them even defect to Orthodoxy, perhaps having an overly expansive notion of papal infallibility popped by reality?) Because the papacy has attained complete control over the appointment of bishops, Catholic traditionalism could find itself increasingly forced into institutional estrangement from the papacy and the creation of a counter-hierarchy, and conservative Catholic who formerly stayed within the mainstream Vatican II fold may find themselves fleeing to traditionalism just to take advantage of those institutions to avoid increasing and seemingly terminal liberalism within the mainstream Church. (Eastern Catholic Churches may also serve as a refuge, as they already for many Latins looking for formal liturgy and traditional teaching and practice.)

Maybe things won't get this dark, and there are enough good bishops to keep things from going off the rails too quickly, but if Francis gets to work promoting liberal bishops and stacking the college of cardinals, it's hard to see a way to correct the direction of the hierarchy from within.

The vitality of liberal Catholicism

I wrote the two previous posts before listening to Ross Douthat's excellent lecture on the Crisis of Conservative Catholicism.

He makes a good case against naive hope in the "biological solution," based on the assumed sterility of liberal Catholicism. Liberal Catholicism has well-established institutions and a large constituency among involved, mass-going Catholics. The movement to reconcile the Church to modernity has been around for a while and is likely to continue to appeal to large numbers of Catholics for the foreseeable future.

The truth is that the Church is enormous and, at least as measured by adherence to Humanae Vitae, which is the main instrument driving the biological solution, conservative Catholicism is actually negligible--practically a rounding error. We're large enough to make an impact on the priesthood, because priests come from a small number of the most devout families, we're still almost non-existent among laity. I don't think we yet have the critical mass to reverse the trend toward increasing liberalism among Catholics driven by the dying off of Catholics formed before the Council.

Conservative Catholicism: long-term trends

The bigger question for Conservative Catholicism is whether the long-term trends still favor us. The mood of conservative Catholicism was prematurely triumphalistic at the election of Benedict XVI. We thought that John Paul II had transformed the college of cardinals enough that the election of a liberal pope was now impossible--and things would only get better there. Obviously, we were wrong about that. But there are other factors underlying that mood that may or may not remain true:

The sterility and bankruptcy of liberal Catholicism. This certainly remains true. Liberal Catholicism produces few children, most of whom slide into atheism and none of whom enter the priesthood.

The vitality of conservative Catholicism. Not sure about this one. Conservative Catholicism has a demonstrated ability to produce some enthusiastic laypeople and a few priestly vocations. These enthusiastic laypeople have larger families and make great efforts to pass the faith onto their children. It seems like there is enough vitality for this movement to at least perpetuate itself. But it placed a lot of hope in the papacy and, in recent years a least, in possibility that things were soon going to get better in the local dioceses and parishes, so that we would no longer be outsiders and weirdos in the local Church. That first hope is likely gone, and we're likely to see a slow down or reversal of the second hope. Depending on how far Francis takes things, I think we'll see increased attrition as some people throw in the towel and go Orthodox, full-on traditionalist, or give up on Christianity.

Younger priests. The only real hope (without papal power appointing friendly bishops) that conservative Catholicism (at least in the U.S.) has of actually going beyond self-perpetuation to transformation of the Church is in younger, orthodox, priestly vocations. We'll see how that trend perseveres in the face of this situation. I think with the episcopate in doubt again, we're likely to see that trend of orthodox seminarians slow down or stall, as you will need to either be flexible in your convictions or prepared for the possibility long-haul resistance under another generation of liberal bishops. Likewise, conservative parents will be more hesitant to send their sons to seminary for the diocesan priesthood if they don't trust the bishop or the seminary (especially if there are fears of a resurgence of homosexuality among the clergy and in the seminaries).

Still, we have an upcoming generation of clergy that are, as a group, far more conservative than the previous generation. Even if we have systematic discrimination in favor of the most liberal and malleable among them, that trend is going to have an effect on the pool of candidates for the episcopate and on the life of the average parish. (As Ross Douthat noted, Pope Francis was forced to look to Spokane, WA, to find a "poor man's Joseph Bernardin" for Chicago.) That should at least keep the liberal tide somewhat in check (a liberal bishop can only do so much if a significant portion of his clergy are against him). Maybe, in the long run, it can reverse it. If there's hope anywhere in the near future (assuming the papacy is lost for while), it's there.

The death of old liberal churches and rise of young conservative churches. I'm not sure about this one. The African church is definitely conservative in a lot of ways and will be a force keeping things in check. The Latin American church, on the other hand, seems to be a mix of conservatives and radicals, and it is larger and influential. I think it is hard to say what Africa is going to be like in a generation. My experience with African clergy in the U.S. hasn't been all that encouraging on this score. Maybe it is because most of the ones in the U.S. studied here and/or stick around because they prefer the liberalism (and first-world lifestyle) of the U.S., but they haven't seemed particularly conservative to me.

The sterility of liberal Catholicism means that it's only power is to destroy. It does not even have the power to perpetuate itself. Conservative Catholicism at least has that. So, the question is really whether liberal Catholicism has enough power to completely destroy conservative Catholicism. If it does not, then the long-term trends still favor the conservatives.

Prospects for conservative Catholicism

Cause for hope: vitality of conservative Catholicism, seen especially in young clergy that emerge from it
Cause for despair: continued (and probably expanded) liberal dominance of the hierarchy

The question is whether the cause of despair will kill the cause of hope. Conservative Catholics have resisted pressure from priests and bishops for years, but (except for traditionalist groups) have been able to appeal to the support of the papacy. The loss of papal support is demoralizing and will give new encouragement to liberal priests and bishops who are inclined toward intolerance. We'll see what happens. Some (especially clergy) will just embrace liberalism as the new order--these may even become the worst persecutors of resistance as they turn on former friends, who cannot go along in good conscience. Some will be pushed in the direction of traditionalist groups, who have already built structures (intellectual and institutional) for outright resistance. Some, disillusioned entirely with the papacy, will defect to Orthodoxy or conservative Protestantism. Some will lose their faith.

Most, I think, will find a way to more or less soldier on as they do currently, either performing mental gymnastics to claim no contradiction between their theology and take on Vatican II and the direction of the papacy, or keeping mum about it, or becoming more comfortable with frank criticism of the papacy in light of the tradition as a whole, while still remaining within the mainstream body of the Church--so, a kind of Vatican II traditionalism, that accepts the magisterium of Vatican II and the recent popes as part of the tradition, but without the mottramist tendencies that are view the pope as unable to do wrong.

At least in the U.S., the conservative movement has already developed its own structures for handing on the faith outside the reach of clergy of dubious orthodoxy: home schooling, publishing houses and periodicals, a few colleges. These things aren't going away and their interest in self-preservation will direct them to maintain a tenable position of resistance that continues to appeal to the conservative and the orthodox while not going too far outside or against the institutions controlled by the hierarchy. We developed these institutions because we the official and mainstream institutions were corrupted by liberalism, ineffectual at teaching and spreading the faith, and closed to us. In the last few years, we had finally succeeded in making some inroads into those institutions and reversing some of the damage. We're likely to see much of that progress reversed.

What we do not really have are our own parishes and clergy. Yes, there are parishes with a reputation for orthodoxy, but unless they are staffed by conservative religious orders, a bishop can squash these instantly with a change of personnel. (And, a bishop can kick an order out of a diocesan parish, too, though that's much more transparent and burdensome given the shortage of priests, so it's less likely.) Traditionalist groups, centered on preserving the liturgy against the attempts by the hierarchy to suppress it, are further along in this area. This is likely to drive more conservative Catholics into Latin-mass communities, which cannot be so easily co-opted or compromised by unfriendly bishops.

Like I said, I think we'll see some reversal in our ability to make inroads into official institutions, but we're strong enough at this point that I think few bishops are going to make too many sudden or dramatic moves to squash us. We no longer will be able to appeal to the papacy, but the internet now brings these things to the public forum, so bishops will be aware that they are courting a firestorm of nasty, public criticism if move against conservative groups.

Synod on the Family

The Synod on the Family did not end disastrously, but as others have pointed out, we are by no means out of the woods, and, given the signals that Pope Francis has been sending about his own thoughts on the matter and the people he has been promoting, until at least the end of his pontificate, things are likely going to continue getting worse before they get better.

While the final document doesn't outright break with tradition or teach heresy, it makes some incoherent noise about conscience that will be exploited by those who wish to do so (certainly many priests and bishops, likely Pope Francis) to give the divorced and remarried (and other sexual sinners) permission to decide on their own whether or not they are eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves. In practice, this has already been happening on the ground on sexual issues since the 1960s. It was even endorsed by some bishops in their responses to Humanae Vitae. However, this erroneous idea of conscience has, to this point, been resisted by Rome. We'll see how much further Pope Francis wants to push things in the post-synodal apostolic exhortation. My guess (my hope) is that, seeing that Cardinal Burke and many others are already very much on to the deliberate ambiguities in the synodal document, he will realize that he can't push it much further without provoking outright dissent and rejection. The ambiguities will remain ambiguities--we'll have the semblance of peace where the heretics and the orthodox can appeal to the same document, reading it differently.

The orthodox will continue their teaching and resistance, reading the documents in (a somewhat forced) continuity with John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who firmly rejected this false notion of conscience, in hopes that a future pope will set things back right. We'll see though. If Pope Francis has adequate time to change the composition of the college of cardinals so that we are guaranteed another pope like him or worse, then things are going to start looking very, very dark. Conservative Catholics are going to have to start planning for the long-haul to preserve orthodoxy with or without the support of the hierarchy.