Dissenting Catholics’ Modernity Problem

From Crisis Magazine

By Samuel Gregg

Umberto Boccioni: The City Rises 1910

Judging from the hundreds of thousands of Germans who attended and watched Pope Benedict XVI’s September trip to his homeland (not to mention the tsunami of commentaries sparked by his Bundestag address), the pope’s visit was — once again — a success. And, once again, it was also an occasion for self-identified dissenting Catholics to inform the rest of us what the Church must do if it wants to remain “relevant.” To no-one’s surprise, their bottom-line remains the same. The Church is “out of touch.” Why? Because it’s insufficiently “modern.”

By “modernizing,” progressivist Catholic activists (who, incidentally, are increasingly hard to find below the age of 60 these days) aren’t normally proposing better ways to evangelize. Instead, they usually mean changing Catholic doctrines in ways that directly contradict what the Church has always taught so that the Church becomes more, well, modern.

It would be all too easy to focus on some of the less-than-noble motivations underlying many such propositions. In many instances, it’s frankly a case of wanting the Church to affirm choices that it has always regarded as intrinsically evil. In other areas, it reveals a view of the sacraments as instruments of power rather than as what the Catechism calls “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church.”

At another level, however, the “we-must-be-more-modern” argument reflects the workings of a logic that privileges whatever is considered “contemporary” (an ever-moving target) over the knowledge imparted by Christ to His Church from its very beginning.

Such reasoning often runs along the following lines. In modernity, X is considered not good; ergo, the Church must accept X is not good. Or, modern people regard X as good or licit; ergo, the Church should teach X is good or licit.

You don’t need to be a professional philosopher to recognize that these are what logicians call non sequiturs: arguments in which the conclusions don’t follow from the premises. The fact that something is considered modern tells us nothing about its goodness or evil, let alone whether it conforms to the truth found in Divine Revelation. It also produces very strange arguments such as the claim made in 1968 (of course) by the ex-Jesuit theologian John Giles Milhaven, that “modern people” (whoever they are) by virtue of their “modernity of spirit” (whatever that means) enjoyed a type of “standing dispensation” from God to pursue what they “feel” to be good.

Such talk could be easily dismissed as reflective of the heady days of the 1960s and 1970s. There is, however, an even deeper, specifically theological problem driving these non sequiturs: the substitution of Catholic faith with what might be called a “feeling faith.”

After Vatican II, many Catholic theologians began attaching enormous significance to people’s experiences or intuitions as part of the intellectual apparatus they deployed to explain why they now believed the Church’s settled teaching on any number of issues required “updating” (i.e., overturning).

Whatever their precise formulation, beneath the surface of such rationales we can detect post-Enlightenment tendencies to (1) locate the ultimate basis for one’s views on some combination of experience, intuition, and whatever one feels to be true; and (2) distrust reason’s ability to know more-than-empirical truth.

Experience, feelings and intuition are not unimportant. They can often incline us toward the good and against error. But they don’t provide us with reasons for believing and doing A rather than B. Nor does reference to feelings help us to resolve disagreement rationally. Instead, we’re left with my feelings, your intuitions, and everyone else’s experiences.

It’s not difficult to see the problems with reconciling such positions with the Catholic understanding of Christian faith. For one thing, they marginalize the conviction that the fullness of Christian truth is to be found in the reasonable faith entrusted to and proclaimed by the Church. And the faith of that Church goes beyond the particular views held by us today to embrace the right belief (orthosdoxa) of the whole communio of believers, the living and the dead, from the apostles onward — the truth of which is confirmed by the consensus of the Church Fathers, the lives of the saints, the witness of the martyrs, and the teaching authority of the successors of Peter and the other apostles.

This message was core to one of Benedict’s key addresses in Germany, in which he quietly highlighted the distinctly provincial understanding of Catholicism articulated by dissenting groups such as the “We Are Church” movement in Germany and Austria. To truly speak of the Church, Benedict insisted,

requires us always to look beyond the particular, limited “we” towards the great “we” that is the Church of all times and places: it requires that we do not make ourselves the sole criterion. When we say: “We are Church” — well, it is true: that is what we are…. But the “we” is more extensive than the group that asserts those words. The “we” is the whole community of believers, today and in all times and places. And so I always say: within the community of believers, yes, there is as it were the voice of the valid majority, but there can never be a majority against the apostles or against the saints: that would be a false majority.

A similar argument was at the core of Thomas More’s explanation of why he could not, in good conscience, accept Henry VIII’s separation of the Church in England from Rome.

More broadly, Benedict’s point illustrates that embracing the Catholic faith in its fullness means acknowledging the limits of the knowledge attainable by making the contemporary our primary reference point. Indeed, to assume that the “we” of today somehow enjoy insights that nullify what the Church has always believed on matters of faith and morals is to go some way toward denying that God ever revealed anything definitive to the Catholic Church at all. More honest dissenters have long recognized this as the logical trajectory of their position.

Of course, Catholicism doesn’t have an in-principle opposition to the post-Enlightenment world per se, any more than it allegedly locates everything that is good and true in the 13th century. Any effort to associate the fullness of Catholic faith with any one historical period risks relativizing those truths knowable by faith and reason that transcend time and bind Catholics across the ages.

Perhaps such a relativizing is what many dissenting Catholic activists want. If so, they should concede that this would mean making the Church in their own image rather than that of Christ the Logos. And there is no surer way of making the Church truly irrelevant in a modern world that desperately needs more reason and light than emotivism and darkness.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Dissenting Catholics’ Modernity Problem

  1. Lazarus says:

    A lot of the problems are caused by the confusion of the (correct) thought that the Church does need to find new ways of communicating with contemporary society with the (incorrect) thought that it needs to change apostolic Tradition to fit in with modern fashions. I suppose it’s not surprising that human beings keep getting the way to resolve that tension wrong and need to be dragged back to the correct course by the Magisterium (and, most obviously at the moment, particularly the Papacy).


  2. Mimi says:

    Excellent article!


  3. Robert John Bennett says:

    An outstanding presentation of what many, many of us have been thinking for quite some time.


  4. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s a pretty good article, focusing as it does on actual honest-to-goodness dissenters.

    One can potentially read it differently, through the prism of the fact that we all of us have our own personal opinions, that must necessarily be at some level of variance with the Catholicity itself ; the thing is, from that point of also, it’s still a pretty good article … 🙂

    The issue of course is in assuming that such egocentric variance is actively desirable somehow, beyond the ordinary variance of personal opinions, personal experience, and personal understanding. In assuming that even such matters as our understanding of the Godhead and other weighty matters provided by Revelation should be subject to the whims of personal opinion, rather than being more properly examined and pondered by the Καθολική Εκκλησία as a whole…


    The problem that the author refers to is widespread in these modern times ; but it has also been widespread in both Antiquity and throughout the mediaeval period ; so that one should look at these issues in a, if you don’t mind a little fatuous humour, relative way.

    Relative I hasten to add not to Revelation itself ; but to the History of the interpretation of that Revelation.

    Orthodoxy is most certainly not a relative quality ; but the reactions and proposals against it have always been provided as relative to whichever current popular notions.

    The first enemy of Catholic Orthodoxy is, and always will be, the simple notion that “I am right, and you are wrong” — wherever this claim is based on any sort of personal opinion, instead of upon the Catholic and the Universal Orthodoxy itself. Including the fully and completely Orthodox notion that we will inevitably disagree among ourselves concerning the claims of Orthodoxy itself.

    Most of us will be guilty of this error at one time or another ; but the point is that we must never let ourselves be tempted by the Deceiver into any such position whereby we affirm our own sinfulness at the expense of another’s — because two wrongs do not make a right.


  5. toadspittle says:

    Relatively true, Jabba.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s