Georges answer: simply
Catholicism
By ROBERT J. McCLORY
Special Report Writer Chicago
Before an overflow crowd of some 400 at Loyola University Oct. 7,
Chicago Cardinal Francis George charged liberal Catholicism with surrendering
to the worlds agenda and promoting an exaltation of personal experience
that constitutes a betrayal of the Lord.
Vatican II he characterized as a limited accommodation to
modernity and said the teaching of the bishops constitutes the one true
reality check for authentic doctrine.
The audience came to hear George clarify remarks he made almost
two years ago at a conference of the national Center of the Laity. At that
time, in the midst of a homily, he said, Liberal Catholicism is an
exhausted project parasitical on a substance that no longer exists. It shows
itself unable to pass on the faith in its integrity and is inadequate for
fostering the self-surrender called for in Christian marriage, consecrated life
and the priesthood. The answer, he said, is not in a conservative
Catholicism so sectarian that it cannot serve as a sign of the unity of
all people in Christ.
Rather, he said, the answer is simply Catholicism in all its
fullness and depth, a faith able to distinguish itself from any culture and yet
able to transform them all.
But his Loyola clarification at this symposium sponsored by
Commonweal magazine celebrating its 75th anniversary seemed unlikely to
clear the air, especially since he failed to identify the guilty and admitted
his extended indictment of liberal Catholicism was probably too general
and somewhat unfair.
George said he regrets using the phrase parasitical on a
substance since it offended some people, but he added he regrets also the
misinterpretation of some Catholics today who regard the church as a
hypocritical system.
I think they are profoundly wrong, he said, and
I pray for their conversion, though he called for continuing respectful
discussion of the hot issues by the disputants.
After an analysis of 19th-century Catholic liberalism, to which he
said the church is indebted, he waded into late 20th-century
Catholic liberalism with gusto. Instead of understanding the Second
Vatican Council as a limited accommodation to modernity for the sake of
evangelizing the modern world, he declared, the liberal project
seems often to interpret the council as a mandate to change whatever in the
church clashes with modern society. This project borrows its views
from the editorial pages of The New York Times or, even worse,
USA Today, he said, so as to provide motivation and troops
for the worlds agenda as defined by the world itself. This is a
dead end, he said, because the church would thus have nothing
unique to contribute beyond the cultural context.
In its eagerness to embrace secular culture, said George,
todays Catholic liberalism is willing to sacrifice even gospel
truths and basic Christian foundations: Using the sociology of
knowledge and the hermeneutics of suspicion, modern liberals interpret dogmas
that confront current cultural sensibilities as the creation of celibate males
eager to keep a grasp on power rather than as the work of the Holy Spirit
guiding the successors of the apostles. Bishops become the successors of the
Sanhedrin. The church is at best the body of St. John the Baptist pointing to a
Jesus not yet risen from the dead -- a role model, not a savior.
In such a mindset, which regards personal experience and personal
choice as absolutely normative, the call for conversion is smothered by
the pillow of accommodation; the result is a betrayal of the Lord
regardless of intention. These liberal trends, he said, lead toward a
church that:
- regards all church ministries as only functional and
therefore open to any of the baptized;
- is unwilling to say all homosexual genital activities are
morally wrong;
- makes some allowance for abortion when necessary to
assure a mothers freedom;
- accepts contraception as moral within marriage and
prudent outside marriage;
- allows the sacramentally married to enter a second
marriage in complete sacramental communion.
Georges answer to all this was simply
Catholicism -- an attitude that accepts Christs gifts to his
church, including the gospel, the sacraments, and especially the visible
government of the church through the successors of The Twelve. The
bishops, he explained, provide a sure reality check for the
continuity of the apostolic faith, since they can neither change established
dogmas nor create new ones unless they want to become heretics. If
doctrine does develop, he added, the bishops serve as the verification
principle by which the faithful know what is authentic and what is not.
When the gift of The Twelve is ignored or undermined, he said,
the church cannot evangelize.
Catholic liberalism fared somewhat better with other participants
in the symposium, including New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels,
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., Notre Dame historian John
McGreevy and federal Judge John Noonan. Steinfels praised liberalisms
historic role in resisting papal centralization, its emphasis on freedom and
its recognition that, despite the presence of the Holy Spirit, church authority
is susceptible at times to serious error. Yet he and the others concurred with
George that Catholic liberalism is in a state of crisis and disarray.
During a brief audience question period, writer Eugene Kennedy
wondered why, during three hours of discourse, there had been so little
reference to the pastoral approach of Vatican II and no mention whatsoever of
Pope John XXIII and his legacy.
Reactions of the audience during a reception afterward ranged from
admiration for the speakers erudition to bewilderment at the mass of
distinctions and definitions. Said one observer, I lost interest. When I
studied biology I never liked dissecting the frog; I preferred the living
frog.
National Catholic Reporter, October 22,
1999
|