As I see it, there are essentially three broad, notable divisions in practicing Catholicism today. It's hard to get a clear read on the exact distribution of how many belong to each group, as many surveys conflate the beliefs of both practicing and non-practicing. This pretty much represents the practicing distribution:
Progressives
This includes the LCWR and its surrogates, groups like Call to Action and elements of Voice of the Faithful. Whether or not activist, these are the Church's change agents: they wish for official Church teaching to be altered on birth control, women's ordination, certainly mandatory celibacy, certain "patriarchal" elements of liturgy, with far more lay involvement in Church governance. To them, abortion is just one among a host of issues and by itself does not take precedence, as there are scores of other social justice concerns, much aligned to secular progressivism.
Traditional
These folks are well-fractured, but hold out that the modernizing Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was either entirely unnecessary, or simply turned out very badly for the Church. Think Pat Buchanan for starters: They point to the moral turpitude in the pews (e.g. the progressives themselves) and declining numbers of Mass attendance and religious vocations to illustrate the point. Most of the hierarchy has been either inept in this struggle, aligned with progressives in thought, or themselves morally corrupt no matter what they call themselves.
They love the traditional "Tridentine" Latin Mass, either viewing it as the exclusive rite of worship, the favored rite, or even close to how the new rite should basically look, sound, and smell. In all, these are people who readily admit they want the Church of the 1950s restored.
Neo-conservative
Often conflated by the press with the aforementioned traditionalists, this is an ecclesiology unto itself. It represents a sort of middle ground, but should not be confused with being "moderate" in terms of dogmatic rigor.
To these folks, the institutional establishment comes first. That is, the authority structure, as is, takes precedence in their minds. So, while Vatican II presented the Church universal with a bumpy ride in the decades out with plenty of progressivist dissent, Pope John Paul II pretty much straightened it all out (with the exception of notable bits of Western Europe).
The Latin Mass can be nice (even very nice) at times, but is surely not exclusive, for that wouldn't be true in thinking with the Church (and its Vatican II reforms). Most Masses today are in the are vernacular (with pretty crummy music, admittedly to some) but really shouldn't change, because that's the status quo, and since the establishment is beyond reproach, we really don't question it.
While we despise liturgical violations (they're against what the bishops say), we still welcome charismatic expressions (that often thrive on liturgical violations) because John Paul II did, since it presumably brought more folks into the institutional fold, and that's what really matters most.
We talk about those we'd love excommunicated, but we won't do it, as that would lessen the reach of the institutional establishment and make it all the more unpopular. Otherwise, the Church is in wonderful shape; we don't see many problems in the institution beyond a few public dissenters. The Church is growing worldwide, more priests are being ordained than in the past several decades in America (though how many imported?). Dissent was largely solved by JPII through his episcopal (bishop) appointments, and the priestly sex abuse problem is mostly a delusionary fiat of a hostile secular press.
So, how do these broad factions interact?
It's all rather counterintuitive, actually. Progressives and traditionalists both see the Roman Catholic Church as being screwed up...in major ways. And some of their lists actually overlap:
BOTH view the Church as being in a state of measurable decline, even worldwide overall, with no end in visible sight. BOTH view the hierarchy as being chock-full of disingenuous and power-hungry elites. BOTH consider sex abuse as still being a huge, largely under-addressed crisis. While there's a "one-strike" policy in the U.S. against priests, bishops are inconsistent in publicizing those who have been credibly accused and when. Bishops themselves are not personally held to account when they are accused of misconduct personally. BOTH admit to there being a somewhat widespread gay subculture throughout seminaries and the priesthood in the West. BOTH see the ineptitude of the hierarchy in addressing these notable hypocrisies.
YET, both have VASTLY OPPOSING solutions to these honest diagnoses. Progressives want "progress" through vast doctrinal changes and revisions. Traditionalists want a revival of bygone discipline through tradition to stave off further damage, or for a complete revival.
Though neocons have a different view: they want to crack down on "dissent," but this is often pitched popularly as liberal detraction from the ecclesial party line on such things as birth control. But other times, it is right wing, traditional dissent, that is, anyone who harshly criticizes the sitting pontiff, who doesn't "think with the Church" and "uphold the Office." Yet, their crackdowns can be notably tepid: for instance, threatening or suggesting withholding the Host from only the most virulent of pro-choice politicians, suggesting sanctions against the very most progressive (and often elite) of Church-affiliated institutions of higher learning (usually over invitations to secular-progressive notables for commencements); this is when most U.S. Catholic universities have long been mainstreamed into society. In the final analysis, it's all about preserving institutional cohesion. and prestige People being excommunicated will only trigger an exodus from this institution on their part and by their supporters, which in turn will serve to weaken the "big tent" that is today's Catholicism, thereby lowering the prestige and influence of the pontifical and episcopal offices. I shit you not, this is truly the cliff's notes synopsis of how they think.
While the outside world is rotting away, corruption inside the Church is not an issue for neocons. We should just celebrate John Paul II (JPII), who "revitalized" the Church, instead, and not really question the Church's establishment authority structure, lest we be "proud."
So WHO are these Catholo-neocons exactly? Think the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, who edited the conservative First Things project; or George Weigel, papal biographer, or Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law Professor, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, most of the cast and producers of EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) and their print outfit, the National Catholic Register. Occasionally this crew will call upon the hierarchy to be more aggressive in dealing with the afore-defined notable "public" doctrinal dissenters, but will stop short of promoting anything that will cause real "division," otherwise known as schism. In reality, many progressive dissenters FLOURISH within modern U.S. and European Catholicism, usually in the lay apparatus of Catholic institutions (oftentimes charities), the LCWR (yes!) which is connected to its own vast expanse of Catholic education and charity, and especially within the broader higher education ivory towers (and not just Jesuit schools). In truth, the whole house may fall if this status quo is disrupted, which is why the neocons hope progressives just shut up or be converted to orthodoxy; otherwise they wish to leave them mostly intact.
Then, there's neocon clericalism, which is defined as over-emphasizing the separateness and apartness of the clergy from the laity, to the point of noting only their "specialness." No doubt, this DOES mean ignoring or minimizing the sometimes notable personal faults of individual priests, including those that interfere with their effective ministering. JPII was big on this (as he was big on restoring institutional cohesion, which indeed WAS coming apart at the seams during the 1970s and threatening schism) as are most neocon laity and hierarchy. A great example is New York Cardinal Archbishop Timothy Dolan: he's OK with Cardinal Bernard Law receiving his prestigious basilica appointment in Rome from JPII AFTER being removed for the horrendous cover-up crisis in the Boston archdiocese. You'll rarely hear a sitting bishop criticize another bishop, sitting or retired, for any reason. Laity who resist criticizing priests "because he's a priest!" are likewise of this mindless mold. The other two groupings almost love excoriating clergy who do not fit the respective bent these folks represent.
Yet, note how Pope Benedict XVI has called for a smaller, more cohesive Church, one without "filth" and dissent that, though reduced in worldly presence, is far more true and meaningful. Many on all sides minimize some of the astounding course-corrections undertaken during his reign, broadly conflating his policies with JPII's in order to serve whatever their talking points may be.
Trads can be found reading The Latin Mass, while progressives usually read Commonweal and National Catholic Reporter.
I don't readily identify with any of these divisions, actually. Though my emphasis herein should demonstrate wherein lies the true problem.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.