Or should that be Erasmi? Doubtless, many have been following the kerfuffle involving Ross Douthat. He made some comments that got the liberals in a snit, then appeared on First Things' Erasmus Lecture.
http://www.firstthings.com/media/the-crisis-of-conservative-catholicism
Interestingly, last year Archbishop Chaput gave the Erasmus lecture and during the Q&A portion said some things that got the liberals' noses out of joint.
http://www.firstthings.com/events/2014-erasmus-lecture
The year before Rabbi Jonathan Sacks gave the Erasmus lecture and, as far as I know, no liberal's feelings were hurt.
http://www.firstthings.com/media/on-creative-minorities-featuring-rabbi-jonathan-sacks
For the record, I thought Rabbi Sacks' talk was the most compelling.
However, I am mostly interested in the tone of the last three lectures. Rabbi Sacks talked about creative minorities. He specifically referenced the role that Jews played as a persecuted minority. Archbishop Chaput spoke about the decline of Christian culture. Ross Douthat spoke of the resiliance of dissenting voices within the Catholic community, even after over 30 years of conservative papacies. None of these talks are very triumphalistic. All assume that the orthodox or conservative position (which is the position First Things caters to) is a hunted minority and none assume that things will get better soon.
Of course, some of this is grandstanding. Everyone fancies themselves a persecuted minority. If you go to the comments section of a typical National Catholic Reporter story, the feverish rantings would imply that THEY are the oppressed masses. And then you turn on the Erasmus lecture and it turns out WE are the oppressed resistance fighters. And you get the same nonsense listening to political stump speeches (even Barack Obama is persecuted by powerful forces in Washington). I don't know what a psychologist would call that, but I call it pandering to the base. I also don't understand why people want to hear that they are being bullied around, but I know that it's effective.
But beyond the grandstanding, I think there's an important point, and I think that Mr Douthat put his finger on it. To hear the dominant narrative in the late 1990's, you'd think that we'd be living in a conservative paradise by now. Mahoney and Trautman and Hubbard would be gone and the LCWR would be in it's collective dotage and the Church would be run by vibrant young bishops and habited smiling nuns.
And how'd that work out? Of course, things have gotten a little better, but I think that after a couple of years with Francis, it's obvious that we didn't really ever have a crop of fiercely orthodox Bishops turning out fiercely orthodox priests. We had a bunch of Bishops and seminarians we went along with however the winds were blowing. When Rome was tilting in an orthodox direction, they got out the man-lace and thuribles and chanted with the best of them. Now that Rome is tilting the other way, they are rummaging around for colored sweaters and telling people "just call me Bob!"
Douthat is absolutely correct that conservatives need to do a better job explaining their positions. We cannot rely on Rome to settle debates for us. We've gotten lazy (or maybe always were lazy) and that needs to change now. In that regard we are well served by organizations like The Institute of Catholic Culture and First Things and Crisis Magazine (though Crisis is more of a pop-journal that also panders to it's base than a reasoned thinker's journal).
If Conservatives reflexively appeal to Rome to settle an argument, then the recent arguments over Douthat's column and -- when you get right down to it -- his existence demonstrate that liberals will reflexively appeal to the academy to settle an argument. The point is that neither side cares about that appeal. The last thing a conservative will listen to is a tenured Jesuit, unless he agrees with him of course. And the last thing a liberal will listen to is the Pope, unless he agrees with him. So these arguments must be understood to be what they are: they are intended to buck up the faithful, and not to convert the heathen.
Arguments must be based on something else: reason, experience, common shared values. Judicious use of power will also have to be applied as well, but as is obvious conservatives have no power outside a few Chancery offices. The universities, charities and even the Vatican is now firmly in liberal control and has been for some time. But where power exists, it must be used subtly but judiciously. The liberal way is to come in with a wrecking ball and destroy, because destruction is part of the liberal agenda. Rebuilding afterwards is a nice extra. The conservative principle is more of a brick-by-brick approach because preservation is the goal. But those bricks must be laid and they must be strong.
That's the way it is. We must pray for prudence and patience and strength and persistence.
Very interesting perspective, and quite accurate, I think, especially in pointing out how each faction really plays to its own. If anything, the age of the Internet and social media has made it worse. We all tend to follow, friend, or read those voices that usually agree with us, and disparage everyone else. Few seem willing to undertake civil debate and discussion, preferring to call the other folks nasty names or even, as with Douthat and Kim Davis and others, trying to destroy them personally.
ReplyDeleteAlso a good point about the liberal wrecking ball. Isn't it ironic that the self-styled "progressives" seem to want to destroy the past wherever morality and social structures are concerned, but at the same time seem to want to go back to the past by depopulating the earth and stopping economic growth?