Catholicism and Protestantized Dichotomies
“Protestantism, whether primitive or modern, Lutheran or Calvinist, orthodox or liberal, generally occurs as a religion of antitheses. Either rites or morals, authority or liberty, faith or works, nature or grace, prayer or sacrifice, bible or pope, Christ the savior or Christ the judge, sacraments or the religion of the spirit, mysticism or prophecy… but Catholicism does not accept these dichotomies and refuses to be merely Protestantism turned inside out. The splendid name of Catholic, that has been so fitting translated as ‘comprehensive’ a term ‘as welcome as outstretched arms, far-reaching like the works of God, a term of wonderful richness, filled with echoes of the infinite’, has not always been perfectly grasped even by the Church’s own children. Instead of signifying, in addition to a watchful orthodoxy, the expansion of Christianity and the fullness of the Christian spirit, it came to represent, for some, a sort of preserve, a system of limitations: the profession of Catholicism became linked with a distrustful and factious sectarian spirit.”
– Henri de Lubac, S.J. (1947), Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, Ignatius Press.
If this was true in the Europe of Lubac’s time, it is even more the case in early twenty-first century America, making the last century’s greatest theologian appear highly prescient. For this sectarian approach to Catholicism is alive and well among those Catholics most influenced by the political evangelicals who (falsely) describe themselves as conservative. They have imbibed a very Protestant way of engaging the world, leading to an “us versus them” mentality which is utterly opposed to the universality of Catholicism. As I’ve voted many times (as has the Vatican), the Calvinist spirit is dominant in American culture and American foreign policy. And the way the modern political debate is framed, as a great dualistic battle between the opposing camps of “conservative” and “liberal” (never mind that both sides are actually quite close to to each from a Catholic perspective) is a direct result of this Protestant mindset.
As Lubac notes, this spirit of sectarian dichotomy has always enticed Catholics. And today, we have a group of self-appointed “guardians of orthodoxy” that see the world in narrow, politicized, terms. It’s not like in the past when Catholic distinctiveness was worn as a badge of honor in an anti-Catholic culture. For today, many Catholics have made common cause with the old bastions of anti-Catholicism and have fully integrated into the secular culture. But, ironically, the sectarian spirit has morphed into another form of beast– not surprising, as Catholics became closer to the political Protestant mindset. For today, doctrinal orthodoxy is often equated with loyalty to a political cause, a faction, an economic system, or a nation state– so much so that Church teachings that contradict this unquestioned loyalty are simply cast aside; after all, theirs is a very Protestantized, individualist, form of Catholicism.
An example: those who claim that a fixed number of “non-negotiable” principles must bind the consciences of Catholics in all circumstances when it comes to voting. And of course, those “principles” tilt heavily in a sectarian direction, and have no basis in Catholic moral teaching. I find it highly interesting that some of the most vigorous apologists for this sectarian mindset are a subset of evangelical converts– people who carried the entire weight of their political baggage along their roads to conversion. But this factiousness is everywhere, and it grows stronger as the political discourse cheapens. Just see here for an example of what I am talking about.
MM.
This will only bring upon more hatred.
I believe that some have made statements so mired in the intrinsic evil of racism and proudly so that deserved to be banned from this site in no uncertain terms.
To clarify…and I will then say absolutely no more in this thread:
I believe that some commenters, prolongedly evidencing no spirit of true dialogue or any openness to self-examination or personal growth, have repeatedly made statements so mired in the intrinsic evil of racism (and, worse off, proudly and provocatively so) that such commenters deserve consideration of being suspended from this site.
I can understand bearing with and reaching out to weaker brothers and sisters, charitably hoping for their good, but has not their repeated failures gone on for far too long?
For the only option remaining in keeping them here is either ignoring or attempting to respond to their desperate efforts at provocation. But has not your taking the latter option for now too long yielded precious little true ‘give and take’, and only more of their precisely same type of attempts, in their vying for even further notice?
MM Great post,!
It is indeed one of the wonderful things of Catholicism I have been trying to express in some of my posts. While one can be critical of the positions of others, it is never to be done in a dualistic sense. Certainly there is the need for a forensic analysis of the situation, but that is to be done with a sense of understanding. We look to see the various positions and the kinds of imbalance found within them, and show how the problem is that these positions are false alternatives which come from an incomplete understanding of the truth. We must therefore put them into the greater, Catholic perspective. Just as sin is rooted out not by annihilation but by grace, which restores what is lacking, so too a Catholic sensibility works to restore the fullness of truth to sectarian views. But to many, caught in the sectarian tradition, there is no understanding of this higher, unitive, and organic dimension which they are lacking, and so they can only see “the other” in an “either/or” instead of a “yes and.”
Interesting Mark – You’re awfully provocative and get your digs in for one who “stays above the fray”. Nice try.
Last I saw, you’re the only one making a distinction between the races. I see everyone equally. It’s about time you did so yourself instead of being condescending and assuming that any one who isn’t like you needs your attention or assistance.
“And of course, those “principles” tilt heavily in a sectarian direction, and have no basis in Catholic moral teaching.”
MM – you mean like abortion? Oh wait… You’re a cheerleader for one of the politicians most active in legalizing and funding new and improved methods of destroying babies.
Damn I really ought to put down the crackpipe, for a second there I thought Morning’s Minion (!) was complaining about people being factious.
OK, let’s not mix apples and oranges. It is true that Catholic theology is full of ‘both/ and’ propositions, such as ‘Christ is fully human and fully divine’. It is also true that heresies, including Protestantism, have often gone astray by substituting ‘either/or’ thinking. This is not to say, however, that Catholicism is never ‘partisan’. St. Ignatius’ Meditation on the Two Standards makes that perfectly clear. I think we need to consider whether Christ’s standard is being carried by EITHER of our political parties, and act accordingly.
SMB
I would point out that I think both parties are only giving, at best, half-truths, and reflect upon those half-truths in opposition to one another. The problem comes when a Catholic, with a Catholic sensibility, goes in with more than either, and people read the Catholic response in a partisan content. “Oh, the Democrats say that, you must be Democrat” or “Oh, the Republicans say that, you must be Republican.” Thinking like that is unable to think with a Catholic sensibility.
Henry,
Agreed–although even ‘half-truths’ may be putting it generously. The two parties differ on policy, but they agree on philosophy (liberalism) and its economic implications (capitalism). There is a good chance that classical liberalism is simply wrong, and that Democratic and Republican policies are all fruit of the same poisoned tree. A Catholic sensibility would then involve a more radical partisanship than we have been discussing.
SMB
If you read my posts, you know I agree with that — I am just making it simple with the term “half-truth,” although of course, a lot of classical liberalism and even capitalism are true but imbalanced. It’s complicated — but I was just trying to keep it simple, to point out that there is truth, but much is lost, especially when secular materialism is the lens by which one reads the world.
That’s cool, Henry. Thanks for your answer.
Catholic religion in America is all about politics and little else. I can’t wait until I get out of this country and back to Europe (in just a few months), where Catholic priests and thinkers UNDERSTAND that our religion is counter-cultural and make very little effort to participate in the political coercion of the vast majority of post-modernists who do not share our beliefs or values. In my actual homeland (Europe), most sincere Catholics understand (Benedict Ratzinger to the contrary, notwithstanding) that Catholicism is as alien to mainstream culture as Tibetan Buddhism.
MM,
A few points. First, a person should always be suspicious of a theory or schema for understanding one’s antagonists which attempts to locate a causal or motivational basis for their beliefs deep in their cultural background, and which at the same time leaves oneself and one’s likeminded peers untainted. If Calvinism (or Gnosticism, a ‘strict father family model’ (Lakoff), or whatever other grand theory can be thought of) is ultimately at the basis of sectarian and ‘us vs. them’ thinking in American culture, it must be an especially deeply rooted and pernicious influence and one that lies below the surface of most people’s conscious experience. For instance, thinking of a handful of especially sectarian (in this case “conservative”) and divisive people I am familiar with, I can see that they come from radically different backgrounds. Some are anti-Calvinist Evangelicals, some are Calvinist anti-evangelicals, some are Catholics, some are Jews, and some are non-believers (both atheist and agnostic). Moreover, each comes from radically different racial and economic backgrounds. What unites them is a distrust and dislike of “liberals” and the Democratic Party and a tendency to see certain issues as absolutely non-negotiable. If their sectarianism is rooted in America’s “Calvinist” past, this Calvinism must be extremely wide ranging and deeply rooted, since it was able to influence people of such diverse backgrounds, most of whom wouldn’t consider themselves Calvinist and probably don’t even know that much about Calvinism. But if it is so deeply rooted, it makes it that much more unlikely and fortuitous that certain people (real or pureCatholics) have avoided being tainted by its influence.
The other problem with such theories is that they can erode fruitful dialogue and conversation. It may be the case (and fairness and charity demands that I assume this for MM) that the theory is merely a way of understanding the American or American Catholic experience. However, such theories, when misused, can isolate people in their presuppositions, cutting them off from being challenged or influenced by those who are not of a like mind (since *their* mind is tainted). At its worst, this can take the form of an ad hominem circumstantial (albeit a nuanced and sophisticated one, though no less fallacious). *Their* opinion is suspect because the wells have been poisoned by Calvinism (or Communist or Socialism, in the “conservative” version of such theories).
Also, while I think De Lubac is right about Protestants often seeing antinomies were Catholics see dualities which are seemingly contradictory, but which can be resolved at a higher level, nevertheless I think this is trivially true. The reason being that nearly all heresies, and not merely Calvinism, are the result of affirming one truth at the expense of denying another. Pelegianism and Jansenism are failures to simultaneously uphold the twin realities of grace and freewill. Monophysitism and Arianism are failures of upholding and reconciling Christ’s divine and human natures. In fact, even if we look outside of theology to human thought in general, we see that people often go wrong in emphasizing one truth at the expense of another- think of the endless disputes involving the problem of the One and the Many or freedom and determinism. So, rather than looking for some grand theory or narrative to explain why some people are dualistic or sectarian, I can chalk it up to human nature in its fallenness. Our weakened intellects often grasp one truth at the expense of another. Our lack of fairness and justice causes us to take on a rigid and uncharitable “us vs. them” mentality. A virtue of this theory is that I do not conveniently stand outside the influence of such a theory. I *also* have to examine my motivations and presuppositions and can’t write of those who disagree as being ritually impure. Moreover, applying Occam’s razor, I think this theory can account for the sectarianism and divisiveness of the “conservative” Jew, Catholic, Evangelical, Calvinist, and atheist better than the theory that all have all drunk deeply from the springs of Calvin.
Last, but not least, the fact that the Church upholds certain apparent dualities does not mean that it upholds all apparent dualities. Some, like acknowledging the personhood and dignity of the unborn vs. acknowledging a woman’s “right” to choose whether her unborn child lives or dies are indeed antinomies that cannot be reconciled. Sometimes we are an either/or and not a both/and faith.
Some, like acknowledging the personhood and dignity of the unborn vs. acknowledging a woman’s “right” to choose whether her unborn child lives or dies are indeed antinomies that cannot be reconciled.
What you write, Brother Matthew, is wise and shrewd (and seems to me to be more resonant with much of the spirit of EUROPEAN Catholicism than its American variant.)
However, with the last “antinomy” I think your thinking has becoming a little muddled. The issue is NOT whether the “dignity of the unborn” or the mother’s “right to choose” can be morally reconciled (they cannot). The issue is whether the “dignity of the unborn” may ethically be imposed through political coercion upon a culture that no longer recognises the “dignity of the unborn.”
The problem with so many of you American Catholics–and, in particular, the clerics among you–is the lack of sufficient humility to acknowledge your “second class citizen” status in a culture in which, realistically, you have less and less influence (oarticularly if your Chrisitianity is of the genuinely orthodox variety, rather than one of the Gnostic-tinged American heresies). The attitude of the European Catholic priests and intellectuals I know is so much gentler and humbler, because, it seems, they are now accepting of the end of the “Church Triumphant”–which is also the end of a Church debauched by political power.
Br. Matthew,
“So, rather than looking for some grand theory or narrative to explain why some people are dualistic or sectarian, I can chalk it up to human nature in its fallenness. Our weakened intellects often grasp one truth at the expense of another. Our lack of fairness and justice causes us to take on a rigid and uncharitable “us vs. them” mentality. A virtue of this theory is that I do not conveniently stand outside the influence of such a theory. I *also* have to examine my motivations and presuppositions and can’t write of those who disagree as being ritually impure.”
This is beautifully indicative of your entire post–one that is a staggeringly precise and thorough intellectual feat.
I will use this in my examination of conscience, of matters both intellectual and, more broadly, personal.
Thank you.
BR. Matthew
The Calvinism of the American culture is a well-known truth; yes, it DOES affect us all, because it IS a culture influence; but the foundations of American thought come from Calvinistic sources and have become ingrained within American society. Just as Marxism can show the influences of the Jewish Prophetic tradition, and does not mean the Marxists are therefore theist, the discussion of influence and source for societal ideas coming from religious perspectives, must not be turned into the strawman that suggests everyone is a member of the Reformed Church.
” I find it highly interesting that some of the most vigorous apologists for this sectarian mindset are a subset of evangelical converts– people who carried the entire weight of their political baggage along their roads to conversion. But this factiousness is everywhere, and it grows stronger as the political discourse cheapens. Just see here for an example of what I am talking about.”
Sigh I am not exactly sure what this means. I guess this subset of evangelical converts are people that different political views than others. It has been my experience that often Catholicism effects an Evangelical convert political experience and how it interacts with the secualr in many ways
No matter that political faction they ID with their Catholic Faith influnences it in mayways
Henry,
If I had suggested that MM’s theory was flawed because everyone in question wasn’t a member of the Reformed Church I would, indeed, have been engaging in a straw man. To be clear, my point was not to deny that Calvinism has had an influence on American culture, that much I will grant. Rather, my point was that the remote influence of Calvinism on American culture is not a sufficient explanation for the presence sectarianism and either/or thinking amongst some conservatives. Analogously, the remote influence of Puritanism on American culture isn’t a sufficient explanation for an aversion to alchohol among a certian class of the American populace. The primary motives for such an aversion are going to depend largly on the individual (growing up in an alchoholic family, a particularily bad hangover, a dislike of the taste, one’s assent to a religion that disapproves of alchohol, etc.). However, if we are going to ascribe a general explanation for sectarianism and either/or thinking, it would make more sense to locate it in our fallenness, since people have been sectarian and either/or thinking has always been with us.
Moreover, such theories are even worse if they are used not merely to explain the presence of certain beliefs, but to discredit those beliefs. This is an ad hominem circumstantial, a species of the genetic fallacy, which states that a person’s belief or argument can be justified or falsified by an appeal to its origin or cause.
Excuse the grammar, I’m in a hurry to get to Mass. God bless.
Br. Matthew, you are truly a Dominican. Excellent posts. Bravo!
Brother Matthew
I think it would be better to explain that the cultural influence, which comes in part from the Calvinist influence on the development of American political thought, combines with sinful egoism, and so that with our egoism, it reinforces the inherent Calvinistic dualism that explains why the Calvinistic dualism can be found even in secular society.
Bloom does some good discussion on this issue.
But then there is another aspect; how much of this influence continues in converts? That’s a question all of us converts (myself included) should always consider. How much of our Catholicism continues to be influenced by the bad aspects of Protestant ideologies? Certainly not all aspects would be bad, and some could be positive as well; but I think it is the care which we need to have and not a hasty rejection of the influence of our background on our theological — and even political –character.
Mark and none,
Thanks, BTW, for the kind words.
The De Lubac quote is a bit old-fashioned, a tad sectarian by today’s standards. To reduce the Reformation principles of sola fide, solo Christo, solo verbo, sola gratia to pointless antitheses is to show some theological insensitivity. De Lubac was far too enamored of the Middle Ages methinks.