Vox Nova: A “Liberal” Blog?
Earlier this Fall, Ms. Teresa Rice described Vox Nova as a liberal Catholic blog and suggested that we, here at Vox Nova, inhabit our very own Humpty Dumpty Land. I sought clarification, and her husband questioned the usefulness of conversing on the subject as I might be as insensate to this blog’s “offensive liberal character as a person with bad breath or knock-out B.O. may be to his own funk.”
Okay, but on what grounds would Vox Nova be considered liberal?
Some years ago, when Benedict emerged as Pope, I remember hearing the question Is the new Pope a liberal or a conservative? Those familiar with the writings of Joseph Ratzinger, or those possessing a general knowledge of Catholicism should recognize the ignorance this question betrays. Benedict is, after all, Catholic.
Mr. Rice agrees that there is a problem with certain terminology. He will not, however, be “changing the way people use words, even if they are, to put it charitably, limited in accuracy.” Nobody, so far as I know, asked him to regulate the way in which others use words, but given his own realization that certain terms are quite limited, I wonder why he is not more concerned about conveying accuracy, and using discretion when he chooses words.
Take the ignorance-betraying question about the Pope, for example. Had I responded “Oh, the new Pope is a liberal,” or “Well, he’s a conservative, of course,” then not only would I have been using language limited in accuracy, but I would have been preforming a dis-service to accuracy and to what is true. More accurate language does exist, and should be employed. I would hope — although I will not be holding my breath — that Mr. Rice, when describing Vox Nova in the future, will allow his readers, who he must feel are entitled to truthful statements, more opportunity to experience them.
Consider a theoretical scenario wherein, here at Vox Nova, a Contributor frequently writes about capital punishment. Suppose, on one hand, that the Contributor agrees that the State had the right to this option, but on the other hand, feels that every specific exercise of this option over, say, the last year, was wrong-headed. That Contributor might appear as rather liberal. But would that make him or her a “liberal”? Or, in writing about abortion, one might look rather conservative, but would that make one a “conservative”?
Designations such as “liberal” or “conservative” are relative, and what tends to happen is that the use of such designations are accompanied by an designator’s ability to extrapolate. He’s a liberal when it comes to capital punishment, therefore he’s a liberal when it comes to … or so the reasoning goes. At some point, all specifics are set aside and he’s simply a liberal. But that doesn’t make much sense. Does it?
For someone like myself, what I choose to write about very much depends on my own interests and (self-perceived) areas of knowledge. I have a particular interest in biblical scholarship, and I wrote a post on 24 March on the subject of the authorship of the Book of John and the identity of the beloved disciple. The post was motivated by a commenter who had written that the “Pope makes use of Protestants to undermine Catholic Tradition and the Pontifical Biblical Commission, both of which hold that John wrote the [fourth] Gospel.” This commenter suggested that this was one further reason why Benedict “owes all Catholics an apology.”
One of my reactions was very simple: Catholic Tradition absolutely does not hold that the son of Zebedee wrote the fourth Gospel as we have it today. I recalled a conversation that had taken place previously wherein a fellow asked me over breakfast “if you don’t believe John [of Zebedee] wrote the Gospel, then what are you doing here [in priestly formation]?” Now I’d wager that I have considerably more expertise in the field of biblical studies than both my breakfast companion and the commenter seeking an apology from the Pope, but to them, not recognizing how comfortably my views fell within the mainstream of contemporary biblical scholarship, I must have seemed rather liberal. But does that make me a liberal?
My identity as a Christian person in general, and a Catholic one in particular, is such that I would hope to never subordinate it to any particular ideology. As a Contributor here at Vox Nova, if it looks as if I am sometimes allied with particular ideologies, it is probably because I have written a good deal about a particular subject which overlaps with the approval of that particular ideology. But that would not make me necessarily informed by that particular ideology. Would it?
Rather, informed by my Catholic identity, I would have happened to find myself in agreement with a tenet that, because such designations are relative, happens to be associated with a particular ideology. Ms. Rice, for example, notes that she holds Sen. Santorum in high esteem. Would it not be rather uncharitable for me to assume that Ms. Rice is, say, a “bad” Catholic, because she supports a candidate who supports waterboarding, a practice which, once recognized as torture, is considered by our present Church to be intrinsically evil?
A similar courtesy should be extended to Vox Nova. More accurate language should be sought by those wishing to speak about Vox Nova, and where the interest to be accurate or truthful appears diminished so does credibility.
K.
Kelly Wilson is a Seminarian for the Archdiocese of Winnipeg. Besides Vox Nova, he writes at his blog Musings.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Excellent post, Kelly. You are much more charitable than I considering his statement that you would be unaware of this blog’s “offensive liberal character as a person with bad breath or knockout B.O. may be to his own funk.” That statement alone indicates to me the contempt he feels towards those he considers liberal. Contempt is an outcome of a history of unresolved anger and it is destructive interpersonally and intrapersonally. It creates a defensive rigidity in the personality structure which in essence causes an insensitivity to the harm he does to himself and others when he so easily labels and objectifies other human beings. However, it does make his life easier to believe that he is doing God’s work.
To tell you the truth, Ronald, I was humoured by the imagery (especially when combined with the “Humpty Dumpty Land” reference previously given by Ms. Rice). Perhaps the statement indicates contempt — I am not saying it doesn’t — but I didn’t experience it as such.
That’s because you have a young and good heart and not pessimistic like me. Working in psychotherapy as I have for over 30 years, I pay close attention to words and the emotional aspect that may motivate the use of words. Now when I see “Humpty Dumpty” added as another descriptive expression towards you and VN it gives me further clarity that anger joins the two of them in this experience. This anger is an insidious poison that is so harmful to the Body of Christ.
To be clear, I say this consciously knowing that I am angry and knowing that I must love them also. If they do read this blog I hope they will take a serious inventory of their feelings that motivate them to attack Catholics at VN who are, without a doubt, pro-life. I also hope that they would explore their fear of developing communication with you.
I heartily applaud your refusal to put yourself, our church or our pope into oversimplified boxes. I love this sentence especially:
“My identity as a Christian person in general, and a Catholic one in particular, is such that I would hope to never subordinate it to any particular ideology.”
Amen and amen!
Thanks, Julia…
… if it looks as if I am sometimes allied with particular ideologies, it is probably because I have written a good deal about a particular subject which overlaps with the approval of that particular ideology. But that would not make me necessarily informed by that particular ideology.
Nor would it make you beholden to a particular political party that may be identified with that ideology.
Great post, Kelly. I’m not sure about the Canadian experience, but the kind of binary thinking that has jumped from politics into the Church here in the USA is really unfortunate, and in my opinion just one more horrible legacy of Roe v. Wade. As many have noted, because the Republican Party formally takes a position that appears to be somewhat pro-life – although returning the abortion issue to the states and preserving choice for rape and incest are hardly rock-ribbed pro-life positions – many Cathoics have bought the entire suitcase of “conservative” positions, including those that fly directly in the face of Catholic teaching. As a result, their counterparts aren’t those of us at Vox Nova, who are trying to apply the whole teaching of the Church to these issues, and who wrestle with how to vote and whom to vote for. Their counterparts are the very pro-choice Catholics they claim to detest and who share with them an absolute certainty in error.
Kelly,
You have a lovely take on things. I continue to wish you good fortune with it in the Church. Also, if we take a strictly comparative hermeneutic as guide there is another reason to consider their comment silly. At various periods the Pope of Rome and his Curia held positions about all sorts of things that were comparatively much more liberal than Catholics in various countries. Think of Papal position vis-a-vis relations to Richelieu’s France or Spain under Emperor Charles V, or his son Phillip. The idea that the Papacy is always the reservoir of conservatism on matters religious is a fairly recent phenomenon. Of course today’s reactionaries are quite uninformed about the complexities of their own history. They get their info from Thomas Woods. And boy if there is anyone who I bet is graced with BO and bad breath, it is that fan of Nullification.
I’m afraid contempt is becoming a hallmark of what’s called the American “rightwing” these days, Catholics included. I’ve belonged for over a decade to a small email chat group made up of Catholic pro-lifers, a few of whom write for conservative publications. We’ve seen each other through marriages, births, job losses, cancer, deaths in the family, you-name-it, yet no personal bond has prevented members of the group from hardening in their politics, as well as their pro-life positions, which now include whatever the increasingly partisan pro-life organizations have to say against the Obama administration. What I call the “turn to the right” began with 9/11 which seemed to awaken the sleeping beast of anti-Islamism, and took up speed when Obama was elected and the pro-life organizations declared war on his health care legislation. Several in my group participated in Tea Party marches. Coincidentally, when I shared with the group a posting from Vox Nova, I too was informed this is a “liberal” blog, which meant I’d somehow “insulted” them. All but a handful of the original group now refuse my email. I’ve become a pariah. Why? I’m still what I was when I joined them — a pro-life, fairly “conservative” Catholic who still listens to the magisterium on issues such as euthanasia and contraception, but who also happens to be a registered Democrat who believes in the Church’s social doctrine — i.e., a “liberal.” Sigh.
Anne, It is amazing how unaware they are of their hate. Buddha said that we must know our hate before we can love.
Anne,
You have given devastating evidence of a difficult and often analytically amorphous cultural matter. Keep with your authenticity! Thank you!!
Anne,
What your group did to you is terrible and indefensible. It saddens me greatly to see Christians acting in such an un-Christian manner. But let me ask you: you say that by being a pro-life Catholic who also happens to be a registered Democrat, you’ve become a pariah. Have you ever experienced that phenomenon the other way around? That is, have you ever encountered the phenomenon of being isolated as a pariah by registered Democrats who discover that you are pro-life, anti-contraception/euthanasia Catholic?
Well, Ronald, I’m no one to judge others on that score, and I don’t want to be melodramatic, but I really think malice is in the air we breathe. I’ve been voting since 1968, and this is the most extreme crop of Republicans I’ve ever seen. The leftwing got pretty crazy in the late 60s and early 70s when the Vietnam war wouldn’t end, but I’m not sure what’s driving the right in that direction today. Sometimes I think it’s anger over the election of Barack Obama, no more, no less. *Hate* just isn’t too strong a word to put on that emotion, and it seems to extend to anyone and everyone who’s suspected of being “liberal” enough to be on *his* side. Those shouts of “baby killer!” at pro-life Rep. Stupak after Congress passed the health care bill still ring in my ears.
I had my conversion after 40 years of hating Catholicism in 2005. I then began praying the rosary during my morning runs and have had beautiful and overwhelming reflections during these running prayers especially in the beginning. In this conversion I moved from independent politically to right wing thinking. Then one day it happened during a morning Rosary Run that I experienced a sample of the suffering in the world which I experienced as a deep throbbing pain and a great heaviness that caused me to be exhausted and to walk the rest of the way. I could see that my hardness that I had not resolved contributed to the suffering of the world in a spiritual way due to the fact that we are all connected spiritually and that my sins increased the suffering of numerous others no matter how much I believed I was “right” in being right. I know I had to go through the experience of being “right” in order to see how unknown, rationalized or otherwise unresolved hatred and fear result in a rigidity of thought and a spiritual narcissism which defends a person against being vulnerable to what one perceives as dangerous and evil just because the other is different. I saw that this position on the “right” just as positions on the “left” construct the foundation for the culture of death.
By the way, if Christ is liberating, does that mean He is a liberal?:)
Ronald. I appreciate your psychological perspective. I’ve noticed it in a number of different comments you’ve made at different posts of mine.
I guess my original confusion with the accusation of the Rice’s is that I don’t understand where a label like “liberal” comes from. On what grounds, I asked, would Vox Nova be considered “liberal.” I oppose the designation because of how limited it is, and also because such a designation gives the indication that what we should strive to be is the opposite. Is being a “conservative,” whatever that would mean, a person’s highest calling?
Kelly,
I’m with you in seeing the worthlessness and inaccuracy and weakness of these labels. But you ask on what grounds Vox Nova would be considered “liberal”. Here’s one answer: because a significant part of VN’s main contributors and frequent commentators use the labels of “rightwing” or “conservative” when criticizing ideas/people/movements that VN’s posters and commentators apparently consider to be “on the right”. I’m not saying that such criticisms are invalid (they are certainly valid many times), and I’m not saying that these criticisms happen all the time (they don’t; VN talks about a great variety of things). But a quick perusal of this comment thread and the posts on the main page give examples of VN writers considering something or someone as “right” or “conservative” in the process of criticizing it. I think it’s fair to say that this labeling and criticism of something on the “right” by VN writers generally happens more often than labeling and criticizing something on the “left.” I guess my point is that if an institution generally gives out labels and criticizes when it comes to that on “the right”, then this institution might be viewed as “left”.
I should clarify: I don’t mean this comment to be an indictment of anyone. It’s not. It’s just an observation that we all use labels, even though they are not entirely accurate or helpful, because they are a short-hand way of characterizing a person or institution, even though many times labels are unfair when considering the whole breadth of a person or institution’s work. I’m not sure, but I think that just as Kelly finds it unfair and inaccurate to be labeled “liberal” with one broad sweep of the brush (and rightly so), I suspect that Peters (who’s getting a lot of discussion now) would similarly find that to be the case with his label of “right-wing.”
As a non-Catholic, and therefore in that sense an “outsider,” I would say that one reason Vox Nova is labeled “liberal” by some is that you allow me to speak here, often in dissent of mainstream Catholic thought. I have been blocked by more than one partisan or sectarian site for honestly sharing what I believe, even though I have tried to do this in a respectful manner, focusing on ideas, rather than resorting to the ad hominem approach.
Rodak, I’m glad you feel comfortable engaging in conversation here. It’s interesting that tolerance, or the allowing of a free exchange of ideas would be the occasion, if it is, for Vox Nova to be disparagingly referred to as “liberal.”
Thales, you could be right. Perhaps Mr. Peters would dislike the label right wing being associated with him. Perhaps. I don’t know enough about him. I do know others, however, who take great pride in labels like ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’ My issue with such labels being extended to others generally has to do with the evaluation of Catholicity that often accompanies (i.e. “if you are not ‘conservative,’” whatever that means, “then you are a Catholic in Name Only”). My issue has to do with the way in which labels are limited in nature when applied to an institution like the Church, and also I have issues when labels are used to extrapolate (“he’s a liberal about _______, therefore he must think this about _________”).
I know we all use labels, and I know some Contributors here don’t mind that game, but all and all, I don’t know that the label “liberal” is fairly associated with Vox Nova, and if it is going to be, I hope for an explanation.
Kelly,
Good comment. I agree entirely with the issues you have with labels.
For better or for worse, our society calls “conservative” someone opposes to abortion and sex outside of marriage, and our society calls “liberal” someone who opposes capital punishment and economic policies which truly hurt the poor. But all four of those issues are held by the Catholic Church — and I think any honest Catholic, from Vox Nova to Peters, would recognize and agree with all four issues. So it’s silly and inaccurate to say “the Church is conservative” or “the Church is liberal” or “you have to be conservative to be Catholic” or “he’s a liberal about ____, therefore he must think ____” All four of the issues I’ve described are important, but sometimes, someone will stress or emphasize or work towards one of the four instead of the others. There’s nothing wrong with that, because we all have different interests and callings and and desires for how we can make the world a better place. But when a Catholic person or an institution tends to emphasize one of the issues over the others — or even if it doesn’t, but an outside observer thinks that there is an emphasis — then the conservative or liberal label might get applied. Yes, the label can be unfair, inaccurate, and shortsighted, but that’s why it gets applied. And that’s why some have called VN “liberal”.
I mention that a little too, Thales, when I talk about a contributor who might concentrate on, say, abortion or capital punishment. You admit the label can be unfair and indeed it is, when the fact that a writer or two who concentrate on particular issues are dismissed as liberal because there happens to be perceived overlap with that particular ideology. Since when does the position of a person on a particular issue exhaust our understanding of that person?
Kelly,
Agreed.
Rodak is right, and I’ve had the same experience.
What is really depressing about the “culture wars” in America is the unwillingness even to LISTEN to another point of view, and consider that the person voicing it may ALSO be “right” or have access to a PORTION of the “truth.” What’s really wrong with the ideologies of the West, however, is a holdover from the prevailing religious schools of the West and their influence on the traditional educational systems: the belief that ONE particular belief system can possibly have an exclusive hold on the “Truth” and that, by virtue of that lock on the “indivisible Truth,” the proponents of that belief system have exclusive ownership of what Christianity and Islam call the “afterlife.”
Other than that single caveat, however (which I do appreciate reads me right out of the ranks of the Catholic “faithful” and makes me a follower of the “liberal” “perennial philosophy”), I agree with everything Kelly, Rodak, Peter Paul, Ronald and Anne have said here, and I wish that all the well-meaning “faithful” would agree to hold to this much common-ground, at least.
As a Catholic liberal, Vox-Nova should welcome and embrace being called a liberal Catholic blog.
I invite Vox-Nova to join me and proclaim unapologetically that it stands in the proud tradition of the witness of John Courtney Murray SJ, Jacques Maritian, Msgr. George Higgins, Dorothy Day, John LaFarge SJ, Frank Sheed & Maise Ward, Msgr. Geno Baroni, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Sidney Callahan, Rt. Rev. Virgil Michel, Abigail McCarthy, Msgr. John A. Ryan, and Msgr. Charles Owen Rice.
It is an honorable tradition. It has contributed immensely to the Church.
The point for me, Kurt, is not that the label is an insult, but that the label is used disparagingly. I want those extending the label to us and to me to justify that association. I’m more libertarian than the Rice’s (who run Catholibertarian), yet I’m the liberal?
Kelly,
Another quick observation: you write for a group blog, which means that there will be a tendency for you to be grouped in with your colleagues, when people outside are characterizing VN. And some of your colleagues may be more inclined to take on the label “liberal” themselves or discuss issues which are more easily characterized as “liberal” by an outside observer. Again, it’s not always fair or accurate for all writers to be grouped under one philosophical label, but that’s what happens.
This is an important point. There is a distinction to be made, I think, between “Catholic liberals” and “liberal Catholics.” I interpret the former in a distinctly political sense and the latter in a decidedly theological sense. A Catholic liberal is one whose political views tend to the left side of the American political spectrum. A liberal Catholic is one whose views tend toward a loosening of distinctively Catholic belief and practice. A Catholic liberal might be one who, for instance, favors single-payer universal healthcare, while a liberal Catholic might want the subject of female ordination put back on the table. The extent to which many Catholic liberals are also liberal Catholics is, in my mind, a further manifestation of the blurring of our language, both political and theological, brought about by Roe v. Wade. In the heyday of the Catholic Church in America, most leading lights in the Church were both politically liberal and theologically “conservative,” in the general sense of simple orthodoxy.
I think the same distinctions between “Catholic conservative” and “conservative Catholic,” with the former denoting an adherence to the conservative political agenda and the latter referring to an orthodox adherence to Church teaching. I suppose that these days that would make me both a “conservative Catholic” and a “Catholic liberal,” which is why I simply prefer the term, “Catholic.”
Mark,
I appreciate that. But do you preclude the idea of a body of Catholic thought that is both liberal and orthodox? Maybe our friends Peters and Peggy Steinfels?
I’m not aware that the Steinfels openly dissent from the magisterial teaching of the Church. To the extent they do, I would call them liberal Catholics. To the extent they don’t I would call them orthodox. Whatever the case may be, they are certainly Catholic liberals, which is why I read them.
Yes, Mark, I understand. But can we not say that there is within Catholic thought (not political thought) a liberal school that is still orthodox? What of John Courtney Murray? What of the Liturgical Movement and the Catholic Council for Interracial Justice? The Community of Sant’Egidio? Frank Sheed and Maise Ward?
I suppose you’re right. I’m going to revise my comment above slightly.
Kurt,
Yes, Cardinal Bernadin sent a lot of his seminarians to TC (Theological College) when I was there, and that was like the biggest indication and exclamation mark that one was a Catholic liberal in those days. So indeed your point about a proud liberal tradition is true. In addition, the virtual bishop-pariah Archbishop Hunthausen had virtually all his major seminarians there at TC in addition. I remember sitting at the lunch table with Bernadin and a lot of other guys and the breezy prattle about liberal causes fazed him not a wit. That is an epoch ago in the Catholic church. Now Bishop Joe Tyson, one of Hunthausen’s crew is a right-wing cipher. How did it all change so fast?? A case for some historical study in the future for sure.
At the start, I want to note that I think comparing you to someone with knock-out BO unable to detect his own “funk” was a bit rude — and applaud you for taking it in good humor.
On the question of whether Vox Nova is a liberal blog:
It seems that first off there’s a question of whether “liberal” is meant in terms of 1) politics or 2) in terms of belief/praxis as Catholic.
Addressing 1):
I don’t have a strong feel for your own politics, not having read many political pieces by you. Plus you and Brett are both Canadian, and thus a bit outside of the US political maelstrom. That said, it seems pretty clear that the overall tenor of Vox Nova is politically quite liberal. I’d suggest a few basic test to consider:
- Consider who usually gets listed as an enemy. Among recent posts, you’ll find Mornings Minion gleefully noting that “right wing” Catholics are “going wild” due to the note from the Vatican on Monday. You’ll also see commentary ahead of time gleefully noting that this will put the Vatican in solidarity with the (distinctly left leaning) Occupy Wall Street movement. Going back further, you’ll find a number of posts (many of them from MM, but from others too) singling out Republicans, conservatives, right wingers, neo-cons, etc. for criticism as a group. You’ll also find few to no posts specifically singling out “liberals”, “progressives” or “leftists”. In the “us”/”them” tribal strife that is politics, if “them” is always conservatives then “us” is generally assumed to be liberals.
- Look at which non-Catholic groups get criticized and which get praised. To pick just one recent example: Both the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left and the Tea Party on the right are populist political movements with no apparent religious content or objectives. Yes authors here seem to instinctively side with the OWS over the TP. One video recently posted with approval described the TPers as the “militant” and “fascist” wing of American politics, created by monied interests. You will not, however, find anyone around here suggesting that the OWS people are a “communist” or “anarchist” front group — unless its by someone who thinks that’s a good thing.
- Look at prefered publications. Mornings Minion recently took Archbishop Chaput (a man whom Pope Benedict XVI must think knows a little bit about Catholicism, since he appointed him to one of the larger diocese in the US) to task for recommending that people avoid getting news about religion from the New York Times, CNN or Newsweek and suggesting that they turn instead to the Catholic News Service, EWTN, Our Sunday Visitor, Salt & Light, etc. MM was angry that Chaput had not mentioned Commonweal or National Catholic Reporter — two publications which quite explicitly lean left, not only politically but even at time in terms of questioning whether the Church’s structure of authority is legitimate. He also said the archbishop would learn a lot if he stopped criticizing the NY Times and spent more time reading Paul Krugman’s blog — a secular blog about economics entitled “Conscience of a Liberal”. Similarly, when Father Baron’s recent book Catholicism was praised, a number of people expressed reservations about the book because it was praised on the back cover by “conservative” Catholic commentators — this despite the fact Baron’s work had been praised on the blog here before.
- Consider also what non-Catholics or self described semi-separated Catholics the blog appeals to. Vox Nova’s non-Catholic readers tend pretty heavily towards the left end of the political spectrum. (Whereas over at TAC our non-Catholic and lapsed Catholic readers tend to be right leaners. Again, it’s indicative.)
- Take a look at election coverage. For instance, in the last presidental election roughly half the Vox Nova writers endorsed Obama and half said they could not in good conscience endorse either major party. No one endorsed McCain. And even some of those who couldn’t endorse spent an awful lot of time attacking the Republicans and very little attacking the Democrats. For instance, one of the neutrals spent a lot of time arguing that McCain might be a “Manchurian candidate” who had be brainwashed and reprogrammed by the Vietnamese.
Honestly, in regards to politics, I don’t see how one can maintain anything other than that Vox Nova is a fairly liberal blog.
Addressing 2):
As you point out, “liberal” and “conservative” are much more difficult terms when it comes to theology and practice. While many faithful Catholics have, over the last 50 years, found themselves politically pushed together with conservatives because of the array of sexual and family issues that the Democratic party has chosen to align itself against the Church on in the US — there’s certainly no necessary connection between Catholic theology and morality and a specific political alignment. There are both conservative and progressive tendencies inherent in a Catholic way of thinking.
That said, there are certainly strains of thought which could be termed “conservative” (as in, seeking to preserve that past) versus “progressive” or “liberal” (as in, seeking a more permissive approach and progress towards some imagined better future state) in relation to both practice, morality and theology.
I’d say that Vox Nova does not tend towards a progressive Catholicism to the point of dissent (the way that, for instance, some writers at National Catholic Reporter or Commonweal do), but there might be a liberal tendency just in that there seems to be a tendency to attack a more conservative approach on principal. For instance, strong attachment to the old Latin mass, preference for only male altar servers, preference for communion under one species (and often not in the hand), preference for chant and other elements of traditional liturgy — all of these have come in for occasional criticism over the years here. As such, someone with a strongly conservative bent (of the “I want to practice and believe the way things were a hundred years ago” variety) is probably going to feel out of place or mildly under attack. Meanwhile, someone who actually goes and and supports recognition of gay unions, or women priests, or allowance of remarriage after divorce, or contraception, will not be agreed with either, but may feel a bit more “understood” here than at a strongly “conservative” Catholic blog — if only because many of those same people will find themselves having similar political and cultural affinities to the writers here.
For the record, I wasn’t concerned that Barron’s book was praised by conservatives, but that it was only praised by conservatives. In other words, I was dissappointed, though I don’t know if it was with the liberals or moderates who didn’t endorse it or with the publisher that didn’t seek anything but conservative endorsements. In any case, what I like about Barron is that he typically manages to avoid the labels. My concerns should be seen in that light and not as evidence of my being a liberal.
We really have to stop playing this left-right-middle game altogether, IMHO.
Agree, Brett.
Darwin’s comment typically retains the binary left/right construct that the post’s author rightly criticizes.
I think that the left/right descriptions can be of limited use, Michael, in the ways that I described. Because humans are creatures who naturally form communities and feel about those communities in a tribal way, pretending that ideological affinities and communities do not exist tends to blind one to a lot of human interactions — including allowing people to take on the beliefs of their ideological tribe without sufficiently examining them. One must recognize left/right affinities in order to get beyond them.
Of course, where we’ve historically differed is that I believe all of us, left and right, within the Catholic Church worship the same God and receive the same Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. As I recall, you insisted rather adamently in these pages that you and I do not worship the same God. Though if you’ve revised that conviction, that would certainly be a welcome change and a reduction of the left/right dichotomy.
Darwin’s comment tells us so much about the narrow focus on American Catholics, especially in the region he lives.
First point: He seems to find it shocking that 50 percent of people here would support Obama, and nobody would support McCain. I’m pretty sure that if we did a poll of GLOBAL Catholics in 2008, you would get a distribution much closer to Vox Nova that the extremist position of TAC.
Second point: he points out that I have critized Chaput. Well yes, I have, and will continue to call him out for saying silly things. But I would never use the aggressive and personal language of those on the right against bishops they don’t like, including from TAC contributors. I am not in the business of questioning the “orthodoxy” of bishops.
Third point: “toward the point of dissent”. For the record, I give full submission of intellect and will to the entire corpus of Catholic social teaching – the sexual ethics, the life issues, the social justice issues. Again, I fail to see the same commitment on the right, including with Peters, and including with TAC. I see an embrace of libertarianism that is at odds with Church teaching. And just as deeply closeted gay men are the most homophobic, so are these half-hearted Catholics of the right the most “orthodox” and the most likely to sniff out “dissent”.
MM,
First Point: Given that the question was why Vox Nova would be considered “liberal” by other Catholic readers living in America (which is, after all, where most of your readers actually are) I’m not sure how the theoretical global point applies. Since “right” and “left” designations tend to be very tied to the particular situations of specific countries, it becomes rather hard to say how these would map across countries. Still, I find it hard to believe that the only people anywhere in the world who would not have thought Obama the best available candidate in 2008 lived in the US. The US is more right-leaning than most of the developed world on many issues. In some respects, perhaps even you would say that is a good thing.
Second Point: Each person has his own standards for what constitutes appropriate rhetoric and deference. I do not condone those on the right or left being disprespectful towards our bishops — especially over matters of prudence and preference rather than actual dissent from doctrine. By my standards, you taking one of the more prominent archbishops in the US (who clearly has a fair amount of papal favor, given his promotion history) to task over his reading material in that manner was rude and highly partisan not be mention, to use your word: “silly”. I think Chaput is in a better position to know what the mind of the Church is than you are. That your standards may be different from mine is, clearly, something that I cannot argue.
Third Point: For the record, I also give full submission of intellect and will to the entire corpus of Church doctrine, including, of course, social teaching, sexual ethics, life issues. What is more, not only do I agree that you do, but I think that Peters and all the writers at TAC do as well. But what can I say, I’m just a broad-minded and non-judgemental guy like that. We can’t all live up to the dissent sniffing standards you apparently have.
Uh, I think the very fact that apostates like myself are allowed to chime in here is evidence of some deep authentic liberal attitude here. That means “liberal” in the sense of principled openness and realistic pluralism. And further that such is not incompatible with a deep interest in Catholicism. A real commitment to a religious viewpoint is not per se threatened by anything like that. That is what it means to be a live and dialogical. Had I not met some brilliant Catholics, like John Meier, I would not have been so sure that such a viewpoint was possible. Namely, unthreatened, open, dialogical, and still strong in their chosen orthodoxy. But having actually met someone like that I am simply not impressed by the blandishments of Catholic reactionaries. And since I don’t consider myself Catholic anymore in any way, but maintain a strong cultural interest in the destiny of my former Church, I feel quite free (that is liberal) to make it clear in detail. In all these senses this site is more in touch with reality than most. The reactionary view, which is reflected in their lock-step comment sections, does not acknowledge that all sorts of people are interested in the destiny of this ancient institution. For a variety of reasons; but surely the most obvious and pressing is that there are so many Catholics in the world. The reactionary view is that one should only be involved if one is a cheerleader. They never seem to learn the lessons of very grim realities on display for Christians in places like Egypt. In that light, they ought to have the realistic amplitude to instead assess who their real friends are. And they would find that many real critics are real friends in the deeper sense. The reactionary view, by contrast always ends in the fly-in-the-bottle scenario. They will buzz around frantically trying to make history fit and people more heroic than they are. Then they will drop. It is compassion and understanding that give life, and air.
Peter, I am challenged by and enjoy your comments.
Thales wrote ” you say that by being a pro-life Catholic who also happens to be a registered Democrat, you’ve become a pariah. Have you ever experienced that phenomenon the other way around? That is, have you ever encountered the phenomenon of being isolated as a pariah by registered Democrats who discover that you are pro-life, anti-contraception/euthanasia Catholic?”
I may be a day late if not a dollar short with this reply, but the answer is YES, more than once.
In fact, I was asked to join the group I mentioned by a conservative Catholic who came to my rescue when I was being hounded by a crazy self-proclaimed feminist “witch” on the old National Catholic Reporter message boards on AOL. The Witch liked to call me “the Rat’s girlfriend” and cuss me out in German, which I fortunately don’t understand.;-) Still, I also met a very kind progressive theologian on that board who conducted a long-term (away from the board) email discussion with me on Judaism and the Church, so my experience there was fairly mixed.
I’ve certainly met with some less than civil behavior on the leftwing political blogs whenever I post on a verboten topic there, such as abortion or religion in general. The anger of certain atheists towards religious people in general seems about as close to the contempt rightwing Catholics have for fellow Catholics they consider “liberal.” Or so it’s seemed to me. The Witch was, shall we say, special.:)
Anne,
Thanks for the response. Much appreciated.
I should add that the problems I experienced on AOL’s National Catholic Reporter board happened a looong time ago, when internet posting was still fairly unsupervised. Alas, NCR soon left AOL for its own web site, where only paid subscribers could post (at the time). Even today, the relative anonymity of the internet seems to encourage extremism and bad manners. It’s hard to single out any particular point of view as the worst offender.
But when I read Kelly’s remarks about Vox Nova being branded a “liberal” blog, the “deja vu” of it all was too much to bear, so I vented. In my opinion, Vox Nova is neither leftwing nor rightwing, but a little bit of both to the extent that contributors are committed to the entirety of Church doctrine, which, as Thales notes, spans the spectrum as the world sees it. I’m very grateful to have found
this site. You’d think there’d be a lot more like it among the plethora of Catholic sites on the internet, but there aren’t. It’s unique in its catholicity…big and small C. Deo gratias.
Oh, the National Catholic Reporter. They have never printed one comment by me ever. I have tried. But I came to the conclusion that they had my name red-flagged or something from the get-go. They are hardly a liberal outfit in the deep committed sense. More like liberals who want the title so they can fill a slot on TV, or elsewhere in the media. All the conservative spots are filled.
NCR is probably still coasting on its history as the national Catholic publication that took on the Vatican back in 1968 when it published those *secret* (majority and minority) reports by the papal commission studying contraception. The reports seemed to give the lie to the Pope’s contention that nothing had or would change in the Church’s birth control teaching. Oops. Robert Hoyt, NCR’s longtime editor, was a “liberal” journalist in the best sense of the word, i.e., aiming for *balance* on controversial topics. Even though I was a fledgling writer with no theological cred to speak of, he tried to work with me on a rather mild response I’d submitted to what was then a flood of articles NCR was printing by theologians and laymen alike in favor of a change in the magisterial teaching. He said he was embarrassed by what looked like a lack of even-handedness in NCR’s treatment of what they disingenuously called “the birth control debate.” Alas, I lacked the theological chops to provide what he was looking for, and “traditionalist” L. Brent Bozell, Jr. continued on as their main (and often only) spokesman for “the other side,” even though both his religious and political opinions often seemed to the right of Attila the Hun (in my humble opinion ).
Anyway, that’s a long way of saying you may be right about NCR, but then again rising to the “fair and balanced” ideal isn’t that easy in our increasingly polarized world.
Darwin,
This is very helpful to me in understanding this designation “liberal” being applied to Vox Nova. It probably does not serve anyone purpose to respond to every claim you make, but perhaps by responding to a few, I can maintain the difficultly of the designation “liberal.”
You claim that “it seems pretty clear” that the overall tenor of Vox Nova is politically “quite liberal,” but how do we come to this view? We have 17 contributors, and a number of individuals introduced through the context of guest posts. You’ve already admitted that you have no strong feel for my own politics (although I’ve probably mentioned that I am a libertarian — more libertarian than the Rice’s ironically — and that if I were a part of the American political process, I would be a part of Ron Paul’s campaign), and you admit that my fellow Canadian Brett is also outside of the US political maelstrom. So this claim that our blog has emerged as “quite liberal” is based on your interaction with the other 15 Contributors? I wouldn’t think so.
It’s based on the material that appears on this blog? Well, what of that material? Why can’t we instead see overlap between, on one hand, comments informed by one’s Catholic identity and, on the other hand, what gets called a “liberal” ideology. Like I said, if I were always writing about capital punishment, politically I’d probably earn the designation “liberal,” but that position would have been informed by my Catholic sense of human dignity, and would have just happened to overlap with a “liberal ideology.” Further does being against capital punishment exhaust what it means to be “liberal,” or are we guilty of extrapolating when one views an opponent of capital punishment and assumes a general liberal orientation. Why, the question remains, would “liberal” be the chief designation for me in those situations?
As for who gets listed as the “enemy” here, I’ve noticed some unhelpful rhetoric here extended to those seen as being on the right, but what of it. When someone goes to far, if I notice or have time to respond, I’ll say so. Consider the 17 August 2011 post entitled “The Mainstreaming of Rhetorical Violence,” and the comments section, or the 17 October 2011 “Is Limbaugh Defending Mass Murder, Rape and Sexual Slavery,” and the subsequent comments. But even when the rhetoric is more tolerable, what could we really draw from the emphasis of certain contributors? Probably nothing more than the realization that there are all ready all sorts of blogs and media personalities that make a career off of representing Catholicism and holding supposedly liberal persons accountable. What is wrong with not joining this, and instead holding some of those blogs and media personalities accountable for the way in which they misrepresent Catholic teaching. Further, why can’t people bring attention to the silliness of certain claims made by Archbishop Chaput, for example? Why the increasing polarization of the American Catholic community is not of greater concern for the Archbishop, and why he feels the need to contribute to this polarization is beyond me, and therefore beyond my speculation, but when he makes claims that invite ridicule but only receive correction, I am glad people there are people here to do this. That doesn’t make us liberal, any more than my correcting Fr. Z for his bad theology makes me less Catholic because he is a priest and I am not.
Again, I would rather you not receive this as a conclusive response. Interpret this, instead, as a few thoughts that came to my mind as I was reading your comment, which I thank you for. That is not to say that your comments don’t deserve a more sustained engagement, but the reality of life forces me to be brief.
Kelly,
Ok, you’re not liberal. But some of your colleagues write posts that adopt the right/left construct, label something as right or left, and then criticize the right from the left side. Exhibit A are the recent posts on the “right-wing.” I consider those posts as from a “liberal” perspective. Wouldn’t you agree? And wouldn’t you agree that that tends to happen more often than the reverse? (Not that there is anything wrong with “liberal” posts, insofar as they are liberal… I’m with Darwin, that it’s fine to hear “a faithfully Catholic articulation of the politically progressive point of view.”)
I don’t find the word “liberal” offensive. I am asking those who use it— beacuse they are using the term disparagingly — to defend the association they are making. And also wondering why such persons seem so disinterested in an accurate assessment by using terminology so limitted in nature.
I am asking those who use it— beacuse they are using the term disparagingly — to defend the association they are making. And also wondering why such persons seem so disinterested in an accurate assessment by using terminology so limitted in nature.
Because some of your colleagues use this terminology going the other direction. You could ask them why they do so.
Kelly,
I appreciate the response. Just to be clear: I certainly wouldn’t attempt to assert that because you blog at Vox Nova you are a liberal, I was just trying to make clear why it was I think someone could justifiably consider Vox Nova to be, overall, a very left leaning blog. The which, incidentally, is not something I have a problem with. I think it’s useful to hear a faithfully Catholic articulation of the politically progressive point of view. Sometimes, after all, progressives are right. Though, obviously, I find it frustrating when it’s claimed that it is impossible to be authentically Catholic while holding a conservative or libertarian viewpoint.
That said, I certainly look forward to seeing you bring a libertarian voice into the mix here. Perhaps things have settled down enough since the previous conservative and libertarian voices left that there can be diversity without so much strife!
For those who were not present for the symposium at Chicago’s Old St. Patrick’s Church, I would recommend the November 19, 1999 issue of ‘Commonweal’, where liberal Catholicism is discussed by Cardinal George, E.J. Dionne, John T. Noonan, Peter Steinfels, and Peg O’Brian Steinfels.
Thales, I have called fellow Contributors on certain rhetoric that I believe has crossed the line. I mention as much in my response to Darwin.
The fact that some colleagues of mine might use rhetoric I believe is ill-placed has no bearing on whether rhetoric leveled against Vox Nova is ill-placed.
As I said above, it’s a short-hand way of characterizing a person or institution. Some of your colleagues willingly adopt the right/left construct and willingly take the “liberal” label, so I don’t think it’s strange if an outside reader calls these VN writers and posts “liberal”. You’re just unfortunately (and unfairly) being lumped in with them.