I”m glad you agreed with what I wrote. I”ll have to leave aside for another day the critic vs. pre-critic distinction, which may be very useful in your work. I”d suggest that once those terms are defined by some authoritative source, then there wouldn”t be confusion, as those terms don”t carry a lot of baggage from other usages.

There have been many different theological schools through the centuries that differ sharply on matters of theological opinion, with the Magisterium refereeing only when necessary to safeguard the faith and provide orthodox parameters for discussion.

Conservative and liberal, though, have significant political overtones and are used with an utter lack of precision. I”m not sure what one of your "critical" theological buddies would call me, but surely a secular media journalist would identify me as a "conservative" based solely on my (i.e., the Church”s) stands on abortion and homosexuality. Dissenting Catholics who tilt the other way would be called "liberal" for that reason. Then we take these terms "home" with us into the Church, where for various reasons we tolerate gravely sinful activity and agendas rather than provide a clear, edifying witness to the world.

…I agree with everything you said here. If the only issues in question were things like abortion, birth control or homosexuality–about which the Church has clear teaching, then it would surely be wrong to call those Catholics who support and assent to those teachings "conservative" while legitimizing those who challenge them as being "liberal" and part of the rich diversity of the Church. Where it comes to those issues there”s only one truly Catholic position.

My point is partly that it is not only "liberals" who are using labels as a means to delegitimize or relativize positions that they disagree with. "Conservatives" for lack of a better term also have a bad habit of defining "orthodoxy" as being more or less what was affirmed as a certainty by neo-scholastic theology—a habit which actually undermines their legitimate complaints about dissent on abortion and birth control. In my own field, I run across people all the time who claim this or that view of the Bible is not “orthodox” when it turns out that their beef is along the lines that someone is airing an objection, say, to the pre-conciliar view of the unlimited human knowledge of Jesus, or to a traditional view of authorship of a biblical book or is advocating some (relatively) new source theory or a belief that the historical event behind the text might actually be different than what the text describes. I think in a non-trivial number of cases “conservatives” for lack of a better term, have an understanding of Church teaching or what fidelity to the Church requires that is inexact—which hurts their credibility when they are on firmer ground as in the case of teachings on sexual morality.

I agree with you that it would be a very good thing if “liberals” swallowed hard and simply accepted—despite their reservations—that Church teachings on birth control and homosexuality are what they are, have been clearly annunciated and are not going to change—the shifting consensus of our culture notwithstanding. But it would be easier for them to do this if “conservatives” swallowed hard and accepted the legitimacy of critical scholarship—there are a significant number who I believe still have not—which is one big reason why Catholic universities are much more “liberal” than the Church as a whole. And by “critical scholarship” I do not mean a model of scholarship that is simply about research into history and primary sources in the original languages. Neither do I mean a model of scholarship that is oriented simply around defending what the Church has already proclaimed or of buttressing points in the CCC. Theology in the service of apologetics and catechesis has a place of course. But here I mean scholarship is which no subject is off limits and in which the results of the research are not predetermined. The researcher should consider the analogy of faith of course when pondering his results, but this is different than saying that the results of the research are predetermined by the truths of the faith.

I think PB 16 struck the right balance when he once argued that the Tradition (capital T) was unassailable. By which he meant two things: first that it would be wrong and impious to assail Tradition; second that it any assault against Tradition will fail in the end, since Tradition will in fact be vindicated not by cleverly crafted apologetic arguments but by critical scholarship itself—if one is patient enough to wait for the results. Benedict I think has always had a certain confidence that the truths affirmed by the Church will all be vindicated even in a neutral forum. I don’t sense that same kind of confidence in most “conservatives” I talk to; I sense the unease that says unless the Magisterium intervenes at every turn and whips theologians into shape, the whole edifice of the Church will collapse, having been hollowed out from within by dissident termites who munch away at the foundations while hidden in the shadows. And I sense, for this reason, a deep discomfort with any kind of theology that is not oriented around apologetics or catechesis.

So better than the “conservative” /”liberal” divide, I think it might be better to think of “pre-critics” and “critics”. I think there need to be a give and take between 1) the folks who—whether they realize it or not– are still yearning for a pre-critical age or model of the Church that is probably gone forever and 2) critics who haven’t bothered to explain ro justify their work very well to ordinary Catholics or to fit their work into the mission of the Church. I think actually our current pontiff (trained in critical German universities but beloved by “conservatives”) best exemplifies this needed post-critical synthesis…hey…maybe there’s an article in here somewhere.

Cheers

pete

I think you”re reading too much into my "musings." I”m not exploring the sometimes disputed boundaries between Church teaching and theological opinion or championing one side of the aisle ("orthodoxy") to the detriment of the other ("legitimate diversity"). In fact, your second point reflects the sort of stereotyping that I don”t think is helpful, especially when it”s tinged with political connotations.

Yes, the Church is "conservative" in some sense, and "liberal" in other senses, but these distinctions are not helpful. I suppose that if the pressing issue of our time were racism and not abortion and homosexuality, I”d be considered a "liberal" for championing the fundamental rights of African Americans, beginning with my own African-American sons.

But let”s get away from this theological diversity stuff. What I”m talking about here is the distinction between what Russell Shaw has called normative Catholics–in other words, those who strive to accept Church teaching and authority ("orthodoxy") and strive to live it ("orthopraxy")–and those whose faith and moral principles are far removed from the Catholic Church. I”m talking about, among other things, gay marriage advocates, abortionists and abortion-rights advocates, among other things.

Many simply refer to the normative Catholics as "conservative Catholics" and the second group as "liberal Catholics." I”d suggest here going back a couple chapters in your 1 Corinthians analogy, where St. Paul tells people that those who are living in open, grave sin and who (after a "Matthew 18" pastoral approach failed) persist in it, need to be treated as Gentiles or tax collectors (Mt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:13).

In other words, some of what may be called "liberal Catholics" shouldn”t be treated as Catholics at all until they become, well, Catholic. When that”s suggested, "liberal" is translated as "Democrat" and people get up in arms about the Church overstepping her boundaries in the political arena.

Further, when a normative Catholic gently points this out, he is written off as narrow, rigid, preconciliar, and, yes, "conservative"–as one who is uncomfortable with dissent (I guess it”s my problem, not the dissenter”s!) and opposed to the rich diversity of the Church. The "liberal Catholics" are then seen as the counter to the "conservative Catholics," with the goal being somewhere in the middle: a bastion of toleration and political correctness. We hear what God thinks of that approach in Rev. 3:15 and following.

Gotta run for now. Next time I”ll tell you what I really think!

1. it would be good to see you post on the issue of Catholics supporting govt. redistribution programs

2. I find it is very easy to identify a "conservative" Catholic. two telltale signs–the use the word "orthodox" alot in speech and mean by it what everyone else means by "conservative." What it bespeaks is a discomfort with dissent but more broadly with theological diversity

3. the tenor of your post suggests that the basic function of the Church is an inherently "conservative" one in the sense of holding fast to what has been delivered to her. You do make some concession to the need to of Church to adapt to new situations but the idea is the same. I used to agree with this but now I think it is only partly true. The two central figures of the NT–Jesus and Paul would fit more neatly under the "liberal" banner than the "conservative" one–were we absolutely forced to use those terms.

In Romans 14 Paul”s whole discourse on the strong and the weak gives a clear preference to the "strong"–who are identified with the more liberal minded Christians such as Paul himself who take a more permissive attitude to dietary laws and social effects of Torah. The strong need to take care in their dealings with the weak so as not to cause undue offense or to cause the weak to stumble; however, Paul is by no means neutral as to the fact that the "conservatives" who are uncomfortable with the abolition of the old fleshly distinctions are in the wrong.

Similarly Our Lord”s own critique of the religious establishment touches on both practice (disproportion in keeping torah) and doctrine (with regard to permitting divorce in the beginning it was not so).

Of course Jesus and Paul are both careful to frame their criticisms in light of earlier stages of revelation, so it”s not like they”re making things up. I would not call them "dissidents." But a would be "conservative" wraps himself in their mantle at his peril.

Rather than the "liberal" and "conservative" factions, I guess what I think is that the Church has always needed both a "priestly" wing (holding fast to tradition) and the "prophetic" wing (making sure that the priestly wing does its job effectively and pointing out when they don”t).

Thoughts?