August, 2016 - Opus Publicum

August 31, 2016 Ephemera

Ephemera I

I was recently alerted that Mark Lilla has a “new book” coming out, The Shipwrecked Mind. Like his early publication, The Reckless Mind, this volume is comprised of essays and review pieces Lilla published previously in The New York Review of Books and The New Republic. The gentleman who first brought this collection to my attention claimed that Lilla was not an “original thinker.” What I took that to mean is that Lilla’s writing is either derivative or repetitive (maybe both). I am not sure that is true. While we can safely assume that Lilla will not be shifting any paradigms, I think it’s important not to sell the man short. He has, after all, brought a lot of needful attention to European intellectual developments over the past two decades and was the first—to my recollection—to expand the definition of what a “Straussian” is beyond a silly synonym for “neoconservative.” Now, mind you, I disagree with Lilla about a great many things, but he’s not some middle-minded hack. In other words, he doesn’t write for Patheos.

There has been talk around the social media watercooler of a traditionalist Catholic of some repute (though, I must confess, I never heard of him) joining up with the Antiochian Orthodox Church. That’s nothing new, is it? Every year X number of Catholics (and many more Protestants) join Orthodoxy, either through the Antiochians or one of the many other jurisdictions operating in the United States today. What’s surprising about this move is that the individual in question appears to have taken a fairly hardline stance, denying the validity of all Catholic sacraments and professing that “Papists” are destined for hell. To the best of my knowledge this is not, and has never been, the position of the Patriarch of Antioch. If anything, the Antiochians are considered rather “liberal” when it comes to recognizing Catholic sacraments as valid. Moreover, the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Greek Catholic communions have a long history of cooperation, including communicatio in sacris. So, whatever this fellow happens to think Orthodoxy “is” vis-à-vis Catholicism, it’s rather distinct from the perspective of his chosen Patriarchate. So it goes. It’s entirely possible the lad has just come down with a nasty case of convertitis; give him a few years and he’ll cool his pies.

Following up a (little) bit on yesterday’s post on the alt-right, I found myself spending an inordinate amount of time learning about the meme “Pepe the Frog” and how Nazified variants of this cartoon frog have become associated with the alt-right movement. (Various depictions of Pepe as Donald Trump can also be found online.) It seems that certain participants in the grotesque online forum 4chan (where the Pepe meme first originated) are endeavoring to “take back” Pepe from everyday online folk by making him politically and socially toxic. How this Internet swerve got bound up with the alt-right movement is a bit of a mystery to me, though as I noted yesterday, it’s become commonplace for the alt-right’s critics to associate it with Nazism and white supremacy. For whatever reason I want to believe that is not all the alt-right movement really is, though several individuals I trust are convinced that either there is no authentic “movement,” only a bunch of people flocking around offensive images and slogans for various reasons, or that the alt-right can basically be boiled down to one thing: antisemitism. Maybe it would be best if the alt-right faded out of existence altogether, but I really don’t see that happening.

I was hoping at some point to offer up a review of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s (UGCC) freshly translated catechism, Christ Our Pascha, but I am not sure when I will have the time. It is, in my humble estimation, a far superior text to the standard Catechism of the Catholic Church, though I have no illusions that it will ever be as widely promoted or read. (I do hope, in time, that the entire text will be made available online.) The UGCC faithful in the United States and Canada, like the Catholic faithful writ large, are badly under-catechized. Why this is the case is a complex question. However, in addition to the having to weather the deleterious effects of secularism, Greek Catholics in the West have struggled to hold on to their flocks in the face of what I will non-polemically call “Latin competition.” Let’s face it. The Novus Ordo Missae is much shorter than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Most English-language Catholic educational tools are written from a Latin perspective and Latin Catholicism is just far more “available” than Greek Catholicism in this part of the world. Although Christ Our Pascha will not singlehandedly overcome all of the challenges facing Greek Catholicism in the West, its availability is a an important step toward preserving the Eastern heritage of the Catholic Faith in the United States and Canada while also enlightening non-Eastern Catholics on the rich theological, spiritual, and liturgical patrimony of the Christian East.

Finally, consider this post a “test run” of something I am going to try to do at least once a week, namely collecting together commentary on various topics which probably don’t warrant their own post (or I simply don’t have time to write about at any length). If you prefer linearity in your blog reading, then my apologies. (And for the one or two of you wondering, yes I have shamelessly lifted this idea from the old Ochlophobist web-log.)

August 30, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

More on the Alt-Right

I have commented on the alt-right before (see, e.g., here, here, and here). It’s a phenomenon I still don’t understand completely, perhaps because so much of its (generalized) platform is indistinguishable from previous sub-conservative movements. Critics of the alt-right movement charge that it is linked to hyper-nationalism, white supremacism, neo-Nazism, and so on and so forth. Proponents of the alt-right claim that it is represents an authentic alternative to mainstream conservatism, particularly mainline Republican Party politics. Maybe. However, calls for stricter immigration controls and isolationism have been with the American conservative movement for a century or so now. If the alt-right differs in any noticeable way from mainline conservatism, it is with respect to certain economic issues such as free trade. Whereas the Republican Party has long championed free-trade accords and other liberal economic policies, the alt-right seems to favor protectionism as the best way forward.

Certain conservative and traditional Catholics (along with right-leaning Protestants and Orthodox) have started embracing the alt-right, either out of fear that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party will sweep the upcoming elections or because they believe a “strong man” such as Donald Trump is the answer to America’s woes (maybe both). As I have pointed out before, the problem with this embrace—at least for Catholics—is that it cuts so clearly against the actual social teachings of the Church. Racism is not Catholic. Excessive anti-immigration policies are not Catholic. Nationalism, to the extent the nation is placed above God and His Church, is not Catholic. I could go on, but I think you get the point. So why are an increasing number of Catholics comfortable setting aside the Church’s teaching to jump on the alt-right bandwagon? Perhaps because American Catholics of all political stripes have been setting aside the Church’s social magisterium in exchange for political relevance for decades.

Make no mistake about it. “Alt-right Catholics” are not doing anything more egregious than “libertarian Catholics” or “socialist Catholics.” All of these various political “brands” of Catholicism have one essential thing in common: an unfettered willingness to replace doctrine with ideology. There is no small amount of irony on hand when various social-media forums explode with fights between “alt-right Catholics” and “socialist Catholics.” Neither are witnessing for the truth, nor upholding the social rights of Christ the King. Rather, they are chucking ideologically charged hand grenades at one another with no hope whatsoever of resolving the issues between them. There is no true appeal to divine or natural law; there is only a race to amplify various bromides in the hopes of drowning out the opposition. And when that doesn’t work? Both sides resort to childish tactics such as name calling and hyperbolic accusations.

When will the situation improve? I can’t say. Part of me believes things will get worse before they get better, though I am endeavoring to check my pessimism whenever possible. For the current election cycle, though, there’s not much hope left that a majority of American Catholics will arouse themselves from their respective ideological stupors in order to confront the hard truth that liberalism has no authentic place for Christ and His Church, and that the Catholic faithful—along with all orthodox Christians—are not welcome under a horizon dominated by relativism, indifferentism, and hedonism. Still, that won’t stop Catholics from trying to “get by,” to be “team players” with some secular ideology or another. There’s an old saying: Pride comes before the fall. Capitulation will come before ours.

August 29, 2016 Church, Spirituality

A Saint Without Compromise

Today, according to the Gregorian Calendar, is the Feast of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist. Kept as a solemn liturgical celebration and fast day among many Eastern Christians, this day—and one might argue the Baptist’s entire earthly ministry—has lost a bit of its import in the West. In his book The Friend of the Bridegroom, the Russian Orthodox theologian Fr. Sergius Bulgakov threw shade on the West’s elevation of St. Joseph, the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the apparent expense of keeping St. John central in its liturgical and spiritual heritage. Although it is unlikely that many Latin Catholics would entirely follow Bulgakov’s assessment, particular since it smacks more than a bit of knee-jerk Orthodox anti-Catholicism, it is true that the Forerunner of Christ does not factor considerably in contemporary Catholic reflections on sainthood, witness, and martyrdom. Why that is so I cannot say. What I can say is that perhaps now more than ever, the Baptist deserves to be at the forefront of our minds.

Let me be clear. St. John did not mince words, nor did he retreat from the truth, even at the cost of his own life. In the face of public scandal and sin, he stood firm with the Law of God over and against earthly powers. While the Byzantine hymnography for today’s commemoration of the Baptist’s decollation tends to focus on the sinfulness of Herod Antipas and his vile stepdaughter Salome, there are numerous references to the Forerunner’s unrelenting preaching, both on earth and to the souls in Hades awaiting the coming of Christ, the Conqueror of Death. Any man with ears to hear cannot walk away from today’s cycle of liturgical services without a firm appreciation for St. John’s steadfastness in all things.

And where, might I ask, are we to find a St. John in our own day? At a time with hierarchs, priests, and laity cower from muttering any word which may run afoul secular-liberal “morality” and the tyranny of “tolerance,” the Baptist looks like a legend, or an ideal which we can no longer strive toward for fear of reprisal. Maybe some are even tempted to think that there were other, undocumented, reasons for the Forerunner’s death. Maybe it wasn’t because he spoke out against public sin, particularly public sexual sin. Perhaps he died because he held to some wrongheaded political beliefs or supported that “revolutionary” from Nazareth or forgot to pay his taxes, etc. Let there please be an intramundane explanation for his decapitation! Do not tell me this holy man met his end because he failed to do the one thing all of us crave to do every single day of our lives: capitulate.

Those illumined by the light of faith cannot set aside why St. John met his end any more than they can deny that all sins of the flesh, including open and unrepented adultery, are worthy of condemnation. They cannot deny that the Forerunner of Christ was, fully and faithfully, a man of God whose tongue was gifted to him for one reason and one reason alone: to speak the truth without reservation. Does this unsettle us? Does this make us uncomfortable? If so, then shame, for the life and heroic death of St. John the Baptist should inspire everyone, from the highest authority in the Church to the lowliest layman, to never waver in their witness, even at the highest cost.

August 28, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Liturgy, Roman Catholic Church

Hilarion on Liturgical Worship

Recently, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Russian Orthodox Church gave an interview in which he discussed, inter alia, worship in the Orthodox Church as compared to other traditions. (You can find the interview at the bottom of Robert Moynihan’s Inside the Vatican Letter #49 here.) Here’s an excerpt.

August 18, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

Shea, Zmirak, and Catholic Politics

Let me be clear: Neither John Zmirak nor Mark Shea are saints of my devotion. The former is often a mindless shill for the liberalism of the Right; the latter too often tries to baptize the liberalism of the Left. Both also accept the neo-Catholic narrative of Church history since Vatican II, though Zmirak, like the economic liberals who haunt the halls of the Acton Institute, enjoys playing pick-and-choose with the Church’s social magisterium. Shea, under the guise of faithfully adhering to that magisterium, tries to maintain the myth that the Democratic Party faithfully represents the Church’s teachings on economics, society, and “life issues” (broadly defined).

And so it should come as no surprise that the two are butting heads over pro-life issues during this election cycle. Those interested in getting a rundown of the controversy—specifically Shea’s smear tactics against Zmirak—should check out Jason Scott Jones’s recent piece over at Life Site News. In short, Shea insinuates that Zmirak is a supporter of “Right Wing Culture of Death Priorities” related to torture, war, the death penalty, gun rights, and so forth. As Jones discusses, however, it does not appear that Zmirak really defends any of that stuff, or at least not as forcefully and clearly as Shea implies. This is not to say Zmirak “gets it” entirely right. After all, his pro-market apologetics and faith in movement conservatism’s “small government” narrative betrays an adherence to liberal principles over the express teachings of the Church. Still, Shea has a responsibility to the truth and making Zmirak out to be pro-torutre or pro-unjust war is completely uncalled for.

This spat between Shea and Zmirak won’t settle anything. The two have been going at it for years. What it does reveal, though, is the rotten state of American Catholic politics. Instead of seeing what many faithful popes and theologians knew from the 18th Century on, namely that liberalism is the enemy of a just society and the Church, Catholics like Shea and Zmirak fall over themselves to prove that one can be a “good Catholic” and a “good liberal” (albeit of different flavors)—no questions asked. The problem is that this simply not true. It is not possible to love liberalism while being faithful to divine and natural law. Is that an unsettling truth? Yes, of course it is. Few men actually desire to feel “out of sorts” with his age; many want to “get by” with as little obstruction as possible.

That is a temptation, and like all temptations it is from the devil. God has not called us to be “good liberals”; he has called us to be faithful sons and daughters of the Church. It is not our place to uphold the “rights of man”; it is our duty to uphold the rights of Christ the King in society. Read the works of Shea and Zmirak and ask yourself, “Do either of them do this?” In fact, read the works of most contemporary Catholic pundits and ask the same question. The answers you reach will be unsettling.

August 15, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

American Solidarity Party

Recently there have been rumblings on social media and Catholic blogs about the American Solidarity Party (ASP), a small but growing third party which takes its bearings primarily from those Catholic social principles which are endorsed by a number of non-Catholics as well, specifically subsidarity and — naturally — solidarity. For those not inclined to click around the party’s website to get a grasp of what it stands for, Susannah Black, writing over at Front Porch Republic, has penned an extensive piece detailing the ASP’s history and vision. I suggest you all read it.

Now, from the get-go, there are several aspects of the ASP which I could quibble with. For instance, its absolute stance against the death penalty does not align with Catholic teaching, though, as a prudential matter, I can certainly see the utility in placing a moratorium on it until the United States undertakes more comprehensive criminal-justice reform. Moreover, there is room to discuss the appropriate limits of centralized government programs, entitlements, and wealth redistribution; at this point ASP is keeping its platform fairly general, not particular. And last, Catholics need to always be on guard against letting a political party or movement with non-Catholics turn into an opportunity for religious indifferentism or syncretism.

With that said, I encourage all of you dear readers — Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — to give serious consideration to the ASP as an alternative to the dreadful options being walked out by the Democratic and Republican parties. The ASP may not fully capture every platform point you hold dear, but if you are faithful to your respective confession’s teachings, I think you will find the ASP comes far closer to upholding them than any other American political party. (For my part, my policy preferences are a bit closer to what a party like Ukraine’s Svoboda upholds, but I’ll save that discussion for another day.)

August 10, 2016 Church, Politics

Fraught

Fraught, the second definition of which reads “causing or affected by great anxiety or stress,” remains one of my favorite adjectives to use when discussing not only our current political climate, but the situation in the Catholic Church as well. Some friends like to tease me for using the word too much. By my lights, folks don’t use it enough. Sticking to the Church for a moment, it is patently absurd that words such as “troubled” or “unstable” or “challenging” are used to describe one of the greatest ecclesiastical crises in Church history. Although some point to trying periods such as when Arianism ran rampant or iconoclasm reigned supreme (at least in the East), never before have we seen apostasy on such a grand scale, along with princes and leaders of the Church teaching manifest error without any apparent risk of official censure. Truth be told, those who like to bring up previous points of difficulty in Church history often do so in order to paper over what is going on today, at this very moment, throughout the Catholic world. Even if there is an argument to be made that there were worse times for the Church centuries ago, that does not relieve faithful Catholics living today from the duty to fight for a restoration of orthodoxy and sound leadership. And yet there appears to be no end to the excuse-making, no shortage of justifying rhetoric meant to lull otherwise vigilant Catholics into accepting “the times” and going about their business. After all, God won’t allow the gates of hell to prevail against the Church, etc., etc., etc.

On the political level, there is a noticeable shift within certain Catholic circles away from either longing for some age that never existed or believing that the “right set of candidates” with the “right set of policies” will bring order back into the world. The fruits of the liberal order are now fully apparent; there’s no reason to think the situation will improve. Similarly, there is no reason to hope that some half-witted “strong man” is the answer to our present maladies. Seeking salvation in a buffoon would be risible if it wasn’t so catastrophically sad. How many more election cycles will it take before a sizable enough portion of the Catholic electorate wakes up and fights back? Or will the bulk of American Catholicism succumb to secularism once and for all, praying for political peace at the cost of their very souls? Never underestimate the power of cowardice fueled by promises of comfort and entertainment. Given how leaderless many Catholics feel today, and the fact that our very shepherds have abandoned fighting for the fullness of the Faith, is it any wonder the sheep are picked-off so easily by the wolves?

Now comes the hard part. For no matter how often I make mention of these realities to an increasing number of people willing to accept them, I am always hit with the question, “What do we do about it?” And here I must say, without a trace of glibness or irony, “Pray.” For prayer is where we draw our strength from the only true source of hope in dark times, Christ our Lord and Redeemer. It is in prayer and participation in the Church’s divine services that we find the fortitude to press ahead, to be witnesses to the truth, and endure whatever evils may come because of our most sacred convictions. No design, no artifice of human thought with an accompanying socio-political program, can possibly provide more than prayer. If we cannot be Catholics, if we cannot hold together in charity and truth, then nothing we might pull together from the teachings of the popes on society and the learned reflections of theologians will mean much of anything. And even if such endeavors can succeed for a time on the mundane level, what use will they be for orienting us toward our highest end, which is the beatific vision?

August 5, 2016 Politics

Further Comments on Grasping for Political Relevance

My post from earlier this week discussed briefly the tendency in American Catholicism to chase after political relevance, even at the cost of following what the Church actually teaches with respect to society, economics, and politics. It would be a mistake to read my remarks as focusing solely on older generations of Catholics who buy into one form of liberalism or another. Yes, they are the most visible and, arguably, politically influential, but they are hardly alone. A very modest amount of footwork can quickly reveal a contingent of younger Catholics (though some are now entering their 30s and 40s) who ostensibly claim to reject liberalism (however defined) in favor of some quaint fusion of very generalized Catholic principles with some form of socialism. Ignoring glibly the social magisterium’s routine condemnation of both socialism and communism, this group of Catholics take on the socio-political postures of mainline college activism and dress them up in worn-out vestments leftover from the days of “social Catholicism.” Instead of positing the salvation of souls as the highest end, they prefer instead to rail against “social injustices” while setting to the side pelvic matters which, they fear, will somehow undermine their mainline political credibility.

Granted, this shift is not exactly new in Christianity. Starting at least eight years ago, in the run-up to Barak Obama’s election, a significant contingent of evangelical Christians, many of whom were once disposed toward upholding traditional “Life” issues, started to speciously expand the menu of such issues to include, inter alia, the environment, poverty, war, the death penalty/criminal justice system, etc. In other words, they looked for a way to circumvent making abortion a supremely important political matter in order to get behind candidates and policy platforms which many evangelicals traditionally considered morally problematic. Sure, some of these young evangelicals still spoke of abortion “as bad” and sometimes whispered that “gay rights” and so-called “same-sex marriage” weren’t “ideal,” but by and large they acclimated themselves to what the Democratic Party promotes — and they’ve never looked back. If anything, they have drifted further to the Left, embracing more radical social ideals and economic reforms which, even if intended to ameliorate concrete evils, often seek to do so illictly. But, without a magisterium to guide them, it is not entirely unsurprising that these well-meaning Christians have lost the way in the name of retaining some modicum of political relevance.

Not so with Catholics. As Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. has stated repeatedly, if one wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches, look it up. Google it. Do what is necessary; it shouldn’t be hard. Even though certain forces have conspired to obscure the Church’s social magisterium, that teaching has not been lost — and it certainly has not changed. The only thing that has changed (or is changing) is the willingness of Catholics living under the horizon of secular-liberalism to take that teaching seriously. Admittedly, that’s not always easy, especially in today’s fraught political climate, but no Catholic has the right to dissent from the truth; no Catholic can ignore what is plainly taught in favor of political relevance or, worse, social-media posturing.

August 3, 2016 Integralism

After Talking About Integralism

Last Friday I gave a talk on integralism for a Catholic men’s group here in Grand Rapids. It was my fourth talk for them, the most “popular” being my lengthy lecture on the (in)compatibility of libertarianism with Catholicism. Much of what I had to say was built upon articles, blog posts, and my ever-expanding book manuscript. At the outset of the talk, I half-jokingly said that integralism is nothing more than Catholics following what the Church has always taught, not just with respect to politics and society, but all facets of natural and supernatural life. It became clear to me over the course of my 90-minute speaking engagement that I wasn’t saying anything “new.” That is, I was not attempting to advance a pet ideology or catchy socio-cultural posture; I was imply explaining, inter alia, the relationship of spiritual and temporal authority; the social kingship of Christ; and the duty of all Catholics to follow divine and natural law, even when they conflict with civil positive law.

So it is strange (and depressing) to look at ostensibly Catholic publications, blogs, and social media to see so many self-professed conservative and traditional Catholics promoting ideas, positions, and candidates which are at odds with what the Church professes to be true. Pragmatism—and a last desperate grasp at political relevance—seems to be animating far too many Catholics to support the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump along with policies that uphold economic liberalism, war mongering, and religious indifferentism. Granted, this is not a new problem. For more than a century, American Catholicism has capitulated to the spirit of the times in order to prove that Catholics, like Protestants, Jews, and atheists, can be “good Americans” while (privately) holding fast to their (personal) religious beliefs.

A year ago I had thought that, given the deplorable state of American political life, this election cycle would witness a noticeable rise in outspoken Catholics who simply cannot abide by the despicable choices secular democracy has furnished us. Instead, what I see are more and more Catholics who love to go on about “orthodoxy” and “tradition” doubling-down on liberalism because they have duped themselves into believing that our state of affairs will be noticeably improved by the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. Granted, some of the panic-button pushers are willing to concede that the GOP is a shell of its former self with very little left on its platform to appeal to so-called social conservatives or the religious right. However, these same folk fear that another four (or eight) years of Democratic rule will yield catastrophic results for both Catholicism and the United States.

Personally, I am not willing to give in to fear, at least not yet (and, God willing, not ever). No credible evidence, coupled with a cogent argument, has yet been presented to convince me that I ought to cast a single vote this November which runs contrary to conscience—a conscience shaped by reason and revelation. If someone asks me what integralism “looks like” in action, that is it. Integralism means following the Church, not the Zeitgeist. Integralism means foregoing compromises with evil even at great professional and personal cost. Integralism, above all else, means upholding the social rights of Christ the King and never genuflecting before earthly powers and temporal thrones which have divorced themselves from God’s appointed spiritual authority, our Holy Mother Church.