Skip to comments.
Is Pluralism a Threat to Catholic Survival?
Crisis Magazine ^
| May 7, 2014
| James Kalb
Posted on 05/07/2014 1:52:18 PM PDT by NYer
With few exceptions, American Catholics have given up on the dream of a Catholic society. Instead, they have come to aspire to a seat at the table: a respected position in public life that lets them bring their insights and values into public discussion within a pluralistic system.
At first glance the aspiration seems sensible. A Catholic social order cant function if there is no consensus in favor of Catholicism among people who run things. We are a long way from such a situation, so the best we can hope for today is to be able to propose our views in a setting that does not presume we are wrong. A seat at the table seems to describe that situation, and if we want a seat for ourselves it seems only right to accept that others get the same.
In fact, though, the arrangement has turned out to mean that the only social and moral outlook that can have any practical effect is pluralism, together with the liberalism of which it is part. Pluralism can be used in different senses, some harmless and some less so. In a harmless factual sense it can be applied to any complex and extensive society. The world of the Bible has many religions and cultures, for example, and the position of Jews and then Christians in such a setting is a recurrent concern for the sacred writers. Even after Christianity became the state religion, there were a variety of social and religious tendencies at work, and non-Christians normally had some sort of accepted presence and position.
That inevitable kind of pluralism has been dealt with, well or badly, through negotiation and the balance of power and convenience. The result has sometimes been mutual accommodation, sometimes boundary-drawing, and sometimes, when something basic was at issue on which agreement could not be reached, permanent division or outright hostilities.
Today pluralism has become doctrinal as well as factual. As a doctrine, it claims that separation and hostility can always be avoided if people are minimally reasonable, because there is a principled way to deal with basic disagreements while giving due credit to all sides. The key, it is said, is to give those who hold all views on basic issues a right to equal participation in public life, as long as their views are reasonable in the sense of accepting the pluralist system.
That sounds like a sensible basis for articles of peace in a situation of fundamental disagreement. Nonetheless, accepting it has serious adverse consequences for everyone except pluralist liberals. It means that discussion cant be about deciding issues, since a decision would deprive opinions that accept the system of their equal seat at the table. Instead, the point of discussion becomes mutual understanding for the sake of maintaining equal self-expression. Free to be you and me is the goal, and to bring that about we all have to celebrate the rainbow.
That too might seem a reasonable way of handling a situation in which agreement cant be reached. The problem though is that if opposing views relate to basic issues, and every position has to be treated equally, very little can actually be expressed. All that can really be expressed freely are the principles of pluralism, together with views that dont much affect other people and are presented not as principles but as matters of personal taste. Otherwise, opposing views will confront each other directly on basic matters, and some of them will lose out and become marginalized and subject to at least informal suppression.
The basic problem is that pluralism cant possibly be pluralist. It proposes a particular form of society with a definite system of law and custom. That form of society bases its unique legitimacy on the claim that all other forms of society, including Catholic society, are at odds with freedom, justice, and the dignity of man, because they suppress and discriminate against reasonable opinions on ultimate issues. In good conscience those who are in charge of such a society must do everything they can to keep such views from affecting social life and thereby causing oppression. They do so by insisting that views such as Catholicism stop being social views and become strictly private opinions. So pluralism turns out to be as unitary and dedicated to suppressing alternatives as any other outlook. The difference is that it believes it can legitimately avoid having to argue for its own particularities by claiming it allows all views to flourish freely.
In spite of the evident problems, there have been resolute attempts by sincere and intelligent Catholics to bring Catholicism within the pluralist system, not simply as a matter of factual necessity and bowing to superior power but as a matter of Catholic as well as secular principle. Not surprisingly, the energy and ability of those favoring such attempts have failed to overcome the innate self-contradictions, and the efforts have gone nowhere.
The more principled attempts did try to maintain a leading role for Catholicism. One leading formulation, for example, called for the Roman Catholic Church in the United States [to assume] its culture-forming task of constructing a religiously informed public philosophy for the American experiment in ordered liberty. It was never clear what that would mean. The public philosophy couldnt be Catholic social teaching, because American experiment in ordered liberty meant it had to be religiously pluralist and include at least Protestants and Jews on equal terms. (It was never clear how Muslims, Hindus, and the irreligious would fit in.) Nor, it seemed, could it be natural law. Natural law claims to be a philosophical position that can be developed and defended without regard to religion, so it does not seem to be religiously informed. But if the public philosophy could be neither specifically Catholic nor generally philosophical, and it had to offer equality to a variety of quite different views, then it couldnt have much content. It could be a system of inherited habits and expectations, but those have dissipated. Or it could be a list of points generally agreed upon, like abortion is bad, but not their basis or exact implications. So it would be more like a collection of slogans than a public philosophy.
The project may have seemed more plausible than it was because of the ambiguous status of natural law. Philosophy is not neutral. Ideas about God, nature, and reason depend on each other, and it seems natural that classical natural law is mostly a Catholic tendency and those who come to accept it are likely eventually to become Catholic as well. So a natural law public philosophy might well be viewed as religiously informed, since it evidently has some connection to religion without being explicitly religious. Still, the religion to which it has a connection is specifically Catholic, and that makes it a non-starter in a society that insists on principled pluralism.
So what to do? The West is pervaded by an ideology and method of social organization that is becoming ever more dominant and well-defined, and that rejects God and natural law on principle. If you dont enthusiastically favor those tendencies youre considered irrational, oppressive, and a threat to public order. Under such conditions we should be thinking less about a seat at the table and more about survival.
Survival is of course not enough. Life has meaning, and survival is for a purpose. What Catholics today need most of all politically is to start a new discussion based on an understanding of man and the world oriented toward reconstitution of public life on a basis that makes more sense. For Catholics, that basis would be Christianity, and getting that discussion started is what we should be thinking about today.
TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: pluralism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
1
posted on
05/07/2014 1:52:18 PM PDT
by
NYer
To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...
2
posted on
05/07/2014 1:52:39 PM PDT
by
NYer
("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
To: NYer
The purpose of Catholicism isn’t to occupy any particular kind of place in society, or to “have a voice,” or even to “survive.”
The purpose of Catholicism is to teach the faith, celebrate the Eucharist and other sacraments, and to unite people in love with God.
Sometimes, in carrying out her mission, the Church must die, and that means both institutionally and individually.
What does not do anybody any good is giving Communion to Nancy Pelosi. That’s just a mortal sin.
To: NYer
American Catholics have given up on the dream of a Catholic society. No they haven't, they still support the left and immigration.
4
posted on
05/07/2014 2:13:08 PM PDT
by
ansel12
((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
To: NYer
Treason. An American should aspire to a society faithful to the founders vision and to the Constitution. And be thankful that this is a society in which a Catholic can thrive and be free.
It’s quite different than aspiring to a Catholic society that scowls at pluralism and begrudgingly realizes that protestants must have a place.
Want a Catholic society? I give you Mexico and Italy.
5
posted on
05/07/2014 2:20:30 PM PDT
by
DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
To: DesertRhino; Mrs. Don-o
Want a Catholic society? I give you Mexico and Italy. Actually, the best example would be Malta ..
The Constitution of Malta declares Catholicism as the state religion although entrenched provisions for the freedom of religion are made. Freedom House and the CIA World Factbook report that 98% of the population is Catholic.
6
posted on
05/07/2014 2:45:38 PM PDT
by
NYer
("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
To: DesertRhino
You do know that Mexico and Italy are heavily identified secular-socialist states correct?
The Mexican persecution of Catholics was pretty severe, and the country has never recovered from it.
7
posted on
05/07/2014 2:53:24 PM PDT
by
Bayard
To: Bayard; DesertRhino
Just today our assistant pastor, Fr. Manuel Perez, told us a bit about his grandfather, who survived the Cristero War in Mexico. When he was a child, his grandfather took him to see the sites near his own home where priests and nuns were shot dead, where churches were dynamited, and where catechists had to hide their Bibles, prayer books and hymnals.
As long ago as the Revolution of Ayutla (1854), nearly all of the top figures in the government were fierce anticlericals. In 1917, a new Constitution was enacted, hostile to Church and religion, which promulgatedthe same kind of draconian anti-clericalism that characterized the French and Russian Revolutions. The 1917 Constitution
- outlawed teaching by the Church,
- gave control over Church matters to the state,
- put all Church property at the disposal of the state,
- outlawed religious orders,
- outlawed foreign born priests,
- gave states the power to limit or eliminate priests in their territory,
- deprived priests of the right to vote or hold office,
- prohibited Catholic organizations which advocated public policy,
- prohibited religious publications from commenting on public policy,
- prohibited clergy from religious celebrations and from wearing clerical garb outside of a church and
- deprived citizens of the right to a trial for violations of these provisions.
Many of the anti-Church provisions were not evenly enforced past the 1930's, but they were not eliminated from the Mexican constitution until 1992.
Mexican society and politics have been profoundly shaped by over a century and a half of government hostility toward the Catholic Church.
So: not a good example of a "Catholic society".
8
posted on
05/07/2014 3:13:44 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
("If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." - Jesus Christ - Matthew 19:17)
To: NYer
With few exceptions, American Catholics have given up on the dream of a Catholic society. Instead, they have come to aspire to a seat at the table: a respected position in public life that lets them bring their insights and values into public discussion within a pluralistic system. Right now I would settle for a Christian society. By that I mean one that doesn't go around killing based on the color of skin, particular faith (or no faith), Country of origin, or appearance. One that promotes equal opportunity at the beginning and doesn't demand equality of outcome at the end.
Yeah I know I am dreaming.
9
posted on
05/07/2014 3:29:50 PM PDT
by
verga
(When protestants post scripture I am reminded that even the devil can quote scripture.)
To: NYer
PLURALISM, THEOLOGICAL
The multiplicity of theological positions present within the Catholic Church. These positions vary according to which premises or postulates are used in reflecting on the sources of revelation, according to the methodology employed, and according to the cultural tradition within which theology does its speculation. On the first bases, the two principal philosophical premises are the Platonic, stressed in Augustinianaism; and the Aristotelian, emphasized in Thomism. On the second level, theologies differ in terms of their mainly biblical, or doctrinal, or historical, or pastoral methodology. And on the third basis, the culture of a people helps to shape the theology they develop, as between the more mystical East and the more practical West, or the more reflective Mediterranean and the more scientific Anglo-Saxon. The Church not only permits these diversities but encourages them, always assuming that theologians who are Catholic are also respectful of the rule of faith and obedient to the magisterium of the hierarchy under the Bishop of Rome.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
10
posted on
05/07/2014 4:28:02 PM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: NYer
PLURALISM, DOCTRINAL
The theory that a Catholic may legitimately hold a doctrinal position that is in contradiction to what the Church reaches, either as defined or by her ordinary universal magisterium. This would mean that contradictory doctrines in faith or morals could be professed by different persons, all equally in good standing in the Catholic Church. Doctrinal pluralism was condemned by the First Vatican Council, 1869-70 (Denzinger 3042, 3043).
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
11
posted on
05/07/2014 4:28:59 PM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: NYer
The basic problem is that pluralism cant possibly be pluralist. It proposes a particular form of society with a definite system of law and custom. That form of society bases its unique legitimacy on the claim that all other forms of society, including Catholic society, are at odds with freedom, justice, and the dignity of man, because they suppress and discriminate against reasonable opinions on ultimate issues. In good conscience those who are in charge of such a society must do everything they can to keep such views from affecting social life and thereby causing oppression. They do so by insisting that views such as Catholicism stop being social views and become strictly private opinions. So pluralism turns out to be as unitary and dedicated to suppressing alternatives as any other outlook. The difference is that it believes it can legitimately avoid having to argue for its own particularities by claiming it allows all views to flourish freely.Bravo! About time someone said this.
12
posted on
05/07/2014 4:59:49 PM PDT
by
Zionist Conspirator
(The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator
To: DesertRhino
Treason? LOL, talk about hyberbole.
trea·son ˈtrēzən/Submit noun the crime of betraying one's country.
Thinking that it would be nice if all your countrymen shared your faith hardly fits the bill.
"Want a Catholic society? I give you Mexico and Italy."
Want a Protestant society? I give you Scandanavia, England and Scotland. There is no such thing in the west anymore as a society defined by the religion of its members.
14
posted on
05/07/2014 6:36:02 PM PDT
by
Wyrd bið ful aræd
(Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
To: Mrs. Don-o
FYI, American Protestants, through the KKK, offered thousands of dollars to the socialist government of Mexico to fight the Cristeros.
15
posted on
05/07/2014 6:39:57 PM PDT
by
Wyrd bið ful aræd
(Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
I didn’t know that. Disturbing.
16
posted on
05/07/2014 6:48:07 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
("The accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.")
To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
Better yet, I know how American Catholics vote, and just like I said, they support the left and immigration.
17
posted on
05/07/2014 6:57:36 PM PDT
by
ansel12
((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
To: ansel12; Wyrd bið ful aræd
Better yet, I know how American Catholics vote, and just like I said, they support the left and immigration.You know how hispanics and younger males and especially females vote. Regardless of their religious affiliation.
You're boasting about demographics, not religious affiliation.
18
posted on
05/07/2014 7:32:26 PM PDT
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: D-fendr
I’m not boasting about anything, I merely know how Catholics vote, and always have voted.
19
posted on
05/07/2014 7:35:19 PM PDT
by
ansel12
((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
To: ansel12
And how do young black female protestants vote?
20
posted on
05/07/2014 7:57:09 PM PDT
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson