Posted on 06/03/2003 3:22:08 PM PDT by Akron Al
www.RemnantNewspaper.com
Ambition and Lust:
Michael Novak and the Fall of Catholic Theology
John Galvin
REMNANT COLUMNIST
Editor’s Introduction: We’re very pleased to announce that The Remnant has been blessed with the talents and dedication of yet another capable traditional Catholic writer. Mr. John Galvin, a graduate of Yale University, is an ordinary businessman who has committed himself to the defense of Catholic tradition and to raising his 11 (soon to be 12) children in the faith. Welcome aboard, Mr. Galvin! MJM
The release of the encyclical Humanae Vitae is universally recognized as a monumental event in the history of the Church. Fr. Bernard Haring, for example, claimed, "No papal teaching document has ever caused such an earthquake in the Church as the encyclical Humanae Vitae." But one wonders, "How could so much controversy be generated by such a moderate document?" After all, the encyclical hardly took a "reactionary" approach to the issue. A careful reading of the text leads to the conclusion that Pope Paul VI took the most liberal position that could possibly be considered in conformity with past teaching. So if the magisterium were merely repeating a teaching that were set forth hundreds of times in the past, and if it were presenting that teaching in the most contemporary terms possible, then how could such an event cause widespread scandal among Catholic theologians?
Perhaps an examination of what was said by contemporary commentators will help us to get inside their minds and see what they were thinking when they expressed so much outrage at the fact that Pope Paul VI restated a perennial Catholic teaching. We can start with Michael Novak, someone who has been commenting on Catholic issues for many decades. This year (2003) he has been in the news for his role as ambassador from the American neo-conservative establishment to the Vatican, sent to convince the pope to support the war in Iraq. (By "American neo-conservative establishment," I do not mean the US government; he was acting unofficially.) In recent years he has been best known as a "conservative" apologist for the harmony between capitalism and Catholic teaching. But back in the sixties he was considered a bit of a liberal.
In reaction to the release of the encyclical, Novak wrote an essay called, "Frequent, Even Daily, Communion." By "communion," however, he did not mean the body and blood of Christ. He was referring to sexual intercourse. The title was indicative of the new approach to Catholic theology that he represented: hip, not square. A traditional phrase like "frequent, even daily, communion" can be updated to refer to the new sacrament: sex. In his short essay he has quite a bit to say about sex. He claims that, "frequent intercourse is a moral imperative." His echo of Kant's "categorical imperative" indicates that he's recommending sexual intercourse as the new "universal law."
He is seeking "pure spontaneity without technique," an experience "like innocent childhood." But since "human art is called upon to enhance nature," the need for artificial contraception arises. He says that for couples, contraception "allows them to play, with spontaneity, in an act of love that is an end in itself." The very concept of a purpose for sex is rejected. Going even further with his inversion of the Catholic order, he says that "contraceptive lovemaking teaches gentleness, alertness, responsiveness, patience, humor. It operates as a measure and criterion of full and perfect love." In Novak's view, artificial contraception goes beyond mere utility and becomes the very measure of love. All that talk in the Bible about "love" was really all about contraceptive sex, we find out in 1968. Pity the poor unfortunates who lived too soon for the "pill" and were never allowed to enjoy "full and perfect love."
Need we interject at this point that a greater travesty of Christian belief can hardly be imagined? Perhaps Novak was young, innocent, and ignorant of Catholic teaching? No, in 1968 Novak was already 35 years old and had a degree from a US Catholic college followed by a theology degree from the Gregorian in Rome, followed by further theology study at Catholic University and Harvard. Even today he is still sometimes referred to as "theologian Michael Novak." And yet at least at the time of his essay, one can more easily imagine him as the Arch-Community-Songster at the "orgy-porgy" in Huxley's Brave New World than as a Catholic theologian.
In the essay Novak recognizes that as a Catholic theologian he is living in an Alice-in-Wonderland world. He states, "What the Pope proposes [in HV] as moral seems to many of us immoral; and what he calls immoral seems to us more moral by far than his own views." In fact the lack of common understanding goes even deeper, as Novak describes:
I find that view so alien and strange that I must work very hard to overcome the sensitivities and inclinations of intelligence developed over many years, in order to feel my way into their position. I can look at the world through their eyes only by the most strenuous effort of which I am capable.
How could this situation have arisen, that a young man raised in a Catholic environment and given the very best Catholic education from universities across the globe should have ended up with beliefs so diametrically opposed to those of the Church? Novak himself wonders the same thing, although he phrases the question differently. He wonders how the Church could have possibly ended up with beliefs so different from his. He begins his essay,
How is it that Pope Paul VI and the writers of Humanae Vitae showed themselves incapable of understanding marital love?... Do they ever wonder why what seems obvious and good to them does not seem either obvious or good to others? How can there be such a large gap of misunderstanding between brothers?
Michael Novak and the pope, brothers, with the pope incapable of understanding the wisdom of his brother—that's how Novak sees the world. (Ironically, that's how he still sees the world, although today he wants to make war, not love.) He rejects the assumption that either group—either himself or the magisterium—has "a privileged access to 'objective truth.'" Likewise he rejects what he calls "an ultimate relativism" by which they could both be right; no, it's obvious the pope is wrong.
One tends to read essays like "Frequent, Even Daily, Communion" with one part of one's brain, while thinking about the Catholic faith with another. For this reason the gross disparities and contradictions sometimes go unnoticed. We can compare it to the Catholic who goes to Mass on Sunday after having attended an R-rated movie on Saturday night. Two entirely different parts of the psyche are involved in the two activities. But let's try to bring these two things together momentarily in order to highlight the disparity. We have a good basis for doing so, since Michael Novak claims to be writing Catholic theology.
As we read through the essay, is there any reference to St. Augustine? Or to St. Thomas Aquinas? By no means could we hope for a reference to St. Ignatius, despite the fact that the author received a degree from the university the great saint founded in Rome. Since the topic of debate is a moral issue, what about a great moral theologian like St. Alphonsus Ligouri? What about any of the 261 popes prior to Pope Paul VI (who himself is mentioned only to be deplored)? We might be a bit surprised that even John XXIII fails to make an appearance. Perhaps Scripture then? Is there even one verse of the Bible quoted in the article? Even televangelists have some faith in "Sweet Jay-zus." Does Novak make even one mention of our Lord? Let's go a little further: Is there anything in the article that bears any connection to Catholicism by any link no matter how tenuous?
The answer to all the above questions is "No." Not a hint, not a trace of Catholicism remains, except perhaps for a lingering antagonism towards the authority of the Vatican. For a man with degrees from 3 Catholic universities, one would expect to find some use of Catholic language at least. Even had he converted to Islam at this point, one would expect to discover traces of his Catholic education in the vocabulary that he chooses. But no, his conversion to the ethos of sexual gratification is even more thorough than that. I find only one use of a word with a Christian connotation, "Providence," and he mentions it in order to denigrate the concept, "To depend upon Providence in matters that depend upon ourselves is not at all praiseworthy."
If Novak intends to write Catholic theology without using any words with Catholic content, then what fills the pages of his essay? Here are a few samples of his post-conciliar theology:
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>"My main responsibility is for myself."
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>"I imagine nature to be a four-dimensional continuum."
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>"Why cannot human art enhance [a woman's] infertility as well as her fertility?"
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>"There is no special reason to believe that each act of intercourse was ever intended by the Creator to be directed toward procreation. Such a view seems to be a mere prejudice... It is now a scientifically discredited prejudice, and a cruel and destructive one in practice."
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>"Women are entitled to all the possibilities of humanistic development formerly open only to men."
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>"The juices and movements of the human body have their own rhythms; why should they not be followed by drawing them into a whole human context of sharing and joy. It is good to eat and drink. It is good to make love. Why not eat, drink, and make love daily?"
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>"Apart from those two or three or four or five times in their life when having intercourse is to result in having children, intercourse is their joy, sustenance, and precious instructor in understanding and love."
Such was the thinking of a relatively prominent lay Catholic theologian in 1968. He readily admits that his viewpoint shares absolutely nothing in common with Catholic thought. Our purpose here is not to engage in Michael Novak bashing. But he was a representative of the mainstream of Catholic thought at that time.
Like most neo-conservatives, Novak has never needed a weatherman to tell which way the wind was blowing. In the late fifties and during Vatican II he was in Rome for the peak of Catholic prominence and influence. In the early sixties he was at Harvard and Stanford, but by the late sixties he had moved to an "experimental college." In the seventies he was at the Rockefeller Foundation, then he became an advisor to the Carter administration. But with the coming of the Reagan Revolution, he moved over to the right. When the sixties generation cut their hair and moved into the economic mainstream, Novak became a leading exponent of capitalism.
His Templeton Prize address in 1994 never uses the word “Christian” or states whether he has any personal faith. In fact it never uses the word "Christ," only mentions "Jesus" once, and then only in a Straussian context, "We must learn again how to teach the virtues of the noble Greeks and Romans, the commandments God entrusted to the Hebrews, and the virtues that Jesus introduced into the world-even into secular consciences—such as gentleness, kindness, compassion, and the equality of all in our Father's love." This represents Novak's work for "Progress in Religion." Today from his position at the American Enterprise Institute he was an influential proponent of the war in Iraq.
We can see from this history that Michael Novak has never strayed far from the center of elite opinion. Administrations—whether civil or ecclesiastical—come and go, but people like Michael Novak always find a way to stay on top. We can be certain that if "theologian" Michael Novak believed in 1968 that "frequent intercourse is a moral imperative," then this was the party line among elite Catholic thought at that time. There must have been many others who were equally obsessed with the daily rhythms of their “juices.” The current scandal in which a large percentage of cases go back to that era bears this out.
So here we have an answer to the question we posed at the outset of this article, "How could a simple restating of Catholic teaching such as Humanae Vitae (in the most liberal possible presentation) generate so much fury among Catholic theologians?" The answer is, "These theologians had already ceased to be Catholic." Yet even after we have answered our question, a larger question remains. “If it is true that in 1968 Catholic theologians already had entirely ceased to be Catholic, then how did we arrive at such an impasse? When and how did they cease to be Catholics?”
This is a bigger and more difficult question to answer. We can pinpoint the when if we specify that in 1962 there was documented unanimity among all Catholic moral theologians on the topic of birth control, in favor of the traditional teaching of the Church. By 1968 we can see that there was again virtual unanimity, but on the other side. Fr. Bernard Haring, often described as “the leading moral theologian in the Church,” could say in 1968, “What is needed now is for all men in the Church to speak out unequivocally and openly against these reactionary forces [of Pope Paul VI].”
Did any major historical events occur in the Church between 1962 and 1968? Of course there was Vatican II. It was the biggest event to hit the Church in over 400 years. But we are told over and over again that Vatican II initiated a new springtime of the faith. On this subject both conservatives and liberals (but not traditionalists) agree: “There can be no possible causal relationship between the collapse of Catholic theology into moral decadence and intellectual incoherence and the ecumenical council that was taking place during the exact same years.” To think otherwise is to fall into the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, they claim. Perhaps diligent historical research will turn up another cataclysmic event that occurred between 1962 - 1966.
As to how this came about, that is too large a topic to cover in this article. But perhaps we can suggest some ideas if we look at what Michael Novak wrote for Commonweal magazine at a time during Vatican II when he was in Rome and publishing widely about the council. Five years before he wrote his essay “Frequent, Even Daily, Communion,” Novak had not yet abandoned the use of Catholic words and concepts, but by the end of the first session of Vatican II he had already abandoned Catholic philosophy, as he makes clear in this excerpt:
The “eternal truths” of which Pope John speaks are not the sort that are written as definitions “beyond the firmament.” They are, rather the sort of verity William Faulkner spoke of in his memorable acceptance speech on receiving the Nobel Prize: founded not in definitions but in that physical and emotional and only partly rational organism, man in history. Ambition and lust, love and sacrifice, pride and passion recur because man cannot escape his origin, limitations, or history. It is in this sense only that there is a “natural law,” progressively made clear in history, never quite complete, always affected by the continuing dialogue between God and his people down the generations.
Thus the use of the words “absolute,” “unchanging,” “eternal” must be taken in a limited, special sense... Pope John succeeded in returning the church to this ancient perspective. Against the advice of the “prophets of doom,” he returned Catholicism to the world. He cast the church free from the island of Latin Scholasticism on which she has for some centuries been marooned, and launched her once more on the currents of human history.
In 1963 Michael Novak was rejoicing over the fall of Latin Scholasticism. (Was there a statue of St. Thomas Aquinas to be pulled down?) By 1968 he was promoting a sixties lifestyle with "intercourse every day, or even more often." There is a direct line from one to the other, and Novak connects the dots for us.
Bump.
Novak has repudiated his former opposition to contraception.
IOW, Galvin, in his very first article in this marginally-Catholic publication, rants against a straw man.
I was not yet born, so I find this review of the thinking at that time quite interesting.
Do you not think it odd that Galvin mentions Novak's current stance in favor of the Iraq war, but doesn't mention that Novak no longer believes that contraception is moral?
Of course, dropping that little nugget would have taken all the air out of his rant of Novak's forty-year-old views.
I find this statement interesting. I would think that the pill was seen as something more "legitimate" by a number of influential Catholics, i.e. Cardinal Suenens. Wasn't it the availability of the pill as a contraceptive that drove some of this acceptance of birth control? When was the pill available publically, about the time of Vatican II?
Generally we tend to agree about a lot of points regarding Humanae Vitae, but in this case it seems like you're missing the point. The author is writing about 1968 and the reaction to Humanae Vitae. Whether Novak changed his mind later is irrelevant. It's like saying that Timothy Leary later decided that drugs were not good for you. It doesn't change his status as a spokesman for the revolution of the time.
Besides, did Novak ever change his mind in time for it to make a difference in his own life? The article says that he was 35 in 1968, so it seems unlikely that his "conversion" ever required any moral gumption on his part.
Otherwise it just seems like a desperate excuse to take a potshot at a Catholic neocon.
If Novak has changd his mindin an orthodox way - and he has - I would think it more profitable to spend time rejoicing over it than to pillory his previous position.
This article is a rehash of old events that are no longer relevant.
Thank God Novak saw the light, finally. Just like a whole lot of us did.
The writer also states that in 1962 and 1968 there was unanimity among all Catholic moral theologians on the topic of birth control. I think this needs to be backed up, because it quite a claim.
Novak also wrote a magnificent book "Will It Liberate?" attacking "liberation theology" which must have gotten Raimondo's undies in a twist and Galvin's, as well. At least, with 11 kids going on 12, John Galvin is an aggressive practitioner of Catholic marriage and fatherhood.
I agree. In "What Went Wrong With Vatican II?" Ralph McInerney explores the same period. HV was the watershed moment in American Catholic history. According to McInerney, it was the time when the liberal theologians, who had already been counseling couples with the idea that contraception was acceptable by the Church because of RUMORS that use of the pill would be accepted. Rather than admit their error and retract these pronouncements, they took a stand opposing the Holy Father, and liberal theologians contested with the Pope in a real battle for AUTHORITY in the Church. They refused not only to stop teaching that contraception was acceptable, but refused to teach that contraception was sinful, and claimed that their stand has as much validity as did that of the Holy Father.
This is an excellent insight. Thanks for your moving testimony, which we all could do well to learn from. I often have the same feeling as you, "Is my remorse really sincere and substantive, or am I just having my cake after having eaten it too?"
Ditto, to my everlasting shame.
Beautiful posts from both of you, thanks.
The "word" had been being spread for years under Pius XII, (and even earlier). Pius XI didn't write Casti Conubii for nothing.
I find it ironic that a a publication of the SSPX would find fault with someone's objections to papal prouncements.
I'm trying to parse this sentence, but having a little difficulty. First of all, if you mean The Remnant, they are not an SSPX publication. The SSPX version of The Remnant is called The Angelus. The Remnant appeals to traditional Catholics of all sorts, no matter where they go to Mass.
I would think The Remnant, and the SSPX for that matter, would "find fault" with anyone who objects to the Catholic faith while calling himself a Catholic theologian. Until 1962 one could be reasonably confident that "papal pronouncements" and the Catholic faith were one and the same thing. Since that time you have to be much more careful. But I can't imagine why you're surprised that The Remnant would not support Novak's promotion of libertinism in place of traditional Catholic teaching on sex and marriage.
No, The Remnant does not appeal to traditional Catholics of ALL sorts, especially not to those who reject the antipapal, anti novus ordo screeds The Remnant publishes. The Remnant appeals to those who have bought into propaganda of proto-Protestant groups such as the SSPX.
But I can't imagine why you're surprised that The Remnant would not support Novak's promotion of libertinism in place of traditional Catholic teaching on sex and marriage.
I'm not surprised by anything the Remnant prints. I just think it amusing to go back 35 years to criticize someone's thinking, the exact kind of thinking the publishers of the Remnant indulge in, namely that it is perfectly acceptable to oppose the teachings of the church based on one's own conscience. Yes, I know you will want to split hairs by anchoring yourself to your interpretation of Tradition, but rejection of Church Authority by any other name is rejection of Church Authority.
Wowee. How so? There seem to be a number of very reputable writers, including Catholic ones, who are featured there. How is it that Mr. Raimando is an enemy of Western Civilization?
For some people, 35 years ago is ancient history. For those with a grasp of 2000 years of Catholic tradition, on the other hand, 35 years is just a brief moment of time. I suppose you also object to historians digging up ancient history like the Vietnam war, JFK's assassination, etc. People with the attention span of a mayfly also believe that World War II is dead and buried, let's leave it that way. As far as the protestant reformation, let's just leave that kind of pre-historic stuff to their contemporaries, the Egyptians and the Romans.
Yes, if Mr. Novak has disavowed that viewpoint and repented for publicizing them 35 years ago, it is ancient history. As was your belief in Santa Claus 35 years ago. Anyway, I'll concede your point though. Here's the same sentence without the reference to the nonancient, perfectly relevant history.
I just think it amusing to criticize someone's thinking, the exact kind of thinking the publishers of the Remnant indulge in, namely that it is perfectly acceptable to oppose the teachings of the church based on one's own conscience. Now, is it a more agreeable sentence?
But wait a second. In the post I was responding to you already precluded me from answering you:
Yes, I know you will want to split hairs by anchoring yourself to your interpretation of Tradition,
So it makes it difficult for me to say that I don't know of any teachings of the Church that are opposed by The Remnant, when you've already said that it's my private interpretation.
Novak happens to be right about the war on Iraq, and the Vatican, again, rode the wrong horse in the race to beat back an Arab dictator.
I'm surprised at your defense of Justine Raimondo, an America-hating jerkweed of the highest order. How can one not rejoice that the killing fields and wood-chippers of the Baathists have been silenced?
Had we listened to the girly-man and John Paul II, Hussein would still be burying Shiites.
If you read his website, and think his propaganda is consistent with the interests of Western Civilization, we will have to part ways on this one.
I recommend that anyone interested in this controversy read Justin's claptrap at antiwar.com or that of the other ostriches and worse whom he publishes and decide for themselves. Isolationism and hatred of the military purposes of our country died a very justifiable death at Pearl Harbor and have been further buried by subsequent history.
The late (and admittedly socialist) United States Senator Henry Jackson once said: I take second place to no man in calling myself a liberal but that does not mean that I have to be a damned fool. Neo-isolationists are already clearly on the liberal, antiwar, antimilitary side of foreign policy, but they would do well to heed the rest of Henry Jackson's quote.
Who do you deem to be reputable writers on such a site as antiwar.com? Why? What earthly connection do any of them have to conservatism? See if you can get access to Justine's two-part pretension of a review of the Justine foreign policy in 20002 entitled: "Come Home America" the title of which is a direct ripoff of McGovern's acceptance speech in 1972 declaring McGovern's desire for "crawling on my knees to Hanoi if it meant that peace could be achieved."
Catholic priests are beheaded in the Sudan by radical Muslims. Catholic converts from Islam are literally crucified in the Sudan for converting. Many priests and faithful were martyred in Vietnam by the barbarian regime of Ho Chi Minh and his successors. The Church is suppressed in many areas of the world such as Red China in favor of the so-called Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church, a bunch of stooges for the communist regime there. Those are a few of many issues relevant to Catholics that are not very well addressed by sticking America's head in the sand and ignoring the enemies of our civilization.
Raimondo wants a defanged America taken off the table to allow the free reign of the monsters abroad. Reputable Catholic writers ought not to consort with foreign policy pantywaists like Justin. Nor ought they consort with those, like Justin, who turn a blind eye to the Marxist-Leninist roots of the Palestinian lunatics who are blowing themselves up to blow others up in pizza parlors, at weddings, on busses, etc.
I don't know how old you are but, if you are old enough to remember the street rabble and enemies of our country who were the Americong supporters of Ho Chi Minh in our streets and consigned the people of Vietnam to slavery and the word "peace" as used by the likes of Raimondo does not taste like gall, then what have we to say to one another in a new era of crisis wherein the "peace movement" with which you apparently align yourself is being led by the same old, same old such as Ramsey Clark, International ANSWER and the fiftrh column on the so-called right is led by a homosexual pseudo-libertarian who writes for Pravda in his spare time?
I will post more after I have (strictly out of genuine respect for your Catholicism, however misguided your foreign policy) voluntarily turned my stomach by taking an for an up-to-date look at Justine's website.
Pat Buchanan. Robert Novak. Charley Reese. Murray Rothbard. Joseph Stromberg. George Szamuely. Jude Wanniski.
And also anti-war, but not on the site: Joe Sobran.
What I like the best about Justin Raimundo is the way he exposes the Marxist-Leninist roots of various "lunatics." Unfortunately, they're on your side of the fence and right here in America.
1. A healthy skepticism about the pronouncements of the federal government. What's more, antiwar.com posts many articles by foreign journalists, particlarly British ones, that still maintain an adversarial approach to reporting the news made by politicians and bureaucracies.
2.An opposition to elective war seems to me to fit into conservativism. Conserving life, particularly innocent life, seems to be consistent with conservative principles, and lifelessness makes any other conservative value...uh...moot.
3. Historically, it has been liberals that have launched the U.S. into world wars and losing efforts with interventionist deployments. Conservatism has embraced containment and noninterventionism ( not isolationism!).
When I receive my copy of the Wanderer, Sobran is always the first column I read. He can articulate perfectly what I have been thinking.
Also Steve Chapman and Georgie Ann Geyer are featured.
On Earth, protestants hungered for the Bible. Protestants hungered for reform. Protestants use their own private interpretation of scripture; the SSPX uses it's own private interpretation of tradition. I don't make the comparison haphazardly, and the longer the SSPX stays excommunicated, the closer they will become to yet another full fledged Protestant denomination.
There are no novelties contrary to Tradition.
By it's very definition, you can't interpret Tradition. You can only follow it and practice it.
Did you really mean to say this? The ordination of women priests would be a novelty. Are you saying that would not be contrary to Tradition?
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.