Catholic Sensibility

One interesting movement I've noted in St Blog's is the recent request to move away from labels, especially the liberal/conservative variety. This site, Cosmos, Liturgy, Sex has had some fascinating discussions. David posted an essay yesterday on the topic to which I replied. Slightly expanded from their comment box, here are my thoughts on the issue. David writes, "Now I understand the desire to know where someone is coming from and the convenience of placing him or her into an intellectual box. However, it seems to me that the importation of the 'liberal' and 'conservative' classification schemes, by those trying to classify any particular Catholic, is problematic ..." and he gives four reasons: 1. What does the person actually mean by "liberal" or "conservative?" And I would ask what is meant by the related terms of tradi and prog. If I were to support the local election of bishops, like the Patristic Era did it, would that be tradi? Or because the Vatican embraced central selection officially in the 19th century, does that mean supporters of the Congregation of Bishops are prog? 2. " ... the classifications are overly simplistic and fail to take into account that many Catholics do not submit to particular, secular ideologies. Along these lines, a further problem is that it seems to me that once classified, there is a tendency by some to dismiss someone with whom they disagree without actually listening to what is said or engaging his arguments." I had a good friend and classmate who was very traditionalist in most of his sensibilities. But he was also an ardent pacifist. I liked him even before I discovered he was a pacifist. We had the most vigorous discussions over his dinner table. We disagreed on much, but we also shared a high regard for each other. I composed a setting for the Litany of Loreto, which he and his bride used at their wedding. I thought of Tom as friend and brother in Christ first, crunchy con somewhere down the list. So I guess my sense is that if you have to use labels, make them footmotes, not headlines. 3. " ... unfortunately, too often the term “liberal” is simply used as a euphemism by those who think that this ideology justifies their dissent from authoritative Church teaching." Or by those who want to criticize such persons. I found this the weakest of David's reasons. There is much controversy about what church teaching is authoritative and what is prudential. And dissent can take many forms: One can engage internally church teaching, pray about it, but still be unsatisfied. A person might choose to keep her or his doubts private. A person might figure church teaching on a particular item is just plain whacked. But it might not apply directly to her or his life so the issue has no relevance. Either of those people might mention their doubts to members of their social circle or even their parish priest, but go no further. Does that qualify as dissent? That was Thomas More's approach: withdraw from public life. His friends knew his view on Henry's divorce and obviously, so did Henry. Henry pushed, but almost always, the Catholic doubter doesn't get pushed. Either of those people might go public. Mention their view either as their alternative to church teaching or teach it as superior. Or they accept an invitation to an ordination cruise or something like that. Long-winded, I know, but bear with me. My question: at what point does dissent become dissent? 4. " ... it exacerbates the problem that both conservatives and liberals can unthinkingly presume that their _________ (political, economic, fill in the blank) philosophy is foundational and that the Church must some how fit into it." My reply on Cosmos, Liturgy, Sex in part, included: "The real challenge is not to eliminate name-calling (or box-putting, or whatever) but to induce working together. In my experience, I've worked wonderfully well with many Catholics of traditional sensibility. My question is more pragmatic: Will you lead music at a Mass with me? Will you join or even chair a committee in my parish for me? Would you write a book on good liturgy with me?" In other words, can Catholics of differing sensibilities demonstrate a practical unity of belief in concrete ways? You can set aside the petty name-calling if you wish, but unless you're also willing to give up exclusivity and the bad fruits that come of it, I don't see the Christian ideal realized.