Catholic Sensibility

2. The central importance of science (though instead I might say rationalism to expand that a bit beyond what I would see as the natural sciences). George paints an historical picture that science is the means for solving the ills of the material world. Are such aspirations misplaced? Medical miracles in drugs, treatments, surgery save lives and prolong a productive and healthy existence for people. Plant scientists feed us. Weather satellites give us ample warning for disaster. On the other hand, people find personal fulfillment (one might say freedom) in automobiles, but at the cost of exhausting fossil fuels and committing hundreds of thousands of lives to death each year because of traffic accidents. But I wonder how much of American liberalism can really be found with roots still sticking in the gee whiz approach to science post WWII. Science was friend to some, but it also produced massive suffering in wars fought on unheard-of scales. I recall being nearly alone as a space buff in the late 60's. My Democrat relatives and many friends questioned the value of space exploration. Many were deeply troubled over Vietnam. And my sense of reading of the various liberal movements of the 60's was that people were rejecting science. at the very least they distrusted the use to which science was being put by the conservative establishment. "The bomb will save us!" That wasn't a quote from any liberal. If anything, I would argue that conservatives in America have been coopted by the Enlightenment. Libertarians would certainly nod in approval with George's first premise of Enlightenment. And the Science-as-Savior shtick was more what the culture sold Americans in the 50's than what was arising from the cultural revolution. The challenge for the church lay in distinguishing the erroneous aspects of modernity from those that were compatible with, and even developments of, the Christian faith. The challenge was compounded when major Enlightenment figures regarded the church’s doctrines and her hierarchy as the primary enemies of modern enlightenment. In some ways, they were and we are. Possibly the major Enlightenment figures didn't take a We-Are-The-Church approach to their religion. Later George asks, "Do these societal developments and the liberal economic and political institutions born of them provide models for the church’s internal life? Yes and no." I found the following to be the most appealing portion of his essay. Read carefully: As the teaching of the Second Vatican Council-particularly that of Lumen gentium-makes clear, the church is not merely a society. In the early modern era, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, arguing against a Protestant conception of the church as simply invisible with adventitious visible expression, created an ecclesiology of the visible church defined as a society. The church could be understood by looking at the Kingdom of France or the Republic of Venice. This reactive model is flawed to the extent it loses the relationships between the visible and invisible gifts that constitute the church. These relationships are the stuff of ecclesial communion. They are created among and for us when the gifts of Christ are shared. These gifts, beyond invisible grace itself, are the visible government of pastors in succession to the Twelve, the gospel as developed in the creeds and Catholic doctrine, and the seven sacraments which sanctify men and women through the action of the risen Christ. Through these gifts, Christ is always present as the Way (our shepherd or pastor), the Truth (our teacher), and the Life (our sanctifier). I doubt any sensible liberal would argue with this. I know I wouldn't. But the cardinal goes astray slightly: Because her relationship to her Lord is always one of dependence and her relationship to her apostolic foundation is normative, the church’s teaching and constitution cannot simply be apprehended and analyzed at will, using societal categories from any age. Church teaching cannot be analyzed at will, using "societal categories." But is this what liberals are doing? Perhaps some liberals. It doesn't seem terribly different than using the tenets of modern capitalism to stress economic teaching the Acton Institute finds helpful. But as a liberal, I wouldn't hold and have never held Church teaching to a secular standard. Church people, liberals and conservatives, use the Word of God, the sacraments, the Church's own teachings as a baseline, not whichever way the political or psychological winds are blowing. The primary criterion in judging any idea or form of church governance remains the church’s fidelity to her Lord. Yes. Instead of understanding Vatican II as a limited accommodation to modernity for the sake of evangelizing the modern world, the liberal project seems often to interpret the council as a mandate to change whatever in the church clashes with modern society. No. I understand Vatican II as an attempt at metanoia. Sure, we have a pragmatic approach, "These new Vatican II insights will get us more warm bodies in the pews and turn the atheist commie tide int he world." But I think the council has a less visible and more mystical aspect George glosses over, even as he alludes to it in his earlier text. And I think George misjudges the best of Catholic liberals, too. Personally, I don't give a damn about changing the Church to align with modern society. I much prefer change in order to align to the will of Christ.