Holte's corner

Catholicism and Progress

I know many fine Catholics. Some of whom I count as friends, even close friends and confidants. I know one Catholic monk personally, and through him have met other monks of an equally fine caliber. Still, I have reservations about Catholicism as an institution. The reason is that it is a deeply "conservative" religion that through-out it's history has resorted to overt or covert violence to get it's ends. From it's beginnings as one of the contending groups of Christians, to it's true formation at the hands of the Emperor Constantine, through the period of the "Barbarian Invasions" where it used divide and rule to undermine both Emperor and invader; through the middle ages when it burned heretics and women at the stake and brutally suppressed monks or others who took the teachings of Christianity too much to heart. Through the inquisition when it used the threat of Moslem insurgency as an excuse to repress and then "ethnically cleanse" Spain of Jews. Through the Reformation and the Counter-reformation when it used the methods refined in Spain on Protestants. And then there is the modern era... There are reasons to be wary of such a history.

Now I'd like to think that it has "changed." And indeed up until about 1980 I thought it might be on the way to radical change. Certainly when Kennedy was elected the face of Catholicism was one of "liberals" and "liberation." Liberation theology was so in vogue that it came to seem a threat to the Church. People found that liberation lead to apostasy or simply the desire to live a normal life. Prelates were jealous and afraid of monks who took the wishes of the people too seriously.

In America, there were even two churches for a time. The "liberal" even "radical" and "leftist" church of the "liberation theology" and the more staid, conservative, even right wing hierarchy. Still that orthodoxy wasn't orthodox enough for some people. Mel Gibson's father belongs to a break away group that thinks that the Church should still be using latin. But that era seems to be passing. The Vatican, patient and planning it's responses over the long term, seems to be getting control over the Church. And this worries me.

Like all institutions it has it's factions. And I've come to believe that factions represent a positive thing. A "dialectic" is one way to keep a thread of life going. As long as no one group has hegemony, that thread can keep a life of it's own. But there are reasons for concern over the radical conservativism of the Church. It seems to be driving changes that might not be in humanities best interest. Without the revival of faith that is represented by the "traditionalist" branch, the Church would become irrevelent and continue it's slide into obscurity. However, that very revival, coupled with the huge numbers of immigrants coming into this country from Catholic countries, represents a potential threat. Potential, but nothing to get paranoid about. Still it is good to be aware that sometimes the Church seems more to belong to a pagan "Janus" god of two faces than to the great ineffable and mysterious God that it is heir to.

The driving force behind this conservativism is the coupling of religious faith and political fear. Modernism, expecially Socialist Materialism traumatized the Church. It's institutions were once more threatened with confiscation, and the avatars of this kind of "materialist" religion (whether Communists or Catholics) despised religion as an anachronism. When Mussolini came along in Itally, he proved to be different from his predecessors. He was a brute, but a brute they could work with. His philosophy of "syndicates" and "National Socialism", as hitler later put it, sought to "nationalize the people running the " organizations of society. Social issues and nationalist issues could be used to mobilize the people in ways that Communism had never managed, and in ways that allowed the society to continue with it's old structures intact. This was the beginning of the "Modernist CounterReformation" which is ongoing. With time the "thread" of Fascism has mixed or been moderated by other threads. But during World War II and the struggle against Communism, there is no doubt that the Church backed fascists, such as the Military in Argentina and other Latin American countries. This broke to the surface when a passed over Colonel cited his pain and suffering in the service of the Nation, torturing people, and claimed that he had received absolution for his efforts by a priest sympathetic to his cause.

And the Catholic Church came to spearhead this movement. Pope John Paul II identified "Secular Humanism" as a threat to the Church ("The keys of This Blood" by Malachi Martin) years ago and has been building towards defeating the "threat" posed by this ideology ever since. To him for all the "pleasant sounding" words of the "secular humanists" they are a threat to his Church. And it seems that they have taken steps to combat this "menace" -- which doesn't even claim to threaten them since it's goal is to "transform" not destroy the existing institutions of the world. It is deeply disturbing that they see this as a threat. But Malachi Martin insists that he has the ear of the Pope on this. And time has born out that they are fighting this threat with all the tools at their disposal. Page 294:

"Nevertheless, it is not too much to ask in the sweet name of universal reason that all national, religious, and cultural groups modify their traits so that everyone-- every nation, every religion and every culture-- can be accommodated as a division or subdivision of the future one world community that is both the aim and the justification for these three groups." (referring also to the "new agers", and the "mega-Religionists").

"For such globalist community builders as these, there is no earthly use in perpetuating any element that has historically divided human society into distinct, seperate and sometimes warring parts, or that might do so in the future. Their chosen task is to hasten the day when we will be one in a materially comfortable world community, now abuilding, and to assist us all by teaching us how to become members of that global community of contentment."
(page 295)
And he sees this as a bad thing. Almost like these people were "Borg."

And the strongest tool at their disposal is the fact that many of these humanists are also Catholics. Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Kerry, many traditional libearal Democrats from Catholic majority districts, all tended to be liberal Democrats and humanists. Robert Kennedy opened the doors to Catholic acceptance. His brother has defended humanist causes for the past 40 years.

And now they are facing officially sponsored challenges. For instance being threatened with excommunication for being opposed to abortion. And finding themselves challenged by radical Catholics like Santorum. This is a classic campaign. And the founder of Opus Dei, the Nun who inspired Mel Gibson's anti-Jewish "The Passion", and other questionably saintly but often violently anti-communist and anti-humanistic have all been beatified by this Pontiff. The sister in the past week.

So, I would hope that the next leader of the Catholic church would actually be a "humanist" in the sense of someone who values humanity. Opposing humanism on the grounds that it's goal is the improvement of mankind's material and spiritual condition is "conter-reformation."

Posted by cholte at October 7, 2004 01:00 AM