Why liberal Catholics think authority is "repressive"

The short answer is that they think "authority" means power. It does not. In the current postmodern milieu, these stepchildren of the masters of suspicion (Marx, Freud, Nietzsche)--particularly Nietzsche--think of authority as something reducible to power. Thus, when the academic tradition speaks of canonical writers and essential core requirements for cultural literacy within the liberal arts tradition, these liberals know (they think) in their heart-of-hearts that beneath it all, that all this talk about knowledge is reducible to power. Likewise, when the Church speaks of canonical scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and magisterial authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, these liberals know (they think) in their heart-of-hearts that religion, along with everything else, is ultimately reducible to power. Or so they think.

In a May. 15, 2005 article entitled "Faith isn't threatened by questions" in The Charlotte Observer, MARY C. CURTIS says she consideres her Jesuit university education a blessing. She writes:

That's why I was saddened to hear that the Rev. Thomas Reese, an American Jesuit, has resigned as editor of the Catholic magazine America. According to the National Catholic Reporter and Catholic officials, Reese was forced out--for encouraging thinking.

In the seven years under the leadership of this respected political scientist, America has published articles representing different points of view on issues such as stem-cell research and the church's relationship with Islam.

The Rev. Richard McBrien, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame, told Newsday that Reese "has been very careful to be even-handed, fair-minded and restrained in any comments he's ever made."

Thus the Vatican comes out looking villainous and repressive, an enemy of "thinking," as well as "even-handedness," "fair-mindedness," and "restraint" in discussions about current scientific research. But Ms. Curtis isn't through: "As Reese wrote in an editorial," she writes: "'A church that cannot openly discuss issues is a church retreating into an intellectual ghetto.'" The election of Pope Benedict was clearly a blow to "open discussion" and free thinking, according to Ms. Curtis. But she remains hopeful, despite these threatening clouds, she says, "that the Church is strong enough, resilient enough to withstand anything--even thinking."

Such sentiments as these are quite common, sad to say; but they are really worth examining? Why does Ms. Curtis see the Church as opposed to open discussion and free thinking? Because she makes distinctions between ideas and practices that accord with the Christian Faith and those that don't. In other words, she claims to have the authority to do that. But "authority," we remember, means power to liberals like Ms. Curtis. So the only thing the exercize of such authority can mean for them is the arbitrary weilding of power.

In a related article, entitled "Stifling Catholic debate? Critics say Tom Reese's departure an ominous sign," in the May 14, 2005 issue of The Charlotte Observer, KEVIN ECKSTROM writes that Reese, by most accounts, "was ousted as editor of America magazine because some U.S. bishops and Vatican officials had grown impatient with his policy of allowing open debate on controversial topics." There again we have it: the Church stifling "open debate." What can this mean? Like Ms. Curtis, Eckstrom turns for support to that champion of self-congratulatory Catholic liberalism, the National (Anti-)Catholic Reporter:

"Is Rome's definition of faith simply a matter of absolute assent to every utterance that comes out of Rome and we're all supposed to obey and not question?" asked Tom Roberts, editor of National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper with liberal leanings.

Um ... yeah, though that's putting it mildly. During the final days of Pope John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI, says Eckstrom, Reese was a sought-after commentator on the unfolding events in Rome: "He was respected for providing a candid assessment of both men while never betraying his loyalties to the church."

I wonder, what does "never betraying one's loyalties to the church" mean to a liberal in this context? It clearly cannot mean supporting orthodoxy and orthopraxy in matters of faith and doctrine, since that was the reason for Reese's dismissal. It cannot mean "obedience" or "submission"--words apt to induce apoplexy in a liberal. NCR editor Roberts could speak only of a "Chilling effect." According to Eckstrom, Reese's "grievous sin" was only that he "devoted too much time and ink to the three D's--debate, dialogue and discussion--that some interpret as a threat to church teaching." He continues, "Reese opened the magazine to all sides of an issue, giving equal space to each." Overall, he adds, "the magazine enjoyed a solid reputation for balance." So the Church is allegedly opposed to giving "equal space" to "all sides of an issue," opposed to America magazine's "solid reputation for balance."

Why must the Church seem opposed to "thinking," "open debate," "balance," and "giving equal space to all sides of an issue"? Eckstrom provides some clues. He writes:

The editorials sometimes leaned left of center, and Reese sometimes expressed dismay at the Vatican's move toward centralized authority.... But according to the National Catholic Reporter and other media outlets citing unnamed sources, church leaders (including the pope himself) were angered by articles on gay priests, contraception and politicians who supported abortion rights.

Once again, why must the Church seem opposed to "open debate," "balance," and "free thinking"? Simple: because Church teaching condemns what is opposed to its teaching--including homosexuality, contraception, abortion, as well as the dissent and confusion promoted by the liberal editorial bias of Reese in a publication ostensibly representing a religious order of the Church. Since the Church stands for something (orthodoxy and orthopraxy), it can't help opposing something (whatever is opposed to orthodoxy and orthopraxy).

Would it make sense for Orthodox Judaism to promote Buddhism? Would it make sense for the Unitarian Universalist Association to promite belief in the divinity of Christ? Would it make sense for the Japanese Shinto religion to promote the Muslim belief in the Prophet Mohammed? Of course not. Neither does it make sense to expect the Catholic Church to promote views inimical to her own traditional doctrines. Granted, what self-styled liberal Catholics want is to promote a revisionist re-interpretation of what "Catholicism" means. But of course they should hardly be surprised, then, when the Church resists their efforts to denature her teaching.

What is "authority," according to liberal dissenters? Nothing but the raw exercise of arbitrary power. In other words, they don't really believe the Church has anything like divine authority at all. This is why this idea (heavenly authority) is translated into that (power), which is something earthly, human, and mundane. But what is the Church's authority, really? To quote Peter Kreeft, it is nothing more than "author's rights." The author of a book has rights to it. The Author of the Church has rights to it, just as the Author of the Church's Gospel has rights to what it means. Likewise, those to whom He has delegated authority in the Church have the His rights as Author to declare what is and what is not in accord with the Author's intended teachings and purposes. That is what lies behind Apostolic Succession. That is the meaning of the Church's authority. It is that authority (author's rights), which provides the sticking point that sticks in the liberal craw; because what it means is that The Faith can't simply be twisted, like a wax nose, in any arbitrary direction that prevailing whim would desire.

Is this authority repressive? Hardly. Instead, it provides a standard by which to measure, an ideal to which to aspire, a foundation for undersanding. "I believe in order that I may understand" (credo ut intelligam), said St. Augustine. This provides a ground for humility--a humility, as G.K. Chesterton said, which is a "spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on." Catholicism founded all the earliest universities in the West. Catholicism promoted much of the research that launched the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution (see my post of July 30, 2004: The Church and the birth of modern science). In this country Catholicism is responsible for hundreds of colleges and universities, including major research universities like Notre Dame and the Catholic University of America. It's a red herring to suggest that Catholicism stifles debate and free inquiry. It merely insists (by Author's rights) on Catholicism being Catholic.