Conservative Monopoly of Orthodoxy

[trickster]

Hey all, nice to be back…haven’t had a computer in a long time so i managed to stay out of trouble in Catholic Answers

It occurred to me that those of us who believe in the core teachings of the church can and should be described as “orthodox”…or those who are neither progressive or conservative simply Catholic.

How come then do we have an image of those who are truly orthodox are also conservative? Like where did that image develop in the popular mindset…

Could it be possible that liberal or progressive expressions of the core teachings of the church and/or a progressive methodology of teaching the catechism can also be described as orthodox. If I do not want to genuflect but rather raise my hands in the Coast Salish gesture of honour, respect, reverence, how would that make me “non-orthodox”?

Are traditional catholics somehow more catholic than those of us who try to find and apply culturally diverse expressions to honour the core teachings and liturgy of the church…

Bruce
Trickster

 

[YoungTradCath]

For starters, you are using doctrinal terms (orthodoxy) to describe practices, like kneeling. Kneeling is not inherently orthodox. We might say it is conservative, but it is not orthodox. Likewise, doing whatever it is you were saying is not orthodox either. Neither of these things are orthodox or heterodox, at least not inherently. They can be used to further one’s own orthodoxy and reverence, and they can be used as a political tool (“Look at me, I refuse to ___ at Mass, 'cuz we’re ‘grown-ups’ and we can do anything we want, instead I’m going to jump rope and play flute, 'cuz Jesus loves me anyway, and PS, National Catholic Reporter is AMAZING, and women should be priests, and we should use pizza instead of hosts for Mass 'cuz pizza tastes better…”, etc.) to further heterodoxy, but they are not inherently orthodox or heterodox.

Of course my example is a caricature, I hope, but you see what I’m saying.

I would say that orthodoxy is also, in response to what it is, conservative. Regardless of one’s culture, “conservatism” typically marks orthodox Catholic faith. We see this in the Latin Church, we see it in the Eastern Churches. Cultural and liturgical conservatism, within limits, typically does characterize orthodoxy.

 

[McCall1981]

For starters, you are using doctrinal terms (orthodoxy) to describe practices, like kneeling. Kneeling is not inherently orthodox. We might say it is conservative, but it is not orthodox. Likewise, doing whatever it is you were saying is not orthodox either. Neither of these things are orthodox or heterodox, at least not inherently. They can be used to further one’s own orthodoxy and reverence, and they can be used as a political tool (“Look at me, I refuse to ___ at Mass, 'cuz we’re ‘grown-ups’ and we can do anything we want, instead I’m going to jump rope and play flute, 'cuz Jesus loves me anyway, and PS, National Catholic Reporter is AMAZING, and women should be priests, and we should use pizza instead of hosts for Mass 'cuz pizza tastes better…”, etc.) to further heterodoxy, but they are not inherently orthodox or heterodox.

Of course my example is a caricature, I hope, but you see what I’m saying.

I would say that orthodoxy is also, in response to what it is, conservative. Regardless of one’s culture, “conservatism” typically marks orthodox Catholic faith. We see this in the Latin Church, we see it in the Eastern Churches. Cultural and liturgical conservatism, within limits, typically does characterize orthodoxy.

I agree that conservative generally implies orthodox, or at least being conscious of what is orthodox and putting value on it. One certainly can be progressive(litugically speaking) and also orthodox, but progressiveness by its nature is questioning or new or different or however you want to put it so its not as necessarily aligned with orthodoxy.

 

[Rete]

I agree that conservative generally implies orthodox, or at least being conscious of what is orthodox and putting value on it.

What do you mean by that, though? I find myself moving more towards traditional orthodox values and practices now, and I am not a conservative. I am not a liberal or progressive either. I guess the closest label would be distributist. Was G. K. Chesterton a conservative?

In fact, I find it difficult to understand how one can be orthodox and remain fully either conservative or progressive. Am I incorrect in this opinion?

I suppose if you mean by conservative the adherence to the entirety of Catholic teachings, morals, and values, then I would be conservative, but I thought that makes me orthodox.

I sometimes wonder if we would be better off dropping the terms conservative and progressive/liberal in this context, and instead use the terms orthodox and heterodox. I am not sure if that would be overly divisive, but would it not be more accurate and to the point, without the employment of Orwellian euphemism?

 

[MidnightSun12]

Could it be possible that liberal or progressive expressions of the core teachings of the church and/or a progressive methodology of teaching the catechism can also be described as orthodox. If I do not want to genuflect but rather raise my hands in the Coast Salish gesture of honour, respect, reverence, how would that make me “non-orthodox”?

Are traditional catholics somehow more catholic than those of us who try to find and apply culturally diverse expressions to honour the core teachings and liturgy of the church…

Bruce
Trickster

To quote Pope Benedict:

"Only respect for the liturgy’s fundamental unspontaneity and pre-existing identity can give us what we hope for: the feast in which the great reality comes to us that we ourselves do not manufacture but receive as a gift. This means that “creativity” cannot be an authentic category for matters liturgical. In any case, this is a word that developed within the Marxist world view."

• Pope Benedict XVI

“Creativity” during the mass fundamentally implies that we are searching for something that hasn’t been found. Nothing could be further from the truth since, during the mass, we get to behold the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord, Himself. Experimentation has no place in the mass as they mainly serve to flood us with sensual pleasure that distracts us from higher things.

 

[JaMc]

On social issues, like marriage, abortion, sexual liberation, etc., I don’t see how an orthodox Catholic can be anything BUT conservative. However, on economic issues, there’s a lot of room for debate - Tom Woods (libertarian), Pat Buchanan (paleoconservative), Chris Ferrara (seems to lean toward Distributism), Henry Hyde (mainstream conservative), Sean Hannity (neoconservative), Sargent Shriver (economic liberal), Bob Casey, Sr., and later-in-life Dorothy Day (socialist) are/were all orthodox Catholics, and span the political spectrum from left to right.

 

[Auntie_A]

What do you mean by that, though? I find myself moving more towards traditional orthodox values and practices now, and I am not a conservative. I am not a liberal or progressive either. I guess the closest label would be distributist. Was G. K. Chesterton a conservative?
In fact, I find it difficult to understand how one can be orthodox and remain fully either conservative or progressive. Am I incorrect in this opinion?
I suppose if you mean by conservative the adherence to the entirety of Catholic teachings, morals, and values, then I would be conservative, but I thought that makes me orthodox.
I sometimes wonder if we would be better off dropping the terms conservative and progressive/liberal in this context, and instead use the terms orthodox and heterodox. I am not sure if that would be overly divisive, but would it not be more accurate and to the point, without the employment of Orwellian euphemism?/QUOTE}

I have this question, too, since the term conservative can have so many meanings. Politically it used to mean a sort of preservationist approach, to save the good of the past. Many conservatives of the 1930’s were also conservationists while the “progressives” were for development and expansion without the same regard for the environment. Then it went through a change of meaning through the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and onward. In some groups the word “Conservative” is spoken with a hateful sneer and associated with hypocrisy, greed, and repression. In other groups the word “Liberal” is used to define a careless and over-consuming group with no moral code, no sense of the future. What can it all actually mean in a secular world where morals change with the fashions?

Social conservatism would be honoring traditional values of marriage, family and life.

Religious conservatism in the Catholic Church seems to be used interchangeably with traditionalism.

A conservative may be pro-life but support other policies that make it difficult to raise children.
A liberal may be for social justice in one way but may not want to look at certain injustices right under their nose.

I think G.K.Chesterton’s definition of “Orthodoxy” makes more sense; it allows us good moral limits in order to live a full, creative life.

I’m for defining our own terms in order to unite Christians, and let the secular terms change with the seasons as they do.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Since inner Catholic orthodoxy makes demands on our inner and outward lives, we can see a general pattern or tendency throughout Church history for people to order their lives, even the more “secular” parts of their lives, in a certain, or definite, way. (I don’t mean to break apart our jobs from our family lives from our faith lives: they are all connected. I just use the term secular because it is convenient.) I will use a rather banal example, which is clothing.

Throughout the centuries the faith has placed few requirements on Christians’ dress. The basic one is that clothing be modest. If you cover your body, and don’t wear clothing with obscenities all over it, you’re basically fine, morally speaking. Now, fashion has changed. We don’t wear togas (few Christians would have ever worn that anyway…) anymore. Nor do we generally wear breeches. And that is fine, clothing can and does change, as long as it isn’t made into some sort of political tool to advance an ideology opposed to the Faith. But basic definitions of modesty have remained the same. Cover your body. Ankles/no ankles, necklines, whatever, these things have varied throughout history, but the basic Christian modesty is and, as far as I can tell, always has been to cover your body.

To dress this way is incidentally conservative. It so happens that most of the cultural aspects of Catholicism are conservative. That is good.

 

[McCall1981]

What do you mean by that, though? I find myself moving more towards traditional orthodox values and practices now, and I am not a conservative. I am not a liberal or progressive either. I guess the closest label would be distributist. Was G. K. Chesterton a conservative?

In fact, I find it difficult to understand how one can be orthodox and remain fully either conservative or progressive. Am I incorrect in this opinion?

I suppose if you mean by conservative the adherence to the entirety of Catholic teachings, morals, and values, then I would be conservative, but I thought that makes me orthodox.

I sometimes wonder if we would be better off dropping the terms conservative and progressive/liberal in this context, and instead use the terms orthodox and heterodox. I am not sure if that would be overly divisive, but would it not be more accurate and to the point, without the employment of Orwellian euphemism?

I agree that orthodox/heterodox is more accurate, but we get stuck using conservstive/liberal because a) the media and secular society are only capable of thinking in those terms, and b) because most heterodox catholics would probably resent the term, even if it was accurate, and want to be called liberal.

I personally get frustrated trying to transfer my Catholic faith into the political world because what I want is to “vote Catholic”. But neither of the two major American political parties, in my opinion, embody my Catholic beliefs completely. So I have pick what I think are the most important issues and vote for the party that supports those, knowing that Im sacrificing some less important issues.

 

[Rich_C]

It occurred to me that those of us who believe in the core teachings of the church can and should be described as “orthodox”…or those who are neither progressive or conservative simply Catholic.

How come then do we have an image of those who are truly orthodox are also conservative? Like where did that image develop in the popular mindset…

Probably because progressive politics has been at war with the Church since 1789, more fiercely since 1917, and conservative politics has only sporatically clashed with the Church, until now…

But sure, why use political terms to describe religious beliefs? I don’t think it works, either. We’re agreed there.

Could it be possible that liberal or progressive expressions of the core teachings of the church and/or a progressive methodology of teaching the catechism can also be described as orthodox. If I do not want to genuflect but rather raise my hands in the Coast Salish gesture of honour, respect, reverence, how would that make me “non-orthodox”?

It wouldn’t, since orthodoxy means “right belief” and doesn’t refer to actions. It would make you “non-orthoprax,” or one who doesn’t use the “right actions.”

Are traditional catholics somehow more catholic than those of us who try to find and apply culturally diverse expressions to honour the core teachings and liturgy of the church…

Since it has always been the view of the Church that both orthodoxy and orthopraxy are essential to the integrity of the Faith, I would say that those who want to widely discard the traditional ways of doing things for new ways are not thinking like Catholics.

Whether that makes them *less *Catholic…well my opinion is just my opinion.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I agree that orthodox/heterodox is more accurate, but we get stuck using conservstive/liberal because a) the media and secular society are only capable of thinking in those terms, and b) because most heterodox catholics would probably resent the term, even if it was accurate, and want to be called liberal.

I personally get frustrated trying to transfer my Catholic faith into the political world because what I want is to “vote Catholic”. But neither of the two major American political parties, in my opinion, embody my Catholic beliefs completely. So I have pick what I think are the most important issues and vote for the party that supports those, knowing that Im sacrificing some less important issues.

This, hugely! And also we have to consider that outside the US (and I believe Trickster, the OP, lives in Australia), the definitions of liberal and conservative are different. And in parlimentary systems, political parties can span a greater part of the continuum if only because there are more of them.

I would like to call myself just “Catholic” and have that assumed to be orthodox and not have to have other modifiers like “conservative, traditional, liberal, social justice” etc.

I do agree with the OP in that if someone says they are an orthodox Catholic that they shouldn’t then have to describe and defend or explain every choice they make in how they behave at Mass or which Mass form/style they prefer.

 

[hudson]

Read this book and it will explain how liberalism is actually the correct term to use to describe certain beliefs in the Church and why they are wrong and dangerous.
amazon.com/Liberalism-Sin-Felix-Sarda-Salvany/dp/089555478X

 

[Rete]

I simply feel that people should at least be honest about what they are. If they disagree with the core ethos of the Catholic Church, then they are in fact heterodoxical. They admit they are not orthodox. Thus, they are heterodox which is the opposite of orthodox. It simply means “other” belief. Orthodox means “right” belief.

The Catholic Church teaches, for example, that people of the same gender cannot possibly be married. To believe otherwise is to hold a belief other than the Catholic Church, which is to say you hold to a heterodoxy.

I realize it might be divisive, but it’s not me or orthodox Catholics who are doing the dividing here.

 

[Francoist]

Progressives:


If we are true to Christ, we cannot be “progressives” or “liberals” or “Marxists” because those movements are all about destroying the influence of Christ and Christianity in Western culture and replacing it with something else.

If you believe in Jesus Christ you are already diametrically opposed to those viewpoints and indeed are more radical than they are. But beware. When people say words like “progressive” they mean “progress away from Christianity”, which they regard as primitive.

 

[Rete]

A friendlier way to characterize them would be that they approach the faith like they approach their politics. To them, it seems like the faith is just a political animal which they can alter and amend to fit their ideological biases. But the faith is not an ideology (thank God for that). Nor is it a democracy. Nor is truth dependent upon the whims of the mob.

I have noticed a lot of these folk don’t seem to understand that the Church cannot even possibly do these things they demand. They want ordination of women priests, and the Church has no authority to do that. Nobody has that authority but Christ. They want “tolerance” of homosexuals, which means acceptance of gay marriage, and the Church cannot oppose God.

But at the core, the problem is their notion of what progress even means. Their form of progress is arbitrary and destructive. It’s arbitrary because it is not really guided by principle. It is destructive because it can and does utterly destroy what came before.

Progress for the Church entails something very different. With each new council, the Church refines the truth. It never destroys the truths discovered or revealed, but expands upon them. For the Church, progress is more like building an argument from first principles. In the early Church, we uncovered more general truths than we uncover today. But never do we contradict ourselves or destroy the truth. Because if we did something like that, then it would undermine the very credibility of the faith, since it would amount to calling God a liar (Christ did in fact state the Holy Spirit would keep the Church safe from error).

I don’t think you can ever reconcile those two conceptions of progress. The very act of demanding something like acceptance of gay marriage is in itself a rejection of the promises of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I don’t think they are explicitly guilty of consciously doing this, however, because I have not seen much evidence that they realize it.

 

[otjm]

I had the privilege, in the early 1960’s, to attend a Jesuit high school, and on a regular basis our ears were verbally “boxed” with “Define your terms!” by a priest or scholastic.

The only way that meaning can be given to terms such as “liberal” or “conservative” is if someone can define what position the one using the term holds.

If I call you “liberal” or “conservative”, you have to know what position I take on the spectrum not only of orthodox, but also of heterodox on either end of that spectrum.

And I am constantly amused by my friends, as some consider me to be very liberal - somewhat to the left of Trotsky; and others consider me to be bordering on ultraconservative, to the right of Attila the Hun. Both sides have a tendency to think they can capture an understanding of me by a short snapshot of one issue or so.

Orthodoxy has more room in it than many people understand or accept. It is a particular trait of many, if not most Americans to take a Germanic approach to law - both civil and ecclesiastical. However, Rome is in the Mediterranean, and the Mediterranean approach to law is more relaxed than the Germanic, something that has a tendency to upset those who want a more absolutist approach.

Thus one can be an orthodox Catholic, accept the Church’s teaching on abortion contraception, euthanasia and related issues and be considered a liberal. It all depends on where the one labeling that orthodox Catholic stands on other issues.

All of which goes to indicate that labels are at best slippery and do little to show forth anything much beyond the labeler - and sometimes not even that.

 

[OraLabora]

A friendlier way to characterize them would be that they approach the faith like they approach their politics. To them, it seems like the faith is just a political animal which they can alter and amend to fit their ideological biases. But the faith is not an ideology (thank God for that). Nor is it a democracy. Nor is truth dependent upon the whims of the mob.

Oddly enough, I’ve noticed a pretty strong connection between “conservative” Catholics and politics, at least in the US; in French Canada where I live the political connection isn’t so strong, all our political parties are much farther left than in the US and the hot-button items like same-sex marriage and abortion have, for better or for worse (actually for worse…) been decided. It used to be much different before Vatican II when our (somewhat Jansenist) local Church was in bed with the very conservative and repressive government of the day (the overthrow of that government coincided, almost exactly in time, to Vatican II).

But at the core, the problem is their notion of what progress even means. Their form of progress is arbitrary and destructive. It’s arbitrary because it is not really guided by principle. It is destructive because it can and does utterly destroy what came before.

I don’t think it’s fair to categorize all of the “progress” intended by “progressives” as destructive. It was after all “progressive” politics that eliminated slavery, racial discrimination, gave women the vote, and provided at least a very basic social safety net. It’s more complicated, a mixed bag, often a case of “three steps forward, two steps backwards” and sometimes, as we are currently seeing, two steps forward and three steps backwards. But I am not so ready to dismiss all “progressives” in spite of some really weird things that some of them promote like same-sex marriage.

I don’t think you can ever reconcile those two conceptions of progress. The very act of demanding something like acceptance of gay marriage is in itself a rejection of the promises of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I don’t think they are explicitly guilty of consciously doing this, however, because I have not seen much evidence that they realize it.

While I think that same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, and I equally think that it should be opposed, it’s not clear to me yet that it is the slippery slope we make it out to be; after all it is a issue that only targets a small percentage of the population, and I think there are greater threats to marriage, namely no-fault civil divorce, not to mention the corrosive effects of such things as pornography or the pill, on marital intimacy which can in turn cause great marital stress. Lack of chastity in general, not homosexual behaviour, IMHO is the real threat to the institution of marriage; in fact homosexual behaviour for the most part is probably less of a threat as few homosexuals engage in heterosexual marriage, though of course some do that haven’t come to terms with their same-sex attraction. At least some of the people within the Church that I know are “progressives” on this issue are not calling for the Church to suddenly determine that same-sex marriage actually exists and is sacramental, rather they are saying that civil marriage is outside the scope of the Church’s authority and that since it is aimed at a small minority, the real threat to marriage is small and we should live and let live. Of course, often forgotten in that discussion, is the issue of children (either adopted, from surrogate parenthood or a previous heterosexual marriage), and that’s a shame as their rights need to at least be discussed and that’s where a big part of my own objection to SSM lies.

But I digress, my point really is that “progressive” versus “conservative” is not such a clear-cut issue (except perhaps in highly polarized US politics!), and that not all progress by “progressives” has been bad or on evil foundations. Many Catholics that I know are very socially “progressive” on economics and help for the poor while being very conservative on issues like abortion, and same-sex marriage, while some others are more of a mixed bag, progressive on some issues (female ordination for instance) while very conservative on life issues (such as abortion); others are conservative liturgically but progressive socially. Which I think, points to the necessity to stopping the useless and divisive categorization into Catholics into “good” (conservative) and “bad” (progressive) camps, or vice-versa depending on your perspective. Life is complex and messy, and such black-and-white thinking is in fact fundamentally incompatible with a Church that labels itself “catholic” and as such is a hospital for all sinners, which of course we all are regardless of where we are on the spectrum. Moreover that spectrum is fluid, some individuals moving back and forth and changing their views with time. Chasing away those who don’t agree with us is never a winning strategy for evangelization.

 

[Cojuanco]

I had the privilege, in the early 1960’s, to attend a Jesuit high school, and on a regular basis our ears were verbally “boxed” with “Define your terms!” by a priest or scholastic.

The only way that meaning can be given to terms such as “liberal” or “conservative” is if someone can define what position the one using the term holds.

If I call you “liberal” or “conservative”, you have to know what position I take on the spectrum not only of orthodox, but also of heterodox on either end of that spectrum.

And I am constantly amused by my friends, as some consider me to be very liberal - somewhat to the left of Trotsky; and others consider me to be bordering on ultraconservative, to the right of Attila the Hun. Both sides have a tendency to think they can capture an understanding of me by a short snapshot of one issue or so.

Orthodoxy has more room in it than many people understand or accept. It is a particular trait of many, if not most Americans to take a Germanic approach to law - both civil and ecclesiastical. However, Rome is in the Mediterranean, and the Mediterranean approach to law is more relaxed than the Germanic, something that has a tendency to upset those who want a more absolutist approach.

Thus one can be an orthodox Catholic, accept the Church’s teaching on abortion contraception, euthanasia and related issues and be considered a liberal. It all depends on where the one labeling that orthodox Catholic stands on other issues.

All of which goes to indicate that labels are at best slippery and do little to show forth anything much beyond the labeler - and sometimes not even that.

This. After all, many called Sargent Shriver a liberal, and to my knowledge he never stood for any of the many causes that militated against the Church, then and now. And one could argue that Bill O’Reilly is a political conservative, yet his views run contrary to Catholic teaching.

Of course, I am using liberal and conservative in the American sense; in Europe, for example, Shriver might be called a social democrat, and O’Reilly a liberal.

 

[John2007]

On social issues, like marriage, abortion, sexual liberation, etc., I don’t see how an orthodox Catholic can be anything BUT conservative. However, on economic issues, there’s a lot of room for debate - Tom Woods (libertarian), Pat Buchanan (paleoconservative), Chris Ferrara (seems to lean toward Distributism), Henry Hyde (mainstream conservative), Sean Hannity (neoconservative), Sargent Shriver (economic liberal), Bob Casey, Sr., and later-in-life Dorothy Day (socialist) are/were all orthodox Catholics, and span the political spectrum from left to right.

I whole heartedly agree with a theme of this thread that orthodox-heterodox and conservative-liberal best refer to religion and politics respectively. In my catchesis as an Eastern Orthodox, orthopraxy (doing the right thing) was stressed. The right thing to do in a situation might be considered conservative, liberal or in between depending on your point of view. It seems that Christ often upset the religious conservatives of his day by doing “the right thing” like eating with tax collectors and sinners.

Some of the current criticism of Pope Francis verges on this kind of attack. Is the Pope conservative or liberal in his actions by washing the feet of a Muslim female prison inmate. I don’t know, but maybe it’s the right thing for today’s world.

John