O
otjm
Guest
I think you are missing a bit in how you characterize people.I agree with you that meanings change. But take Ratzinger (B XVI), for example. He dared to explore and so, I suppose, he could be called progressive in that sense. Further, his constant critic, the notoriously progressive, dissident theologian Hans Kung, was a friend, so I take your point. In effect, he was “progressive” because he ate with tax collectors. On the other hand, would you call him progressive or conservative when he told it like it was at Regensburg?I’d say conservative because a modern-day progressive wouldn’t be caught dead speaking truth to those whose true nature they can’t even say.
Nevertheless, you will agree that in his writing and theology B XVI is undoubtedly considered the opposite of “progressive”. In fact, in some “progressive” circles he was openly hated for his orthodoxy because it was reflected in his official statements and writings. Almost always he would have walked over hot coals before saying or writing anything significant if it was theologically controversial or just confusing to Catholics.
Since VC II, in any case, a conservative clergyman means an orthodox clergyman to me.(An “ultra-conservative” may mean anybody someone may want to smear, including B XVI.)
What is the “not progressive”? If you take the opposite, it is the regressive.
And in both terms, there are degrees. As far as I am concerned, both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 were and are progressives; they do not want the Church to go backwards in time, and they want to see change made. Both of them worked to implement the documents of Vatican 2; and Benedict on more than one occasion noted that it wouuld take time, and was nowhere nearly completed. That puts them both in the progressive camp.
Part of the problem is that with some who consider themselves Traditionalists, progressive is anywhere from a vile word to a condemnation, Given that there is a fairly broad range of what (and who) comes under the umbrella of the term Traditionalist, that is not meant as a sweeping identification; Traditionalist can also simply mean they prefer the EF and certain types of music.
Benedict was not progressive because he ate with tax collectors; he was progressive because he saw that the Church had ended up in a stasis; another way of saying it is that they were fighting battles of 100 to 400 years earlier and using the same approach.
Some progressives went too far - Kung and Schillebeeckx being two examples; but it is a false assumption that because some went too far and lost their moorings, that ll progressives did, or must, or will. Many progressives are/were orthodox and remained so.
Part of the problem is our incessant need to pigeon hole people and things. It makes for a much easier way of thinking, because one is not always working on every idea; some get categorized and then we move on. But pigeon holing things tends to reduce peopel and things to a simple phrase, as if that completely identifies them. It doesn’t.
Another part of the problem is failing to define our terms. I went to a Jesuit high school back when they still had common sense and a strong commitment to the Magisterium (some have wandered off into the weeds since then). And we were constantly being challenged by the Mr.'s (scholastics) and the priests, as we were all teenagers with more mouth that wisdom, experience, and knowledge. to define a term, one has to do some serious thinking through the concept, which takes time; too many fond it easy to put a term out there without necessarily understanding the outer limits of what comes under that term.
The third problem is the use of words beyond their meaning; using “progressive” as a pejorative term is one example.
Thus, someone who is conservative may find the writings of a progressive to be very enlightening and well within the realm of the Magisterium, but have no idea that the writer is a progressive, for the simple fact that the progressive is orthodox.
As to my thoughts on Regensburg; what he had to say was orthodox, but would seem progressive, as he was moving on beyond a simple “live and let live” approach to Islam which could be seen as to characterize the Church’s position on Islam.