thefederalist.com/2015/10/29/ross-douthat-is-right-catholics-need-to-address-their-divorce-problem/
To Hell With Heretics!
On first skim, I found this missive exciting. Stylistically, it reads more like com-box quackery than a serious critique. But how refreshing to see it stated, in the pages of The New York Times no less, that heresy has serious consequences! Might the authors be thinking of the sixth circle of Dante’s “Inferno,” in which the stench of burning tombs fills the valley of the heretics? This is what America needs to hear! Preach it, Fr. O’Malley!
As my enthusiasm built to fever pitch, I suddenly realized my mistake. The signatories weren’t suggesting that heresy “can have serious consequences.” It’s the allegations that they hope to quash. How dispiriting.
Heretics Sure Can Get Touchy
How many kinds of ridiculous is this? Let me count the ways. First of all, Douthat never called anyone a heretic in The New York Times. Yes, he implied that Pope Francis was trying to change Catholic doctrine. But search his column for “heretic,” “heresy,” or “heretical,” and you’ll be disappointed.
The foundation for the “heresy” charge comes from a Twitter exchange with historian Massimo Faggioli. In the midst of a hammer-and-tongs exchange about authoritative dogma, Douthat advised him to “own your heresy.” The liberal theologians went berserk.
It’s quite amusing to read Fr. James Martin’s sanctimonious explanation of how very serious these allegations really are. But—reality check!—Douthat is a journalist. He has no ecclesial authority. Calling out heretics from The New York Times isn’t going to inspire a new Inquisition, or even threaten anyone’s job. Find me a single case in which a conservative pundit’s tweet has put a professional theologian in the hot seat with his employer.
To be sure, there is something charmingly medieval about demanding that Douthat attain qualifications before publicly denouncing heretics. It’s as though liberals are replacing the clericalism of yesteryear with a different kind of class distinction. Now academic theologians get to be the gatekeepers of orthodoxy. Do they know a heretic when they see one? Let’s call another synod to work it out.
Finally, as a lowly philosopher I hate to mention it, but this list includes doctoral candidates. Are they really qualified to sign this? I’m concerned.
The Roots of Heresy
Further context may help explain how this happened. Fifty years ago, in the wake of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI assembled a commission in preparation for an encyclical dealing especially with the controversial topic of birth control. Pope Pius XI had condemned artificial contraceptives 30 years previously, but the intelligentsia was eagerly anticipating a change. Pope Paul VI seemed sympathetic to the pro-contraceptive argument and, as in this most recent Synod, appeared to be “stacking the deck” with advisers sympathetic to reform.
Then, in 1968, “Humanae Vitae” was released. It sent shock waves through the Catholic world, from which we still have not recovered. The encyclical did not liberalize. It re-affirmed every important Catholic teaching with respect to marriage and sex, and unequivocally affirmed that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” To the liberal intelligentsia (and reform-minded clergy), “Humanae Vitae” was a reactionary nightmare. They rebelled.
It’s hardly surprising that rank-and-file Catholics today go on telling pollsters how desperately their church needs to liberalize. For decades this has been preached, not only from the liberal press, but also from the pulpit. Liberal Catholics still mourn July 25, 1968, as a day of infamy. I have friends in theology departments who assure me that Catholic universities are still haunted by theologians for whom the most important, defining moral principle appears to be that “Humanae Vitae” cannot be right.
The effect on the laity has been fairly predictable. When a significant portion of the clergy and intelligentsia openly defy the church’s authority, widespread confusion follows. Now we have a world in which 30-something remarried Catholics try to return to their childhood faith, only to discover that, wow, you were serious about this no-divorce stuff? How did I miss that when I was growing up in the ’80s?
How indeed? Might heretics have something to do with it?
). It also seems that the education one undergoes in order to receive a degree is dismissed and the claim is often made (either directly or indirectly) that anyone can have the same level of knowledge. While some academics may in fact be foolish, biased, or unethical, I think it’s important to note that the purpose of graduate training is to make one an expert in a specific field. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, like CS Lewis. Douthat is no Lewis. In the article I linked, it’s pointed out that while Douthat presents himself as simply referring to Church teaching and not interpreting it, this is false. I can understand that if readers agree with his statements, it’s difficult to accept a chastisement of him. But it’s strange to accept his writing and refuse criticism of it simply because he isn’t an “elite.” The possibility that these theologians actually know a thing or two and have pegged him correctly must exist.
They are defending him!