Always Distinguish(ed).

We see it all the time.  In politics, in PTA meetings, in philosophy… and especially in the Church.  He’s a Democrat.  Well, she’s a Platonist, and he’s Kantian, she’s Arminian, he’s Jansenist.  We’re a Vatican II community.  I’m a feminist.  He’s a traditionalist, she’s progressive.  He’s a papist, and that one is ADD; she’s a liberal, and those people are… well, you get the point.  Labels are useful and important as they allow us to classify, identify and understand things, ideas, and, yes, even groups of people.  They can also certainly be ways to derogate, nullify and eliminate our intellectual opponents.  But, they can also be a lazy way out of doing our homework—not that kind of homework… What I mean is, we don’t actually have to engage their argument: we can lump/file it under X and deal with that.  I give, as an example, a quote from the Holy Father’s CDF days:

“In many places today, for example, no one bothers any longer to ask what a person thinks.  The verdict on someone’s thinking is ready at hand as long as you can assign it to its corresponding, formal category: conservative, reactionary, fundamentalist, progressive, revolutionary.  Assignment to a formal scheme suffices to render unnecessary coming to terms with the content.”

-Joseph Ratzinger, On Conscience, p. 28-9

I am reminded of the way that much theology has been taught to me so far, or even architecture for that matter (from my schooling before the Order).  Consider how the history of a theoretical discipline (whether it be theology, philosophy, art, etc.) is often taught as a series of ‘movements’: Classical, Romanesque, Gothic, Byzantine, Renaissance, Baroque, Modern, Post-Modern, etc. and so forth, to infinity and beyond.  Naturally, particular figures in history fall under these categories so easily and those of us uninterested or unwilling to do the homework, will forever carry around the idea, for instance, that St. Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian or that before Vatican II no one read the Bible except the clergy.  Or the status quo, all the rage, en vogue, in theology and other fields related: method.  These labels, of course, are very useful, they give us outlines, broad strokes and they really do assist… but they stumble at a few important points, and not simply that they fail to recognize that individual people with individual intellects hold them.  But, we’ll start with this first point: that methods, ideologies, movements, and approaches used as labels for individuals and their thinking, often in their application to said person, fail to take into account the independent intellect of the person and its ability to change or even to hold seemingly conflicting positions (note that I said ’seemingly’).  Take for another example John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

“He asks what I mean; not about my words, not about my arguments, not about my actions, as his ultimate point, but about that living intelligence, by which I write, and argue and act…. I must, I said, give the true key to my whole life; I must show what I am that it may be seen what I am not, and that the phantom may be extinguished which gibbers instead of me…. False ideas may be refuted indeed by argument, but by true ideas alone are they expelled… I will draw out, as far as may be, the history of my mind; I will state the point at which I began, in what external suggestion or accident each opinion had its rise, how far and how they were developed from within, how they grew, were modified, were combined, were in collision with each other, and were changed…” [emphasis mine]

-John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 122

Newman’s whole project in the Apologia was to refute the idea that anyone knew his mind and consequently to set forth the progression of his thoughts and how he came to believe what he did—he says it is a very personal thing that he is quite uncomfortable with, but feels as though he must in order to set the accusations to rest.  He had been accused of being a Papist all along—that his conversion was disingenuous, strategic, and meant to lead others away from the Church of England.  His book, then, was an answer to Charles Kingsley’s question: “What, then, does Dr. Newman mean?” in response to Newman’s denial of ever having said what Kingsley attributes to him.

Kingsley’s calumny, which he seems to have expected to go unnoticed by Newman, delightfully proclaims that “Truth for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy.  Father Newman informs us that it need not, and, on the whole, ought not to be…”   The judgment of history is such that Kingsley’s slander was, on the whole, unjustifiable despite his claim that he never thought Newman would disagree with his statement.  But to Newman, and in the context of the controversy of his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church nearly twenty years past, his words were tantamount to calling him a liar and a knave.  It should be noted that Kingsley was writing a review of a book of English history, not by any means seeking to directly engage Newman.

It seems Kingsley’s first mistake was assuming he knew Newman’s thoughts on the subject.  He presumed to borrow the mind of the Anglican professor and parson turned Roman Catholic.  We do this all the time: “Ah, well, I think what Thomas [Thomas Aquinas, that is] would say to that is…” or “And certainly Jesus would agree with that [meaning, what I just said].”  It’s certainly not a wholly depraved enterprise, but it treads on dangerous waters.  This is a recurring theme in Newman’s life and the Apologia especially.  He is upset by colleagues and students who pull him into their “camp” (even those with whom he might generally agree!) or solicit his opinion and use it as a rebuff towards opponents.

“Are textbooks the ultimate authority, or are they manuals in the hands of a lecturer, and the groundwork of his remarks?”

-Ibid., p. 346

What’s the point?  Of course, this could be a moral exhortation to always listen to one another, be open to dialogue, not to label one another, and to be tolerant and disinterested, blah blah blah… but, what about this:

“Sometimes one has the impression that our society needs at least one group for which there need not be any tolerance; which one can unperturbedly set upon with hatred. And who dared to touch them – in this case the Pope – himself lost the right to tolerance and was allowed without fear and restraint to be treated with hatred, too.”

-Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the World, March 12, 2009 translation from New Liturgical Movement.

Regardless of what one may think about the gist of the Holy Father’s letter, and regardless of what you think that I think about it... there’s a truth here that we must face up to: label as we like these prostitutes and tax collectors… the “pastor of the world”—as it seems John XXIII was wont to call the papal office—has an obligation.  We, too, have the obligation to others to listen, of course, but we also have the obligation to do some thinking of our own.  We are tempted to operate in polarized terms—as our culture has decided to do, especially the media—and this happens most often why?  Out of malice?  Doubt it.

Better than labeling others, how often do we label ourselves in order to protect our arguments?  Or, again, to prevent us from having to do the heavy-lifting of thought and philosophical inquiry.  “I follow Thomas Aquinas on that…” Does that really mean I’ve honestly investigated Thomas’s position and know his conclusions to be the correct ones, or does it mean that I simply ‘subscribe‘ to Thomistic thought and carry my membership card because it’s a safe bet?  Or how often do I say “Well, I follow the magisterium on that,” without actually knowing what the magisterium teaches?  How often might I, for instance, say: “I’m a real feminist, of course…” so as to get me out of those tight gender-related spots, without really knowing what I’m saying?

“Oh, of course, I don’t agree with those radicals, but…”

“Oh, of course, I don’t think we should excommunicate pro-choice Catholic politicians, but…”

“Oh, of course, I think that pro-life is important, but I’m not a one issue person, after all…”

Sometimes when we think about labels and want to preach against them we focus on how we do an injustice to others.  But what about what we do to ourselves?  I’ll leave off with a quote from Benedict Groeschel’s The Reform of Renewal:

“In my own life I have been at one time or another styled as a liberal or a conservative, a radical or a traditionalist—just to mention the respectable positions.  I have also been, in some people’s estimation, a rat fink, a yellow rat, a pink, a leftist, a rightist and an undercover agent for the Swiss Guard.  I blissfully hid from myself behind these rather meaningless designations.  All the time I was really just a poor sinner.“ [emphasis mine]

-Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR, The Reform of the Renewal, p. 201