Monday, November 07, 2005

Liberalism

A week or two ago, David referred anew to his list of reasons for disagreement with Michael Novak and his “Whig Thomism” theology. After a brief email discussion, I accepted David’s invitation to work together on a series of posts elaborating on the reasons for disagreement; I’m not with David on all of them (e.g. the Iraq War), but for those which I’d see as foundational or fundamental, we see eye to eye.

(I also want to note that I consider this a work in progress, and I’m more than open to constructive criticism.)

With that brief introduction, let’s get to it…

First on David’s list is the following: “1. The death of God for our times, for our culture, for us, is Liberalism.”

I see this as the most important of the points, and I’m completely with David on it. So… what does it mean?

Speaking for myself (although I think David would echo me), there are a number of important theologians and philosophers who have led me to the view that Liberalism is Public Enemy Number One when it comes to widespread contemporary worldviews in opposition to the Catholic understanding of reality. (NB: “widespread” and “contemporary” are both important qualifiers in that statement; don’t forget them.) In order of my “discovery” of those thinkers (“discovery” meaning my awareness of their opposition to Liberalism), they are as follows:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
David Schindler
Alasdair MacIntyre
Tracey Rowland
Robert Kraynak
Peter Augustine Lawler

There are others as well, but these serve as the primary sources for my views on the matter.

So, what is this “Liberalism” which David and I see as such a threat to Catholicism? Essentially, liberalism in all its forms (more on this below) is characterized by the autonomy of the individual, which results in the individual as the primary focal point of every form of discourse: political, social, cultural, religious, etc. (We see this evidenced today in what Mary Ann Glendon referred to as “Rights Talk”: you can’t have a very significant substantial conversation without someone’s (or some group’s) rights being referred to in one form or another.) This characterization of liberalism goes by a common name: individualism.

However, individualism is not the only feature of liberalism: the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre is well-known for his critique of what he calls “the Enlightenment project”. MacIntyre uses this term to describe the attempt by Enlightenment philosophers to construct a “public morality” accessible to reason alone, i.e. without any reference whatsoever to religion and acceptable to anyone with the basic ability to think. (MacIntyre convincingly demonstrates how such a project is an ultimately futile one.) This, too, tends to define liberalism broadly understood.

It’s important to note that liberalism in this sense encompasses the vast majority of political discourse in our country today; virtually all of those people who describe themselves as liberal and conservative are actually liberals in this broad sense. MacIntyre explains how there are radical liberals (communists, nihilists, etc.), liberal liberals (John Kerry et al), and conservative liberals (George Bush et al), but all of them are liberal in this larger sense. (The conservatives people like Russell Kirk.)

Now, why is liberalism understood in this sense the death of God for our times? Because of its amazing capacity to create and sustain (false) antagonistic dualisms, e.g. faith and reason; body and soul; church and state; religion and life. Note well: I’m certainly not denying that each element of each pair of terms is distinguishable from the other… that’s obviously true. My point here is that liberalism doesn’t merely distinguish between (for example) faith and reason: rather, it puts them in opposition to one another at a fundamental level.

U
ltimately, liberalism is so problematic because of its propensity to separate religion from “everyday life”. I’d submit that the vast majority of Americans fail to structure their lives according to their faith at an ontological (as opposed to moral) level. Were you to ask someone how being Christian informs and shapes (for example) their profession, you’d be lucky to get more than, “I don’t cheat, lie, or steal because of my faith” (i.e. moralism). What we’re talking about here is the split between the faith believers profess and the lives they live which Vatican II and Pope Paul VI referred to as the great drama of our times. And I think a convincing argument can be made that the origin for this drama is liberalism.

What we’re talking about here is secularism: the view that denies religion’s intrinsically pervasive nature. Secularism tries to create the “naked public square,” i.e. to make religion a purely private matter without bearing and impact on the public life of a nation. I would argue that secularism is one of the logical consequences of liberalism, in spite of the fact that some liberals (e.g. conservative liberals) might themselves be vociferous opponents of secularism. In other words, there is a logic of liberalism which inexorably works itself out, whatever the positive and good intentions of individual liberals.

It is precisely because of its secularist consequences that liberalism is regarded by people like David and myself as the “death of God for our times”. If we want to get to the heart of the problem of secularism, dealing with the problem of liberalism is a necessary consequence.

(This is crossposted at Veritas.)

14 comments:

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

The original post with comments

Blosser's The Church and The Liberal Tradition blog - Responding to David Jones' "Disagreement with Novak & other Whig Thomists" This is a response to all 7 points from my original post above, not to this specific post.

Unknown said...

In the comments to this post at Veritas, Santi asks the relevant million dollar question, and I offer a reply.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

However, individualism is not the only feature of liberalism: the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre is well-known for his critique of what he calls “the Enlightenment project”. MacIntyre uses this term to describe the attempt by Enlightenment philosophers to construct a “public morality” accessible to reason alone, i.e. without any reference whatsoever to religion and acceptable to anyone with the basic ability to think.

How then do you deal with the problem of pluralism?

Santiago

---

The million-dollar question, Santi. Channelling MacIntyre, I don't think there is a solution, meaning a way to incorporate every major worldview into a public morality. It seems to me that you'll always have a dominant morality which is dependent on a particular tradition (whether or not that dependence is explicitly recognized or acknkowledged). Hopefully, part of that morality includes toleration for differing views.

Chris Burgwald

Fred said...

Fr. Giussani proposes a kind of pluralism in The Risk of Education. Also, see Balthasar's book, Truth is Symphonic: Aspects of Christian Pluralism.

ben said...

The answer to pluralism is personalism.

I think some giudance can be sought from Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Freedom from Vatican II.

We must respect the personal dignity of those with fundamentally different moral perspectives, until those perspectives come to disrupt public justice (an example is abortion).

Hoewever, respect for the dignity of those who disagree should not imply that a just social order is best attained by forming public policy in accordance with something other than the natural law.

Error has no rights, even though those in error do.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Comments on Veritas
#3 Nov 07 2005, 02:22 pm

Instead, why not a morality not contingent on tradition as much as on nature? Morality is an ontological problem as much as it is an ethical one. Everyone has two sets of eyes, no? Reflecting on nature can help us glean a morality. I think you're taking away from the power of a public philosophy and putting too much emphasis on revealed truths. Maritain would agree with you that a complete morality in the end appeals to theological truths, but when it comes to civil society, you don't need to appeal to anything other than reason to solve your problems. Otherwise, you don't solve what John Rawls rightly points out is THE problem of our times: pluralism, and you are, to quote Neuhaus, "disposed toward a monism that cannot abide the pluralism that is history before the End Time."

Santiago
------------------------

#4 Nov 07 2005, 02:25 pm

In CL they always say, "presence, not utopia." Waiting for a time when your morality will be "dominant" to me sounds a lot like utopian thinking. Rather than wait for your own period of "dominance"--which, in the end, relies on power to overthrow another dominant worldview--why not appeal to what is common in all human beings, reason and nature, and yourself be a Presence in such a pluralistic environment?

Santiago
---------------------------------

#5 Nov 07 2005, 02:41 pm

Noting the possibility of a utopian tendency is a good point Santi, and definitely is a danger that needs to be avoided. However, that comes with the "prescription" portion of the problem, and right now, I'm focused on the diagnosis, i.e. what is the primary form sin takes in today's social structures?

With regard to nature and reason, MacIntyre's point (and I think he's right) is essentially that we are not tabula rosas: we are formed in a particular tradition or community, and that shapes our reason and how it operates, including its grasp of nature. Yes, it's possible to reject the tradition or community in which we are formed, but we can only do so by moving to another set of a prioris. Objective reason, in other words, is not as evident as it seems. (NB: neither MacIntyre nor myself are positing historicism or relativism, but are pointing to the historical nature of the operation of reason.) Personally, I've found that this is borne out in conversations about deeper things with friends; our life experiences have a powerful impact on our thinking, and I've found that it's no simple thing to try to appeal to objective reason.

Chris Burgwald
----------------------------------

#6 Nov 07 2005, 02:43 pm

Interesting that you use Neuhaus's phrase, "naked public square." The truth is that you can talk about his ideas and Novak's ideas without ever talking about liberalism per se. Novak himself argues that there is a harmony between Catholic Social teaching and liberal institutions, not liberal ideology. Wherever an oppressive regime is overthrown anywhere in the world, the liberators always install, in one form or another, the basic liberal institutions that were born in 1776--free speech, seperation of powers, etc. When the dictatorial Chinese Communists are overthrown in China, the falun gong and the christians there will set up a state modeled after the American system. As did the brave group of Paraguayan soldiers who overthrew General Stroessner in 1989...

Santiago
----------------------------------

#7 Nov 07 2005, 02:53 pm

Re: liberalism vs. liberal institutions, the problem is that if the latter are truly liberal, then their inner logic will inexorably work itself out, perhaps in opposition to the intentions of some of their supporters.

Personally, I think it's possible to have, e.g. freedom of speech and religion, without liberalism. But that's different from saying that freedom of speech and religion as enshrined in America are without liberalism.

Chris Burgwald
----------------------------------

#8 Nov 07 2005, 03:08 pm

WHat is the difference between your freedom of speech and religion, and "liberal" freedom of speech and religion? Madison's formulation of liberty of conscience and freedom of religion are incomprehensible outside of a Christian understanding of conscience and liberty. See "Memorial and Remonstrance." I don't care what Madison's religion was, his argument springs from a Judeo-Christian "wordlview" (Ill use that word even though I'm opposed to it--see Fr Jape on this).

Santiago

----------------------------------

#9 Nov 07 2005, 03:19 pm

I agree with you that "we are formed in a particular tradition or community, and that shapes our reason and how it operates," and also that the postmodern assault on reason has made it increasingly difficult to articulate a public philosophy, but do you really think that a "liberal" state necessarily hampers the creation of such communities? I really want to know more about how the positive input of liberalism manifests itself, about how its "internal logic" manifests itself. I think it's more of the other way around: it is contingent on cultural capital that it by itself cannot provide.

But anyway, if you are going to count on "dominance" rather than reason, then that makes this whole thing a power play, which is precisely what the original liberal thinkers wanted to avoid--the power plays in Europe between Lutherans and Catholics was in the background of their thinking. In CL, the freedom of the Other is always given top priority and respect, as is the Other's faculty of reason, which is the common link that unites believers with unbelievers. Giussani's first part in the catechetical trilogy, The Religious Sense is an exercise in reason, not a theological tract, and it can be squared with Thomist realism (according to Albacete).

Santiago
----------------------------------

#10 Nov 08 2005, 02:08 am

To put it very concisely, liberalism is the largest threat we face, because it makes us forget the person as the fundamental value. By separating economy from God, money becomes the ultimate value, and the ultimate purpose of economy (and gradually of the entire life, at least in parts of the US and Europe).
In this way we are in a similar situation to Communist Russia, where the absolutization of the State, led the State to create a "hellish" life for the citizens in whose behalf it was ruling.
We may feel that this time the situation is somewhat more disguised, or less serious. I believe it can be somewhat more hypocritical, in the sense that Communism was clearly atheistic, and acknowledged itself as such. However, and to take the comparison a little further, in Stalin's ruling time there was no conscience of the magnitude of horrors being committed, in the same way as during WWII it took some time for people to gain conscience of all the horrors that had been done. Similarly, I don't think there is today, a clear conscience of all the crimes that are being committed because of liberalism. I believe that to direct the spotlight to the incoherence between faith and life that we experience because of liberalism is still to miss its darker side.
The war on Irak is one of them, but hardly one of the biggest. I suggest that people interested can find out about Cabinda, where atrocities and crimes against humanity are committed so that American multinational corporations can extract 700.000 barrels of crude per day. Or we could speak about India and Pakistan, where it is profitable to outsource production to, because of the low life-cost there, which in turn is a consequence of modern slavery (slavery by debts, common in these areas).
I seriously believe that in 2 or 3 decades, when we can have a clearer overview, we will be looking back and thinking: "How was it possible to get to these horrors?"

Ricardo Joel Silva
---------------------------------

#11 Nov 08 2005, 08:22 am

-Chris: 'It seems to me that you'll always have a dominant morality which is dependent on a particular tradition (whether or not that dependence is explicitly recognized or acknkowledged).'
-Santiago: 'Instead, why not a morality not contingent on tradition as much as on nature? Morality is an ontological problem as much as it is an ethical one. Everyone has two sets of eyes, no? Reflecting on nature can help us glean a morality. I think you're taking away from the power of a public philosophy and putting too much emphasis on revealed truths.'
-Santiago: '"Waiting for a time when your morality will be "dominant" to me sounds a lot like utopian thinking. Rather than wait for your own period of "dominance"--which, in the end, relies on power to overthrow another dominant worldview--why not appeal to what is common in all human beings, reason and nature, and yourself be a Presence in such a pluralistic environment?"'

If I may, I would like to add a few, timid comments to this discussion. Santi, I don't think that your criticism of Chris as utopian is fair. Chris only said that there is a dominant tradition and morality (and logically, minority ones as well). To confess that my tradition is not the dominant one is not necessarily to abandon public discussion for the meantime or to advocate a regime change. Instead, it is simply to note that my tradition calls my awareness to certain facts that the dominant tradition does not.

The alternative to this realistic assessment of differences may be instead to identify wholeheartedly with the dominant tradition or to fit the things that I see into the categories of the dominant system (I confess I have done both- I am, after all, a child of my times). In order to be a presence, however, I must act according to reality as I perceive it and as my tradition helps me to discover it. To be a creative minority, one cannot abandon the tradition that makes one a minority.

Everyone has two sets of eyes, certainly. But not everyone recognizes the priority of various facts in the same way. For example, when I took my class in Lifespan Development, I do not recall the professor addressing the tradition of natural law when speaking of the various anthropological theories.

Fred
----------------------------------

#12 Nov 08 2005, 08:50 am

Parenthetical remark: this discussion helped me in a big way... I always struggle with out to spend an amazon.com gift certificate (so many choices!), and I'd been sitting on one for almost two months, trying to figure out how to spend it. Today, I decided that I'd buy Christopher Stephen Lutz's Tradition in the Ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre: Relativism, Thomism, and Philosophy; I actually read the bulk of it last year via the library and decided that it was worth a buy, even though it's fairly expensive ($65.00). It's been sitting in my wish list for some time, and this conversation prompted me to use this gift certificate (virtually the whole thing) to buy the book. So, Santi: thanks for helping me make up my mind! :-)

Chris Burgwald

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Fr. Jape S.J. wrote me and asked that I post an earlier piece, The Situation is Very Good, it is Hopeless, written in tNP 1.1.

Eric Lee said...

but do you really think that a "liberal" state necessarily hampers the creation of such communities?

The liberal state perpetuates this difficulty in creating Christian communities pretty directly, I would think. Living in the midcity area of San Diego like I do, one of the biggest difficulties for all of us in this particular location is the cost of housing. I have a middle class job and do "okay" with paying my rent and stuff, but the cost of rent, and especially the cost to buy a house in all of San Diego is sky high; actually, I'm quite convinced that the cost of living in San Diego has become very evil. The liberal state as it is is not separate from the neoliberal market which allows for and rather encourages the evil practice of commodifying property; instead of using land as a good to be directed toward the Good, land is turned into "property" to be bought and sold by the highest bidder for pure profit -- finding places to live for those least among us is not even a consideration.

Our congregation is trying to put together a Christian community, but it is near impossible to even find a scrap of land big enough to build or to buy that wouldn't set us back financially for 200 years.

All of this talk of the liberal nation state often forgets, I think, the real practices tied to the markets, though while not truly real entities (in the sense that their end is not in God), end up controlling much of our lives.

Peace,

Eric

ben said...

Our congregation is trying to put together a Christian community, but it is near impossible to even find a scrap of land big enough to build or to buy that wouldn't set us back financially for 200 years.

All of this talk of the liberal nation state often forgets, I think, the real practices tied to the markets, though while not truly real entities (in the sense that their end is not in God), end up controlling much of our lives.


Yes, absolutely. However, God in is inifinte mercy provides a way out of the perils of planning intentional communities.

Have a lot of kids, at least 6 or 8 of them, and encourage your friends to do the same. The community will appear, through and act of grace. Healthy and large families built on the foundation of Christian Marriage will produce Christendom. There is a profound linkage between the critique of liberalism and the Theology of the Body.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

FTs - Preaching As Though We Had Enemies

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

#14 Nov 08 2005, 01:14 pm

Utopian because Chris seems to argue that it is impossible to reach a public moral consensus without a shared, common tradition. But we won't get a shared common tradition any time soon--Christendom is not coming back tomorrow. To say that we have to wait until then to be able to articulate a public morality is a bit utopian to me. But maybe that's too harsh of a judgment.

Anyway, what you have done in your post, Fred, is articulate the beginnings of a philosophy of public pluralism. You might have something going on there. But I still refuse to believe that there is an unbridgeable gap that seperates me from my fellow man. Pluralism is the reality that my generation was thrust into, and we must work within it, and find a way to live together within it.

Santiago

----------------------------------

#15 Nov 08 2005, 01:14 pm

I read Fr Jape's piece over the summer. I should look at it again. "Hope does not dissapoint."

Santiago

----------------------------------

#16 Nov 08 2005, 01:20 pm

I guess one big issue I have is with the whole idea of "dominance." And I also think that articulating a public moral philosophy is not as difficult as Chris makes it out to be. I am not sure about Chris on this point: are theological truths a necessary bedrock for a public morality, or aren't they?

Santiago

----------------------------------

#17 Nov 08 2005, 03:03 pm

Well, I have one question for you, Santi. Is the incarnation of Christ a theological truth only or is a truth that impacts economics, psychology, the study of science, etc?

Fred K.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

#19 Nov 08 2005, 04:04 pm

Santi, I think it's safe to say that ultimately any morality (public or otherwise) depends upon at least some theological principles. Even natural law ultimately requires the positing of a creator.

Chris Burgwald
-----------------------------------

#20 Nov 08 2005, 04:30 pm

Fred,

Well, I have one question for you, Santi. Is the incarnation of Christ a theological truth only or is a truth that impacts economics, psychology, the study of science, etc?

I'm not advocating any sort of syncretism or dualism or "privatization of religion" here. I want to live in a society where I can be fully myself. But we are living in a world where not everyone believes what you and I believe. So we have to develop a system whereupon we can all live together respecting each others' dignity and freedom of conscience (the freedom of conscience that the Spirit respects in the Madonna before the Annunciation). That means that, in public discourse, the Incarnation is probably not the best starting point for public conversation on social issues and the common good. Rather, we should speak the lingua franca of humanity--i.e., reason and common experience. Now, Chris has cast doubts on whether this lingua franca is really feasible. That's where the debate is.

The American propositon was forged not exclusively by the tracts of British philosophers, but also by the experience of a united people bound by a common history but belonging different religions. We have a long history of trying to find ways of getting along in public without compromising our core beliefs. That was the spirit behind Washington's letter to the Synagogue of Newport, letting the Jewish community there know that, unlike most of European Christendom, America would allow them a place to freely and openly and publicly practice their religion without facing persecution. That was the spirit behind Madison's "Memorial and Remonstance," which was born out of disgust over the persecution that Baptist ministers were receiving under the Episcopalian established church of Virginia. Neither of these men necessarily advocated the dualism that Carron spoke out against in La Thuile.

Santiago

-----------------------------------

#21 Nov 08 2005, 05:11 pm

So we have to develop a system whereupon we can all live together respecting each others' dignity and freedom of conscience...

As Christians, we don't have to develop any "systems" beyond our call to embody our witness to Jesus Christ in the practice of the Church.

That means that, in public discourse, the Incarnation is probably not the best starting point for public conversation on social issues and the common good. Rather, we should speak the lingua franca of humanity...

Says who? Speaking the Incarnation may not be the "best" (in the modern sense of things "optimal"), but it may very well be the most faithful thing to do. Appealing to a "higher discourse" that is somehow "above" Christianity surely does not come from Scriptures, I would think. There is nothing higher or beyond the Triune God because God is, well, God.

Peace,

Eric Lee
-----------------------------------

#22 Nov 08 2005, 05:41 pm

Pluralism is an important value, and a value not always respected in Christianity. But I see a real difference in a CL school where all of the teachers take Mystery seriously even if some of them are Buddhist or Jewish, or atheist, and the pluralism of the American university, in which questions of meaning or destiny are avoided, deferred, and permanantly bracketed. In either environment, Christ may be followed, but in the American university, I must be careful not to deny my reason and experience for the sake of speaking a common language.

Another good example of Christian pluralism would be Jean Vanier, the founder of l'Arche. He proposed a way of living in community that takes the Holy Eucharist and the Beatitudes seriously. He started by acting according to the truth of the Incarnation (inviting Raphael and Phillipe to live with him), but never excluded others (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) from his communities. In doing so, Vanier offered something of value to the non-Christian world that he only was able to discover by following Christ first. I also think of the scientist and Catholic priest that was able to recognize the reality of the big bang at a time when most of the physicists held to an evolutionary model.

A good exercise would be to compare the work of Mark and Louise Zwick with the work of Catholic Charities (putting to the side their social commentary). Both do a lot of good work, but Mark and Louise structure their work in a personalist way (voluntary poverty, pacifism, hospitality, and sacrifice) and Catholic Charities does things according to the secular model of a service agency. Both organizations are pluralistic (having workers and recipients of charity who may or may not be Christian), but Houston Catholic Worker takes Christ as its starting point. (continued)

Fred K.
-----------------------------------

#23 Nov 08 2005, 05:42 pm

The most significant event in history is the Incarnation (this is as true for the atheist as it is for the Christian). As Christians, we must announce this fact in everything we do or study. At the same time, discretion is important, as is sensitivity to the reason, experiences, and consciences of others. Perhaps one model of Christian pluralism may be St. Anselm. His starting point was the experience and reasonableness of grace, which was the core and foundation of his thought. Then, moved by charity, he tried to propose the reality of the faith to those without his starting point.

I presume that God has given me the gift of seeing reality in a particular way for the sake of some mission that He has reserved for me. If I act as if Christ is not present for the sake of some strategic advantage, then I put the light of Christ under a bushel basket.

Fred K.
-----------------------------------

#24 Nov 08 2005, 06:41 pm

Fred,

I don't really see the points of disagreement here. As a Christian, I also understand the centrality of the Incarnation. But how do you articulate public policy and national laws in a country where not everyone believes this? On a personal level, what the Zwicks do and what the Ven. Dorothy Day did are good, but what if you are running for office? What if, for example, you have to articulate an argument against legalized euthanasia to a room full of people with different faith backgrounds? Can you frame your argument appealing only to reason and nature?

Notice Giussani's first two premises in The Religious Sense: realism and reasonableness. He doesn't get to the Christian claim until after this common ground has been established. That common ground is also the basis for a civil society. I'm not saying that reason is a "higher discourse" than "theological truths." Rather, I'm appealing to what is common in all of us. What is the point of philosophy, then, if there isn't this common grounding in reason and nature? What's the point of my majoring in it, then? What's the point of St Thomas's work, assimilating the insights of Maimonides, Averroes, Plotinus, and the like? Their common ground was reason and nature.

Santiago
-----------------------------------

#25 Nov 08 2005, 06:43 pm

And I might add that respect for the freedom of conscience of the Other is something that is inspired by Christian faith, and not merely a concotion of philosophers.

Santiago
-----------------------------------

#26 Nov 08 2005, 08:04 pm


What if, for example, you have to articulate an argument against legalized euthanasia to a room full of people with different faith backgrounds? Can you frame your argument appealing only to reason and nature?

Santi, you've probably heard a variation of the saying, "You can speak godly without having to speak about God". I'd argue that it is possible to make an argument using language which isn't explicitly confessional while knowing that it is your confession which informs and structures your argument (as opposed to being informed and structured by the lowest common denominator). This is what I understand Schindler's point to be in HOTWCOTC, i.e. that too often what happens today is we fail even to structure our positions which the distinctively Catholic/Christian onto-logic, apart from the question of language.

Chris Burgwald

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Santi and Chris -

Thanks for a great and edifying conversation. I've posted [above on this site - Two Critical Tasks, which is] from Balthasar. [It] does justice, I believe, to both aspects of this discussion.

Fred

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Thinking Out Loud About One Hypothetical Model: Community of Communities = Commonwealth: One Possible Response to Church-State Tensions by Stephen Hand