2005 CONFESSIONS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January

Little Notes
Letters

Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 2005
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

CONFESSIONS
July/August 2005

---

WHAT OF MY CATHOLIC BRETHREN

I've been reading a blog entitled Whispers in the Loggia. The author is Rocco Palmo, a young man with a remarkable knowledge of the inner workings of the Church. He's thoughtful and very well-informed. He's also combative as all get out. I wouldn't classify him as a liberal Catholic — about the American Catholic left, he writes, "It has no patience, no nuance, no respect for those indispensable elements it doesn't agree with — say the word Magisterium to a Catholic liberal. Stand back and watch the consternation."

And I imagine he would call himself orthodox — viz., "the church is neither conservative or liberal; anyone who thinks otherwise about either extreme just wants to rape and pillage two thousand years of tradition. Conservatism is a secular political ideology, orthodoxy is a doctrinal necessity — and never the twain shall meet" But as you might be able to glean from that last sentence, he saves the majority of his slings and arrows for the "cons," conservative Catholics he sees as damaging the Church even as they purport to defend it.

Why does he take these shots? "I needle, prod and challenge," he writes, "not to be threatened, but so we can talk to each other and push each other beyond the limits we've set for ourselves. That I get threatened and harrassed in the task is a tragic commentary on how closed people really are. What kind of spiritual life is that?"

I read the blog because it is informative, and because it's good to talk to those who think differently than I do, especially if both sides can remain civil. I don't fit Palmo's definition of "con," in part because I engage him in (email) debate and don't call him names. But I'm more sympathetic with the cons and their frustrations than he is. Our disagreements are not doctrinal, but political in character — that is, they pertain to the common life of the Church, and not her teachings. And as the anti-con campaign has continued at Whispers, I've grown weary of it.

Why doesn't Palmo grow weary of waging it? I suspect it's for the same reason the cons don't grow weary, or for that matter, the libs — because the war touches on matters of supreme importance and deep personal conviction. Theology matters. Liturgy matters. The character of Catholic culture matters. There is no doubt in my mind that I could stand to be prodded, that I could benefit from disagreement and debate. But I'm tired of the needles.

I recently received an email from Sister Mary Ruth, a member of the Visitation Order founded by St. Francis de Sales and St. Jane de Chantal. Mary Ruth and her fellow Sisters are contemplative, cloistered nuns living in Massachusetts. Their founders taught them "to live in a spirit of profound humility toward God and of great gentleness toward the neighbor. Moreover, the rule they gave the sisters does not emphasize external austerity. The sisters are to make up for the lack of external penances by interior renunciations, great simplicity, and joy in the common life."

"Interior renunciations" is translated on the monastery's website as "mortifying our self-will and our own personal preferences." There are only 18 nuns in the monastery. My first thought: "What if you ended up spending your whole life in close contact with someone you disliked? Mortifying self-will, indeed. The countless things you would have to keep yourself from saying, for the sake of the community, of 'gentleness toward the neighbor.'"

My second thought: "But then, there are things within my own family that I do not say, or say in a certain way, because it is my family."

My third thought: "If there are things I do not say within my blood family, if there is a community in Massachusetts to be preserved through gentleness toward neighbor, what of my Catholic brethren? What of the community of the Church?"

Which brings me to my answer to Palmo: maybe the threatening and harassing you receive is a tragic commentary on how closed people really are. Maybe most of your shots at the cons have to do with the way they themselves attack others. But will your needling them help? What are we about here? Do liberals think conservatives are frightened children, terrified of change, full of sentimental attachment to The Way We Were, afraid of intellectual complexity and the intellectual life in general? Do conservatives think the liberals are spoiled children, in love with change, full of intellectual hubris, afraid of tradition and contemptuous of obedience? Does each side suspect the other of cloaking personal preference in talk about the good of the Church? Does each side believe that they are fighting for the Church and not themselves? They remain brothers and sisters.

I am not asking, "Can't we all just get along?" There are surely battles to be fought. And not every cry of "You're hateful!" has merit. But it's worth recalling what my old Jesuit confessor used to say, quoting some saint: "Do I not conquer my enemy when I make him my friend?"

TOP