Denver Catholic

14 JULY 25-AUGUST 7, 2015 | DENVER CATHOLIC Perspectives B ack in the day (the late 1960s or thereabouts), Father Andrew Greeley – the model of an old-fashioned liberal Catholic – accused Father Daniel Ber- rigan (the beau ideal of post-concil- iar Catholic radicalism) of harboring an author- itarian streak in his politics. By which Greeley meant that, were Berrigan and his radical friends to achieve power, their aggressive sense of moral superiority would lead them to put Greeley and his liberal friends in jail. It was classic Greeley hyperbole, but like some of Andy's polemics, there was a grain of truth in it. The Sixties Catholic radicalism that shaped what is now self-styled "progres- sive" Catholicism did have a pronounced authoritarian streak in it, despite its disdain for traditional forms of author- ity (including Church authority). So as old-fashioned Catholic liberalism morphed into today's "progressive" Catholicism, forms of authoritarian bullying, shaming, and exclusion that would have appalled 1950s Catholic liberals – who knew what it meant to be stung by the lash of conservative clerical authoritarianism – made their way into the kitbag of contemporary progressive Catholicism. There they remain, an o£ ense against the openness, tolerance, and commitment to "dialogue" for which progressive Catholicism habitu- ally pats itself on the back. The most obvious example of this involves Catholic higher education in the United States. The anti-Modernist denunciations of the early 20th-cen- tury Sodalitium Pianum damaged reputations and destroyed careers in an attempt to enforce a narrow form of Catholic intellectual life; so did the below-the-belt machinations that followed the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. Both of these episodes are now widely and rightly acknowledged as disgraceful violations of evangelical freedom. But hasn't something similar been happening on Catholic campuses in recent decades, now that progressive Catholics (who claim to have learned the lessons of 20th-century ecclesial authoritarianism) have the whip hand? For example: It is widely known that it would be impossible for a young scholar, no matter how talented, to get a tenure-track position in the theology department of certain prestigious Cath- olic universities, if he or she had, during the course of their doctoral work, or in their early teaching and publishing, promoted šHumanae Vitae as both true and prophetic. Or had defended John Paul II's declaration in Ordinatio Sacer- dotalis that the Church has no authority to admit women to the ministerial priesthood. Or had written in support of the Catechism's teaching that homo- sexual inclinations are a sign of spiritual disturbance. Or had signed any of the recent declarations in defense of mar- riage classically understood. Precisely the kind of academic closed shop that old-fashioned liberals deplored after Humani Generis is now being unblushingly enforced by pro- gressive Catholics at Fordham, Boston College, Georgetown, Seattle Univer- sity, and on many other campuses – and, as in the past, Catholic intellectual life is being crippled when it isn't being reduced to incoherence. Then there is the Catholic blogo- sphere. Authoritarian bullying and shaming are certainly not a monopoly of progressive Catholic blog-post writers; there are plenty of ignorant, ill-informed, graceless, and narrow-minded folk on the other end of the spectrum. But those boys and girls don't regularly congratu- late themselves on their openness and tolerance of diversity. That the progres- sive Catholic blogosphere does so is almost as bad as its penchant for misrep- resentation and calumny. I've cited it before, but it's so prescient that it's worth citing again. Thomas Merton, who was no one's idea of a tra- ditional or conservative Catholic, was nonetheless attacked by the Catholic Left of his day for alleged o£ enses against the orthodoxies of radicalism. His response, in one of his charming "nonsense letters" to his friend and fellow-poet, Robert Lax, has a certain prophetic ring to it, read at a distance of forty-eight years: "I am truly spry and full of fun but am pursued by the vilifi cations of progressed Catholics. Mark my word man there is no uglier species on the face of the earth than progressed Catholics, mean, frivol, ungainly, inarticulate, venomous, and bursting at the seams with progress into the secular cities and Teilhardian sub- ways. The Ottavianis was bad but these are infi nitely worse. You wait and see." Progressive Catholic authoritari- anism is, one might say, an enduring problem. Progressive Catholic authoritarianism: an enduring problem George Weigel is a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. The Catholic Di› erence GEORGE WEIGEL I heard a Christian speaker talking about needing to avoid certain movies and TV shows. Is it really a big deal what kind of entertainment I watch, listen to or read? Isn't it better to know what's going on in the world than be close oŠ ? This is an extremely important ques- tion. Not only is it pressing (we decide on our entertainment on a daily basis), but it is also deeply personal. All of us must choose how we will entertain ourselves. Let's clarify the importance of the sit- uation. While we could look at this from a cultural perspective, let's skip that and bring things a little closer to home. There is a psychological principle that has been termed "the law of exposure." This states that the things we expose ourselves to have an e£ ect on us. Music a£ ects our moods. I have a friend who listens to "death metal." He knows that it makes him angry and frustrated, but he listens to it anyway. Language a£ ects our own language. I have another friend who fi nds himself swear- ing left and right after a "weekend with the guys." Images a£ ect how we see other people. I talk to many men and women who fi nd themselves in sexual sin after viewing certain photos or videos. To deny "the law of exposure" is to deny reality. Some people like to claim immunity, but this is simply a lack of self-knowledge. And it is not limited to people of a certain age. I don't know how much sillier we could be than when we will turn o£ the TV for a child, saying, "You shouldn't be watching this," but then return to it our- selves. Does the fact that I am in my 30s mean that I am una£ ected by these images and ideas? Certainly, I am better equipped to discern the truth, but if a movie is bad for a child, how can I be so confi dent that it is good for me? If it is garbage for a 12-year-old, then it is gar- bage for me, even if I have learned how to sort through the garbage a little better. Just as important, we live in a free market society. We vote with our dollars. What do you spend money and time on? For example, I know a number of Catho- lics who went to see "The Da Vinci Code" or "The Golden Compass" even though these movies are clearly anti-Catholic. It does no good to claim, "I don't agree with them!" The people making this entertain- ment don't care if you agree or not. Your interior motivation matters, but it is not absolute. Once they have your money, you have already stated that you're on their side. And if the movie is evil (or pro- motes evil ideas), then you just gave $9.75 to the cause of evil. (How much did you put in the collection plate? In the end, all of those numbers will be made known and there will be no room for excuses like, "It was only a movie!"). Entertainment is never "only enter- tainment." Every form of media presents some philosophy of life, a belief about the world, the human person and God. These ideas mean something, because ideas have consequences. Every great (and every terrible) movement started with an idea. Have you ever noticed that every dicta- torship fi rst seeks to control the media? Because when you control the media, you control ideas, and once you control ideas, you can lead people wherever you want. Rather than attempt to list movies, TV shows or songs, it is more important for our purposes to have some principles that we can apply. We only have room for one in this column today. When encoun- tering some form of entertainment, ask yourself, "Does this reveal the dignity of the human person or in some way distort or obscure it?" Another way to phrase the question is, "Does this entertainment reveal truth and beauty?" Some art does this in ways we wouldn't expect. Flannery O'Conner is arguably the fi nest Ameri- can fi ction writer of the last century. She wrote about sin and grace in a powerful and truthful way, but it was not pretty. I always thought her stories were gro- tesque, but they were true. She revealed beauty through writing about ugly things. It is the di£ erence between the violence and gore in "Saving Private Ryan" and that found in the "Saw" movies. Pope Benedict XVI once wrote, "We may never be entertained by the su£ ering of others." What does this mean when it comes to "Ultimate Fighting Challenge"? Will I have to change my TV watching? The next thing we need is conviction. If something is bad for me, then why would I expose myself to it? If I am going to be a follower of Christ, I need to be the kind of person who makes a decision. Are you the kind of person who can make a decision? Are you willing to? If you are convicted that "this entertain- ment does not uphold human dignity," are you willing to then not watch it? Seri- ously, to say, "No matter how funny this new 'The Hangover'-style comedy is, it is not good for me and so I won't watch it." Because, in the end, all of this entertain- ment will pass away. What will remain, for good or for ill, is the kind of person it has fashioned me into. Where to draw the line in the media Father Mike Schmitz is a national speaker and the chaplain for Newman Catholic Campus Ministries at the University of Minnesota Duluth. fathermikeschmitz@gmail.com Ask Fr. Mike FATHER MIKE SCHMITZ

• Cover