Believe by adding, not detracting
Sorry, dude.
It is not enough to remove mistaken beliefs and to reform the mistaken believer. One has to replace as well as remove, to build up as well as tear down. Mere hunting for errors can leave one a personal and cultural wreck without convictions or commitments. By far the healthier procedure is primarily positive and constructive, so that what is true more and more fills out one's mind, and what is false falls away without leaving a gap or scar.
I'm reminded of a progressive Catholic I met who announced that he "hated" the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. I was surprised, because Cardinal Bernardin is practically a saint at my progressive Catholic school; without having read much by the Cardinal himself, I know him as a crusader (oh dear) for healthy Christian-Jewish-Muslim relations and as a leading exponent of the "seamless garment" doctrine of life, which is to say that we should cherish life from conception through death. Radical Catholics often point to this perspective in support of death penalty reform, prisoner's rights and generally as a balanced life ethic instead of just "outlaw abortion. BLAH!" But this man, a "mere hunter for errors," in my view, said, "I'm pro-choice," and so he shredded the seamless garment and the rest of Cardinal Bernardin's worthy teachings along with it. With such a scorched-earth approach to knowledge, don't you wonder why he still chooses to remain Catholic? I suppose there must be some reconstructive knowledge-gathering going on, but this person doesn't seem to have admitted it to himself. Too bad. The first step in Lonergan's transcendental method of theologizing is "Attend."
posted by Theologienne @ 9:58 PM
Share
1 Comments:
I think this is spot-on. Unfortunately, it's easier to find the rotten beams and kick them out than to lay new and stronger foundations for buildings constructed over millenia with techniques foreign to us today. (It's also easy to beat a metaphor to death.) The problem is a serious one, I think, because it leads to a lot of disaffection. The Holy Spirit (or our secular individualistic society, depending on whom you talk to) moves in your average layperson, and they think: this or that doesn't correspond to my intuition about what a true Christian ethic would require, support, or entail. (something something "lived experience" something something.) Most of us don't have the time or the tools to undertake systematics--weaving a "seamless garment" is one or more lives' work.
The options at this point are not great. You can ignore your inner voice, and trust the accrued wisdom of Tradition; but I would argue that any circumstance that leads one to act against the dictates of conscience is damaging to one's human dignity. You can become a "cafeteria Catholic," taking what you like of the Church's teachings and acting as you see fit in other circumstances. This is a typical but troubling approach: I would suggest that such an ad hoc and circumstantial ethic is no ethic at all. Or you can decide that you've punched so many holes in the structure that the whole thing is a shambles, and wander off alone into the wilderness of nihilism.
What do you think, dear Theologienne? Is is important for everyone to live according to a consistent ethic? For anyone? How do you build, find, or choose such an ethic? How do you evaluate its worth?
I'm looking forward to some increased time to reflect on these topics over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, wishing you warmth and many blessings this Christmas.
Post a Comment
<< Home