The Fenwick Review The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross December 2012
www.fenwickreview.com
Volume XX, Issue II
Ceiling Mosaic of the Arian Baptistry, Ravenna, Italy
The Myth of Liberal vs. Conservative Catholicism
Thomas Arralde ‘13 Staff Writer
and female ordination. These have even been labeled as “civil rights” issues, equating them with the en The effect that the American franchisement of women and minoripolitical system has had on how Cath- ties, and desegregation in American olics view their Church is enormous. political history. The real issue at hand A generation of Catholic Americans is a fundamental misunderstanding who have been poorly educated about of what the Church lays claim to, and their faith, but actively engaged in what our government lays claim to. national politics, has led to the errone- The Church lays claim to truth beyond ous equation of the Roman Catholic the opinions of the majority. Our Church with the United States Govgovernment claims to serve its people, ernment. Because labels like liberal and will change its policies according and conservative are used so widely in to popular opinion. Nowhere is the political discourse, and because Catho- misunderstanding of this concept lics see themselves as fitting into these seen more acutely than the issue of categories, they apply them unthinkcontraceptives. It has been argued that ingly to religious beliefs as though a majority a Catholics today use conthey were analogous to political views. traceptives, and therefore the Church The preeminent issues on should change its position on forbidwhich so called “conservative” and ding their use. Here we see a political “liberal” Catholics disagree include understanding of an institution that abortion, contraceptives, gay marriage, is fundamentally different from the
Dear HC: You Deserve Coal this Year....page 5
American Government. The Church is not the servant of the masses; it lays claim to a higher truth that, were no one to believe in it, would not cease to be true. Were a majority of Catholics to cease believing in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine during the eucharist (which I dare say may be true), the Church would not be obligated to change its position on the real presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the altar, and rewrite Christ’s own words from “this is my body” to “this is a symbol of my body, or something like that.” Because these are such heated topics, and it is difficult for people to think about them rationally, in order to discuss the absurdity of labeling them in political terminology it is helpful to look at controversies in the Church’s past which are no longer controversial, and how they were
seen by Christians then. The example par excellence of the aforementioned principle (i.e. that the Church need not capitulate to the opinion of the majority) is most clearly seen in the Arian heresy of the 4th century. Arius called into question the divinity of Christ, and won over a great deal of supporters among laity and bishops, even winning over most of the imperial family. Arius had a novel idea. He wanted to change the position of the Church on this important issue, which was seen as many both then and now as absurd, as Paul put it, “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Even so, use of the label “liberal” or “progressive” for Arius would be completely misplaced, as would the label “conservative” for those who refused to deny Christ’s divinity. continued on page 7
Who is Excluding Who?.... page 4