In 1899, Pope Leo condemned “Americanism” as a heresy. Americanism, a theological development
in American Roman Catholicism, was a complex of progressive ideals regarding
freedom, separation of church and state, historical criticism and scientific
inquiry that attempted to reconcile traditional Christian teachings with what
historians call, “the spirit of the age.”
A crisis at the University of Notre Dame occasioned the
Pope’s condemnation. In 1896, Notre
Dame professor John Zahm published a book entitled Evolution and Dogma arguing that church teaching, the Bible, and
evolution did not conflict. Within
two years, it was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books and Zahm was forced to
recant its publication.
According to historian George Marsden (recently retired from
Notre Dame), this controversy ended in a sort of intellectual stalemate: “The Roman Catholic Church in America
was thus forced to retain its identity and its distinctiveness, but at the
price of accepting Roman authoritarianism and severe restraints on its
intellectual life.” And he further
notes that, in the first decades of the twentieth century, “permissible
Catholic inquiry became increasingly restricted,” whereby Catholic
conservatives essentially rejected the “rubric of ‘progress.’” Again, according to Marsden, Catholic
authorities “questioned whether philosophies that constantly celebrated
innovation, openness, and individual choice could in fact provide a moral basis
for a higher civilization.”
In 2008, a little more than a century later, a majority of
American Catholics threw their electoral lot with an avowedly “progressive”
political candidate–Barack Obama.
And, one of their leading universities responded by issuing him an
invitation to speak at graduation.
In that simple act of hospitality, history is replaying itself: Has the ideal of “progress” encroached too far into the
American Catholic community? What
are the limits on creativity, inquiry, and conscience in relation to Catholic
magisterial teaching?
But it isn’t simply 1896 repeated. The events at Notre Dame are a little like watching the
recent Star Trek movie–history is
rebooting itself. A century ago,
the Vatican and the Pope intervened from afar to stop the Americanizing spirit;
many bishops actually promoted Americanism; and the Catholic laity seemed to
generally approve of the Americanization of their tradition.
Now, it is the reverse: right-wing Catholic laity and local
priests have besieged the University; about 20% of the bishops have condemned
Notre Dame for inviting the President (and no doubt, more considered doing so);
and the Vatican has basically absented itself from the controversy. The protest against progressive Catholicism is coming from (at
least some of) the pews. Evidently, the authority structure of the Roman Catholic
Church has inverted itself in America–despite the election of a conservative Pope
(who spent his week with Muslims and Jews in the Middle East) and overwhelming
conservative American Catholic bishops.
The laity thinks it is their job to tell the University of Notre Dame
what to do.
I don’t understand all of the spiritual and political dimensions
of this–but it does reveal how successfully grassroots conservative political
groups have communicated their message in some Catholic circles. Many of those protesting the
President’s speech have taken rhetoric about abortion as “murder” to heart,
thereby neglecting other aspects of Catholic moral teaching–including the idea
that individual conscience is a mark of human dignity and that human beings
even have the right to exercise conscience when it causes them to err. So, despite the Vatican’s own deep
horror of abortion, most Roman Catholic leaders have not taken to the streets
with bloodied baby dolls. They,
instead, rest in the uneasy tensions of witnessing to a Catholic moral ideal of
no abortion in relation to the equally Catholic moral ideal of the free
exercise of conscience.
That lay Catholics are leading the charge against President
Obama at Notre Dame doesn’t seem like a positive development in American
Catholic life. With sixty percent
supporting Obama and forty percent not supporting him, are we looking at a
Catholic Church as fractious as other American faith communities? Maybe it only shows that despite all
European attempts to the contrary, the American church was “Americanized”–in
some unexpected ways–after all.
The whole episode reveals some ugly results of long-term
politicization in the Catholic community–and a fundamental misunderstanding of
the whole vision of Catholic moral teaching.
Notre Dame is probably trying to make that very point by not
rescinding its invitation to President Obama–and it may be trying to correct
the very old injustice of the Zahm case.
I’m afraid, however, the point has been lost in the shouting.
posted May 17, 2009 at 9:32 am
I have linked in my name the letter sent by the Pope defining Americanism.
The first sentence of this editorial is radically factually wrong. The editorial goes downhill from there.
posted May 17, 2009 at 12:20 pm
How can we take this article seriously when the writer has obviously used outdated and, at times, completely incorrect data?!
posted May 17, 2009 at 1:54 pm
You lost me at your misinterpretation of “conscience,” popular among liberal Catholics. The Catholic Church teaches that we have a duty to follow our consciences, and we have an obligation to make sure our consciences are well-formed. Conscience does not mean a person has the right to say, “I think this is OK for me to do,” and do it.
It means that a person who *does not know* something is wrong cannot be held responsible, and it means that a person who *does know* something is wrong has an obligation to resist evil, even when the Law says otherwise.
It is, in fact, the laity protesting Notre Dame who are living the Church’s teaching on conscience: they know America’s abortion law violates Natural Law, and they are exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly to protest it.
Secondly, the Vatican only needs to intervene when the bishops don’t act or act incorrectly. There is no “inversion” going on here. Pope Benedict has made his position very clear. Cardinal Arinze said in 2004 that bishops must do their jobs and deny Communion to pro-abortion politicians.
And “Americanism” is not a “complex” as you claim: it is quite simply the claim that ones religious life should be compromised in order to assimilate with the dominant culture.
I am getting sick of the argument that “right wing” forces have somehow shifted Catholic opinion on this matter. There was a time when no Catholic in his or her right mind would have suggested a Catholic could support legalized abortion. The pro-life movement is, by and large, run by Catholics, and many pro-life leaders who were not Catholic to begin with (e.g., Randall Terry) have converted.
The majority of Catholics who actually attend Mass say they’re against abortion and against Obama speaking at Notre Dame.
The numbers cited in polls refer to self-identified Catholics (who’s to say they really *are*) who admit to not attending Mass on Sunday, which is a mortal sin. So, self-identified Catholics who are, if they don’t repent, going to Hell support Obama speaking at Notre Dame. That’s hardly an endorsement.
posted May 17, 2009 at 6:15 pm
To LCB and Your Name:
LCB, Saying that Leo called Americanism a heresy is not radically factually wrong, it is an exaggeration. Reading the letter you linked, all he did was threaten to condemn it as heresy if the Americans did not fall into line, which of course they more or less did.
Your Name, all I can say after the speech is that the welcome at Notre Dame was warm and Obama’s speech respectful. There is, of course, no connection between the fact that the leaders of the pro-life movement are Catholic and the views of other Catholics on the issue. Meanwhile, I don’t think she is saying that “right wing” forces have shifted the opinion of Catholics, rather that they have been exploited for political reasons, to the point of becoming single issue voters, whatever the positions of their anti-abortion allies on other issues.
posted May 18, 2009 at 8:28 am
Does anyone else think it’s funny that the apparently progressive author is upset that lay Catholics are leading the charge here? Sort of upsetting that the laity are acting as “Church” when their agenda doesn’t fit yours, huh?
posted May 18, 2009 at 9:11 am
Actually, I’m not upset at all. I’m not a Catholic and have no emotional investment in this at all. I’m doing analysis by providing some historic perspective from events that happened long ago (which are reported pretty much the way they are reported in most neutral texts on American religion…my specifics re: Americanism came from several books by historian George Marsden).
I think the episode is historically ironic–ironic that authority flows from top down in the Catholic tradition. In this case, more elite Catholic (most bishops, the Vatican, professors, lawyers, etc) generally backed Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame, are pleased by his overall social justice agenda, have been participating in the conversation he’s initiated about abortion reduction, and thought his speech was just right. Here, some grassroots Catholic groups have called for GREATER use of Catholic authority. It is interesting that the Vatican said absolutely nothing about this. inside Catholic commentators have hinted that the RC authorities are actually pleased with the directions that Obama is taking regarding health care, poverty, torture and ending the war.
I think the whole thing is a photo-op testimony in a teapot. What–two or three hecklers? People off-campus protesting? Seems pretty par for the course in the day of the life of any political leader. The speech was wonderful–a masterwork in American discourse on religion and politics (it will, I am sure, wind up being studied in university courses)–but the surrounding “controversy” was, in the end, not a terribly big deal
posted May 18, 2009 at 9:47 am
“In this case, more elite Catholic (most bishops, the Vatican, professors, lawyers, etc) generally backed Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame, are pleased by his overall social justice agenda, have been participating in the conversation he’s initiated about abortion reduction, and thought his speech was just right.”
Can you name one bishop or one source in the Vatican who supported Obama’s appearance? Let alone thought his speech was “just right”? H
How can you possibly claim any insight into what “most bishops” or “the Vatican,” or even “professors, lawyers, etc.” thought about the speech itself? What polling have you done since last night? What basis do you have for any of these claims?
AFAIK, every bishop who has addressed the subject — something like 40% of the American episcopate — has objected to the invitation and/or the honorary degree. Most bishops have pointed out that honoring the president with an award violates the U.S. bishops’ policy against giving awards and platforms to figures who oppose fundamental moral teachings.
The Vatican, to my knowledge, has not expressed an opinion on the invitation or the speech itself.
posted May 18, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Diana — You said this:
“That lay Catholics are leading the charge against President Obama at Notre Dame doesn’t seem like a positive development in American Catholic life.”
OK, you’re “troubled”, not upset.
“Here, some grassroots Catholic groups have called for GREATER use of Catholic authority.”
Some, maybe, but show me where, in your original post, that you made that argument, or even implied it.
And in reality, you’ve completely missed the point. In fact, this episode has been decidedly “unmarked” by the Catholic laity shouting to the bishops and Vatican, “Do Something!” Rather, the approach we laypeople have taken has been direct — we’ve written letters to Fr. Jenkins, we’ve signed petitions, we’ve protested. For that matter, the vast majority of the protesters this weekend were not with the Randall Terry/Alan Keyes group, they were at prayerful, peaceful events sponsored by the NDResponse group — a group which was almost completely ignored by the media.
And where you really missed the mark: You seem completely unable to view the events of the past several months through anything other than a political lens. This was only tangentially about Obama — it was entirely about Catholicism, and Notre Dame, and who we are as Catholics.
posted May 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm
It’s kind of odd to say that the laity are leading this charge, while a majority of bishops support Notre Dame. In actuality, the laity are simply insisting that Notre Dame follow the lead of the Catholic bishops in the 2004 compromise statement, “Catholics in Political Life.” Four out of five US cardinals and 77/220 active diocesan bishops have spoken out against ND’s actions. Can you point to one bishop that has publicly supported ND’s honoring of Obama with a doctorate in law? Who at the Vatican has come out in support of ND’s invitation? The highest ranking American at the Vatican to speak on the issue has come out against ND’s decision and received a standing ovation for doing so at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. Since you make the claim that “most bishops” and the Vatican support ND’s honoring of Obama, I would think you might have a few examples in mind?
While you are making your list, here is a list of bishops who have opposed ND’s decision.
http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/04/round-up-bishops-who-have-responded-to.html