Objections to use of the term
Objections to use of the term neo-Catholicism have been lodged principally by persons who resent the term being applied to them. The main objection is that the term is "malleable" or overly broad. The same objection, however, can be leveled against the terms "traditionalism," "radical traditional Catholicism," "conservative Catholic," or, in politics, "neo-conservative," "neo-liberal," "center-left," "center-right," "moderate," and so forth. Too, some argue that it is merely a veiled slander of celebrity converts as many members of this constituency are, in fact, converts from Evangelicalism. As no term describing a current of thought can achieve absolute precision, the objection appears to relate, not to the term as such, but rather its application to particular people. Objectors to the terms neo-Catholicism and neo-Catholic seem to have little difficulty, however, in determining that the terms apply, at least to some extent, to themselves.
Another objection to the term is that the characteristics it describes are not uniformly present in those who are said to belong to the Catholic current the term denotes. For example, not all neo-Catholics are also political neo-conservatives who support United States war policy over and against the Church's just war teaching, and not all of them are devotees the "new theology." But the same objection applies to any other category of thought designated by a term: certain members of the category may depart from certain of its characteristic features while still being fairly described by the term overall. (For example, not all communists believe in compulsory state redistribution of wealth, and only some believe in violent revolution.) Particular exceptions as to given individuals aside, the essential element of the term remains useful as a descriptor for a new constituency in the Church, arising after the Second Vatican Council, composed of members of the Church who, while orthodox, nonetheless "by any historical measure... are progressive Catholics" as distinguished from traditionalist or liberal Catholics.
It is further objected that as the views and practices designated "neo-Catholicism" are either approved or permitted by Rome, neo-Catholicism is simply Catholicism, and neo-Catholics are "simply Catholics." But the same could be said of traditionalists, who "prefer to be referred to... simply as Catholics," because their own practices and views, including attachment to the Latin liturgy and widely and freely published criticism of Vatican II and its results by such authors as Romano Amerio, are likewise approved or permitted by Rome. (To be distinguished from traditionalism is sedevacantism, rejected by the overwhelming majority of traditionalists, which holds that the conciliar and post-conciliar Popes are not valid popes and that the last valid Pope was Pius XII.)
The terminological problem is that two groups of Catholics claiming to be "simply Catholic" differ markedly and sometimes dramatically in matters of theology and praxis, a development not seen until after the Council. The terms neo-Catholicism and neo-Catholic are intended to express the difference between traditionalists and those Catholics who adopted progressive theological views and new practices after the Council even though the Church has never actually commanded any Catholic to do so. The resulting dynamic tension throughout the ecclesia between two essentially orthodox constituencies, one of which did not exist a half-century ago, has no parallel in Church history.
Source (worth reading in its entirety):
No comments:
Post a Comment