The Pope on Progress

Here is a passage from Pope Benedict's second Encyclical, Spe Salvi, quoted by Clayton in a combox below:

'A self-critique of modernity is needed in dialogue with Christianity and its concept of hope. In this dialogue Christians too, in the context of their knowledge and experience, must learn anew in what their hope truly consists, what they have to offer to the world and what they cannot offer. Flowing into this self-critique of the modern age there also has to be a self-critique of modern Christianity, which must constantly renew its self-understanding setting out from its roots. On this subject, all we can attempt here are a few brief observations. First we must ask ourselves: what does "progress" really mean; what does it promise and what does it not promise? In the nineteenth century, faith in progress was already subject to critique. In the twentieth century, Theodor W. Adorno formulated the problem of faith in progress quite drastically: he said that progress, seen accurately, is progress from the sling to the atom bomb. Now this is certainly an aspect of progress that must not be concealed. To put it another way: the ambiguity of progress becomes evident. Without doubt, it offers new possibilities for good, but it also opens up appalling possibilities for evil—possibilities that formerly did not exist. We have all witnessed the way in which progress, in the wrong hands, can become and has indeed become a terrifying progress in evil. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth (cf. Eph 3:16; 2 Cor 4:16), then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world.

'There is no doubt, therefore, that a "Kingdom of God" accomplished without God—a kingdom therefore of man alone —inevitably ends up as the "perverse end" of all things as described by Kant: we have seen it, and we see it over and over again. Yet neither is there any doubt that God truly enters into human affairs only when, rather than being present merely in our thinking, he himself comes towards us and speaks to us. Reason therefore needs faith if it is to be completely itself: reason and faith need one another in order to fulfill their true nature and their mission.'

I found this quotation dispiriting and unilluminating. 'A self-critique of modernity is needed in dialogue with Christianity and its concept of hope. In this dialogue Christians too, in the context of their knowledge and experience, must learn anew in what their hope truly consists, what they have to offer to the world and what they cannot offer. Flowing into this self-critique of the modern age there also has to be a self-critique of modern Christianity, which must constantly renew its self-understanding setting out from its roots.' This is true, no doubt, but it puts the accent in the wrong place. We should encourage hope. both in modern people of good will and in Christians, before going on to call for a critique of hope's possible illusions. The Enlightenment critique of Christianity has already led to much magnificent rethinking of Christian hope, culminating in such documents as Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes and Paul VI's Populorum Progressio (an encyclical virtually totgeschwiegen by his successors, who never cease to make propaganda for the ill-fated Humanae Vitae). Christianity has also in turn persuaded the modern world to adopt much of the Gospel's vision of the Kingdom; the disappearance of slavery, at least in principle, is one example -- though to be sure Pius IX was defending slavery as good and natural as late as 1866.

As Evagrius notes, the quote doesn't define 'progress' very well, and indeed fails to engage with what ethical thinkers, whether secular or Christian, have in mind when they talk of progress. A Christian who pooh-poohs progress in the ethical sense is undercutting the Bible and the Jewish and Christian tradition of hope. Nothing could be further from the spirit of Vatican II. Benedict may be targeting the ruthless materialistic ideas of progress touted by capitalists like Milton Friedman or technological Dr Strangeloves of various sorts. But I fear the target he most has in mind are those who advocate human rights that the Church has not yet got round to recognizing.

Christianity in the early centuries distinguished itself from the Greco-Roman world by its vivid view of history as a progress. Only with the heavier emphasis on Original Sin brought in by Augustine did this view become compromised by a narrative of decline even post Christum adventum. Benedict's doctorate and Habilitationsschrift deal with Augustine's and Bonaventure's outlooks on history, and in the latter his own thought strays at leisure in a medieval twilight zone. The 13th century (meaning Bonaventure, not Joachim of Flora!) hardly offers a model of thinking about history and progress, since it was a century whose dominant intellectuals settled into a sort of ahistorical bliss. If Benedict wants to talk from a 21st century vantage point, he should be aware that most progressive people are well aware that technological progress without ethical progress can lead to great evil. Talking down to progressive thinkers suggests that he has access to a source of insight beyond their ken. This is not Scripture, since Scripture has nourished many progressive ideologies. It really sounds as if the source he is drawing on is 13th century Christendom as revived by 19th century reactionaries: 'In the nineteenth century, faith in progress was already subject to critique.' If this is not a reference to world-weary skeptics, or to Nietzsche, he must be talking about Catholic restorationism and reaction as represented by Joseph De Maistre. Where is the wisdom in this?

In the 18th century, with the breakdown of the Theodicy perfected by Leibniz and other rationalist theologians and philosophers, a new discourse on 'philosophy of history' came into being. It was animated by the optimistic belief that if humankind took its own affairs in hand, the shape of history would be ever greater progress and emancipation. 'So that man could step into this place, God had to be expelled from it' (Odo Marquard, Schwierigkeiten mit der Geschichtsphilosophie, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1982, p. 68). The themes of sin and original sin played little part in this secularized replacement of theodicy; such topics were left to the brooding of Pietists. Kant, whom the Pope quotes, punctured the naive optimism of this vision of history, and a sense of the antinomies and tragedies of history underlies the philosophy of history developed variously by Hegel and Marx. In the 1960s the progressive perspectives opened by these great nineteeth century thinkers were part of the heritage appropriated by the baby-boomers, who felt themselves to be a generation who subjects or agents of historical change. Such a privileged self-perception has not been the lot of generations X and Y! Vatican II was sustained by a similar confidence, denounced by reactionary thinkers as naive.

Benedict seems to lack all sympathy with any of these progressive philosophies. 'In the twentieth century, Theodor W. Adorno formulated the problem of faith in progress quite drastically: he said that progress, seen accurately, is progress from the sling to the atom bomb.' I cannot believe that this typically provocative bon mot of Adorno is given such authoritative status as to be quoted in a papal Encyclical. I always thought there was an affinity between Ratzinger and Adorno -- both write in the key of Besserwissen, always giving the impression that they have out-thought everyone else and exposed their naivety. Adorno is brilliant and always thought-provoking, but it is irresponsible to greet his willful obiter dicta as if they represented the mature wisdom of humanity.

'A "Kingdom of God" accomplished without God—a kingdom therefore of man alone —inevitably ends up as the "perverse end" of all things as described by Kant: we have seen it, and we see it over and over again.' The Pope apparently believes that Liberation Theology has fallen for such man-alone views of the Kingdom. He gives scant recognition to the evangelical aspect of the labors for peace and justice carried out by people of good will everywhere. This is a disheartening, discouraging attitude, which has cast a pall over the Church for the last thirty years. Passages like this are all too frequent in Benedict's discourse. They have given many the impression that he is a detached theologian playing with stereotypical ideas and theses reduced to pawns on a chessboard, out of touch with real-life interlocutors in the modern world. He has had public discussions with chosen intellectuals such as Hans-Georg Gadamer, Christoph Markschies, Jacob Neusner, but generally there are too many defenses for real dialogue to get underway. His attempt to meet the Islamic representatives for a dialogue at Castelgandolfo was a sad spectacle -- he lectured at them from the end of a long room, flanked by clerics, and then gave each of them a cursory handshake. The recent damage-control encounter was not much better.

Benedict certainly knows better than the neoconservatives who derived from Hegel the message that the end of history had already arrived, in the form of the New American Century, and than the radicals who pinned their hope for change on violent revolution. But does he also know better than Vatican II? Here is a positive message:

'Here too we see as a distinguishing mark of Christians the fact that they have a future: it is not that they know the details of what awaits them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness. Only when the future is certain as a positive reality does it become possible to live the present as well. So now we can say: Christianity was not only "good news"—the communication of a hitherto unknown content. In our language we would say: the Christian message was not only "informative" but "performative". That means: the Gospel is not merely a communication of things that can be known—it is one that makes things happen and is life-changing. The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life.'

The prospect of eternal life seems to be doing overwork here, and few and vague are the indications of how we are supposed to be building up the Kingdom of God in this world -- a subject on which Jesus was far more informative (since what lies beyond is best left to the mystery of the divine).

The essay by Marquard I quoted above dates from 1971, just at the cusp when 1960s idealism about changing the world was being replaced by the guiltless hedonism, estheticism, escapism and consumerism of the baby boomers, now become the 'me' generation. Marquard adumbrates the defection of the baby boomers in the following remarks: 'The philosophers of history [he means ideologists of liberation and progress] have merely changed the world in different ways; but what is important is to spare it. Yes, but how is this to be done? How do you spare the world, how to you spare its changers from their own judgment? Often through absence: people are spared by being somewhere else [alibis from responsibility]: in the privacy of their own inner life, or by pursuing scholarship in a province, or antiquarianism in the past, or speculative futurology, or tourism in distance places. This has something to do with flight and pilgrimage and allows -- note well -- a precise definition of culture [Bildung]: culture is what assures the possibility of emigration' (p. 81). John Paul II appealed to the politically rudderless youth of generations X and Y by making them feel superior to the pagan world around them, with its 'culture of death' but he gave them no glimmer of concrete historical responsibility. Benedict XVI has no message to regalvanize the quest for peace and justice as part of the message of the Kingdom of God. He is fighting a rearguard action against long dead ideologies and is unable to reanimate the Church's social teaching.

Comments

[evagrius]

I think part of the problem revolves around understanding what the Church is and its role in the world.

It seems to me that the Incarnation of Christ is not sufficiently appreciated. After all, if Christ really was incarnate as a human being in all things except sin, it means that He needed to take a bath once in a while.

The same thinking needs to be done regarding the Church. It needs to be more incarnate, not less.

Notions of priesthood which remove, ( in a real sense dis-incarnate the priest- which is what celibacy does if misunderstood), the priest from the rest of humanity aren't very helpful.

The purpose of the monastic, contemplative life, for instance, is not dis-incarnation but a deeper incarnation than the one generally experienced by most us.

I think the participants at Vatican II understood this in an inchoate way. Unfortunately, it's far easier to go backwards into a safe dualism, ( priests/nuns/bishops are "holy", laypeople aren't), than to go forward into the notion of the People of God as the incarnate Church getting their hands and feet dirty.

Being in the world but not of it doesn't or shouldn't prevent one from getting dirty.

[Bernard Brandt]

As regards His Holiness' critique of progress in the world, and more particularly, his apparent distrust of earthly kingdoms which aspire to the status of "Kingdom of Heaven", at least two poets seem to be in agreement with him:

"We know very well we are not unlucky, but evil.
That the dream of a Perfect State, or No State at all
To which we fly for refuge, is part of our punishment"

--W.H. Auden, "For The Time Being

"Put not your trust in princes,
nor in any son of Man,
in whom there is no help.
When his breath ends, he returns to the earth.
On that day he dies."

-Psalm 146

I suppose in this context that it would be perhaps an Obamanation to say that change does not equal progress.

That said, while I agree with you that a critique of Modern Christianity is certainly overdue, I also look forward to a critique of liberation theologies, most of which had linked themselves to the One Ring of Marxism, and which also foundered with the failures of Russian and Chinese Communisms.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Mr Brandt, attacking earthly kingdoms that aspire to be the kingdom of heaven is rather trite. If the Pope would name one such kingdom, his remarks would have more point. Perhaps the Vatican itself is such a kingdom? Or does he mean the USA or the EU?

You say most liberation theologies "linked themselves" to Marxism. I wonder if you could quote one respected liberation theologian who has not been critical of the aspects of Marxism of which the Church disapproves? The kind of Marxism that foundered with the Soviet Union has never been favored by liberation theologians. But the resources of Marx for thinking about a better world, which American economists have always pooh-poohed, are perhaps now on the brink of being rediscovered. No less a figure than Cardinal Martini, a man of immense traditional piety and learning, holds that the Church should be protecting and promoting what was good and true in Marxism.

[Jimmy Mac]

BB: in your attempt to be oh-so-vogue with the use of cutsey-wootsey "Obamanation" you are simply gauche.

[Jeff]

Would this dialogue require the same sort of inflated language found in the 'Spe Salvi' encyclical? Just for once I'd like to see a member of the hierarchy talk about a subject in a straightforward way. Rightly or wrongly, the encyclical quote strikes me as pompous, especially in light of recent Vatican actions. Pope Benedict's sense of self-importance comes through and would itself be an interesting subject for dialogue. I think many Catholics are not listening to an authority that has made so many wrong decisions. The convoluted language and the absolutist attitude have turned many of the faithful away - away that is from having any desire to be taught by the Pontiff. Is this pope ready to take his vestments off and have a friendly discussion over some pasta and wine at a local trattoria? We will probably have to wait.

[evagrius]

The only Pope that you could have a discussion with in a trattoria would be John XXIII.
I'm surprised that he hasn't been brought up for canonization but I suppose that he'd be uncomfortable with it.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

evagrius, John XXIII has been beatified; he is now Blessed John XXIII.

[Bernard Brandt]

Dear Fr. O'Leary (Father, Bless!):

Thank you for your critique of my poor entry. It is always a pleasure to have you respond to my comments.

I am not sure that "trite" is the correct adjective to use in the context of an activity indulged in by the Psalmist, the Prophets, our Lord, and satiric poets through the ages. Perhaps "prophetic" would be a better choice. In any event, I hope that I may be forgiven if, in this one instance, I follow their counsel and example, rather than yours.

As for your question, I believe that Fr. Clodovis Boff, brother of Leonardo Boff, has recently expressed some criticism of the Marxist underpinnings of much of Catholic Liberation Theology.

Although I am no longer au courant with Liberation Theology, back in my protestant days in the '70s I had taken much interest in the subject, having read a number of works of the brothers Boff, Gutierrez, Gautier, etc., and having traveled to South America, in part to view the LT scene in Colombia. I think that I can speak as a credible witness of the unselfconsciously Marxist language used by most liberation theologians of the time. I would not be surprised if some have since changed their tone, especially after the then Cardinal Ratzinger's comments back in the late 70s.

I would agree with you that there is more to LT than just Marxism. The good work of Jim Wallis and his magazine Sojourners would be but one example.

I would also agree with you that Marx deserves a second look, and I am now undertaking a private reading of economists, from Smith and Ricardo up to the present. I suspect that a part of the problem with Marxism has been a tendency to get caught up in the rhetoric at the expense of the dialectic. Perhaps this is one area of theory which could be assisted by the application of Buddhist "helpful means".

Finally, I must thank you for your article on Phenomenology and Eschatology. It is a capable compendium of the philosophical and theological work on those two subjects, and has gotten me to the point where I have started to read Husserl and Heidegger.

Jimmy Mac:

To quote a line from the motion picture, True Lies, "What makes you think that the slack I cut him in any way translates to you?"

Unlike the esteemed Father O'Leary, it seems that the only thing that I have learned from you is how sarcasm can pretend to be critique.

I am afraid also that you have misread my use of the "O" word. It was neither an attempt to be "oh-so-vogue" or "cutsey-wootsey". It was a swipe both at the current administration and those who have adulation for it. In that I think that I was successful, and so, while my choice of words may have been "crass", "gauche" it was not.

And may I suggest less use of pejoratives such as "cutsey-wootsey" and "gauche"? From my reading of Scripture, such behavior is apt to result in "extreme prejudice" from our Lord. Matthew 5:22.

Dear Evagrius:

I think that your observations on incarnation and the contemplative life are spot-on. Do please continue.

[evagrius]

Sorry. Goes to show how little the beatification of John XIII was noticed.

He's still only blessed, not "quite" a saint.

That means he's in the company of such interesting people as Brother Andre of Montreal.

I'm beginning to reread "Freedom and Authority" by Paul Verghese, ( known also as Mar Gregorios), of the Syrian Orthodox Church. This little book, written in 1974, is extremely relevant today, given the "crisis of authority" in all the Churches, ( some think there isn't one in "their" Church but they have limited vision). Too bad it hasn't been reprinted.

[evagrius]

A statement from Mar Gregorios;

http://www.paulosmargregorios.info/Autobiography/Appendix%203.htm

http://www.paulosmargregorios.info/Autobiography/Appendix%203.htm

[Bernard Brandt]

Dear evagrius:

Thank you for introducing to me the writings of the late Mar Gregorios, and in particular, the above website and webpage.

I am greatly in your debt.

[evagrius]

Mr Brandt,

You're welcome. The Syrian Orthodox Church, particularly in India, has had a number of very interesting theologians. I just wish that their voice could be heard above the din of disputation besieging the Church in the West.

[Rat-biter]

About this:

"Benedict certainly knows better than the neoconservatives who derived from Hegel the message that the end of history had already arrived, in the form of the New American Century...

- how is saying that "the end of history ha[s] already arrived, in the form of the New American Century..." anything short of blasphemy and apostasy ?

According to the NT, the Apostolic Faith was that "the end of history had already arrived" in Jesus Christ; not in some piffling country that didn't even exist a few centuries ago. The USA will seem mighty only to those who forget that God is greater than all.

Such a belief implies that America is a new Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and abominations of the earth. Neocons, if they really think what they alleged to think, are dethroning Christ & setting up the idol America in His place. Some people idolise the Church in the same way: God the Institution is in practice preferred to God the Son. This is ever so slightly different from the worship of the Divine City in antiquity. Modern making a god of the Church or nation is no different from any other idolatry.

Abp. Lefebvre was absolutely spot-on about one thing: the importance of acknowleedging Christ the King in all relations of life, as the older feast of His Kingship does. If He is (& it is part of the Gospel that He is), idolatry of nation or church will have no resting-place.

Christ is Lord & King - not Caesar, not the Pope, not America, not any of these or other such idols, but Christ alone.

[Rat-biter]

@evagrius February 21, 2009 at 05:31 AM:

## At least John XXIII's cause is further advanced than that of Venerable Cesare Baronio (Cong.Orat.) (1538-1607), who has been stuck at Venerable since 1745.

[Rat-biter]

@evagrius | February 12, 2009 at 12:11 AM:

"The purpose of the monastic, contemplative life, for instance, is not dis-incarnation but a deeper incarnation than the one generally experienced by most us."

## There is a serious weakness at the very root of monasticism, which was brilliantly diagnosed by K.E. Kirk in his book "The Vision of God" (pubd.1931). Vatican II approaches it indirectly, without getting to the root of the matter. Kirk calls it the Double Standard.

It is this: if the Vision of God is for all Christians irrespective of their state of life, & since it is granted that it is; the distinction between life "in the world" & monastic life becomes problematic. This Double Standard of life may be valid (though still problematic), or it may be invalid. An invalid statement of the DS is the distinction that has it that the monastic life is in fact superior *per se* to life in the world; a valid statement of the distinction does not exalt monasticism in that way.

Either way, the distinction remains problematic, for if the Vision of God is admitted to be for all Christians irrespective of their state of life, the point of monasticism ceases to be apparent. To say that the monk leaves the world because of its entanglements, and that therefore monasticism is a more heroic way of life, won't quite do; because the Christian in the world lives amid these entanglements - which strongly suggests that (if we must think in such terms) his way of life demands the greater heroism. This would be an example of the DS as invalid.

The problem with monasticism is this whole purpose of "a deeper incarnation than the one generally experienced by most us" - that's all very well for the monk; but it leaves most of the Church as second-class citizens in the Church, as having to make do with inferior knowledge of God purely because of our state in the world. Which in turn implies some version of an invalid form of the Double Standard. It would mean that we, who live in the world, have to survive on iron rations, unlike our monastic brethren who are withdrawn from the responsibilities of life in the world; it would mean they are being feasted on the the delights of the Vision of God, whereas we must be content with the crumbs.