Merry Christmas

Though I doubt anybody else is going to visit this site today, it does not seem fitting that on Christmas Eve, I should let my last word be the rather angry one with which I ended my last post. Merry Christmas, and may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Heroic Virtue and Infallibility

While agreeing that unless they know something really big that we don’t, the Vatican’s promulgation of the heroic virtue of Pius XII is a stretch (and in poor taste), I cannot help but find fault with this article that came across my facebook news feed this morning. The author accuses the Vatican of tampering with the evidence of the Shoah, not by covering up the pope’s active participation (there was none), but by making Pius out to be a hero. He was perhaps no worse than any other world leader, but he did know early about the Holocaust and never spoke out against it, only taking initiative to see that German Catholics and baptized Jews were not targeted. This author sees this, rightly I think, as evidence of a broad cultural failure. The Shoah was not merely the crime of a few, but was enabled by centuries of anti-Judaism, among other factors. Benedict, the author says, seems to be trying to make it out to be the opposite, and speeches are cited to this effect. Last Saturday’s action, calling Pius a Christian of heroic virtue, fits well in the pattern. If the author had stopped there, I would be in complete agreement with him.

Unfortunately, he goes on to voice suspicion that

But the failure of Pius XII to pass the decisive moral test of the 20th century undercuts this hierarchy, and any meaningful claim to papal infallibility—which is why his failure must be denied at all costs.

This would seem to be true, except that it’s patently false. The author has misunderstood the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility, which is a great deal more modest than its popular representation. Infallibility means two things. In its broader sense, it means only that the church is protected by the Holy Spirit from erring in its doctrine to such an extent that its identity as the body of Christ professing the catholic faith is compromised. It does not mean that it cannot make mistakes on any number of points, even very important ones, at least as I understand it. This notion was present in some form for most of the history of the Catholic Church, and I imagine that most Protestants too believe in something like it.

But we are talking about papal infallibility, which was promulgated by the First Vatican Council in 1870ish. This version of the doctrine holds that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, that is, in his capacity as the teacher of the church and with an intent that his statement be a definitive articulation of the church’s teaching, he is prevented from erring. The moral stature of the person holding the office is irrelevant. Infallibility is held to be a gift of the Holy Spirit, not an achievement of the Pope. Andonlysuch ex cathedra statements are covered. Did I mention that only statements ex cathedra are covered? There have, by the way, been only two such promulgations, both bearing on the church’s teaching regarding Mary.

While I think this doctrine is conceited beyond belief (I am a liberal Protestant, after all), it should be clear that it has nothing to do with the moral failures of a particular pope, even very severe moral failures. The papacy’s credibility (in a PR sense) may be at issue; its infallibility (in a doctrinal sense) is not. Journalists and others would do well to avoid such sensational claims, or at least take five minutes to read something like the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on infallibility before undermining their own credibility by confusing technical doctrine language with its everyday usage and creating needless hype.

Speaking of technical language, I suspect that “heroic virtue” is also a technical term, and that it might not be as ridiculous to someone who knows the jargon of the Vatican to make such a claim about Pius XII, even given his miserable moral failure. I think that also softens the accusation against the Vatican somewhat, or ought to. I do think that the author is probably right about the trajectory of the Pope’s recent statements on the Holocaust, but again, failure to ask what the words the Vatican is using mean (which could have been remedied with a google search) enables people with more zeal than wisdom to make Benedict and Co. out to be monsters, when they are really just jerks.

And that brings us to the real problem Rome has, which I’ve noted before. The failure is pastoral, not moral. In their world, it makes perfect sense to call Pius XII a man of heroic virtue, because in their lingo, it might even be true. And frankly, this really is an internal matter. But they either don’t understand or don’t care that no matter what the phrase “heroic virtue” means to them, most people outside the walls of the Vatican are outraged hearing the phrase applied to Pius XII. And even I, knowing what they mean (having performed the aforementioned Google search), can’t help feeling sardonic.

I can’t decide whether frenzied journalists or insular prelates annoy me more. God save us from both.

On Secularism: A Rant from a Cultured Despiser

I used to love I Love Lucy. Still do, though I’ve seen pretty much every episode multiple times. And sometimes the suspension of disbelief required to enjoy a show depicting life in the 50s without getting upset over the cultural assumptions of the time just is just a little more than I can muster (no, I have not seen Mad Men). But normally I love it. There is an episode where Lucy and Ricky are traveling to Havana where Ricky will perform and Lucy will meet Ricky’s family. She expresses concern about communicating, since Spanish is hard to learn. Ricky tries to be sympathetic, but still points out that he had to learn English. Lucy responds, “Yeah, but Spanish is a foreign language!” The audience laughs.

Now, while I do think you should learn Spanish, querido lector, I actually want to make an analogy about religion. There’s an interesting post on Salon today about being a Christian in the liberal, secular culture of the parts of New York and other cities that belong on Stuff White People Like. An interesting and worthwhile read. And don’t worry, it’s not about being persecuted. It merely explores the phenomenon of closet Christianity and some of the frustrations that go with it, and it ends with the author wondering whether she ought to be a little more upfront about her faith. Certainly not to the point of being pushy, but simply not letting people get away with the ridiculous and usually unfavorable generalizations people make about religion based on its worse specimens.

The fact is that a lot of people have very understandable reasons for holding conceptions of religion and Christianity that are no less bigoted or prejudicial than the conceptions many people entertain about, say, the GLBT community. Now if it’s just a matter of anger, then I don’t blame them for being mad. I’d worry if they weren’t, in fact. And far be it from me to claim that there’s anything wrong with not being a member of a religious community of one sort or another. What gets me going is the assumption that secularity is the default setting of the human race, that in the absence of the various external factors that have caused people to be religious over the years (ignorance of the causes of natural phenomena, social indoctrination, inability to cope with grief or loss, etc.), people would be secular Europeans.

In 20th century social science, the “secularization hypothesis” was commonplace for much of the century. It held that as these factors were removed, religion would gradually vanish. What the social and human sciences are now having to do is figure out why this hypothesis failed so miserably (which has led to quite the revival of interest in religion; it is now the most popular theme among historians, having just passed things like culture, gender, military/diplomacy, etc).

There are all sorts of reasons for the failure of the hypothesis, and many dissertations and articles about it to keep those who care busy. I would only note the obvious Eurocentrism of it, which should be obvious today in a way it wasn’t early in the last century. I would also note that it fundamentally misunderstands what religions are, which should have been obvious to anyone since Schleiermacher wrote his Speeches in 1799, whether or not one accepts his account. And finally, it misunderstands secularism.

Secularity is not a neutral state entered when people ceased to be religious. It requires a set of assumptions and values no more self-evident than those of any religion. And I would even be so bold to say that it is the least natural setting of humanity (I’m going with this computer metaphor), because whether or not there’s anything out there, humans have a need to worship. And I would submit as evidence of this that every time anyone tries to drive away religion on a large scale, what replaces it starts assuming religious characteristics. Witness the devotion of revolutionary France to liberté, égalité, et fraternité. They even rededicated Notre Dame to the Cult of Reason.

You don’t have to go to church. You don’t have to believe in God. Be as secular as you like. But don’t try to tell me you don’t believe anything. And don’t act like you’re normal and the rest of us are weird. Just as white people are a global oddity, so is secularism. Being an atheist or an agnostic may be the only intellectually honest or otherwise viable option for you, but it comes no more naturally to the human race than speaking English. The more you insist to the contrary, the more religious you’ll sound.