REINVENTING RELIGION
by Anthony J. Sheehan
Appearing in "The Georgetown Academy", March 1995.
For those who have not read Fr. O'Donovan's essay, <Ethics-Our
Heritage>, (GEORGETOWN MAGAZINE, Winter, 1995), his main arguments
can be summarized thusly: Georgetown should teach and practice
ethics, not just for their own sake, but to engage in a moral
discourse with the representatives of other civilizations,
cultures, traditions, subcultures, i.e. a veritable Babel of
ethical exponents. This crowd will work to discover their shared
values: the purpose of this moral discourse is nothing less than
the discovery of a natural moral law that everyone in our
multicultural world can accept. This moral or ethical-the author
incorrectly uses the terms interchangeably-set of principles is
founded on a [yet undiscovered] truth that will be embraced by all,
once they find it. All this is necessary because the welcome re-
appearance of multiculturalism is, <a priori>, a good thing. G.U.
must accommodate herself to that fact, otherwise the conflict of
cultures and "various moral visions" will continue to foment moral
and civil anarchy, and possibly inaugurate World War III.
This farrago of errors, half-truths, Jesuitical reasoning [in
the worst sense], and theological flabbiness is dangerous only
insofar as it seems new and unexamined. It is neither; such
pernicious nonsense has been propagated and then exposed as the
tommyrot it is and always has been. Despite this, it re-appears in
different guises.
One of the basic tenets of this essay is the putative
necessity for "explicit ethical reflection", "a search for ethical
truths which serve humanity's highest interests", the discovery of
"a natural moral law", and the "updating of our religious
tradition". These exhortations reveal not only Fr. O'Donovan's
ignorance or repudiation of Catholic doctrine, but also what he and
his ilk believe to be important. [It is possible that someone other
than Fr. O'Donovan wrote this article. If so, I suggest that he
appoint an <advocatus diaboli> to review any future submissions for
his approval]. The fallacy here is what C.S. Lewis, [a more
redoubtable Christian apologist than a bushel of modern
theologians], dubbed "Christianity And", as opposed to "Mere
Christianity". As the archfiend Screwtape instructed his protege
Wormwood, "If they must be Christians, let them at least be
Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some
Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the
Same Old Thing". Thus, today we have Christianity and Feminism,
Christianity and Human Sexuality, Christianity and Racism,
Christianity, Violence, and Victimization, and of course,
Christianity and Multiculturalism.
Father O'Donovan is quite apalled at the Same Old Thing. His
essay strongly suggests that Catholicism is so incomplete, feeble,
and archaic that it requires some modernizing and accessories to
cope with the ethical challenges of these unique and progressive
times. He praises the Pope's recent book as an expression of the
recovery of the Catholic tradition reinterpreted for our age, and
claims that updating our religious tradition is as important as
understanding it. He coldly disregards Dr. Johnson's excellent
advice that people need to be reminded more often than they need to
be instructed; as Lewis writes, it is the task of a moral teacher
continually to return our attention to those moral truths that we
are most reluctant to see. Fr. O'Donovan prefers to pursue will-o-
the-wisp ethical standards [those "not exclusively dependent on
faith or revelation but are, in principle, discoverable by reason"]
rather than to instruct, exhort, encourage, and lead his students
in the observance of moral and ethical truths long held by the
Church as its patrimony from God. Truth is eternal; fashions
ephemeral. What will Fr. O'Donovan's position be on Christianity
and Nationalism, Christianity and Nature Worship, or whatever the
next popular passion may be? Can he really believe that "Mere
Christianity" lacks the strength and Divine wisdom to guide us
without the assistance of every creed, cult, and cause that prides
itself on its ethical purity, compassion, or innovations. As a
Catholic, can he truly think that God somehow failed to foresee the
"modern-day ethical complexities" which now make His words obsolete
and compel us to look elsewhere for the truth? This is risible; it
is akin to believing that certain inconvenient or hoary Christian
doctrines have expiration dates, like milk or bread, e.g. This
applies only until the invention of the computer or, Valid only if
the American Medical Society approves of it.
His scrupulous avoidance of strictly defining words like
ethics, moral, religion, and Catholic gives Fr. O'Donovan all the
latitude he needs to assign any meaning he chooses to these terms,
since all the factions of diversity now have their own definitons
of these words. Which ones are Fr. O'Donovan using? Is Catholicism
the teachings of the Bible and the Church as held by the Pope and
the Magisterium or the postmodernist and self-serving creed of the
liberal `Catholics'? To quote C.S. Lewis, "The point is not a
theological or a moral one. It is only a question of using words so
that we can all understand what is being said". Moral and ethical
are not synonyms; morality depends on God and religion whereas
ethics is a natural science of the morality of human acts,
determined primarily through human reason rather than through
Divinely revealed truth. [<Cath. Encyc. Dict.>, N.Y., 1929, pp.
345, 651].
C.S. Lewis [again] exposes a major flaw in the author's
theology. Lewis identifies the three parts of morality: "relations
between man and man; the things inside each man; and the relations
between each man and the power that made him. There is general
agreement on the first part. Disagreements begin on the second and
become serious with the third". Lewis explains: people notice the
effects of social immorality, i.e. war, crime, corruption,
oppression, because they are obvious and, for most people,
unpleasant and the great majority agree on what is socially moral
and what is not. This is not true of the two other types. Personal
morality for most people has become subjective. One can do anything
"as long as it doesn't hurt anyone". Such an attitude encourages
every kind of depravity and vice within a man, while it ignores the
reality that only good people can make society good. Man's
relationship with God is even more crucial because all morality
depends on it. We cannot learn to love our neighbors as ourselves
until we first learn how to love God, and we cannot learn to love
God unless we learn to obey Him. Today's society and Fr. O'Donovan
are solely concerned with the first part of morality, viz.,
liberation theology, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
the partial Biblical quotation he cites all refer to social morals.
Society ignores the other two elements because it is easier to do
so; so does the Fr. O'Donovan because it suits his purpose, which
is to appease the delegates of multiculturalism and [despite his
denials] the moral relativists. This is ironic because while Fr.
O'Donovan is crying for the discovery of shared values in an area
where the most agreement exists, even among the secularists and the
multicultualists, he remains silent on those moral rules that are
proper to religion. Lewis demonstrates that, although there are
disagreements about both personal morality and about man's
relationship with his Creator, the latter are far more serious and
show the main difference between Christian and non-Christian
morality.
This is a chasm that no amount of shared values or moral
discourse can bridge. It cannot be done; despite Fr. O'Donovan's
pleas and insistence, there can be no common ground and no
agreement until one side surrenders or is defeated. Christ has told
us, "He who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather
with me scatters". This also disposes of the author's plea for
toleration as the mechanism for balancing the demands of
multiculturalism with the quest for ethical truth. He denies that
he equates toleration with the uncritical acceptance of all ideas,
but he is disengenuous. The Church teaches that toleration means
renouncing anger and violence against those we see doing evil or
persisting in error. Toleration does not extend to evil or error;
they must be condemned because truth and falsehood cannot be equal
and truth, whether rational or revealed, admits of no compromise.
[<Cath. Encyc. Dict.>, pp 966-67].
Fr. O'Donovan quotes Cardinal Newman approvingly as one who
favored "true enlargement of mind". One wonders what the author
thinks of Cardinal Newman on the subject of toleration and shared
values. In his sermon, "The Religion of the Day", [about the
Anglican Church], he said, "Religion is pleasant and easy,
benevolence is the chief virtue, intolerance, bigotry, excessive
zeal are the first of sins. It includes no true fear of God, no
fervent zeal for His honour, no deep hatred of sin, no horror at
the sight of sinners, no indignation and compassion at the
blasphemies of heretics, no jealous adherence to doctrinal truth
and is therefore neither hot nor cold, but in Scripture language,
lukewarm....<I will not shrink from uttering my firm conviction
that it would be a gain to this country were it vastly more
superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its
religion than at present it shows itself to be">. [Emphasis mine].
The Cardinal elsewhere said what he thought about the value of
"full, vigorous, moral discourse with other views and traditions".
"I came to the conclusion that <there was no medium in true
philosophy between atheism and Catholicity>, and that a perfectly
consistent mind ... must embrace either the one or the other".
[Emphasis mine].
There certainly are truths in other religions and cultures.
Most have long ago been recognized and are embraced or approved by
Catholicism. But multiculturalism is hardly new. Can the author
have forgotten that the Catholic Church arose in one of the
greatest multicultural civilizations-the Roman Empire-yet Christ
did not command his disciples to go and "discover those elements of
commonality that make moral discourse possible". He said nothing
about dialogue, nor being open to moral argument or promoting
ethical reflection. He did say, "Go, therefore, and make disciples
of all nations, baptizing them... [and] teaching them to observe
all that I have commanded you..."
This essay's most dangerous error is found in Fr. O'Donovan's
astonishing claim that, "...liberation theology [arose] <to make
the church [sic] and its gospel credible...>" [How, then, can one
acccount for the Church's conversion of Europe and other vast areas
in the 19 centuries before it was blessed with this new doctrine?].
Lewis illustrates the ineluctably fatal consequences of this
spiritual blindness best in Screwtape's advice on strategy. "On the
other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat
Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their
own advancement but, failing that, as a means to anything-even to
social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value
social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work
him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may
produce social justice. <For the Enemy will not be used as a
convenience.> Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in
order to make a good society might just as well think they can use
the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist's
shop...You see the little rift? `<Believe this, not because it is
true, but for some other reason'>. That's the game". [Emphasis
mine]. Why is Fr. O'Donovan still playing the infernal version of
three-card monte?
Fr. O`Donovan does not have the answers-he needs them. We all
do. Here are some suggestions. Heed G.K.Chesterton's words.
"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been
found difficult and never tried". Jesus said, "I am the Way, the
Truth, and the Life". When in doubt ask oneself <quid hoc ad
aeternitatem> [what is the value of this action or desire for
eternity]. Viewed that way, the answer is clear, because we will,
must live in eternity, where union with God is as inconceivably
joyous as separation from Him is the most unbearable misfortune.
AD MAJORAM DEI GLORIAM
This was the motto of the Society of Jesus. Is it still?
ANTHONY J. SHEEHAN
1606 Woodbine St.
Alexandria, VA., 22302
(703)-671-5090
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1995.
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
