While talking about the Lutherans, let’s not forget the Catholics

Mark P. writes:

I reject the argument made by Vincent C. and others, that the Catholic doctrine on immigration is not as authoritative and binding as detractors believe it to be. In reality, vulgar “street” Catholicism openly advocates suicidal “alliances” with Moslems and mass non-Western immigration that will permanently alter the United States. This is simply a fact. Lame interpretations of Vatican II or the Catechism that insist on a merely pastoral or suggestive support for these policies and that whitewash the actual activities of boots-on-the-ground Catholics is the same sophistical trick used by Marxists.

Has Mark’s criticism of Catholics gone over the line? Sage McLaughlin thinks so. He writes:

While Mark P. may find the distinction between “street” Catholicism and the binding authority of the Magesterium to be trifling, I can assure you both that for serious Catholics the distinction is anything but. No one disputes the fact that the hierarchy is largely in favor of open borders, or that the post-Conciliar Church has become of hotbed of leftism, or that its activism reflects this fact.

But the Church herself is more ancient than any government or political movement on the planet, and there is no reason to believe she will not outlast them all. Genuinely conservative, orthodox Catholics do in fact take the distinction between the current political fashions of the Church, and the teaching authority of the Magesterium, very seriously indeed. If he wants to retain any allies at all in this fight for civilization, he had better learn to take that distinction seriously. It isn’t “sophistry,” and whether he believes it or not, Church teaching does not force me to choose between my civilization and my Church. Mark’s suggestion that every professing Catholic is an enemy of the West—which is the inescapable conclusion one must reach if he is to read Mark literally—is not just bigoted and stupid, it is actually dangerous.

I wonder, incidentally, what his credentials are for interpreting the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and the dogmatic status of those documents? I was under the impression that the Council was a pastoral, and not a dogmatic, Council, but if I’m wrong and Mark is right I’d love to see him back up his assertion. If the orthodox interpretation of those documents is “lame,” then I’d be very interested to get his read on the matter. If he has access to some knowledge that would indicate that the Church’s support for liberal immigration laws is anything more than pastoral, I’d love to know which dogmatic council or infallible pronouncement he is referring to.

It is one thing to suggest that the Church in its current orientation is an enemy of Western civilization. He’s quite right about that. It is quite another to suggest that it is irredeemably so. If all Mark means to say is that “a difference that doesn’t make a difference isn’t a difference,” then there’s a little something to his point. But taking the long view, he’d still be wrong, since the difference we’re talking about is the very thing that enables us to say that the Church could be different than she is today. Mark seems to deride this perspective altogether, unless I mistake his meaning.

LA replies:

This is my exact position by the way, that organized Christianity it now exists is an enemy of Western civilization, but that this is a distortion of true Christianity and can be changed. However, I do not see that Mark P.’s position is any different from mine or Mr. McLaughlin’s in this regard. He is describing broadly accepted Catholic beliefs as they now exist, is he not? Since Sage McLaughlin believes that “the Church in its current orientation is an enemy of Western civilization,” why is he so offended by Mark P.’s comments?

Sage McLaughlin replies:

In answer to the question you posed in your reply, what I find offensive is Mark’s apparent suggestion that the Catholic Church is an inveterate enemy of the West, and that any suggestion she could be made to be otherwise is “lame” “sophistry.” I submit to you that the Church has been different, and will again be different, than she is today. This is only possible if people such as myself keep their eyes fixed on the long arc, as it were, of Church teaching. At one point much of the Church hierarchy were Gnostic heretics, but because their errors were never codified into dogma, they were rooted out. This is still possible, and as a Catholic, I must believe it to be possible, even if Mark thinks I’m playing some kind of Marxist-inspired word game.

PS – I’m open to the suggestion that I’m overreacting entirely, and if it can be demonstrated that I have misread Mark’s meaning, then I am prepared to apologize for it.

LA replies:

I think the word game he is referring to is when Catholics say that because Vatican II documents do not have dogmatic authority, they therefore have no authority at all. Clearly, if the Church in its present orientation is an enemy of the West, as you have said, then that is not just an orientation of some Catholic individuals, but an orientation backed up by at least some degree of effective institutional Church authority. Otherwise we could not even speak of such an orientation as existing.

As for your comment that you are prepared if persuaded to admit that you were wrong, that is spoken like a true man of the West.

Sage M. replies:

I have to run out the door to take care of some things, so I may not be able to respond until this afternoon. This will give me a chance to mull over what you’ve said, which I think does clarify some things.

Bruce B. writes:

Sage Mac writes: “This is only possible if people such as myself keep their eyes fixed on the long arc, as it were, of Church teaching.”

No. Only the Magisterium matters. If I understand Roman Catholicism (a big if), the Holy Spirit works on the magisterium to preserve Christ’s church and correct teaching. I admire the traditionalist Roman Catholic laity, but what they think doesn’t matter. It’s not a democracy.

Mark P. replies:

This is a response to Sage McLaughlin.

1) I don’t believe that the distinction between “street” Catholicism and the Magisterium is trifling. I fully accept that real Catholicism transcends Man and that the actual doctrines of the Catholic Church are what matter and not what the laity thinks it is. We are, however, not having a religious dispute. Instead, we are discussing the Church’s impact, at present, on the temporal world. Apparently, the Magisterium is not what is controlling that impact. What purpose does it serve to argue the importance of the Magisterium while ignoring the fact that, in temporal matters, it is being ignored?

2) I understand that the Church outlasts, and has outlasted, government and political movements. Yes, I believe that it will one day return to that correct teaching. It’s just that I would prefer that day to occur in my lifetime. Living in some “Sin City” world (with a viciously corrupt, though temporary, Catholic Church) in the interim is not my cup of tea.

3) I view the Catholic Church as an old friend that is now suffering through a major mental illness harmful to himself and others. It is good to keep in mind that the Church, like an old friend, is what it (or he) always was, not merely what he is at the moment. Yet, a person or an institution that is harmful to itself and others needs to be institutionalized (segregated) until such a time that it heals. That is all I am suggesting.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 28, 2007 02:59 AM | Send