What's Wrong with Uhmerican Catholicism

"We just want to be nice."

Went to the DSPT tonight for the panel on Natural Law in American Rhetoric, Jurisprudence and Governance, with Russell Hittinger, Jean Porter and Lloyd Weinreb. I was disappointed, and it didn't change my opinion about JP but reinforced the suspicion of heterodoxy (at which a trusted Dominican on the East coast had hinted before). She seemed like the stereotypical feminist academic in appearance and demeanor, and her voice could make one's ears bleed - not only because of how it sounded but also because of her apparent dissent from Church teaching. She alluded to Humanae Vitae and had the temerity to suggest that not everything was de fide - which might be true of the reasoning or the theology but she seemed to take it further than that, referring to the prohibition on the use of artificial contraception and characterizing the Church's response as a refusal to concede that maybe the Holy Spirit did not speak through the Catholic Church but through Protestants (i.e. the Lambeth Conference). (I didn't know JP was that old. More evidencethat the Ph.D., nor a position in a theology department at a Catholic institution, hasn't meant anything for a while. Why struggle for a piece of paper useless in the real world and quite devalued when it comes to rank and intellectual achievement?)

The panel was too civil. While it is understandable that RT and JP did not express any criticism of one another openly (assuming they disagree on HV, and I think they do) because they are "colleagues" in academia and deal with the same subject matter, see each other at conferences, and so on, none of the Dominicans or people in the audience called JP out for what she said. Perhaps a real debate is not what the school wanted, especially since the moderator, the chair of theology, stated that the panel was a model of [polite] discussion about natural law, etc. (Some comments could be made about her as well.) And the school was using the event as publicity for itself, so attacking an academic might have negative consequences for the school and its image. Then why bother? It is, perhaps, related to the [liberal] assumption that disagreements about natural law (whether that names the precepts or the [normative] model of practical reason) is due solely to differences in reasoning, and that appetite has no part to play in influencing reason. The "charitable" assumption that all who engage in discussion of natural law are of "good will" may be unwarranted. At any rate, playing by the rules of liberals will probably not help the Church "win," persuade others of the correctness of Church teaching. There is more at work than just mere differences of opinion.

But wouldn't that sort of niceness backfire? If I were a rich orthodox Catholic,why would I donate money to an Catholic [educational] institution that tolerated that sort of open dissent (even if it is done in the name of academic freedom or Catholic "fidelity")?

Who among the Dominicans would be bold enough to defend patriarchy (or teach the natural law precepts pertaining to patriarchy) and attack feminism in all its forms? I can't imagine any of them really rocking the boat and saying anything controversial. But if marriages between Catholics have been failing for a while (and not just recently with the increase in divorce), might that not be a cause why there are not more eminent examples of married saints? I suppose I should look at the old moral theology manuals and confessors' manuals to see how much was devoted to the relationship dynamics between spouses. But there may be an argument for married men being ordained to the priesthood, if married men have a better understanding of how men and women relate and should relate. At the very least, those who are being ordained to the priesthood should have a real, in-depth knowledge of the differences between men and women and dealing with relating to women properly? But how true is this of all those "nice" Catholic guys in the seminary? That sort of experience would be beneficial with respect to "pastoral" advice; and it would serve to illuminate why St. Paul teaches what he does.

The invasion of academia by [unqualified] women, emasculated men, the loss of a proper patriarchal order in society; where is our courageous bishop who is willing to call a heretic a heretic? And to defend St. Paul from the innovators?

I'm a bit regretful for recommending the event to the YAs; while no one I know was there, I hope none of them decided to watch the live-streamed and was scandalized as a result.

Again, I see no reason to think a renewal is on its way. Perhaps there is too much emphasis in the popular narrative on religious liberty, attacks on the Church from without, persecution, and the like. Maybe we should consider the possibility that we did it to ourselves.