The Latins Need Ivan Illich

They did not deserve him while he was alive; probably they still do not deserve him now. His critiques are applicable to many of the Orthodox jurisdictions as well.

Ivan Illich, a Philosopher For Our Times by Mark Sunwall

Illich was aware that there are indeed institutions which are primarily dedicated to their functions, however he pointed out that beyond certain levels of scale and entrenchment, whatever remains of their functionality becomes secondary to the enhancement of power, wealth, and status. As a Catholic Christian Illich was probably aware of Acton’s saying that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, but regardless, the principle itself was a touchstone of his own understanding of institutions. Illich was and is a helpful thinker since he understood that the injustices of modern institutions were seldom carried out as extensions of naked tyranny. Rather they are typically cloaked with the trappings of benevolence and progress, the toxic effects of which only become observable in the long run.

The clerical sex scandal and its fallout should have been a revelation of how out of touch many of the bishops are, and how there is a manifest lack of accountability to their flocks. After 1800 years of the ecclesial status quo, will it be possible for Latins to reconsider their ecclesiological presuppositions? When the gap between how things are now and how they are should be are so large, can there be any sort of reform that seems "gradual"? Having individual parishes incorporate as separate entities may be one measure, but it does not go far enough.

Surely few of Illich’s original fans would ever consider In the Vinyard of the Text the apex of his work.  After all, in the revolutionary ’60s it would not have been considered “relevant.”   Yet in taking up themes from the middle ages and Scholasticism (granted the many limitations of the latter) Illich was expanding “conviviality” from a social bond limited to the present, to a mystical conversation binding together the present, past, and future.  In other words, he was coming out in favor of tradition and the inheritance which the present receives from the past.  If that isn’t the earmark of a conservative thinker I don’t know what is.  Moreover I doubt that this was a novel turn in Illich’s thought, but rather the public revelation of a deep strata of his mind which had long been obscured by his active engagement with the hot-button issues of his times.

Illich may have seemed like a radical thinker, but he may have seemed radical because his calls for reform were inline with the requirements of preaching and living the Gospel, and his critics failed to realize this.