Pope Benedict XVI said, “The Lord has allowed you to live in this moment of history so that, by your faith, His name will continue to resound throughout the world.” It’s a two-fold reminder to me that I often need to return to. First, no matter what the times are, it is necessary for Christians to live in them and to carry the faith through. We cannot retreat because it is a time of persecution or heresy; that is when the faithful are needed most. Second, the times in which I live will shape me. I will be susceptible to certain temptations or heresies that someone 400 years ago might not. Rather than bemoan my predicament, I should use my position best I can to carry forward the mission of the Church. We don’t get to pick the circumstances we face, but we have an obligation to face them anyway.
In college, I was around a lot of both modernist and postmodernist
thought (though it was rarely labeled as such). And it seemed logical and
consistent with what I’d already developed about reality, knowledge,
philosophy. It’s not so much that I was taught this ideology but rather that I
was surrounded by it as “just the way things are” so that it seemed silly to
think otherwise. Modernism posits that human reason is bound entirely to what
is perceptible to the senses and in the manner in which they are perceptible.
Therefore, we are capable to finding all our answers anew through experience
and observation. From this spring postmodernism, which rejects any overarching
theories or ideologies; it must all be defined by the individual. Both posit
that traditions (art, architecture, literature, religion, organizations, daily
activities, etc) are outdated for an industrial world and must continually
evolve to sate a developing society as it sees fit. Simple, right? Look around,
take what works for you. Tear apart structure and form and build anew as you deem
necessary.
But it’s too simple. And it’s untrue. By rejecting realism, modernism
rejects reality. In Pascendi Domninici Gregis, Pope Pius X says, “It is
a fixed and established principle among them[modernists] that both science and
history must be atheistic: and within their boundaries there is room for
nothing but phenomena; God and all that is divine are utterly excluded.” He
saw the deceptions of modernism and the ideas of relative truth they led
toward.
Under modernism, at best, religion is born out of an innate, animal
desire for the divine being expressed. Religious reality exists in the
experience of the individual, and the individual’s experience is proof enough.
Absolute truth is meaningless, as experience can be had in any religion. It
also cannot be argued against, for that would be an attack on the personal
believer. We see this in the “spiritual but not religious” crowd, and in “well,
this is true for me.”
This aspect of modernism is something I’ve believed for a long time,
and it’s still a work to break out of this cycle of thinking. Because to tell
someone that they are wrong feels like a personal attack. I feel that I am
judging them or devaluing their life experience. We’re told not to judge,
right? Then who’s to say that I am right or they are wrong? My truth is not their
truth, and it’s intolerant for me to suggest otherwise. So how do I defend
objective truth?
When original experience trumps passed-down tradition, all religions
become equally true (or rather, equally untrue). When the Church is criticized
as being judgmental and rigid, the criticism comes from the belief that there
is no authority and there is no universal truth. All personal experiences,
insomuch as they are perceived, are equally valid. In this ideology, tradition
and authority try to conserve the status quo while modernism and individual
consciences try to continually evolve and progress, pitting tradition against
conscience and authority against the individual.
As Pius X says, “With all this in mind, one understands how it is
that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished.
What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty. Being in
intimate contact with consciences they know better than anybody else, and
certainly better than the ecclesiastical authority, what needs exist - nay,
they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Having a voice and a pen they use
both publicly, for this is their duty. Let authority rebuke them as much as it
pleases - they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate
experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame
but praise. Then they reflect that, after all there is no progress without a
battle and no battle without its victim, and victims they are willing to be
like the prophets and Christ Himself. They have no bitterness in their hearts
against the authority which uses them roughly, for after all it is only doing
its duty as authority.”
Disagreement on the existence of truth, on the authority of experience, on foundational ways of understanding the world seems like insurmountable barriers to communication. And many days, it feels like modernism has won, in society, in corners of the Church, in myself. I don’t have solutions, other than recognizing my own faults, and vocalizing that there are ideologies that are not rooted in modernism. It is not “just the way things are” and debates do not need to follow the rules of modernist thought. I do not have to bow to that standard just because I live at this moment in history.
No comments:
Post a Comment