When the pseudonymous Fr. Gassalasca Jape, SJ, began writing in the New Pantagruel last year, I had appreciative words for his critique of liberalism, which appeared to recognize its religious roots in a way that the liberal critics of late liberalism were unable to see. Here, I thought, was a potential ally in the common struggle of believing Christians against liberal hegemony in the public square. His observations inspired me to write something of a follow-up article, which appeared in the summer 2004 issue of tNP. Since then, sad to say, "Fr. Jape" appears to have turned on his potential allies, or at least on those of us within the ranks of neocalvinism. For this I am truly sorry, as I believe that members of the body of Christ desperately need to form coalitions rather than foment further internal schisms.
Now "Fr. Jape" has taken on my respected friend Ray Pennings, long connected with the Christian Labour Association of Canada, for the unspeakable offence of counselling civility as we undertake to debate the controversies which inevitably arise within the political arena. By contrast, "Fr. Jape" argues:
It is a severe fact that one cannot take clear stands on many critical issues without expressing contempt for "the deeply held convictions of others with whom [one] disagree[s]." The proper attitude toward a person or position one regards as contemptuous of, say, human life, is contempt — which need not preclude pity, fear, and even compassion. Anything less indicates one does not really take the matter seriously. It is always the fitting implication and sign of honesty in even the most "civil" disputes that the disputants are clearly antagonists whose differences cannot be reconciled or infinitely deferred without there being a winner and a loser.
Three observations are in order here.
First, whoever is behind the "Fr. Jape" persona does the curmudgeonly Jesuit priest rather well, although I'm beginning to harbour suspicions that he (or she) is guilty at least of severely overplaying this role. If one is urging others on to expressing contempt for those opinions with which they disagree, then the decent thing would seem to be to stop hiding behind the mask, come out into the open and take responsibility for one's own viewpoints.
Second, "Fr. Jape" is entirely too confident that the sort of incivility he proposes to unleash in the public square will not lead to a shooting war in the streets. Many abolitionists probably thought the same thing in the run-up to the American Civil War. Moreover, those who would too quickly resort to the language of warfare within the political realm are unlikely to manifest due respect for our political institutions as political institutions, with a God-given mandate to do justice on an on-going basis. At most they will be considered mere means to the achievement of specific desired goals, which are then, quite by themselves, identified with justice in its entirety. I am reminded here of Thomas More's zealous son-in-law, William Roper, in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons, who would "cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil," to which the more seasoned More replies, "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat?" Those who would spurn the sorts of procedures and compromises necessitated by ordinary politics because the results do not perfectly match up to their expectations should not be surprised if they one day end up exiled from their homes and means of livelihood, which was the fate of my father's compatriots in Cyprus, the more passionate of whom eschewed civil discourse and could not bring themselves to accept half measures when they were offered.
Third, I think James Brink may be onto something in his aside on Jape's critique of liberalism. If one indiscriminately identifies liberalism with societal differentiation in general, then the tendency will be, not simply to reject liberalism at its spiritual roots, but to try to stop history in its tracks and perhaps even to reverse it. If so, then, like the marxist utopians of yore (recent "yore," to be sure), one will be trying to bend the world in a way in which it simply, structurally cannot go. However, if Jape is not, after all, attempting to taint every societal development since the 16th century with the liberal label, then I'm sure we would all like to hear it — and preferably from the person behind the mask.
No comments:
Post a Comment