5 thoughts on “Empire and the crisis of American conservatism”
The problem as I see is The problem as I see is explaining why the pope isn’t just another bureaucratic expert. I get that the pope takes into account the transcendental and isn’t bound by narrow secular standards. But if tradition needs an expert interpreter, isn’t that kind of an admission of the triumph of expertise over tradition.
I’d also add that from the perspective of someone outside Catholicism, the record of the papacy does not seem to be obviously superior overall than that of modern bureaucratic technocrats. It has done many things better of course, but other things rather quite worse.
The Pope is not a functionary There’s a discussion of the relation between tradition and personal authority and the constitution of the Church here. Tradition is necessary and it does most of the work but it’s not complete in itself. It’s about things and depends on things that are not simply traditional.
On the Pope: he doesn’t draw his authority from expertise. Or from his personal qualities or qualifications (apart from being a male Catholic). He gets it from God as successor to Peter by laying on of hands. Also, infallibility and full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church aren’t really qualities you’d expect in the explicit job description of a bureaucratic functionary.
John XII was the 18-year-old son of a Roman political bigwig and had an unfortunate character and family background. (As Gibbon wrote, “his rapes of virgins and widows deterred female pilgrims from visiting the shrine of St. Peter, lest, in the devout act, they should be violated by his successor.”) He was nonetheless Pope, and legitimately invested with the plenitude of papal power.
There has been a tendency in the post-WW II Church to see ecclesiastical authority as based on expertise. Hence the participation of periti (“experts”) at Vatican II, hence the proliferation of middle-management functionaries, and hence many of the consequent problems (the botched reform of the Mass, the effective claim by academic theologians to constitute a parallel magisterium, etc.). Hence also the hatred of Roman authority among those who support such tendencies.
Within the Church though I think the tide has turned against the attempted technocratic coup. The current Pope is certainly aware of it and fighting it. And as for the effectiveness of its constitution, the Church of Rome is still here after almost 2000 years, still I think with the same character. What other institution can match that record?
“On the Pope: he doesn’t draw “On the Pope: he doesn’t draw his authority from expertise. Or from his personal qualities or qualifications (apart from being a male Catholic). He gets it from God as successor to Peter by laying on of hands.”
This is the official ideology behind the papacy, but I’m not sure it is how the papacy actually functions. The pope is someone with special insight who can make the correct interpretations of tradition for us.
“Also, infallibility and full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church aren’t really qualities you’d expect in the explicit job description of a bureaucratic functionary.”
There seems to be a tendency to view Supreme Court judges as infallible interpreters of the Constitution.
Fundamental and secondary You shouldn’t confuse fundamental principles and secondary tendencies. In many ways all large human groups are similar. Some people have personal responsibility for this or that, some have special knowledge and skill, some engage the loyalty that gets decisions accepted.
There’s always a lot of overlap among the categories, but they’re never identical, and the accepted explanation of why it all makes sense (your “official ideology”) always plays up one aspect of the situation or another. You shouldn’t pooh-pooh accepted explanations. They do matter, for example in how disputed points are resolved, and the differences can have cumulative effects.
Catholics of course hope the Pope is competent but they do view him as somewhat like a father and believe that there are special graces of office. That’s why he’s infallible, for example.
If they didn’t there would be a lot more demands for democratizing the Church. Post-Vatican II there have indeed been people who make such demands. That’s part of the attempted coup I mentioned, which has also given us the (practically asserted) parallel magisterium of academic theologians.
The coup hasn’t succeeded and won’t succeed, although it’s gotten enough traction to gum up the works quite a bit. It does matter how successful it is. If it succeeded the Catholics would be like the Episcopalians. Basically, the Church would disappear because technocracy and explicit religion don’t go together.
As to infallible Supreme Court judges: that’s why I said “explicit job description.” Every system has to place ultimate personal decisionmaking power somewhere, but technocracy and liberalism deny the fact. That’s part of their essence.
The Papal Office. The problem as I see is explaining why the pope isn’t just another bureaucratic expert
From a Protestant view he is simply just that, and really has no other justification for his position.
On the other hand, if you accept the Catholic position, the office is “in tune” with the transcendent; at least with regard to his definitive teaching authority on faith and morals. Outside that narrow definition, he really is just another guy. For example, the current Pope is on the record as saying that Catholics are quite free to disagree with him on the subject of capital punishment, which he disagrees with, and is yet something which tradition and I strongly endorse.
Tradition doesn’t need an interpreter, as tradition is the interpretation. By this, I mean that tradition is the cumulative wisdom of our ancestors in trying to understand the transcendent. The unity which ties the papal office with tradition is the truth. The error that the traditionalists make is in assuming the “historical perspectve” ,assuming that by being chronologically closer to Jesus, tradition is somehow more in tune with him. The reality is that God is diachronic (exists across time) and therefore the transcendent is accessible always.
Just to be clear about this, truth can’t be seen as something internal, like a Berkelean idealists conception, rather truth exists as a reality outside ourselves. So when the Pope utters something infallible, it’s not his personal opinion about the matter, rather he becomes a perceptual vehicle of the truth: He becomes God’s mouthpiece. It’s the papal office and not the man which confers this capability. Once again, this only makes sense if you accept the Catholic view of the papal office, otherwise he’s just another guy.
The problem as I see is
The problem as I see is explaining why the pope isn’t just another bureaucratic expert. I get that the pope takes into account the transcendental and isn’t bound by narrow secular standards. But if tradition needs an expert interpreter, isn’t that kind of an admission of the triumph of expertise over tradition.
I’d also add that from the perspective of someone outside Catholicism, the record of the papacy does not seem to be obviously superior overall than that of modern bureaucratic technocrats. It has done many things better of course, but other things rather quite worse.
The Pope is not a functionary
There’s a discussion of the relation between tradition and personal authority and the constitution of the Church here. Tradition is necessary and it does most of the work but it’s not complete in itself. It’s about things and depends on things that are not simply traditional.
On the Pope: he doesn’t draw his authority from expertise. Or from his personal qualities or qualifications (apart from being a male Catholic). He gets it from God as successor to Peter by laying on of hands. Also, infallibility and full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church aren’t really qualities you’d expect in the explicit job description of a bureaucratic functionary.
John XII was the 18-year-old son of a Roman political bigwig and had an unfortunate character and family background. (As Gibbon wrote, “his rapes of virgins and widows deterred female pilgrims from visiting the shrine of St. Peter, lest, in the devout act, they should be violated by his successor.”) He was nonetheless Pope, and legitimately invested with the plenitude of papal power.
There has been a tendency in the post-WW II Church to see ecclesiastical authority as based on expertise. Hence the participation of periti (“experts”) at Vatican II, hence the proliferation of middle-management functionaries, and hence many of the consequent problems (the botched reform of the Mass, the effective claim by academic theologians to constitute a parallel magisterium, etc.). Hence also the hatred of Roman authority among those who support such tendencies.
Within the Church though I think the tide has turned against the attempted technocratic coup. The current Pope is certainly aware of it and fighting it. And as for the effectiveness of its constitution, the Church of Rome is still here after almost 2000 years, still I think with the same character. What other institution can match that record?
“On the Pope: he doesn’t draw
“On the Pope: he doesn’t draw his authority from expertise. Or from his personal qualities or qualifications (apart from being a male Catholic). He gets it from God as successor to Peter by laying on of hands.”
This is the official ideology behind the papacy, but I’m not sure it is how the papacy actually functions. The pope is someone with special insight who can make the correct interpretations of tradition for us.
“Also, infallibility and full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church aren’t really qualities you’d expect in the explicit job description of a bureaucratic functionary.”
There seems to be a tendency to view Supreme Court judges as infallible interpreters of the Constitution.
Fundamental and secondary
You shouldn’t confuse fundamental principles and secondary tendencies. In many ways all large human groups are similar. Some people have personal responsibility for this or that, some have special knowledge and skill, some engage the loyalty that gets decisions accepted.
There’s always a lot of overlap among the categories, but they’re never identical, and the accepted explanation of why it all makes sense (your “official ideology”) always plays up one aspect of the situation or another. You shouldn’t pooh-pooh accepted explanations. They do matter, for example in how disputed points are resolved, and the differences can have cumulative effects.
Catholics of course hope the Pope is competent but they do view him as somewhat like a father and believe that there are special graces of office. That’s why he’s infallible, for example.
If they didn’t there would be a lot more demands for democratizing the Church. Post-Vatican II there have indeed been people who make such demands. That’s part of the attempted coup I mentioned, which has also given us the (practically asserted) parallel magisterium of academic theologians.
The coup hasn’t succeeded and won’t succeed, although it’s gotten enough traction to gum up the works quite a bit. It does matter how successful it is. If it succeeded the Catholics would be like the Episcopalians. Basically, the Church would disappear because technocracy and explicit religion don’t go together.
As to infallible Supreme Court judges: that’s why I said “explicit job description.” Every system has to place ultimate personal decisionmaking power somewhere, but technocracy and liberalism deny the fact. That’s part of their essence.
The Papal Office.
The problem as I see is explaining why the pope isn’t just another bureaucratic expert
From a Protestant view he is simply just that, and really has no other justification for his position.
On the other hand, if you accept the Catholic position, the office is “in tune” with the transcendent; at least with regard to his definitive teaching authority on faith and morals. Outside that narrow definition, he really is just another guy. For example, the current Pope is on the record as saying that Catholics are quite free to disagree with him on the subject of capital punishment, which he disagrees with, and is yet something which tradition and I strongly endorse.
Tradition doesn’t need an interpreter, as tradition is the interpretation. By this, I mean that tradition is the cumulative wisdom of our ancestors in trying to understand the transcendent. The unity which ties the papal office with tradition is the truth. The error that the traditionalists make is in assuming the “historical perspectve” ,assuming that by being chronologically closer to Jesus, tradition is somehow more in tune with him. The reality is that God is diachronic (exists across time) and therefore the transcendent is accessible always.
Just to be clear about this, truth can’t be seen as something internal, like a Berkelean idealists conception, rather truth exists as a reality outside ourselves. So when the Pope utters something infallible, it’s not his personal opinion about the matter, rather he becomes a perceptual vehicle of the truth: He becomes God’s mouthpiece. It’s the papal office and not the man which confers this capability. Once again, this only makes sense if you accept the Catholic view of the papal office, otherwise he’s just another guy.