Catholicism and Postmodernity

[The Joey-O]

Just a quick note to add:

1) Great post, beatty!

2) Enlightenment ideals help bring about the Reformation. I don't want to see one of those type of things happening again. I am convinced if the church could of spoken enlightenment language, then they could have convinced Luther (or if not him, the majority of his followers) not to split.

[Socrates]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 3 2005, 01:09 PM']2) Enlightenment ideals help bring about the Reformation. I don't want to see one of those type of things happening again. I am convinced if the church could of spoken enlightenment language, then they could have convinced Luther (or if not him, the majority of his followers) not to split.
[right][snapback]809756[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is actually incorrect. (You need to go back and review your history!) Luther's revolt began in 1517. The so-called Enlightenment began over a century later, and was at first centered in Catholic France (Though the Enlightenment thinkers, of course, rejected the Church).

And Luther was hardly an "Enlightenment"-type thinker. In fact, he was quite the opposite. Luther and the other early Protestant leaders would be considered in today's language "ultra-conservative reactionaries" - reacting against what they saw as a decadent and worldy Church in Rome. Luther taught "Sola Fide" and "Sola Scriptura" and emphasized Faith over reason, which he said was a tool of the devil. (The enlightenment, by contrast, idolized human reason, and considered religious Faith contrary to Reason.)

The humanistic Renaissance thought that was a precursor to the Enlightment was centered in Catholic Italy during Luther's time. The decadence and corruption of Renaisance Rome was part of what made the Protestant Revolt a success (in reaction against this). Luther's thinking was quite anti-humanistic. And Protestantism took root in Northern European countries, which were much less influenced by Renaisance humanism.

While the weakening of faith in authority of the Catholic Church brought on by the Protestant Revolt may have helped make people more succeptible to Enlightenment ideas, the Enlightment came AFTER the Protestant Revolt, and can in no way be said to have caused it.

~ Just a little History lesson, folks, to set things straight. Now back to the discussion at hand. . .

Edited December 3, 2005 by Socrates

[MichaelFilo]

What has the Church done to counteract or interact with postmodernism? Seems like it's giving it a ride until it realizes that this is a totally useless end. Why do I say that? Because Orthodox Catholics have been succesfully become the minority in our beloved Church. What has replaced them is modernists, and post-modernist. And it all started when those pens signed the good ol' decleration that man has religious freedom. When the Church took up the words of the Enlightenment to "reconcile the Church to the world as it has been since 1789" we may see the beggening of a (hopefully) short flirt with post-modernism.

My defenition of post-modernism is the one that Socrates gave.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Dec 3 2005, 10:38 PM']What has the Church done to counteract or interact with postmodernism? Seems like it's giving it a ride until it realizes that this is a totally useless end. Why do I say that? Because Orthodox Catholics have been succesfully become the minority in our beloved Church. What has replaced them is modernists, and post-modernist. And it all started when those pens signed the good ol' decleration that man has religious freedom. When the Church took up the words of the Enlightenment to "reconcile the Church to the world as it has been since 1789" we may see the beggening of a (hopefully) short flirt with post-modernism.

My defenition of post-modernism is the one that Socrates gave.
[right][snapback]810178[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Honestly, this post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Are you implying that the Church is modernist, or post-modernist, until it gains political control over the state, and forces everybody to convert?

[MichaelFilo]

I'm saying that any rejection of the past where it called all nations to embrace the Catholic Faith as a nation, not just on the individual level, shows the signs of post-modernity. It is now impossible to be a Catholic nation, because no nation could exist that made Catholicism it's official religion, because of the freedom of religion. Constantine's Rome would be in err.. and to that effect, this is all the signs of post-modernism.

God bless,
Mikey

[The Joey-O]

I'm with Socrates...I'm not sure if we're speaking the same language MichaelFilo. I understand that Postmodernism extends into politics, but what does it have to do with religious freedom in your opinion? It seems to me that postmodernism would endorse either an "uber-tribe" (as opposed to ubermench) mentality or peaceful comingling. This of course depends on which side of the postmodern debate one puts themselves on (if they choose to accept the postmodern rules, that is).

[Justified Saint]

I agree with John Lukacs that we are standing at the end of the Modern Age, but postmodernism is not the standard-bearer of a brave new world. Truth is that there are significant overlaps between Modernity and PostModernity and anyone who thinks differently has been duped.

I would be the first to admit that much of postmodern literature confuses me and is unintelligible. I agree with Socrates; for the most part it is an intellectual and academic fad of the Left. I think the reason it is so difficult to define and understand postmodernism is because it is so confused and meaningless. Many of its supposedly basic tenets are not new or unique.

Of course, I don't mean to say that postmodernism is completely worthless or that it should just be dismissed. I think there is actually significant room for interaction and discussion. Yet, the bottom line is that many forms of postmodernism when taken to their logical ends take you to nihilism and atheism. Personally, I don't think the Church should privelege such a movement by recognizing it as a whole, though it certainly needs to address individual thinkers and ideas.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 3 2005, 04:25 PM']This is actually incorrect.  (You need to go back and review your history!)  Luther's revolt began in 1517.  The so-called Enlightenment began over a century later, and was at first centered in Catholic France (Though the Enlightenment thinkers, of course, rejected the Church).

And Luther was hardly an "Enlightenment"-type thinker.  In fact, he was quite the opposite.  Luther and the other early Protestant leaders would be considered in today's language "ultra-conservative reactionaries" - reacting against what they saw as a decadent and worldy Church in Rome.  Luther taught "Sola Fide" and "Sola Scriptura" and emphasized Faith over reason, which he said was a tool of the devil.  (The enlightenment, by contrast, idolized human reason, and considered religious Faith contrary to Reason.)

The humanistic Renaissance thought  that was a precursor to the Enlightment was centered in Catholic Italy during Luther's time.  The decadence and corruption of Renaisance Rome was part of what made the Protestant Revolt a success (in reaction against this).  Luther's thinking was quite anti-humanistic.  And Protestantism took root in Northern European countries, which were much less influenced by Renaisance humanism.

While the weakening of faith in authority of the Catholic Church brought on by the Protestant Revolt may have helped make people more succeptible to Enlightenment ideas, the Enlightment came AFTER the Protestant Revolt, and can in no way be said to have caused it.

~ Just a little History lesson, folks, to set things straight.  Now back to the discussion at hand. . .
[right][snapback]809946[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To be sure, while Luther was no Enlightenment thinker, the "Modern Age" essentially begins with the Reformation. The Reformation ideal was basically a primitive one; "get back to the basics, the essentials of Christianity". In this sense it is fundamentally ahistorical and reductionist. Renaissance humanism also argued along similar lines even though Luther was usually at odds with the movement.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 4 2005, 11:43 AM']To be sure, while Luther was no Enlightenment thinker, the "Modern Age" essentially begins with the Reformation.  The Reformation ideal was basically a primitive one; "get back to the basics, the essentials of Christianity".  In this sense it is fundamentally ahistorical and reductionist.  Renaissance humanism also argued along similar lines even though Luther was usually at odds with the movement.
[right][snapback]810605[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Agreed, for the most part. (Though I would say Renaissance humanism was along different lines than the Reformation).

My main point was that the Protestant Revolt came before, rather than after, the Enlightenment, and thus arguing that "using Enlightenment language" could have prevented the Protestant Revolt makes no sense historically.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 4 2005, 01:02 AM']I agree with John Lukacs that we are standing at the end of the Modern Age, but postmodernism is not the standard-bearer of a brave new world.  Truth is that there are significant overlaps between Modernity and PostModernity and anyone who thinks differently has been duped. 

I would be the first to admit that much of postmodern literature confuses me and is unintelligible.  I agree with Socrates; for the most part it is an intellectual and academic fad of the Left.  I think the reason it is so difficult to define and understand postmodernism is because it is so confused and meaningless.  Many of its supposedly basic tenets are not new or unique. 

Of course, I don't mean to say that postmodernism is completely worthless or that it should just be dismissed.  I think there is actually significant room for interaction and discussion.  Yet, the bottom line is that many forms of postmodernism when taken to their logical ends take you to nihilism and atheism.  Personally, I don't think the Church should privelege such a movement by recognizing it as a whole, though it certainly needs to address individual thinkers and ideas.
[right][snapback]810273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Basically, it seems that "post-modernism" is a kind of nihilism in the wake of modernism, rather than a positive intellectual/cultural movement.

[morostheos]

I would say this article partially reflects how the Church is reacting to post-modernism:

[quote]Relativism Seen Creeping Into Catholic Theology
Ilaria Morali Addresses Congress on Mysticism

ANCONA, Italy, DEC. 4, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The ideas of relativism that permeate secular thought are also advancing in some areas of Catholic theology, warned theologian Ilaria Morali.

The dogmatic theologian made these affirmations at the congress on "Christian Mystical Experience, Non-Christian Mysticism and New Western Religiosity," held until Saturday in Ancona at March Polytechnic University. It was organized by the East-West Center.

Morali, a theology professor at the Gregorian University, quoted from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) and said that relativism, which considers all religions valid and equal, is becoming "the central problem for faith in our time."

There is a tendency, according to Morali, to "profess an idea of the divine reality and of the relationship between man and God which is totally incompatible with faith, to the point that it rejects the fact that Christian revelation can aspire to have a unique character."

"The universal value of a personal relationship between God and man, attested by Christian revelation, is excluded," she said.

"The doctrine of friendship with God through grace is the foundation of Christian mysticism," she said, and in this sense, it has a unique character.

The theologian urged that one not allow oneself to be "subjugated by the impersonal God worshipped by the relativists so as to again encounter the God of Jesus Christ, the personal face and friend of salvation."
ZE05120420[/quote]

[beatty07]

I think we can all agree that relativism is bad. So if everyone is going to insist on defining postmodernism as relativism or nihilism or something equally ludicrous then it doesn't seem there's much to talk about.

What a few of us have tried to do is to point out how we might be able to define postmodernism in a different way, so that we can engage it, rather than just repeating anathemas.

There's a time for repeating anathemas, but postmodernism is new and ... well I've already posted on this earlier in the thread. Let me try to make my point another way, by describing what I see as a bad strategy for dealing with new philosophies.

We notice that modernism is losing it's death-grip on Western civilization. At the same time, we hear murmurings about something called "postmodernism" from various corners. We don't really know what it is, and neither does anyone else. Emergent paradigms are of their very nature amorphous and vague. Now, who is going to participate in the discussion? Who gets to steer the course of this developing paradigm?

Some of seem to be content to take a very simple definition, accept it at face value, and then condemn it. If we do that, then postmodernism is going to be steered, developed, and defined by the secular academy. I don't know about y'all, but I'm not optimistic that the secular academy is going to do the best job.

So maybe we should make a more serious attempt to understand, engage, and critique this thing called postmodernism.

Alternatively, we could just wait for the secular academy to decide what it is, then spend the next few hundred years hurling anathemas at it. I think we can do better than that. Maybe we can't -- maybe no one will listen to us. But for God's sake let's at least try.

edit: for grammar

Edited December 5, 2005 by beatty07

[morostheos]

Sorry, my post of the article about relativism wasn't meant to imply that post-modernism is merely relativism. I just read the article and saw that is was speaking about something that was being done to counteract relativism, which is certainly one aspect of post-modernism. I would agree that there is great potential in aiming to help shape a cultural paradigm, it is an essential part of our calling as Christians in the world to be as yeast in the dough, transforming it for the good.

I would say that one thing we should strive to accomplish is to take religious tolerance one step beyond that of relativism. Instead of merely saying what's ok for you might not be ok for me and we should leave it that way, expanding the idea of "tolerance" to mean we may believe different things are ok, but there is certainly a possibility that one is right and the other is wrong, and we should be open to dialogue about our different opinions of truth.

I would say where I went to college was a very postmodern environment. In this environment, people were so accepting of diversity that oftentimes they were also very open to being evangelized. Granted, my college certainly had it's fair share of relativism, but the step of being open to dialogue I see as a huge one.

I don't really know much about modernism, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the modernist view of organized religion was one of the hierarchy oppressing the masses, while the postmodernist view seems to be more ambivalent.

[The Joey-O]

Yes, I agree. It can take the form of the deadly nihilism. I was a nihilist once. It was unpleasant. Post-modernism can also entail what I like to call cybernetic global-optimism which is like modernism on steiroids. Basically, instead of industry we look toward a futuristic, positive matirix-like world where everyone's neo. The individual is paramount, rather the whole world will be wrapped up in one giant adventure: the ultimate RPG. It relies on the possibility of robots and things taking care of the "dirty work" and humans just play, explore and work on self-actualization.

Both of those ends aren't positive, but they're both found within the postmodern mindset (possibly similar to how modernism produced Neitzchean (I'm a horrible speller) existentialists and Keikerghardian (oy, why did they have to be German?) existentialists.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.

[beatty07]

"Vee are NIHILISTS, LebOWski! Vee believe in NUSSING!"

"Nice Marmot."