Restorationist or conservative?

National Catholic Reporter, May 12, 2000 by Richard P. McBRIEN

Debating word choice in church politics

Some Catholics (dare one say, "on the right"?) resist the use of political labels like liberal and conservative to differentiate viewpoints in the church. The church is not a political organization, they insist. It is a mystery.

To the extent that any differences do exist, they are between "loyal" and "disloyal" Catholics. There is only one legitimate Catholic opinion on anything, namely, the teaching of the church (as interpreted by the loyalists).

Other Catholics ("on the left?") object to the political labels on different grounds. They say that the term conservative concedes too much to its designees. Conservatism, they insist, is a well thought-out position, based on a thorough knowledge of, and respect for, the entire history of the church. By contrast, conservative Catholics equate a thin slice of that history (for example, the first half of the 20th century) with the very essence of Catholic tradition.

I acknowledged in a previous column that I have been trying in recent months to avoid using either term -- liberal or conservative -- in reference to conflicting viewpoints within the church. That effort has been in response to a friendly exhortation (and challenge) from the widely published author Paul Wilkes, who served as a visiting professor here at the University of Notre Dame last spring.

This week's column -- really only a trial balloon -- continues that effort. It proposes that we substitute the terms reformer and restorationist for liberal and conservative.

The proposal rests on the undeniable fact that there are, and always have been, sharp differences of opinion within the church regarding theology (including the interpretation of doctrine), pastoral practices (including the liturgy), spirituality, discipline, episcopal appointments, the role of the pope and the Roman curia in the governance of the universal church (collegiality), eucharistic sharing between Catholics and other Christians, the involvement of the church in the temporal order and so forth.

If we are to describe and discuss these differences in the public forum, how can we identify the parties involved? The "blue team" and the "red team"? The media are not going to settle for something as jejune as that. They will continue to employ the shorthand of liberal versus conservative -- unless someone comes up with a better idea.

There is no realistic hope that reformer versus restorationist is going to catch on with the media or the public. But it might possibly catch on with an important constituency inside the church, namely, those clergy, religious and laity who are directly involved in its day-to-day institutional life -- in parishes, dioceses, schools, organizations, colleges and universities, publications and the like.

This constituency may represent only a relatively small percentage of the church's membership, but it is the group within which most of the discourse about the present and future state of the church occurs. It is also the group that is most influential in fashioning and shaping opinion in the church.

There is historical precedent for distinguishing individuals, groups and movements within the church by such labels as reformer and restorationist. Indeed, there have been at least three major, papally directed reform movements in the history of the church in whose aftermath large numbers of Catholics, of high and middling ecclesiastical station, found themselves in prolonged opposition to one another in terms of their attitudes and activities for and against reform.

Gregory the Great (590-604) reformed the methods for electing bishops in Italy and the conduct of bishops while in office. He was also a vigorous promoter of monasticism and of the liturgy. So strong was his support of the former, and of monks generally, that sharp divisions arose within the ranks of the Roman clergy that would last for decades, affecting several subsequent papal elections, with pro-Gregorians lined up against anti-Gregorians.

The reforms of Gregory VII (1073-85) included attacks on nepotism, simony, clerical corruption and the interference of lay rulers in the internal governance of the church (the lay investiture issue). Subsequent pontificates seesawed between those on one side or the other of the Gregorian reform movement.

The Second Vatican Council (1962-65), convened byJohn XXIII (1958-63), exposed a division within the worldwide episcopate between a majority who favored the Johannine reform of ecumenism, collegiality, lay initiatives, and the active engagement of the church with the world, and a minority, largely but not exclusively in the curia, who were strongly opposed to change.

That division has persisted into our own day: the reformers support and strive to promote the work of the conciliar majority, and the restorationists stand in the line of the conciliar minority, seeking to return, as far as possible, to the Catholicism of the 1950s.

Or does liberal versus conservative say it better?

Fr. Richard McBrien teaches theology at Notre Dame University.