The day before his elevation to the Sacred College of Cardinals was announced, Archbishop Francis George of Chicago, delivering an unprepared homily at a Saturday evening Mass, threw down a challenge to “liberal Catholicism.” He called it “an exhausted project” that “no longer gives life” to a Church it was so bent on critiquing. But just as quickly, he cautioned that the answer to this “turning point in the life of the Church” is “not to be found in a type of conservative Catholicism obsessed with particular practices and so sectarian in its outlook that it cannot serve as a sign of unity of all peoples in Christ.”
Having criticized both warring camps within the Church, the cardinal-designate offered what he thought the faithful needed most: “The answer is simply Catholicism, in all its fullness and depth, a faith able to distinguish itself from any cultures and yet able to engage and transform them all, a faith joyful in all the gifts Christ wants to give us and open to the whole world he died to save.”
Cardinal George is not the first to call for “simply Catholicism” or a “pure Catholicism” untainted by labels or untorn by factions. St. Paul berated the Corinthians for choosing him or Apollos, the Council of Constance sidelined three rivals for the papacy so it could elect the new and unifying Pope Martin V, and Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to reconcile Eastern and Western churches. Other bishops and commentators have reminded Catholics that their sensibilities should be neither left nor right: they should belong to the Lord. “Catholic” means “universal.” Sectarian squabbles should be antithetical to Catholicism.
One faith, many ways
Such squabbles, however, are as innate to Church life as dogmas and sacraments. They have often crippled her works and compromised her witness, as Cardinal George pointed out. They arise from a paradox: the universal can only be expressed and grasped through particulars. There is indeed one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, but “pure Catholicism” does not exist. Believers receive and interpret the universal faith in different ways, depending on time, language, culture, and circumstance. Varied interpretations, though not typically fatal, can potentially give rise to heresy and schism if pushed beyond the bounds of the Church’s dogmatic definitions.
Yet differences in theology and practice can, in fact, be valuable. When balanced as an aspect or expression of the universal, alternate accents on the one mystery of salvation enrich the Church and the lives of the faithful. Some differences are cultural: there are eastern and western theological traditions, multiple liturgical rites, national hymns, and practices. Other differences stem from emphasizing a particular dimension of the Gospel, called a charism: Dominicans preach, Franciscans embrace poverty, Benedictines pray without ceasing, Vincentians perform works of charity. Still others are ways of living in the world animated by a specific spirit: religious third orders, guilds of Catholic professionals, the Knights Templar, the Knights of Columbus, Opus Dei, charismatic movements, Communion and Liberation. Each was born at a particular time to serve a particular need within the Church and within the world. Each seeks, in its unique way, to advance the kingdom of God.
The pressures brought upon the Church by modernity have given birth to another way of living in the world: conservative Catholicism. Amid Modernity’s ambitions to upend governments and the Church herself in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, conservative Catholicism offers time-tested teachings, practices, and moral laws as the means for building the kingdom of God. Its mission is twofold: to sanctify the world that has forsaken Christianity as its cornerstone, and to buttress the Church lest she bend her knee to the world’s commands. Its means are the “permanent things” of the faith: Scripture, tradition, the Mass and the sacraments, the rosary, the saints, the teachings of the Magisterium, and the authority of the pope.
Because of its opposition to political and ecclesial innovation, and because of its association with right-wing politics, conservative Catholicism has drawn ire from other groups within the Church—including the Vatican during the twelve-year reign of Pope Francis. Critics insult it as “the Republican Party at prayer” or “Christian nationalism.” A kernel of truth exists in these invectives, for conservative Catholicism possesses a dual orientation: it seeks not only the things that are above, but also the incorporation of divine ideals into the social and political orders, often through the use of secular means and arguments. These worldly efforts open conservative Catholicism to its most tantalizing temptation: to allow political forces—and not the faith—to drive its motives and priorities.
When rightly lived, however, conservative Catholicism is neither divisive nor backwardist nor out of touch with the needs of the ordinary faithful. It may not be a charism given by God, but it has a mission, a vocation, a project: to incarnate Christ into the social order through traditional means so faith, rooted in healthy soil, can bear fruit in a hostile world.
Conservatism: Preserving the “permanent things” of, and for, society
Catholicism is not merely a set of doctrines and religious practices. It is a way of being so that, in the words of St. Paul, “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). It was formed in response to God’s revelation; its indefectible Church guarantees its doctrines and sacraments as the means of salvation.
Conservatism claims neither revelation nor ideology. It is, as described by Russell Kirk, “a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.” It identifies certain dispositions within human nature, including preferring the established modus vivendi, and offers them as models for humane living. Lacking an authoritative organ of interpretation, competing schools of conservatism crowd the landscape. Yet all these schools believe that the wisdom of the past, the tried and true—what the Romans called the mos maiorum, the custom of the ancestors—offers the firmest foundation for domestic peace.
Conservatism grew from a type of character into a social and political movement when the French Revolution sought to destroy the government, the social order, and the Church under the aegis of Reason. Revolutionary ideals swiftly swept through Europe and then to America. In response, adherents of what was pejoratively dubbed the ancien régime found a champion in English statesman Edmund Burke, whose Reflections on the Revolution in France articulated a conservative vision for societies anchored in a divine plan.
“Each contract of each particular state,” Burke wrote, “is but a clause in the great primaeval contract of eternal society, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by an invisible oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place.” In Burke’s conservative state, customs, religions, traditions, laws, and institutions—what Russell Kirk, following T.S. Eliot, called the “permanent things” of healthy society—direct men’s rebellious wills toward good ends and ensure social stability; to eradicate these things or replace them with alien inventions brings inevitable doom. For a society to change, as it must, it has to remain anchored in its past. Permanence and change, preservation and reform, continuity and progress exist in healthy tension; however, the former must shape the latter.
Catholic life: Tensions between permanence and reform
By its nature, Catholicism is a conservative religion: it conserves a revelation it received from God. As Vatican II’s Dei Verbum puts it, “the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.” St. Paul, though preaching as if we have no lasting city, established churches wherever he traveled, saw to their longevity by appointing elders to govern, and chastised those who lived in idleness rather than toiled for their daily bread. “So then, brethren,” Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15).
As centuries passed and the Gospel spread, the Church’s teaching, life, and worship all developed. That is, they changed in continuity with their initial forms, often at the impetus of doctrinal challenges and secular assertions of power. Debate over how faithfully this development remained to its original revelation sundered Christendom into Catholic and Protestant camps. From 1545 to 1563, Catholic bishops convened at Trent, where they re-articulated and further developed the beliefs they had received from the apostles. Reforms were proposed and adopted, but the essence of Catholic life continued.
In this sense, Catholicism in practice was traditional rather than conservative: it functioned according to a set way of living that was handed on from one generation to the next. “Conservatism,” writes Daniel McCarthy, “is what is required when the foundations of society can no longer be taken for granted.” Even amidst the political upheavals that commenced in 1789, the practice of Catholicism changed little from the perspective of the faithful: worship, sacraments, and catechetical instruction remained largely constant, even as they were transported to the United States.
Then Catholicism experienced its own revolution.
After being carried through St. Peter’s Square robed in ecclesial pomp, Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council with a masterful speech that described his conservative purpose: to introduce reform within the context of permanence. The council’s “greatest concern,” he declared, was “that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively defended and presented.” What was necessary, the pope continued, was “that the whole of Christian doctrine, with no part of it lost, be received in our times by all with a new fervor.” Unchangeable doctrine to which all Catholics must loyally submit should be “investigated and presented in the way demanded by our times.”
For decades prior, Catholic theologians had warred beyond the sight of the ordinary faithful over the most appropriate approaches to doctrine, including whether a ressourcement to the Church Fathers should supplant the dominant scholastic methodology. These theological disputes burst into the open as the conciliar documents were publicly debated in the press. Pope John’s desire for doctrinal aggiornamento reached its high-water mark in the Council’s powerful constitutions Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. Additional constitutions on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, as well as the declaration on the Church’s relationship to other religions, Nostra Aetate, introduced substantial changes in tone and in practice to Church life.
Yet what was conveyed to the world was not development, not reform, but innovation: the Church was rejecting her Medieval ways to join the Modern world at last. In the public imagination, the Council was making all things new.
This interpretation, dubbed “the spirit of Vatican II”, unleashed a revolutionary Jacobinism within the Church. Under the pretense of the Council, every aspect of Catholic life was utterly transformed, from the celebration of Mass to Catholic schooling to parish practices. Beautiful churches were made ugly, religious men and women cast off their habits, catechesis of the young short-circuited, missionary work halted, seminaries and convents emptied, and pillars of piety such as the Rosary and Eucharistic adoration were actively discouraged. A complete transformation of the Mass from a quiet mumble in Latin into a boisterous vernacular entertainment drove home to the average Catholic that, regardless of what the documents might have said, Vatican II had buried the “Old Church” and inaugurated a new one.
At the same time, a cultural revolution was sweeping through the West. Its creed was individual freedom, its cry was sexual liberation (that hormonal birth control made possible), its weapons were feminism and cultural Marxism. Family life was rejected as a form of patriarchal oppression. The severing of sex from reproduction transformed life in the developed world: no-fault divorce, abortion, legal pornography, gay rights, and, later, in vitro fertilization and transgenderism all became de rigueur.
Sexual revolutionaries, seeking to codify their agenda into law, forged alliances with progressive political parties and declared war on the Catholic Church, which was the largest institution to stubbornly uphold the Sixth Commandment.
The synthesis of the Conservative Catholic Project
Stirred by these religious and cultural upheavals, conservative Catholicism awoke to its contemporary project: to stand athwart secular and ecclesial history yelling Stop; to preserve the Church’s moral laws and religious practices as the means of sanctifying Catholics and the world; to support the family as the primary cell of society; to re-evangelize the Western world that had forgotten its Christian inheritance; to facilitate the social reign of Christ the King through secular means. Conservative Catholicism set to work on two fronts: within the Church, to ensure that it engages Modernity without capitulating to it; and within the world, to keep Christianity and its moral principles as the primary shaper of the social order, while a rudderless secularism was rejecting them.
In one sense, conservatism could be viewed as the only political alternative for Catholics who adhere to the Church’s moral teachings: in a two-party system, with one advocating many practices contrary to this morality, Catholics have only one choice. This is the easy explanation for why Catholics who attend church weekly voted by wide margins for the Protestant Republican candidate over the Democratic Catholic candidate in the 2004 and 2020 presidential elections. But there is more to conservative Catholicism than political happenstance. If conservatism grows from an inner disposition to preserve the received social order, and if the world—and the Church—are changing with astonishing rapidity, conservative Catholics turn to the permanent things of faith and of culture as sure lights to illuminate a world that is not only changing but growing hostile to Christianity. Conservative-leaning politics then serve as the public expression of deeper cultural and religious beliefs.
Though Catholicism was born from above and conservatism from below, the two find their synthesis in the conservative disposition that provides a means for Catholics to live their faith in the world. In a phrase, Catholicism is for eternal salvation; conservatism is for ordered liberty. The two adjectives provide critical context for each. The faith Catholics profess promises to save men not from political dangers, but from sin and for eternal life with God. Its salvation is supernatural. Conservatism seeks liberty for individuals, but not a thinly guised libertarianism. Its liberty is ordered, ensconced within a moral order created by God and a legal order governed by men, directed by obligations toward family, neighbor, and country, and shaped by the practices of ancestors.
Following its Lord’s commands, Catholicism requires its adherents to love their neighbors as themselves and exhorts the corporal and spiritual works of mercy as the means to exercise their love. How Catholics can love their neighbor daily within the social community they inhabit is less clear. Conservatism provides one way, though certainly not the only, whereby a Catholic can navigate a broader community that, due to its size and members’ concupiscence, needs laws and restraints to function properly. In turn, by perfecting through supernatural grace the human disposition to preserve and live according to received custom, Catholicism sanctifies conservatism, baptizes the permanent things, and teaches that ordered liberty is not an end in itself, but a means to finding human perfection, which is nothing short of union with God.
The compatibility of Catholicism with conservatism does not guarantee that the two will always walk in perfect harmony. The disposition to permanence can sometimes blind Catholics, or even set them in opposition, to the need for reform, which from the beginning has been necessary for the Church’s survival and growth. It is the task of Catholics to accept what the Church has sanctioned as prudent reform—the rejection of Jewish dietary laws for Christians, the insertion of the extra-biblical term “consubstantial” into the creed of Nicaea, the adoption of Aristotelian vocabulary to explain theological truths, and the new approach to modernity brought by Vatican II.
Should a conservative reject these reforms whole cloth, he risks the error against which Cardinal George warned in his homily: by making his brand of Catholicism universal, he and his practice can grow narrow and sectarian—or, in extreme cases, bitter and self-righteous.
What conservative Catholicism has wrought
The essence of conservatism, as enumerated by Burke, is not a rigid clinging to bygone days and ways, but the art of simultaneously preserving while reforming. For over half a century, conservative Catholics have done exactly this: they have integrated traditional Catholic teachings and practices into new institutions founded to meet the challenges presented by a discombobulated Church and an increasingly anti-Christian society.
One type of institution has cultivated the beauty of the Church’s liturgical tradition, especially the traditional Latin Mass, as the primary source for efforts at re-evangelization. Another has promoted sacred music, art, and architecture in a Church that, since Vatican II’s close, has preferred the ugly over the beautiful. Another has championed the “Benedict Option,” the intentional building of local communities comprised of conservative Catholics. Another has set up shop in Washington, D.C., to push government and economic policies toward moral ends. Another has founded schools, universities, publishing houses, magazines, and internet platforms to educate Catholics inhabiting a Church that forgot how to catechize and attending public schools that won’t speak God’s name.
In true conservative fashion, these institutions have their own journals and websites that articulate their unique visions. And, as both conservatives and Catholics are wont to do, some of these groups jab at each other for pursuing what they perceive to be a misguided approach.
Key differences abound between the conservative Catholics who comprise these institutions—differences that stem principally from their respective attitudes toward Vatican II and the Mass. There are three chief perspectives.
One, intensely loyal to Vatican II and to the New Order of the Mass, insists that the council’s noble intentions were hijacked by Catholic liberals. This perspective represented the reigning and most widely held conservative position from the end of the council until the pontificate of Benedict XVI.
Further to the right, a second perspective, though certainly accepting Vatican II, has misgivings about certain conciliar interpretations and a strong, even pugnacious, preference for the traditional Latin Mass as celebrated before the council. This view, espoused by “traditionalists,” spent the first twenty post-conciliar years in exile until Pope John Paul II allowed for a limited celebration of the older Mass; the traditionalists continued on the margins for another two decades until Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum removed restrictions surrounding this Mass. Since then, parishes offering the traditional Mass have bloomed, and especially devout conservative Catholics of the Millennial and Gen Z generations, without necessarily being traditionalists in the former sense, have found a home there.
Finally, further to the right sits another perspective that rejects most, if not all, of Vatican II, judges the New Order of the Mass to be invalid, challenges the authority of the pope—if not rejecting him outright by claiming that the chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958—and casts itself as the remnant of the true faith that the Church, in apostasy, has abandoned.
Individual Catholics, of course, may hold ideas advanced by more than one of these perspectives, but it’s striking that, for the most part, conservative Catholics’ political and cultural practices correspond to their theological outlooks. Conservative Catholics of the pro-Vatican II perspective loyally vote Republican, and, aside from having more children than the norm, blend into a typical neighborhood parish. But in a parish with a traditional Latin Mass, or one with a solemn New Mass headed by a pastor prominent for his conservatism, chapel veils, neckties, and home-schoolers are much more likely to be found.
Also present, though less widespread, are postliberal political views, including a few scattered fancies for monarchy. These cultural and political tendencies are also present in communities hostile to Vatican II, but to a greater degree. The trend is clear: the more tightly conservative Catholics embrace the now counter-cultural style of traditional piety, the more intensely they challenge the prevailing secular culture in lifestyle and politics. The opposite is also the case: conservative Catholics looking to escape the culture will often seek out a Latin Mass or reverent New Mass parish, for they believe they will find what they crave there; not a few drive tremendous distances each Sunday to realize this experience. The need to identify with a group is not a phenomenon unique to the cultural left.
For this reason, of all the great works that conservative Catholics have created since the Council, institutes surrounding the traditional Latin Mass garner the most attention. Ironically, these institutes are among the most successful in implementing Vatican II’s vision of renewal. For the innovations of the New Order of the Mass, coupled with its hackneyed and occasionally impious celebration, sent some conservative Catholics to rediscover the older Mass, whose beauty had, in most parishes before the council, been concealed by uninspired, workman-like, performances. These institutes, which include new religious orders of priests, saw to the liturgical education of the faithful and the cultivation of sacred music, essential efforts that had formerly been scarce, and ones explicitly called for by Vatican II.
As a result of these reforms, the older liturgy has been celebrated with far greater solemnity and participation by the faithful after the council than before, and this older Mass has inspired many faithful, especially younger Catholics, by conveying an element of transcendence in a world drowning in immanence. But even this development has had its shadow side: some who love the older Mass have been too inclined to accuse those not drawn to it of being “lesser Catholics,” an insult taken personally by their fellow conservative Catholics who do not share their affinity.
Remarkably, most of these institutions, regardless of their focus, were founded by lay people without direct Church support, and, not infrequently, in the face of opposition from pastors, bishops, and the Vatican. In the two decades following Vatican II, many Catholic dioceses, parishes, universities, and schools openly rejected pre-conciliar theology, morality, and piety for a syncretism that tried to meld Catholicism with New Age spiritualities. Along the way, they applauded and then sanctified sexual practices championed by the cultural left. The result was a hollowed-out Church that had forsaken so much of its attractive patrimony. In restoring these lost treasures of Catholicism and making them shine brighter than before Vatican II, these post-conciliar conservative institutions fulfilled Pope John XXIII’s goals more effectively than did the Church herself and the institutes directly under her care.
These new institutions also provided an outlet for conservative Catholics seeking more traditional spiritual expressions and longing for clarity in moral teachings. Conscious of their minority status, conservative Catholics desperately sought leadership from the handful of priests and Church leaders who sympathized with them. In a few painful cases, conservative Catholics allowed support for their preferences to cloak the immorality of priests who, they believed, could never do evil because they were conservative. Eventually, they found a champion in Pope John Paul II, though it took him nearly twenty years to curtail liberal dominance of the Church. But even as the institutional Church turned in a more conservative direction, and then reached its apogee with Pope Benedict XVI, conservative Catholicism, despite helping save the Church from doctrinal contradiction and cultural irrelevancy, retained a stigma.
This stigma stemmed in part from conservative Catholicism’s association with right-wing politics. Right-leaning political parties and governments, though they may endorse the moral preferences of conservative Catholics, are coalitions of multiple interests that can support policies in tension with, or even contrary to, Catholic teaching. Less controversially, certain legitimate preferences of right-wing parties, such as limited governmental interference, free markets, and restricted immigration, do not jive with Catholics who possess a more progressive disposition. Political beliefs can be held as deeply as religious ones. Too often, the conservative Catholic project repels progressive or liberal Catholics not necessarily because of its religious dimension but because these Catholics cannot stomach the extra-ecclesial personalities and policies of the right that they detest.
Of course, those who shudder at both traditional Catholic pieties and right-wing politics have a twofold reason to reject conservative Catholicism. Among them was Pope Francis, who for twelve years publicly sparred with conservative Catholics, especially Americans and younger, more traditional priests. The former, he characterized as uncharitable misanthropes; the latter, he repeatedly chastised for being “rigid” and out of touch with their flocks. In response, conservative Catholics abandoned the deferential and even Ultramontane love they showed to John Paul and Benedict and punched back, especially over moral confusions emanating from the Argentine pontiff’s confusing teachings concerning marriage and blessings of same-sex couples. Francis responded with a crushing blow: he restricted the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass.
A unique fallout ensued: a few conservative Catholics eschewed decorum and attacked the pope personally. Wiser ones, long accustomed to resistance to their project from various corners of the hierarchy, limited their public criticisms to the issues and continued to labor in their vineyards, conscious of the old Roman maxim: a pope dies; they make another one.
The newest one, to the surprise of all, is an American, Pope Leo XIV, whose election and pre-papal social media feed hint that the global and social priorities of his predecessor will continue. At the same time, there are signs that the Chicago-born pope not only shares conservative Catholics’ moral and doctrinal concerns but also has little appetite for provoking scrums within the Church. Regardless, conservative Catholics learned a critical lesson during the Francis pontificate: their mission and work do not depend on the personal support of the pope, though it certainly helps to have it when possible. In relying not on papal favor but on the permanent things of faith, which includes a healthy filial respect for the successor of St. Peter, conservative Catholicism can transcend shifting Vatican winds.
But conservative Catholics face other dangers more potent than a fight with the sovereign pontiff. Their support for their political parties, and adopting their platform views on extra-religious matters, can prevent them from embracing the pope’s moral stance on current events or positive elements outside of their worldview. Few conservative Catholics wanted to follow John Paul II’s lead in halting capital punishment while still acknowledging its liceity. Others have expressed discomfort with advancing Dorothy Day’s cause for canonization, not because of her sanctity but because of her left-wing politics. Most opposed Pope Francis’s initiatives on the environment and his broad call for welcoming migrants.
On economic issues more broadly, Catholic Social Teaching’s comfort with government-initiated charity infuriates certain conservatives who view supply-side theory as if it were revealed truth. In 2003, when John Paul opposed the United States’ invasion of Iraq, a group of Catholic neo-conservatives turned to the Church’s just war tradition to support President George W. Bush over the pope. In 2024, most conservative Catholics gave Donald Trump a pass for transforming the GOP from a pro-life to a pro-choice party.
These conflicts expose inevitable tensions that arise when principles, practicalities, complexities, and human tendencies all collide. There is nothing inherent in conservatism that places it at odds with Catholicism. In fact, as Russell Kirk explained, conservatism was born from and believes in “a transcendent moral order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.” When it comes to prudential judgments, the Vatican and certain conservatives may well come to different conclusions. But Catholic conservatives cannot support a party or government resolution that contradicts the moral teachings of the Church. Eternal salvation must shape ordered liberty.
Conservative Catholicism: The path ahead
Today, 60 years after Vatican II, with Catholicism nearly dormant in Europe and with the majority of American Catholics having passed from uncatechized to unchurched, the conservative Catholic project remains unfinished. It will not reach its conclusion until it realizes the vision of St. Paul: “For [God] has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:10).
Conservative Catholicism alone cannot answer the challenge of Modernity and the various apostasies that have spawned from its infertile soil. Other groups and other movements within the Church must also play their parts. Yet conservative Catholicism’s role in the world and in the Church is critical. To the world, pledged to religious pluralism and embarrassed of its past, it proposes a vision of a created order, an enduring morality rooted in nature, and the permanent things of family, religion, laws, and customs as the bedrocks of flourishing societies. To the Church, occasionally tempted to conceal its truths in exchange for cultural relevancy, it insists on the power of the permanent things of the faith: God’s immutable teachings, laws, and sacraments passed on through tradition.
Success depends on conservative Catholics’ ability to preserve and reform, to realize Pope John XXIII’s goal of presenting eternal truths in ways more appealing to the changed times, as it has done so well with its many institutions founded since Vatican II, and to do so animated by grace and supernatural charity. Should conservative Catholics mistake temporal forms for eternal truths, or prioritize political expediency over Catholic principles, their witness will be compromised.
Typical conservative overstatement views the current times as the worst times and any crisis as an imminent calamity. It is tempting in this hour to make the prayer of the disciples at Emmaus a rallying cry: “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent” (Luke 24:29). But Modernity is not spent, nor is Catholicism about to disappear from the earth. Conservative Catholic urgency comes not from the fleeting hour, but from a zeal for souls who could be lost if they do not find Jesus Christ, the way to God, and to a purposeful life on earth. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The ongoing conservative Catholic project aims to ensure that his habitation will continue in the Church and in the world.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The problem before us is only Conservative or Liberal on the surface.
At root are two diametrically opposed projects for humanity: Catholicism or New World Order.
The attempt at synthesis is called Post-Conciliarism. The new wine in the venerable wine sack is tearing the Church apart, because only one of those two projects is of God.
Tradition trumps all.
But “Catholicism obsessed with particular practices and so sectarian in its outlook that it cannot serve as a sign of unity of all peoples in Christ” is the hard part. How do we really distinguish obsession from faithfulness? Is obsession the synonym of rigidity?
Of course, in all moral principles they’re exceptions. Mitigating elements of a human’s life [today’s existential reality]. The great challenge for Catholicism, with advances in psychology, related sciences, our knowledge has widened substantially – is in creating a correct moral diagram. Our best approach is to remain Apostolic witnesses to the faith, rather than certified psychologists sans certification attempting to discern the indiscernible. Best that the rule remains the rule when violated perceived by manifest behavior.
Except for a veiled defense of all papal outlook and suggestion, Bonagura offers a thorough overview of conservative Catholicism and our need to remain steadfast within the Church. As a suggestion perhaps we should change our nomenclature from conservative to faithful Catholic.
Yet Jesus would have known the science when He preached the Gospel; so we can’t deviate from the Gospel. For instance, the deviant partnering puts an individual in scenarios that can inflict serious health consequences – so there’s a scientific reason for NOT living that lifestyle.
As far as the appropriate type of mass, my neighbor told me his mother was aghast at the guitar masses of the 70’s. I guess it would be correct to say the Vat II was tone deaf as far as how he faithful would react and be affected by the changes.
“Liberal” and “Conservative” are political terms and are irrelevant to any discussion of Catholicism.
The only thing that Catholics need to do is discern the Truth, speak the Truth at all times and to live the Truth in all ways. Any deviation from the Truth is a lie and the antithesis of what Catholic means. Unfortunately, there’s been far too much lying in the Church.
I agree DR. I’d rather see “orthodox” instead of political or ideological language when referring to faith.
“some who love the older Mass have been too inclined to accuse those not drawn to it of being “lesser Catholics,” an insult taken personally by their fellow conservative Catholics who do not share their affinity.”
Tradition is no mere affinity!
Tradition stands forever opposed to Luther’s table, freemasonry’s “brotherhood of unbaptised man,” that incidious false ecumenism, and New World Order.
Tradition is the oil of Catholicism.
Rupture is the vinegar of New World Order.
Conservatism’s salad-dressing, however it is shaken, can only at its best ape the pure oil of Tradition.
“And the foolish said to the wise, give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.” Luke 25:8
TLDR.
Joking but this article is plenty long.
Maybe could have been divided into two (or three) parts.
Oil should be poured over the Lord, not vinegar given him to drink.
Vinegarette is good for neither.
“some who love the older Mass have been too inclined to accuse those not drawn to it of being “lesser Catholics,” an insult taken personally by their fellow conservative Catholics who do not share their affinity.”
Forgive me, but Tradition is no mere affinity!
Tradition is forever opposed to Luther’s table, freemasonry’s “brotherhood of unbaptised man,” that incidious false ecumenism, and brave New World Order.
Tradition is the very oil of Catholicism, worthy to anoint the Lord’s head.
Rupture is the vinegar of New World Order, set in a modernist sponge for the crucified Lord to drink.
Conservatism’s salad-dressing, however liberally it is shaken, can only ape the pure oil of Tradition.
–
“And the foolish said to the wise, give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.” Luke 25:8
I think of myself as a conservative but doesn’t “orthodox” better describe Christians?
Edmund Burke is not enough…even the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are superimposed distractions. Instead, “tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living” (Jaroslav Pelikan.)
For baptized Catholics–sacramentally incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ–do we truly believe and live the sacramental Real Presence (CCC 1374), or not? Bloom where we’re planted, single-hearted and without contradiction or alloy.
This is a very well-considered and coherent explanation of how the Church has arrived at its current state. Thank you for your hard work. Optimê, magister!
The question for the conservative/orthodox/Traditional Catholics is what to do with the Catholics who were scattered to the wilderness by the “new theologians” that precipitated V2. Catholics that in their search for Authenticity looked outside the Roman Church. As a child, an alter boy in the Latin Mass, I sensed something was not quite right with the new mass and teachings but without the means to verbalize my misgivings with no trust in my priest implementing these changes. Millions of us are prodigal sons coming home to the traditional Church that is dominated by “older brothers” than “loving fathers” with his eyes on the horizon in eager expectation of his lost children coming home. Are those returning home to the traditional Church to encounter an older brother or loving Father?
In my experience, AFCz, we encounter rather the living Christ – the king of love on Calvary, crowned with many crowns.
Be not afraid : return home 😉
Are the Prodigal Sons (as the result of Vatican 2) welcome in the conservative/ tradition/orthodox Church?
Two communities stand as a bridge, a passerelle : ICKSP and St Peters. My experience is that you are welcomed! They grow through capturing Catholics who might otherwise leave the Church, and a healthy birthrate.
AFCz,
Yes, you are welcome to come home.
At our parish, which offers a reverent new order Mass and the TLM, the average parishioner is as prodigal as they come. Many have tattoos, others were told their services were not wanted at other parishes, most come from 10+ miles. We seek out any new people and offer them a missal and introduce ourselves after Mass.
One primary reason we stuck at the Latin Mass was the kindness showed to my mother-in-law, who was welcomed by an older usher. When we wheeled her in the first time, he was kind and found her a spot where she would not be a spectacle ( with advanced Parkinson’s). You never forget this!
We always have room for one more prodigal son.
Ave Maria!
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/03/09/pope-talks-to-us-prelates-about-the-contemporary-crisis-of-marriage-and-the-family/
No doubt, The Church is living now in the Time of The Great Apostasy.
It has always been about The Marriage, In Heaven and on Earth.
In this Time of The Great Apostasy, will you stand with Christ, or against Christ?
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
“mass from a quiet mumble in Latin into a boisterous vernacular entertainment” cheap shot as always. Your preference is to be passive sitting in the pew listening to Latin mumble and chants entertainment. Catholicism as expression like kneeling, veil and tie. Catholic means universal not just USA. You say young people join TLM’ they are indoctrinated with condemnation of the Church. Oh, you witnessed a liberal priest and hymns on guitars. All these outer things are the most important to you because you do not have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is in the one true Church that Satan cannot destroy. But there is no personal preference of a catholic church, no old or new catholic church. One Christ and one Church! Christ IS the Church, His mystical body and “in Him and with Him we exist and have our being”. He is the temple, the High Priest, the Body, the eternal sacrifice on the altar. Not quiet, not mumbling, but singing together with full throats and joy because the Holy Spirit is present. Traditional conservatives are in danger because they are in contempt and condemnation of the one true Church. Remember the gospel of the wedding banquet of the Lamb, the one had no wedding garment because without love you cannot stay in the kingdom of the God who is love. You witness a sinner in the Church and condemn the whole Church thus you condemn Christ the Lord because He is the Church and we all need mercy. God judges you by your love for Him and your love for your neighbor. Not loving your neighbor means not loving Christ because God is in all who believe and follow Him.
Well, conservative Catholicism makes sense, but only if liberal and socialist Catholicism make sense too. But, it doesn’t add up. Like the other ideologies, Conservatism was born of the Enlightenment. “Pure Catholicism”, on the other hand, while certainly welcoming all the orthodox options in the world, like Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits, can’t be paired with ideologies that are incompatible with the faith. Conservatism rejects basic aspects of the Christian worldview. Its founders and leading spokesmen reject natural law in society. For them, society is the only absolute; they like religion, but only if it is determined by society. Scepticism is inseparable from Conservatism. If Christianity is to recover its true voice, it must distance itself from Conservatism.
“Well, conservative Catholicism makes sense, but only if liberal and socialist Catholicism make sense too.”
Not at all. Read Pius XI’s detailed encyclical “Quadragesimo Anno”, which concludes quite clearly: “We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel. A good summary can be found here.
“Like the other ideologies…”
Wrong. One of the basic features of classic American conservatism is, as the article notes, its anti-ideological character: “Conservatism claims neither revelation nor ideology.”
“Conservatism rejects basic aspects of the Christian worldview.”
Such as? Again, the essay addresses this. But it appears you didn’t bother to read it and/or don’t care at all what it says.
“Its founders and leading spokesmen reject natural law in society.”
Completely false, as any half-educated person knows. Again, read the essay:
Kirk, in many (many!) places writes at great length about the conservative approach to natural law (very positive) and natural rights (less positive and rather complicated, in part because of how Locke and others used the term/notion). Here is the concluding section of his essay, “The Case For and Against Natural Law”:
“For them, society is the only absolute; they like religion, but only if it is determined by society.”
This is either ignorance of the most embarrassing sort or just an outright lie. For those who prefer knowledge and truth, I recommend Kirk’s books or American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (ISI Books, 2006).
Pius XI and Leo XIII rejected several core conservative beliefs. It’s true that conservatives often deny following an ideology, but there is no doubt that their worldview is an ideology derived from the Enlightenment. A leading conservative, Robert Nisbet stated characterized Conservatism as “one of three modern ideologies”, along with liberalism and socialism (Conservatism, Dream and Reality, 1986).
Kirk addressed natural law very late, and in a very problematical way. Natural law is in conflict with his life-long views, such this, “original sin and aspiration toward the good both are part of God’s design” (The Conservative Mind) – this makes good and evil part of the nature God created, compromising both natural law and original sin. Kirk endorsed Samuel Coleridge’s belief that, apart from “intuitive reason”, there was no “standard for determining what is good and what is bad” (The Conservative Mind), compromising the compromising view of natural law.
But he was only following his mentor, Edmund Burke, “[the Creator] has mixed in [man’s] cup a number of natural Evils… In the state of Nature… mankind was subjected to many… evils”, God “designed [man]… for a state of imperfection” , “How far mere nature would have carried us, we may judge by… those animals, who still follow her laws” (A Vindication of Natural Law). For Conservatism, “nature” is a mix of good and evil. Even if natural law exists, it can’t be known with certainty, and society does not answer to it, “Nothing universal can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject” (Burke, Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs).
In the essay you quote, Kirk uncompromisingly applies the conservative refusal to make society answer to natural law, “No code of the laws of nature ever having existed, it is ineffectual to try to enforce that body of ethical principles through courts of law” Kirk says natural is rational, yet he deconstructs what the term means by enthusiastically quoting R. English “The natural law cannot be understood except through the elements of poetry and imagination in the soul.” Kirk’s term “right reason” was modelled on Coleridge’s romanticist notion, which was not reason at all, but which he endorsed in The Conservative Mind. Kirk’s essay views natural as a personal code for individuals firstly, and then for legislators and governors, which he defines as “man’s endeavor to maintain a moral order”, once again eluding the objective, universally verifiable character of natural law.
But natural law can’t be applied to society as a whole, because, he asserts, this law, though it exists somewhere, isn’t agreed upon and suffers from a variety of opinions etc. Only society’s own prescriptions form an “objective” basis on which to act. But this only shows up the great contradiction of conservative ideology as it has existed for two hundred years – different societies establish contradictory and often false prescriptions and secondly, they change them beyond recognition over time.
Because Kirk thought only subjective knowledge of this law was possible (depending on the validity of one’s “imagination”), obviously society as a whole had no choice but to rely on its own prescriptions. This contradicts the Church’s view of natural law as universally applicable and recognisable, and that its arbitration can be employed by individuals as well as societies as a basis upon which to act. This permits social conformity on a day to day basis. It also permits individuals, including judges, to challenge social norms and prescription if it contradicts natural law (we’re obviously not talking about the woke version of natural law).
But Kirk challenged this directly by appealing to Orestes Brownson’s idea that the individual may not base himself on natural law to challenge the authority of the state, even if the state’s prescription is unethical. Brownson dispenses with the traditional Christian view that there is indeed an objective basis upon which to challenge civil society, the Church’s authoritative arbitration, saying that US institutions take no notice of this. This is not the Catholic view, but it’s an entirely logical consequence of Conservastism.
Conservative views religion as subject to and indistinct from civil society. Burke declared “An alliance is between two things that are in their nature distinct and independent… But in a Christian commonwealth the Church and the State are one… thing, being different integral parts of the same whole” (speech on the Unitarians, 1773), “by no alteration will you get rid of [the Articles of Faith’s] errors… [modifying them must reflect] the inclinations of the majority of people” (speech of the Acts of Uniformity).
Roger Scruton, the most influential contemporary conservative continued the same complete autonomy of society from natural law – “The subjection of politics to determining purposes, however ‘good in themselves’… [is] irrational”. Scruton defined Conservatism as “a political doctrine that recognises no ruling purpose” (The Meaning of Conservatism). Scruton not only continued Conservatism’s belief that religion was just a “code” for community life determined by society. He rejected core Christian belief. Original sin and creation were “fictions”, “purport[ing] to be an account of what actually happened” (The Soul of the world). He denied personal immortality (Our Church). It’s hard to see how one can hyphenate Catholicism with such an ideology, though I’m aware that many do. Reading what the most influential conservatives actually believed would cure this.
Perhaps my comment was too long for one post. Here it is again in two parts.
Pius XI and Leo XIII rejected several core conservative beliefs. It’s true that conservatives often deny following an ideology, but there is no doubt that their worldview is an ideology derived from the Enlightenment. A leading conservative, Robert Nisbet stated characterized Conservatism as “one of three modern ideologies”, along with liberalism and socialism (Conservatism, Dream and Reality, 1986).
Kirk addressed natural law very late, and in a very problematical way. Natural law is in conflict with his life-long views, such this, “original sin and aspiration toward the good both are part of God’s design” (The Conservative Mind) – this makes good and evil part of the nature God created, compromising both natural law and original sin. Kirk endorsed Samuel Coleridge’s belief that, apart from “intuitive reason”, there was no “standard for determining what is good and what is bad” (The Conservative Mind), compromising the compromising natural law.
But he was only following his mentor, Edmund Burke, “[the Creator] has mixed in [man’s] cup a number of natural Evils… In the state of Nature… mankind was subjected to many… evils”, God “designed [man]… for a state of imperfection” , “How far mere nature would have carried us, we may judge by… those animals, who still follow her laws” (A Vindication of Natural Law). For Conservatism, “nature” is a mix of good and evil. Even if natural law exists, it can’t be known with certainty, and society does not answer to it, “Nothing universal can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject” (Burke, Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs).
In the essay you quote, Kirk uncompromisingly applies the conservative refusal to make society answer to natural law, “No code of the laws of nature ever having existed, it is ineffectual to try to enforce that body of ethical principles through courts of law” Kirk says natural is rational, yet he deconstructs what the term means by enthusiastically quoting R. English, “The natural law cannot be understood except through the elements of poetry and imagination in the soul.” Kirk’s term “right reason” was modelled on Coleridge’s romanticist notion, which was not reason at all, but which he endorsed in The Conservative Mind. Kirk’s essay views natural law as a personal code for individuals firstly, and then for legislators and governors, but he defines it as “man’s endeavour to maintain a moral order”, once again eluding the objective, universally verifiable character of natural law.
But natural law can’t be applied to society as a whole, he asserts, because this law, though it exists somewhere, isn’t agreed upon and suffers from a variety of opinions etc. Only society’s own prescriptions form an “objective” basis on which to act. But this only shows up the great contradiction of conservative ideology as it has existed for two hundred years – different societies establish contradictory and often false prescriptions and secondly, they change them beyond recognition over time.
I don’t have time to engage with all your assertions, especially when most (if not all) of them are specious and misleading, to the point that I can only conclude you are writing and arguing in bad faith. But, I will address a few points, if only so other readers can see some of the factual and logical problems in your remarks.
“Pius XI and Leo XIII rejected several core conservative beliefs.”
Such as? Nisbet, who you mention, writes that the “essence of this body of ideas [conservatism] is the protection of the social order—family, neighborhood, local community, and region foremost—from the ravishments of the centralized political state.” (“Conservatism,” in the book “Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary,” Harvard, 1982) Nisbet, of course, highlights the significance of Edmund Burke, whose book on the French Revolution, was a key text in the origins of conservatism. That is notable, because Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum” (1891) is quite clearly aimed, in part, at the French Revolution and the spirit and goals involved in it. And Leo XIII’s “Quadragesimo Anno” (1931) spends much time ordering for a proper social order very much in line with what Burke and Co. stood for.
“Kirk addressed natural law very late, and in a very problematical way. Natural law is in conflict with his life-long views…”
You not only end up misrepresenting Kirk on this key point, you ignore his numerous and very positive statements about natural law (as opposed to “natural rights,” which is a related by different topic). So, the quote—“original sin and aspiration toward the good both are part of God’s design”—is part of a detailed explanation of some of Burke’s beliefs, not of Kirk’s (yes, Kirk deeply admire Burke, but did not agree with him on everything).
You write: “Kirk endorsed Samuel Coleridge’s belief that, apart from ‘intuitive reason’, there was no ‘standard for determining what
is good and what is bad’…” This is rather humorous, because the full quote is this:
“When the philosophic radicals deny the existence of the intuitive Reason, they lose any standard for determining what is good and what is bad, and therefore cannot possibly know how to do good to people, or how to seek their own good.” (“The Conservative Mind,” 7th edition, p. 137)
In other words, you misrepresent what Kirk wrote and what he believed. Again. I sense a pattern.
You claim that Kirk addresses natural law “very late,” but anyone who has read his first book, “The Conservative Mind” (his doctoral dissertation), published in 1953 when Kirk was 35, knows that he writes about natural law quite often. (This, by the way, was a decade or so before he entered the Catholic Church.) So, he writes in the opening chapter, in presenting his “six canons of conservative thought”:
“(1) Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religion and moral problems.” (Ibid, p. 8 )
And in his essay/chapter titled “Ten Conservative Principles,” he writes (in 1993):
“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”
I would keep going, but it’s pointless. However, since you have insisted that socialism is just as viable (or even more so) that conservatism for Catholics, I’ll quite further from Pope Pius XI:
“116. Yet let no one think that all the socialist groups or factions that are not communist have, without exception, recovered their senses to this extent either in fact or in name. For the most part they do not reject the class struggle or the abolition of ownership, but only in some degree modify them. Now if these false principles are modified and to some extent erased from the program, the question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it. There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity.
“117. But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”
Because Kirk thought only subjective knowledge of this law was possible (depending on the validity of one’s “imagination”), obviously society as a whole had no choice but to rely on its own prescriptions. This contradicts the Church’s view of natural law as universally applicable and recognisable, and that the Church’s arbitration of what it is can be employed by individuals as well as societies as a basis upon which to act. This permits social conformity on a day to day basis. It also permits individuals, including judges, to challenge social norms and prescription if it contradicts natural law (we’re obviously not talking about the woke version of natural law).
But Kirk challenged this directly by appealing to Orestes Brownson’s idea that the individual may not base himself on natural law to challenge the authority of the state, even if the state’s prescription is unethical. Brownson dispenses with the traditional Christian view that there is indeed an objective basis upon which to challenge civil society, the Church’s authoritative arbitration, saying that US institutions take no notice of this. But this is tantamount to saying that Thomas More erred by changing the state as an individual. This is not the Catholic view, but it’s an entirely logical consequence of Conservastism.
Conservatism views religion as subject to and indistinct from civil society. Burke declared “An alliance is between two things that are in their nature distinct and independent… But in a Christian commonwealth the Church and the State are one… thing, being different integral parts of the same whole” (speech on the Unitarians, 1773), “by no alteration will you get rid of [the Articles of Faith’s] errors… [modifying them must reflect] the inclinations of the majority of people” (speech on the Acts of Uniformity).
Roger Scruton, the most influential contemporary conservative continued the same complete autonomy of society from natural law – “The subjection of politics to determining purposes, however ‘good in themselves’… [is] irrational”. Scruton defined Conservatism as “a political doctrine that recognises no ruling purpose” (The Meaning of Conservatism). Scruton not only continued Conservatism’s belief that religion was just a “code” for community life determined by society. He rejected core Christian belief; original sin and creation were “fictions”, “purport[ing] to be an account of what actually happened” (The Soul of the world). He denied personal immortality (Our Church). It’s hard to see how one can hyphenate Catholicism with such an ideology, though I’m aware that many do. Reading what the most influential conservatives actually believed would cure this.
I don’t have time to engage with all your assertions, especially when most (if not all) of them are specious and misleading, to the point that I can only conclude you are writing and arguing in bad faith. But, I will address a few points, if only so other readers can see some of the factual and logical problems in your remarks.
“Pius XI and Leo XIII rejected several core conservative beliefs.”
Such as? Nisbet, who you mention, writes that the “essence of this body of ideas [conservatism] is the protection of the social order—family, neighborhood, local community, and region foremost—from the ravishments of the centralized political state.” (“Conservatism,” in the book “Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary,” Harvard, 1982) Nisbet, of course, highlights the significance of Edmund Burke, whose book on the French Revolution, was a key text in the origins of conservatism. That is notable, because Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum” (1891) is quite clearly aimed, in part, at the French Revolution and the spirit and goals involved in it. And Leo XIII’s “Quadragesimo Anno” (1931) spends much time ordering for a proper social order very much in line with what Burke and Co. stood for.
“Kirk addressed natural law very late, and in a very problematical way. Natural law is in conflict with his life-long views…”
You not only end up misrepresenting Kirk on this key point, you ignore his numerous and very positive statements about natural law (as opposed to “natural rights,” which is a related by different topic). So, the quote—“original sin and aspiration toward the good both are part of God’s design”—is part of a detailed explanation of some of Burke’s beliefs, not of Kirk’s (yes, Kirk deeply admire Burke, but did not agree with him on everything).
You write: “Kirk endorsed Samuel Coleridge’s belief that, apart from ‘intuitive reason’, there was no ‘standard for determining what
is good and what is bad’…” This is rather humorous, because the full quote is this:
“When the philosophic radicals deny the existence of the intuitive Reason, they lose any standard for determining what is good and what is bad, and therefore cannot possibly know how to do good to people, or how to seek their own good.” (“The Conservative Mind,” 7th edition, p. 137)
In other words, you misrepresent what Kirk wrote and what he believed. Again. I sense a pattern.
You claim that Kirk addresses natural law “very late,” but anyone who has read his first book, “The Conservative Mind” (his doctoral dissertation), published in 1953 when Kirk was 35, knows that he writes about natural law quite often. (This, by the way, was a decade or so before he entered the Catholic Church.) So, he writes in the opening chapter, in presenting his “six canons of conservative thought”:
“(1) Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religion and moral problems.” (Ibid, p. 8 )
And in his essay/chapter titled “Ten Conservative Principles,” he writes (in 1993):
“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”
I would keep going, but it’s pointless. However, since you have insisted that socialism is just as viable (or even more so) that conservatism for Catholics, I’ll quite further from Pope Pius XI:
“116. Yet let no one think that all the socialist groups or factions that are not communist have, without exception, recovered their senses to this extent either in fact or in name. For the most part they do not reject the class struggle or the abolition of ownership, but only in some degree modify them. Now if these false principles are modified and to some extent erased from the program, the question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it. There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity.
“117. But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”
This essay packs many issues together. “Conservative, a person averse to change and holds traditional values.” (dictionary)
I grew up in Bavaria and we did not feel or see this great impact of Vat II. The Priest was now facing the people and praying in English. Too much tradition in Europe in many places. Parts of the German church in utter apostasy. Lately a great awakening is going on in Germany and France where over10,000 young people were baptized on Easter. Traditionalists and Conservatives should be all Catholics without claiming it for themself despising the New Mass, defying Vat II which brought such an increase of conversions globally and now two young saints. In my parish we are frequently visited by Traditionalists or as you now call them Conservatives. It breaks my heart watching a family telling their children they cannot receive Communion because it was a Eucharistic minister. What Holy Church has declared ok and valid is just that. The Conservatives/Traditionalists have brought division to the Church and a lot of lies are spread bringing a lot of doubt and sorrow. The Church is Christ and HE will restore and bless and cleanse His bride and may it be soon.
Carl Olson don’t we have to avoid partisanships /party spirit warned about by St. Paul. The Catholic is not bound by conservative thought; and “transcendent” apart from grace is never binding and is not a certain guide as St. Augustine discovered.
Philosophically, “transcendent” is held in wisdom subject to valid purposes or otherwise as cursor of metaphysics. What you notice in conservatism is that conservatism wants to position religion as part of its program and even identify it as its own nature but this defies all of the foregoing. People like Finnis get stuck on this (my opinion).
There is such a mix of ideas in conservatism too, “transcendent” can refer to a practice of an exceptional stoicism. Even antinomianism or ends justifying means that take on a “legitimacy” and “transparency” when they bear “intended good results” that “prove” it. Again, conservatism has no innate measure for natural daring or other virtue. Passive virtue even in its lowliest expression is not conservatism.
Now what distinguishes Fisher and More from Wolsey and Norfolk.
In the next century, what distinguishes the lay English martyrs from Judas and Pilate.
I have some further brief comment here about it.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/09/11/opinion-finis-disputatio/