I was recently interviewed on CTV, Canada’s national broadcaster, about Pope Leo’s start in the papacy. The interviewer asked a question that I have been asked in scores of interviews about the papacy of either Leo or Francis: “Will he finally modernise the Church?”
When interviewers ask this question, they are not asking whether the Church will use the latest smartphones, AI, or avail itself of TikTok for evangelizing. They do not mean modernising in a technological sense. Nor do they mean modernising in an organizational sense, tapping into the latest ideas about leadership or management efficiency.
No, what they mean, and indeed what they have meant when asking about modernising for well over 150 years, is simply this: “Will the Church start looking more like us, adopting our values and principles?”
The word “us” is important here. Because the people who ask this question—be they state broadcasters, academics, or journalists—are committed to core values and principles that they share. These are the core values, they believe, of the modern West. Inclusion is good; exclusion is bad. The past is suspect because the past excluded groups, and these groups, be they women or people who like to have sexual intercourse with those of the same sex, must now be included. Tradition, then, is suspect because it is a dusty reliquary of this repressive age. Democracy, all right-thinking people know, is good; and the fact that all nominal Catholics don’t vote on their leaders is undemocratic, and therefore bad.
I could go on, but we all know what these values are. They are totemic in university courses, cheesy movies, TV shows, advertising, and newspaper articles. They are the values of liberalism, if you want to be pedantic, or simply “good values” if you are so immersed in the West that you don’t know they are unnuanced or contestable. They are presented not as one option among many, but as the neutral, inevitable endpoint of history.
Thus, the question about the Church “modernising,” in the nineteenth century as much as today, is a question about the Church being absorbed into “modernity” or liberalism. When Pope Pius IX was pressured to reconcile with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” in the 1860s, he was being asked to do exactly what pundits demand of the Pope today. The demand is constant because the project of modernity is totalizing.
The story of the modern West is a story about institution after institution, group after group, merging with this ethos. From monarchies to governments, to nations, to sporting bodies, to universities, to media, to businesses, to all people, modernity is the process of erasing difference and specificity in the name of “progress.” It is an inexorable process where all are converted to these principles. The media and universities serve as the evangelists and clergy; they are the frontline missionaries.
Crucially, they don’t believe they are colonising; they simply believe they are working for progress, justice, or the good. They are faithful clerics, devoid of doubt. They are seeking to erase the identity of others for the good of justice, progress, and even for the good of those they are seeking to convert. This is not the violent imperialism of the gunboat, but the soft imperialism of the HR department, the grant committee, and the broadcasting standard. It conquers not by destroying the body, but by rewriting the soul.
When I am asked, then, about the Church modernising, I am being asked about whether the Church is willing to be colonised. Is the Church ready to accept reality and bend the knee to the dominant ideology, or to fight on, like a crazed Japanese soldier on an island in the Pacific who has not realised that the war has long ended?
While this language of colonization and combat may seem rhetorical, it is important to know that groups that “modernise” are not simply groups who get a makeover. They do not just look like they are part of the same “brand” as modern liberalism while retaining their nature and identity. Yes, sporting bodies are still in the business of sport while acting as evangelists for the dominant ideology by flying rainbow flags and wearing rainbow laces. Apple can still sell iPhones, and Disney can still make movies while evangelizing with their wallpaper or content.
When they modernise, they can still retain their core focus to a significant extent. Just like colonised countries could keep the vast majority of their revenue, only kicking up a small amount of taxes to the Empire, they could fight their own battles most of the time and only needed to send their soldiers to help the colonising country occasionally. Colonization does not always mean complete erasure of function; often, it just means a realignment of allegiance.
But the Church’s focus is on thought and action, faith and works. It centers on how to live, what to believe, and which goods and truths we need to relate to in order to be conformed to this good and truth. Whether in media, business, or academia, the modern ideology that binds them also focuses on what to believe (about inclusion and exclusion), which goods and truths to cohere to (about freedom and liberation), and how to live (even down to the accepted ways to have and not to have sex).
Therefore, for the Church, colonisation by the ideology of the modern West would not be partial; it would be total. The Church does not sell a product that can be packaged in a Pride flag; the Church is a way of life that claims total allegiance. While a Muslim accountant could convert to Christianity and still be an accountant, a Muslim Imam could not convert while remaining an Imam. Microsoft can still sell software, as long as users can select “Pride” colour schemes in Outlook, while becoming one with the truth of the modern West. But Churches cannot.
The moment a Church agrees that the highest good is “inclusion” rather than “holiness,” or “autonomy” rather than “obedience,” it has ceased to be a Church and has become a spiritual NGO for the liberal state.
Churches that try to do so quickly become the evangelical vanguard of modern liberal values. They cease to be preachers of the Gospel and instead become preachers of modern liberal values. We see this in the mainline Protestant denominations that have embraced every tenet of the sexual revolution; their pews are empty, but their press releases are impeccably orthodox by the standards of the New York Times. They preach the values that define “us” as modern secular Westerners with religious zeal.
There is a specific psychology at work here. If Paul were only a tentmaker, he could have converted from Judaism to Christianity and still made tents. But Paul, the zealous preacher, was a zealous preacher for Christianity. Churches that “modernise” become zealous evangelists for liberalism. Often, the convert is more fanatical than the person born into the faith. The “modernised” Christian is frequently more desperate to prove their loyalty to the new regime than the secularist who takes it for granted. They become the inquisitors of the new order, hunting down the “backward” elements of their own tradition to offer them up as sacrifices to the new gods of progress.
We have seen this process before. The paganism that once flourished in the ancient world became modernised by Christianity. Eagle-eyed scholars can still see the remnants of it in some Christian practices today, but that is all that remains now. So too with the rise of Islam. Christians in North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean modernised over a period of centuries, adopting in many cases a synthesis between their Christian faith and the new faith starting to be called Islam. Within a few centuries, they were erased entirely. Some cranks like John of Damascus, a theologian and monk from the late seventh and early eighth century, still called them Christian heretics, but the vestiges of their Christianity were increasingly hard to find beneath the new ideology that they had modernised into. They thought they were adapting to survive; in reality, they were adapting themselves out of existence.
The interviewer who asked me this question, like previous interviewers who asked me similar questions, was a nice man. He may even be a Christian of some kind, or more likely, his parents or grandparents were. And I understand why he asked the question. He is a representative of a dominant world ideology, and he wants the Catholic Church to join them and become part of them; to stop being the strange thing we have been for 2,000 years and, instead, to dissolve into the glorious world he lives within.
He does not ask out of malice. He asks out of confusion as to why we would choose to remain outside the warmth of the consensus. But only if we Catholics realise that this question is a question of colonisation, of annihilation by a dominant ideology, can we fully understand what is at stake when it is asked. It is the smiling face of erasure expressing the hope that we cease to be.
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.
Please. More from this author. This is one of the best offerings in quite some time.
Ditto
I agree
Unfortunately, many “enlightened” Catholics are on board with the “progressive” values promoted subtly or not-so-subtly by the culture.
David Deane is speaking to the homogenization of mankind, which is what erasure is about. The surrender, for sake of inclusive harmony – the human soul to what he describes elsewhere as the tyranny of the banal.
What we’re lurching toward, lurching because we have erratic moments of intelligent appraisal, yet continue on toward the life of maggots feasting on the corpse of our humanness. About Pope Leo’s start in the papacy? All the more reason for a radical return to Christ.
Well said, dear David Deane: “The moment a Church agrees that the highest good is “inclusion” rather than “holiness”; or “autonomy” rather than “obedience” it has ceased to be a Church and has become a spiritual NGO for the liberal state.”
Yet, this highly pertinent article begs the question: “Why is our Catholic Church (like other Christian churches, today) so vulnerable to virulently anti-Apostolic proselytism ?”
Why is an associate professor of Theology in a school of Theology seemingly nonplussed by the insidious pressures that the world spirit ceaselessly applies to The Church and against everyone who truly believes in the Lordship of King Jesus Christ (and, this by the perfectly good & holy will of God!).
There is a consistent theme from the beginning of The Bible until its end: the conflict between the fallen satanic prince of this world and Jesus Christ, the eternal champion of The Kingdom of God. Christ’s overcoming is the basic insight that gives Catholic Christian meaning to our world and universe (see e.g. Romans 8:19).
The great goodness of this flows from the glorious opportunities given to believers to resist the flesh, the world, and the devil; and with the help of God’s Holy Spirit, to follow Jesus in His conquest of satan, sin, and death. (Ethical Encounter Theology also says the exhaustive exposure all evil is a logical necessity, so it can be justly removed forever).
Followers of Christ, across the world and through the centuries believe: “Since you have been brought back to life with CHRIST, you must look for the things that are in HEAVEN, where CHRIST is sitting at GOD’s Right Hand. Let your thoughts be on heavenly things not on the things that are on the earth.” Colossians 3:1-2
‘Heaven’ is understood in Ethical Encounter Theology as God’s eternal ‘Matrix of Right Ethics’ that, unseen, embraces & interpenetrates all of our temporary reality.
As the article poses: “How are we to keep our loyalty to Heavenly spiritual values shriven from the turbulently inconsistent, socio-political ‘values’ of the world?”
For a seriously Catholic Christian,The Commandments contain all that Moses gave PLUS their fuller & far more powerful framing, by Jesus Christ, who understands all of humanity’s need for lawfulness; & for the power of God’s commandments, gifted to us, to resist the treacherous prince of this world.
More than 70 years ago, I was catechised by wonderfully Christ-loving Marist sisters, who explained humanity’s essential need to know God’s Commandments. As an adult, lecturing & researching in Africa, Asia, Europe, & the USA, I found it effective to link The Commandments to our 5 plus 5 fingers.
This makes a fun way to embody & memorize the love of God in giving us His Heavenly prescription for our happiness; written on our own digits.
Emphasis on The Commandments of King Jesus Christ is a sure certain way to discourage infiltration of The Church by anti-Apostolic teachings and beliefs . For example:
HAND ONE
Thumb: “With all my heart, mind, body, and soul I will worship the one Father God who is LOVE, revealed by Jesus Christ.”
Index Finger: “I will have no other god nor any idol; not my family; not myself; not my philosophy; not my political party; certainly not money.”
Middle Finger: “I will not use God’s name profanely; I will not swear oaths, for my ‘yes’ is yes and my ‘no’ is no.”
Ring Finger: “I will keep The Sabbath Day holy, in the way Jesus taught us.”
Little Finger: “I will honour my mum and my dad.”
HAND TWO
Thumb: “I will love every person and not hurt or kill anyone, nor think evil of them, nor hate or take revenge.”
Index Finger: “I will maintain sexual purity and faithfulness in thought, word and deed.”
Middle Finger: “I will not steal or defraud; I will not rob others of their reputation.”
Ring Finger: “I will not tell lies, deceive, nor cheat.”
Little finger: “I will not covet, for God in Christ is providing all I need”.
———————————————————
Notes
In Exodus 20:1-17 & in Deuteronomy 5:6-21 the Semitic Ten Commandments (see CCC pp 496-497) reflected Jewish cultural belief in the cleanness of the right hand (the first five commands) and the uncleanness of the left hand (the second five commands). Tough in those days to be born left-handed!
Remaining true to Moses, today’s Catholics can hold these Commandments with a positive, personal, ecumenical, and egalitarian hermeneutics, extended by Christ’s New Testament teaching of love; easily memorized for today’s visually-oriented young people.
A common resolve among Church leaders at all levels to get every Catholic parish, every Diocese, and all the Roman Curia back to honouring & obeying these divine treasures, graciously given us by God would surely transform our worldly society, instead of the world’s ungodly spirit radically polluting the Church (Catholic, Orthodox, and Other) as we see everywhere these days. And as highlighted in this excellent CWR article.
Is there anything more eternally basic than the Divine: “If you love Me, obey My commandments to love God (commands 1-5) and love others as yourself (commands 6-10).”
Let every Catholic leader reflect: “How can the commandments be obeyed by the sheep if they have not been thoroughly taught by the shepherds?”
This is not a limited Christian perspective. It’s given here for the sake of Catholic believers, to make The Church strong again; YET who could deny the whole of our global society would benefit enormously if every Catholic & Christian (apparently, there’s billions of us) lived by this brilliant, Christ-anointed way of behaving.
Surely, that’s a major part of the proper answer to all of the current vulnerability so well described by AP Deane.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; blessings & love from marty
I’d like to see Prof. Deane post here more often. Thanks for this article…
The smiling face of erasure could describe the United Church of Canada if erasure means a rapid decline and ageing out.
Canadians are lovely people and deserve better. It’s projected that a third of Canada’s churches will be closed in the not too distant future.
Some of my daddy’s ancestors donated land for a Methodist chapel which now struggles along as part of the United Church of Canada. The UCC lost 40% of their affiliates in the past decade. I don’t know exactly what Catholic “modernization” would look like but if it resembles the UCC it’s a recipe for extinction.
mrscracker. Would be interested to know if there are any new “nondenominational “ congregations springing up where you live? We have them here while the old denominations are closing theirs.
We have some growing non denominational churches in our area that are made up largely of fallen away Catholics. But Catholic parishes are still doing ok in this area, also. People still go to church here a lot.
Our local non denominational churches tend to adhere to biblical teachings on marriage & family & are socially conservative. Mainline Protestant denominations that no longer teach that way are ageing out. Some more orthodox versions of Anglican & Presbyterian churches are springing up here & there. So, traditional seems to be what keeps church doors open.
Maybe interviewers who ask “Will he finally modernize the Church?” should be asked “Would you be so kind as to define modernize?“ I’m pretty sure Mr. Deane is correct in his assumption, but it might not be a bad idea to keep shining a light on modernism by making progressives publicly reveal their true desires and intentions. God’s truths will win in the end.
This is a great and lucid piece, a rare gem. More please!
‘Modern’ / ‘new ‘ – like a newborn baby ..or even a newly conceived one ..ever being born ..such are some of the themes of the operation of the Divine Will, as narrated in the 36 volumes of the Church approved writings such as the Book of Heaven – apologies – still in the process of slowly reading/listening to same .
https://www.littlechildreninthedivinewill.com/luisa-piccarreta-books
Enough at the above site – to keep learning how to be ever ‘new ‘ in His Holy Will !
This is the best thing I’ve read in a long time. Makes me want to push back and defend the faith. Love to see more from Dean, this is 🔥
About “what is modernity” and “what is REAL modernity,” maybe G.K.Chesterton offers a clue to the clueless”:
“The Catholic Church is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.”
“Those runners [messengers of the Gospel] gather impetus as they run. Ages afterwards they still speak as if something had just happened. They have not lost the speed and momentum of messengers; they have hardly lost, as it were, the wild eyes of witnesses. . . .We might sometimes fancy that the Church grows younger as the world grows old.”