People today expect politics to give more than it can, often to the point of secular utopianism.
There are two basic reasons for that. The first is a decline in transcendental faith. People need an ideal point of reference, and when God disappears, they fasten on something this-worldly. Nothing that actually exists comes up to the mark, but such hope can substitute for reality, so they place their ideal in the future.
The second is faith in technology. Modern natural science has given us enormous control over natural forces. Applied technology and modern methods of administration have greatly increased government control over society. There appear to be no limits to these trends, so people have the impression that we can do anything.
But if that’s so, why not create utopia? That project is the new religion.
Today, utopianism has turned rather sour and seems motivated more by resentment than hope. The “woke” development of progressivism into something simple and absolute. And its domination of public discussion has led people to accept it as the one obviously correct view, and see its demands as basic justice and decency. At the same time, consumer society, the welfare state, and the apparent fluidity of reality in an electronic age have led them to see gratification of desire as their right. So they are shocked and outraged when progressive demands are not satisfied, and attribute the failure to the obstinate wickedness of their opponents.
Sixty or sixty-five years ago, things had not come to that point. Utopianism had a less absolute but more optimistic and outward-turning character. People had been through many conflicts, hardships, and dangers, so they accepted that the world could not easily be brought into compliance with their wishes. But progress did appear real and perhaps even irreversible. After World War II, extreme nationalism, which seemed the worst of the forces threatening peace, justice, and freedom, had been destroyed. Lessons had been learned, or so it many thought, and the advent of nuclear weapons had made the need to turn away from war the obvious choice.
The East-West split left only one truly dangerous conflict in the world. That conflict could be seen as unnecessary, since the sides seemed to differ only on the best way to achieve freedom, equality, and economic development. Internationalist projects, notably the United Nations, offered a way to mitigate and ultimately resolve the conflict. And for East, West, and the newly independent nations to join on a common path toward what many thought were the benign and mutually supportive common goals of all peoples.
The hopefulness reached its peak during the early 1960s, with the success of postwar reconstruction in Europe, the disappearance of Stalinism in the East and illiberal political movements in the West, and decolonization, which seemed a new dawn of freedom and progress in Africa and Asia. That peak coincided with the Second Vatican Council, and evidently contributed something to the spirit that animated it, and to the predominant outlook of the Church ever since.
Pope Saint John XXIII expressed the optimism of the time in his address opening the Council (1962):
Erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies [are] so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and [produce] such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn [them] of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity…. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.
Pope Saint Paul VI, in his address closing the Council (1965), added an emphasis on promoting human welfare as the best way for the Church to reach modern man when he put forward “a simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in order to love God.” And the Pact of the Catacombs (1965) explained how many thought that should be done: symbolically by gestures of solidarity with the poor, and practically by secular state action worldwide, leading to a transformed global order.
The result was something that often looked like secular utopianism, with an internationalist quality that reflected the universality of the Church. Paul VI expressed that tendency in Populorum progressio (1967), in which he looked forward to a new world of international cooperation, supported by trends and efforts that appeared purely secular, that would transcend the selfishness and suspicion of the past:
Ties of dependence and feelings of jealousy—holdovers from the era of colonialism—give way to friendly relationships of true solidarity … agreements would be free of all suspicion [of self-interest] if they were integrated into an overall policy of worldwide collaboration…. the world is moving rapidly in a certain direction. Men are growing more anxious to establish closer ties of brotherhood … they are slowly making their way to the Creator, even without adverting to it.
The tendency to trust in secular motivations and conceptions of universality and historical development that lack anything specifically Catholic, or even vaguely Christian, has continued and even gained influence in recent years. Examples include the comment by Cardinal Cupich in an interview that “some of the greatest Christians I know are people who don’t actually have a kind of faith system that they believe in,” the statement in the Abu Dhabi Document on Human Fraternity that “the pluralism and the diversity of religions … are willed by God,” and the reference in Evangelii Gaudium to “the greater, brighter horizon of the utopian future as the final cause which draws us to itself” (par 222).
But does all of this make sense, given the failure of would-be utopias, the Gospel passages indicating that historical evolution would end in catastrophe, and the Christian insistence on our need for Christ?
As John XXIII himself said in the address mentioned earlier:
Either men anchor themselves on [Jesus Christ] and His Church, and thus enjoy the blessings of light and joy, right order and peace; or they live their lives apart from Him … The result [in that case] can only be confusion in their lives, bitterness in their relations with one another, and the savage threat of war.
That being so, it seems that the Church should put more emphasis on what she is sent to spread, and says all men desperately need—the light of Christ—rather than devoting so much of her public witness to the support of secular and interreligious efforts with dubious prospects.
Caritatis in Veritate suggests the pitfalls. In that encyclical, Benedict XVI spoke of “a strongly felt need” to provide “the concept of the family of nations [with] real teeth,” and the “ urgent need” for “a true world political authority.” He cautioned, however, that
such an authority would need … to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.
This is all well and good, but what prospect is there that his conditions will be satisfied? What, for example, does the worldwide imposition of abortion and “gay marriage”—a fundamental moral demand of the global institutions now being promoted—have to do with subsidiarity, the common good, or authentic integral human development?
Catholics are not obligated to support everyone who wants to take over the world, and on the face of it, they should be cautious about supporting current claimants to global power. Prudence is the fundamental political virtue, and very likely some current initiatives should be supported.
But is that a topic the Church is suited to decide authoritatively? And if not, why is it something for her to emphasize in public pronouncements? When she does so she is liable either to repeat truisms or to propose prudential judgments she has no special competence to make.
A recent example is Pope Leo’s statement in his March 1 Angelus address that
Stability and peace are not achieved through mutual threats, nor through the use of weapons, which sow destruction, suffering, and death, but only through reasonable, sincere, and responsible dialogue.
Here, he seems to be saying that the world would be better if everyone engaged in reasonable, sincere, and responsible dialogue. That is true, but not immediately helpful, and that waging war never promotes peace and stability, which is at least contestable. Governments fanatically devoted to anti-human causes sometimes arise and must somehow be dealt with. What should be done is rarely obvious, especially in a globally-interdependent world with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, and given to continual low-grade forms of warfare. Even so, the reality of the situation should not be dismissed.
To me, a very ordinary layman, it seems that a cleric who wants to apply Church teaching practically—which is certainly part of his job as pastor—might simply urge participants to keep in mind the cruelty and unpredictability of war, the need for prudence, and the goods ultimately to be promoted.
Or he might follow Cardinal Cupich’s lead on this point and comment on something specific—in the Cardinal’s case, the growing tendency, even in government communications, to present war as a sort of video game entertainment.
But perhaps it would be best of all to say, “Christ is the only answer.” That would have at least as much immediate practical effect as other comments, and it would maintain the Church’s fundamental message in public awareness. And that, after all, is the most important reason for the Church to make public comments.
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 author writes: “Pope Saint Paul VI, in his address closing the Council (1965), added an emphasis on promoting human welfare as the best way for the Church to reach modern man when he put forward “a simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in order to love God.”
The Society of Ethical Culture – a “love your neighbor” non-religious organization continues to eschew a belief in God, let alone a love for God. Such is the fruit of reversing the order of the 1st and 2nd “greatest” commandments.
I thought that this comment necessitated a gracious response…well done, sir, well done!
So what are you saying? That we should just have blind, childlike faith that Donald Trump, in his wisdom, has our best interests at heart, and we should never question his actions? This essay seems to endorse whatever he does without question. No thanks.
Do you actually know anyone like that Mr. William? I don’t. I know plenty of Trump voters. I’m basically surrounded by them, but no one I know behaves like that.
Mrscracker, so can you name one thing that you disagree with Trump on? Just one thing.
Absolutely. His choices for interior decorating.
🙂
I could list others but you asked for *just* one.
His taste is garish. The proposed ballroom will be bigger than the White House. Bigger is not always better.
Donald Trump doesn’t come from old money & his tastes in food & decor can reflect that. Many of his supporters share those same tastes & it’s something that they can relate to.
Mrs. C – There are more than a few points on which I disagree with him, but for now I’ll settle for just this one – LOSE THE HATS!!!
That he has no hatred toward you, William.
There are many. Don’t forget he even told us if he shot someone on 5th Avenue his supporters wouldn’t care.
I’m hoping his tenure corrects at least some of the many wrongs propagated by the left.
The deficit spending continues though.
William: Stop the hate. It has no place here.
“The use of military force never ends well” seems a bad argument. A major point of the essay is that it is not helpful for the Church to present such arguments. You seem to be saying that the only alternative to them is to endorse with blind childlike faith everything Donald Trump does. Is that really what you want to say?
That seems to be what you are advocating. You seem to have faith in his truthfulness and competence, which is curious for a man as intelligent as you. Remember Vietnam? Remember Iraq? Lies and incompetence reign supreme. Now it’s Iran. Do we ever learn?
William:A persistent inability to not conceive of human individuals except in terms of caricatures is to have sadly avoided many imperatives for life found in the Sermon on the Mount, not to mention Matthew 25.
Right is right no matter which individual or how few individuals are right and no matter who or how many individuals are wrong.
William:
Your “response” to Mr. Kalb’s essay has no connection with what Mr. Kalb is saying.
You instead appear to be conducting a hermetically sealed monologue in opposition to the straw man you yourself have built.
The essay is criticizing the naivety of utopian “pontifications” from pontificates of the 1960s and 1970s, and echoed by the Pontiffs Francis and now Leo.
I suggest the Church Leaders apply good jurisprudence to these issues of war and maybe use Venn diagrams to show the data they are talking about.
Mr. Kalb, you are assuming that political leaders know more than the Bishops, thus the Bishops should remain silent. I am old enough to remember Vietnam, Iraq and now Iran. How prudent and wise were Vietnam and Iraq? Lies and errors in judgement. Politicians are not the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra. They are men who tend to lie a lot and whose expertise on issues of war and peace is flimsy to say the least. Put not your trust in princes.
Mr. Kalb,
You appear to assign a certain wisdom to political leaders that they don’t have. I remember Vietnam and Iraq. Disastrous wars that we tackled based on lies. Gulf of Tonkin, weapons of mass destruction. They dragged on for years and accomplished nothing. We don’t seem to learn.
An analogy was aired that showed a forlorn young man standing by a growing pile of belongings being thrown out of an apartment window by a determined young woman. Passersby looked, drawing a response from the young man, It’s complex.
Our current Iran war crisis now on the brink of what for now is a contained Armageddon. We don’t as Kalb said have all the intelligence data to evaluate what is occurring.
Iran is, at least, has been operated by a stranglehold of Shia ayatollah fanatics who believe in a 12th Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, born 9th century now in occultural hiding waiting to appear and end injustice in a final cataclysmic war. How do we reason with them? Trump made a reasonable decision to limit Iran’s nuclear war capabilities with the B2 stealth bomber strikes. Then Israeli intelligence found evidence of a hidden enriched uranium cache. Further complicating the U.S. mission the decision now made to further destroy Iran’s military structure.
Iran closed the world economically vital Hormuz Strait leaving the U.S. with the little option except to increase attacks or withdraw from the fight.
Israel would much rather see Iran obliterated, than alive and well via a brokered deal. Netanyahu drew the US to make the initial act of war in the B2 stealth bomber attacks. Taking all into account Kalb’s essay is reasonable.
President Trump issued the ultimatum to Iran that promises obliteration if there’s no ‘deal’. As a priest, not a general, nor an advocate for obliteration of a nation as a solution, “Perhaps it would be best of all to say, Christ is the only answer”. So tonight, it’s prayer and sacrifice.
Thanks for your comments. The piece was provoked by the current Iran campaign but wasn’t really about it. I don’t know enough to discuss the specifics usefully. Instead it was a comment on a tendency to deal with public issues by expressing pious wishes that seem based more on secular utopianism – wishful thinking writ large – than either specifically Catholic principles or serious thought about realities that are often extremely intractable.
The latter include chronic low-key war in some parts of the world that sometimes flares up but is extremely difficult to resolve, and the existence of nuclear weapons along with regimes that idealize death in battle and (as you note) hold an apocalyptic vision of the future.
So Padre, you have faith in the “wisdom” of Trump? Remember LBJ and Vietnam? W Bush and Iraq? Politicians lie. It’s what they do. Your childlike faith in the truthfulness and competence of a lying politician is curious for such an educated, intelligent man.
Mr. William is it charitable to assume those things about people we’ve only encountered in comment boxes?
Unless we’re a Padre Pio or St. Jean Vianney we can’t read hearts & minds.Much less souls.
Your argument would be more persuasive if you didn’t omit Biden, Obama & Clinton.
Well William. It seems I’ve progressed from the Trump worshiper you previously accused me of, to childlike naivete. Perhaps then I’m safe from eventually making a radical turn and digress to one afflicted with the deep seated variety of your Trump Derangement Syndrome, in which anyone who doesn’t hate Trump is either a worshiper of naive.
Although, you are correct William that politicians in general are knaves, knowing they must perform to play the part spectator voters wish. Likewise, we can’t write off every person who enters politics as if they’re inherent liars, and like Trump braggarts.
You need to introspect. Your Marine officer experience during those conflicts affected your judgment. Death and dying brings us home to reality, the political out of touch and self serving. Regardless, many of us have sincere motivations, even if in politics. We can’t deny that grace is at work among those of us in an imperfect world where truth becomes a bargaining chip for advancement. Have faith in God’s grace given to all who seek.
So Padre (how we used to address Chaplains, a form of affectionate respect), you are attributing to politicians, that they just might mean well. I seem to recall a famous quip about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. That said, I doubt that a person of your intellect is a Trump worshipper. I think you might regard him as the lesser of two evils. However, many of the comment box jockeys here do seem to have a weird hero worshipping attitude, which is puzzling, given his obvious mendacity.
We’ll see how this war with Iran goes, but I suspect that we will be no better off when it is over. Yes, we achieved tactical victories, such as sinking Iran’s rather small navy and destroying some missile sites. However, strategically, we alienated our allies and boosted an alliance of Iran with Russia and China. Is Trump playing 4 dimension chess or is he just in early dementia? Your thoughts?
Unfortunately you may be correct about the outcome of this war. It appeared after the B2 stealth attacks on Fordow we had Iran contained. The Hormuz Strait remained open.
It also appeared Netanyahu exerted an inordinate amount of influence, he and his intelligence team were permitted to join the Feb 28 staff meeting during which Trump weighed the input to make his decision to attack Iran in an act of war – against the advice of some key members of his staff. At this point the U.S. has damaged key relationships and is detrimentally changing the balance of power structure.
Whether there’s a cognitive decline I cannot make a reasonable comment. Rather my concern is evidence of his determination to prove his unique greatness regardless of overall consequences. Following the Fordow demolition we weren’t justified to pursue an all-out war.
My hope is that this current ceasefire and negotiation will succeed however unlikely that appears.
William: Cite a single example of anyone in this forum who has ever expressed hero worshipping towards Trump. Just one.
What you frequently display is a general ignorance of the Catholic faith, which you replace with trite aphorisms reflecting secular pretenses to enlightenment. Even your old saying is false. No one goes to hell with good intentions. This was first composed as a retort to liberals who obstinately refuse to see the counterproductive effects of their policies that always create hell for the victims of their more enlightened than thou social engineering.
“…a stranglehold of Shia ayatollah fanatics who believe in a 12th Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, born 9th century now in occultural hiding waiting to appear and end injustice in a final cataclysmic war. How do we reason with them?”
***
I know a Muslim & they & their fellow Muslim friends think the Iranian regime is totally nuts.
Within radically sectarian Islam the minority Shi’ites, as in Iran, await the Mahdi. (But not the 80-percent majority Sunnis). But, then, within the Shi’ites the fissures multiply— there are the “twelvers,” but also the “seveners.”
Ultimately, Islam seems an alternative universe, since Allah is so transcendent as to be totally inscrutable and even arbitrary and self-contradictory across time (termed “abrogation” by apologists)… therefore rejecting the surprise of a Self-disclosing Triune One. By which the early Christian West discovered a sufficient measure of coherence between the revealed Faith in the incarnate Jesus Christ and our gifted human reason–upon which even the “modern” world of genuine dialogue and diplomacy is indirectly based.
Yes, most day-to-day Muslims in the street are nice folks, who might cherry-pick inspiration from the Qur’an. And like most of us are just trying to raise their families in an imperfect world. Also a bit like some equally-literalist sola Scriptura Protestants who don’t quite suspect possible and personal incorporation into the Eucharistic and therefore perennial Mystical Body of Christ.
A persistent inability to not conceive of human individuals except in terms of caricatures is to have sadly avoided most every imperative for life found in the Sermon on the Mount, not to mention Matthew 25.
Right is right no matter which individual or how few individuals are right and no matter who or how many individuals are wrong.
Keep drinking the MAGA Kool Aid. Perhaps your hero can feed everyone with a few loaves and fishes?
Many believe govt will take care of them; one reason church attendance is down.
Thank you for this thoughtful, reflective article, especially for the background information and relevant quotations from popes of the Second Vatican Council era from Pope Saint John XXIII onward, and from Vatican II documents. I have wondered how recent Popes have come put so much trust on international political organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union to act as faithful partners in the Church’s mission. Perhaps they simply could not imagine how rapidly the Christian nations of Europe, the Americas and the Commonwealth would secularize and fall into a largely secular utopian vision of international harmony and cooperation achieved by human efforts alone, in which the Church is invited to join. It has given me much to think about and to pray about.
Thank you for the thoughts, and especially for the prayers.
Pope Leo and other annoying leftist Catholics on these pages ought to treat themselves to a dose of common sense by reading the piece by Francis Meier over at The Catholic Thing entitled “On Doing the Right Thing”:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/
How nice of you to instruct the Pope. Perhaps you can fly to Rome and hold a class instructing the Curia on the finer points of Catholicism? We await your infinite wisdom.
William: Hate doesn’t belong on a Catholic website.
It’s not hate. It’s sarcasm.