The partisan division that runs deep in America has recently taken a violent turn. Political affiliations manifest competing visions for the country’s future, and increasingly, for human life itself.
Is freedom absolute in a way that should progress no matter the consequences? Or, are there fundamental truths and goods that should be conserved and respected?
We often speak of the fundamental divide between these general positions as right-wing and left-wing, conservative and liberal, as solely political, without realizing the surprising Catholic connection to their origin.
It’s common to hear Catholics object to the use of right-left and conservative-liberal labels in the Church. Nonetheless, it’s impossible to deny the existence of factions that have arisen broadly along these lines. Factions are nothing new, of course, as St. Paul made clear to the Corinthians: “For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor 11:18-19). Controversies over doctrine, liturgy and morality tend to divide into two major factions, and conservative and liberal labels capture, in a generally accurate way, the positions of either preservation or innovation.
Contemporary divisions within the Church, although not identical to political camps, often align in surprising ways. This reality took center stage recently as a major figure in the progressive Catholic camp, Cardinal Blaise Cupich, created enormous controversy in seeking to honor a Democratic politician, Senator Dick Durbin, with a long track record of supporting abortion. On the other hand, churchmen dedicated to the defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom often find allies in the Republican party. In fact, three bishops in the United States currently serve on President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. Given dynamics both within and outside of the Church, the “left and right” or “liberal and conservative” should not be dismissed as inapplicable or irrelevant.
“Right” and “left” as political labels go back to the French Revolution, particularly to the National Assembly, where representatives lined up either to the right or left of the Assembly’s President, depending on whether they supported the rights of the king (the right), the position of most Catholics, or favored abolishing the monarchy (the left) and the rights of the Church along with it. After the king’s downfall, those considered to be on the right favored a restoration of the ancien régime, while the left continued to advocate for the further liberalization of society along republican or democratic lines.
This political division carried enormous religious significance, as one side advanced the French notion of laicité (the removal of any public role for the Church) and the legalization of divorce, while the other sought to restore the union of throne and altar.
Following the French Revolution, popes supported the restoration of Catholic monarchs and even disciplined priests who advocated for democracy. The Second Vatican Council, however, brought about a rehabilitation for Catholics holding positions associated with political liberalism by fostering greater openness to the modern world. Vatican II largely buried the traditional right-left division among Catholics, who had supported either the restoration of monarchy or modern democracy (although the word “democracy” does not appear in its documents).
The right-left divide in recent decades now mostly breaks along the lines of those who support traditional values within modern democracy (the new right) versus those continuing to push the revolution against any form of traditional authority and morality (the new left).
Vatican II, however, created a new form of the right-left divide, not wholly unrelated to the prior usage. On the one hand, there is the conservative or traditional movement, which emphasizes continuity with the Church’s tradition prior to the Council, particularly in relation to the liturgy. On the other hand, progressives stress openness to modern culture, shaped by modern democracy and its emphasis on freedom.
Pope Benedict XVI had his own way of characterizing it as two competing hermeneutics (interpretations) of Vatican II, typified on the one hand by “discontinuity and rupture,” which “has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.” On the other hand, he identifies a “hermeneutic of reform,” typified by “renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us” (Address to Roman Curia, December 22, 2005).
This divide certainly exists and shapes how many pursue priorities in the Church. Often, those dedicated to conserving the theological tradition of the Church also seek to uphold fundamental values of life and the family. Those who favor rupture in matters of doctrine and morality often prioritize social justice over other issues.
Perhaps factions are inevitable or even necessary, as Paul conceded. Catholics must take a stand on pressing issues—social ones, such as voting, and spiritual ones, like finding a new parish, with many willing to drive outside their immediate territorial parish for more traditional or contemporary options. In an age of change, when everything seems in flux, Catholics face two major choices: either to dig in their heels to some degree or follow along with the current of change.
The Body of Christ, however, cannot be divided in its essence. Factions may exist due to human weakness, though there is only “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). Even as we take a stand, work with like-minded people, and oppose evil, we must do so as Christians who ultimately transcend party politics. More than a call to “get along,” we need a primary commitment to Christ that rises above divisions and other allegiances. The Beatitudes offer a concrete path to transcend factionalism and rise above squabbles, no matter how important. We will be blessed if we seek the Kingdom before all else, make peace, remain meek and merciful and suffer for righteousness’ sake rather than retaliating or seeking revenge.
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.
In all major variants of modern self-understanding—the idealistic (liberal), the materialist (Marxist), the existentialist (e.g., Nietzsche), and the positivist (Comte)—man tends to see himself as a fundamentally cosmopolitan being, discovering the world and forming his identity primarily through his actions. In this anthropological perspective, the religious dimension of human life is often treated as secondary or, at times, dispensable.
This modern mindset helps explain the post-conciliar debates within the Church, particularly the tension between those emphasizing discontinuity and rupture and those advocating reform in continuity, as identified by Pope Benedict XVI. Cultural currents in which religion is marginal or instrumental naturally shape how Catholics approach modernity, morality, and political engagement.
A parallel can be drawn to international politics, where two schools of thought—the “universalists,” who envision world peace through the transcendence of nation-states, and the “realists,” who prioritize the concrete interests of states—have clashed over the last century. Both, lacking a profound theology of history, have tended toward utopianism or Machiavellian pragmatism. Similarly, within the Church, the polarization between the modernist (typically German-Lutheran) and the traditionalist (Latin) approaches illustrates the tension between idealism and continuity.
Yet the Church’s social doctrine offers a clear framework that transcends these factions. It identifies three poles of engagement: the horizontal pole of justice, the vertical pole of natural law with its non-negotiable principles, and the pole of religious freedom (as articulated in Dignitatis humanae). By attending to all three, Catholics can navigate contemporary challenges, uphold core truths, and act in the world without succumbing to factionalism.
Hmm. My friends, colleagues, and family do NOT believe, as a deacon at the local parish teaches to RCIA groups, and repeats endlessly, that “an entirely church came into being with Vatican II” – in other words, we are with B16 and the hermeneutic of continuity, with Communio not Concilium. Yet we see NO conflict between what I think you mean by “social justice” and what we treasure – there is no conflict between the corporal works of mercy and the spiritual ones. Because we respect the dignity of the Mass does not mean we reject Christ’s teachings on our neighbors!
The problem is that too many of the local parishioners see the leftist platform as HIGHER than the Church. I had a professor at Yale – a professed religious sister – argue strenuously for leftist positions on euthanasia etc by bending and twisting the faith (“if we are dying, it must be God’s will – so shouldn’t we RUN to do His will by killing ourselves?” I am paraphrasing but that was the gist. She did the same for all the DNC talking points. She wanted to church to be a handmaiden to the Democrat party. (Note – the Republican party is no prize either lately!)
The rift is not between left and right, nor between those who care about “social justice” and those who care about, I don’t know, adoration and such. It is between those who think the words of Christ ae definitive for all time, that the Church on earth is an extension of the Incarnation, not a mouthpiece for the DNC. The church is unity not uniformity, and one can as a faithful Catholic believe there are prudential judgments (in how to help the poor for example – more welfare, or more jobs?).
But some things are not prudential judgments but doctrine.
Another screed from academia on the terminology of left-and-right as applied to the perennial Catholic Church, even as Jimmy Martin’s involved LGBTQ acronym has given an entirely new meaning to the term “left behind.”
The Body of Christ has two hands. The issue is not right or left, it is right or wrong. God is omnipotent. He will be Good no matter what we do. Christians follow His Word of Truth. Sin must be cut out of our lives if we are to be united to the Body of Christ. (Mark 1:15, Matthew 5:30)
So–why is no one recognizing that there are plenty of “MODERATES” in the U.S.A.?!
I consider myself a “moderate who leans conservative in most issues (voted for Pres. Trump twice and celebrated when he won!), but who also supports some of the liberal causes”.
E.g., I am totally pro-life and believe that ALL abortion, including many of the abortions that are done to supposedly “save the life of the mother”, is EVIL and needs to be outlawed, with those who break the law and provide abortion liable for arrest, trial, and punishment.
I also think that many birth control methods are evil, as they work by preventing fertilized embryos from implanting. I have no objections to the “natural family planning methods” of family planning.
I have to admit that one of the reasons why I am so opposed to abortion and other forms of infant and child murder is that currently, the U.S.A. has an alarmingly-low population and many professions, especially the health care professions and the skilled trades, are dangerously short-staffed. This is terrifying for those of us who are still fairly young Baby Boomers (and for any “Great Generation” folks who are still alive!), because who will take care of us in our old age deterioration?!!
When I was working in the hospital lab up until 2020 when my husband passed away of COVID, we were always short-staffed, as were the other departments (nursing, X-ray, respiratory, MRI, maintenance, engineering, E.R., etc.)–THIS SHOULD BE TERRIFYING to all the younger Boomers and also the “Millennials” (our children who are now mostly grown and working)!!! Again, WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF US?!
And low or stagnant population, along with all the young people who currently spend their time on their phones or playing video games instead of getting part-time jobs in fast-food restaurants and small retail outlets is another reason why our government is continually short on cash and is borrowing from the “future”, which will mean disaster for the younger Millennials as well as the Generations X, Y, etc.!! THERE AREN’T ENOUGH PEOPLE WORKING AND PAYING INTO THE TAXES!!!
I know from my own family that there are still many young people who are literally afraid to go out into the world because of the COVID pandemic and the isolation and terror that it brought to the U.S., as well as the many deaths of loved ones (like my husband, who was only 62 when he died).
This is one of the reasons that I am supportive of opening our borders to all immigrants who plan to become American citizens, get jobs, learn enough English to communicate fairly easily, and become law-abiding American citizens who don’t reject their heritage and customs, but add them to the “Melting Pot” that has characterized the U.S.A. since the beginning of our great country!
Yes, we need to deport CRIMINALS, gang members, drug pushers, etc.! And we certainly cannot allow a group of immigrants to form their own “separate country” with laws that allow violence against those they judge to be “dissenters”, “infidels”, or “rebels.”
Years ago in the 1980s, there was a large number of Asian immigrants into our country–and they have added so much to our nation’s culture! I think that we need to allow the various peoples in the world who seek freedom and are willing to work for it to enter our country and become American citizens who contribute good things to the U.S.A.
And there is plenty of room! Most cities and towns have buildings and homes that have been vacant for years. In the farm country of Illinois where I grew up, a Mexican family bought a small farm that had been vacant for decades–they lived in their trailer for many years while they worked to clean up the property, rent equipment to plow the fields and plant corn, rebuild the house and the barns, and purchase a few steers. Every time I went home, they had accomplished more of the restoration, and were becoming friends with all the other nearby farmers as well as the folks in the small town near their land. A few years ago, I went home–and found that they still had a smallish house–but they had built a RODEO STADIUM on one of their fields. This
stadium offers a weekly RODEO featuring barrel racers (mainly girls and their horses), and other traditional rodeo events. My brother (who has a family farm near them) says that on Saturday nights, the place is packed with people who PAY to go to the rodeo! And now, they not only have steers, but a herd of beautiful show horses!
I believe many immigrants are capable of great accomplishments like this because they ARE WILLING TO WORK and don’t plan to live on “government aid” or “charity.”
So if supporting legal immigration makes me a “liberal”, I’m fine with that. And if my support of ending ALL abortion makes me a “conservative,” I’m fine with that. I consider myself a true “moderate” who decides what to support based on the issues, not the “label.”
First a commendable assessment of Left Right starting with French revolution politics ending with what most of us [at risk of disagreement I would say the Right] agree, a “primary commitment to Christ that rises above divisions and other allegiances” (Staudt). Therein, should there be no squabbles?
Trouble is we’re not living in a perfect world. A world in which all are members of the Mystical Body living in perfect practice. But that sounds like heaven. Reality differs.
Being that were immersed in a very imperfect world the Left, as distasteful as it may be, are a necessary evil. Pourquoi? That the world other than Roman Catholicism is quite irreligious, there’s the anomaly that Roman Catholicism itself struggles with irreligiosity. There needs be that mediating voice however leaning to the Left that inspires a search for a Ratzingerisch hermeneutic of continuity.
We socalled Rightists aren’t always right, and the Left, however uncomfortable it makes us by the serendipity of the Fates frequently offers us, if not the resolution, the direction where it’s found.