Editorial

Serial Surrender

Through the careless use of language, Catholics are ceding the field of contemporary culture

Can we expect to negotiate a truce with the culture of death, and settle on some compromise between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the spirit of a cruel and perverse generation?

As the word is defined in ordinary English usage, "proselytism" is our duty. This is not negotiable.

This is not a cheery issue of Catholic World Report. It has not been a cheery month.

The latest efforts to find a lasting peace for all of Ireland, after generations of bloodshed, might constitute the most positive development of the month, and readers who follow our correspondent on a tour of Irish history will realize how significant the latest developments have been.

On the other hand, while realists like Cardinal Ratzinger have long recognized the extent of the disaster wrought by post-conciliar liturgical experimentation, the experiments continue unimpeded here in the United States. And in a truly shocking public statement (drafted by a small committee, and approved for publication by their administrative board), the American bishops have adopted the politicized rhetoric and the flawed scientific claims (if not--quite--the moral reasoning) of the gay-rights movement. The social implications of the bishops' pastoral letter lend special poignancy to the questions posed in our Essay: Do we expect to negotiate a truce with the culture of death, and settle on some compromise between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the spirit of a cruel and perverse generation?

In many ways, the latest news from Russia encapsulates the problem. There, representatives of the Catholic hierarchy first opposed, then supported, then again opposed a law which will place new restrictions on religious liberty. As is so often the case in the world of diplomacy (perhaps especially Vatican diplomacy), the details of the case are unclear; we cannot accurately identify the architects of Church policy, much less explain their motivations. But this much seems clear: Catholic lobbyists failed to throw their full weight behind the campaign to stop the new law--and thereby allowed a serious setback for human freedom--because they did not want to antagonize the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church.

This case is worth examining more carefully, because here too the negotiations touch on the very essence of the Catholic faith. The key point of contention between the Holy See and the Moscow Patriarchate is the question of "proselytism." Orthodox leaders regularly upbraid Catholics for "proselytism," and in recent years Vatican officials have joined them in condemnation of that practice. But the "proselytism" renounced by the Holy See is not the same thing as the "proselytism" to which Moscow objects.

By any ordinary dictionary definition, "proselytism" is not an activity worthy of condemnation. (Webster's New Collegiate defines it as "the act of becoming or condition of being a proselyte," while the latter word, as a verb, means "to make converts.") Catholics are not merely allowed to make converts; we are commanded by the Lord himself to do so. So as the word is defined in ordinary English usage, "proselytism" is our duty. This is not negotiable.

However, under the steady hammering of Orthodox complaints, "proselytism" has taken on the connotation of forcible conversion, which must be rejected as a violation of the individual's freedom of conscience. So it is that Church leaders, quite rightly, abjure it. But wait.

When Orthodox leaders complain of "proselytism," do they really mean forcible conversion? Doesn't the new Russian law inhibiting religious activities suggest that the Moscow Patriarchate is hoping to staunch the flow of any conversions from among the country's traditionally Orthodox people? And what about the Catholics who agree to renounce "proselytism?" Are some using this as an excuse for the inexcusible--a reason to forswear our duty to convert all nations, bringing them into the one true Church in union with the Vicar of Christ?

During an amicable debate with one of her many correspondents, Flannery O'Connor once complained about the sloppy use of the term "fascism." By invoking that term, she cautioned, her friend was "using a word with a private meaning and a public odor, which you must not do." Today the word "proselytism" has different private meanings for Catholic and Orthodox users, and a public odor which in effect discourages ecumenical unity.

Dozens of the words most frequently used in contemporary public discourse--words like compassion, acceptance, tolerance, diversity, and pluralism--can be interpreted in ways that do mischief to Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching. If Catholic leaders uncritically embrace the language of contemporary culture, they create the perception that the Church is prepared to surrender--be it ever so slowly--to the steady march of modernity.