The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Form Criticism Print E-mail
By Robert Royal   
Tuesday, 24 March 2009

In the dark days before the 1960s, when the whole world lay unhip and unenlightened, people in the Church used to talk a lot about form. It was a philosophical holdover from long-dead figures like Aristotle and Aquinas. Few places teach it anymore, but you can still look it up in philosophical dictionaries. In somewhat simplistic terms, a form is what makes something the thing it is. Knowing a thing’s form, you might also make reasonable judgments about what is the proper way for it to operate and what is not. Without that knowledge, you get mush. Terms like good and bad, right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate thus were simply thought to refer to something real, though it might take some complex thought to figure out what the reality of that thing (really) is.

Even in secular circles, that kind of thinking still had serious currency. In those days, for example, a president of the United States appearing on a late-night comedy show would have been considered bad form. The informal nature of the setting and the consequent temptations to make inappropriate jokes about, say, bowling like you were handicapped, to say nothing of confusing formal and important matters with entertainment, would have given an American president and his advisors great pause. Back then, the dignity of the office of POTUS (as we now abbreviate) was thought by definition something conferred on him by the people in a solemn act that transcended any particular individual and therefore was not his lightly to do with as he wished. To exercise the presidency in a comedy format – however well intended and good natured – just did not seem to be part of an office occupied by names such as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. We know how Washington revered the dignity of the office, and he would have been stunned, to say the least, that anyone would treat it so.

In similar fashion, a Catholic university’s formal reason for being is, to use an old formula for brevity’s sake, “faith seeking understanding.” To invite our most pro-abortion president ever (the same one, as it happens) to deliver a commencement address hot on the heels of his repeal of several federal restrictions on abortion, and with the still real promise of his signing FOCA into law, which would essentially bar real Catholics from various professions for conscience reasons, is – at best – a long carom shot for any institution claiming to be still serving that mission. As the modern Scripture scholars who invented “form criticism” have taught us, the form of such acts tell us much about their meaning. Summoning such a president to address students headed out into the world says: what? At the very least, that your Catholic university has no grave problem with the most powerful proponent of a repugnant moral position in America because he is, in so many other respects, a “leader.” And perhaps you might also be telling students and their families that they need not get very worked up over the way the Church has kept abortion a crucial question either.

The Land O’Lakes statement, which our colleague Professor McInerny invoked on this site yesterday as the taproot of many subsequent problems, mentions form twice: “As a community of learners, the Catholic university has a social existence and an organizational form. Within the university community the student should be able not simply to study theology and Christianity, but should find himself in a social situation in which he can express his Christianity in a variety of ways and live it experientially and experimentally. The students and faculty can explore together new forms of Christian living, of Christian witness, and of Christian service.”

Perhaps well meant at the time, but if anyone thinks the “organizational form” of most Catholic universities today (after the ministrations of Land O’Lakes) helps them to perform a mission substantially different from that of secular institutions, please raise your hand. Forty years into the experiment, the data lie before us. We also know a bit about the “new forms of Christian living” envisioned by Land O’Lakes and many other progressives. They have indeed been new. But even allowing that there’s been some authentic renewal, the vast majority of these experiments long ago passed the point where they might be called Christian, let alone Catholic.

Ecclesia semper reformanda (“A Church always in need of reform”) is a good principle, properly construed. The Catholic Church is a living body, indeed the very Body of Christ by its self-understanding. Like every living thing, to survive it must change to meet new challenges while retaining its essential nature. Re-forming, however, means we know what form we seek. The Church and individual Christians have – and can only have – one overarching goal: to conform themselves to Christ, in the long accepted language of our tradition.

We are fallible beings and easily make mistakes along the way. Sometimes the shift is subtle or slow that takes us to a different destination than we thought we were pursuing. But that is no longer our situation. We now know that what many Catholics believe they are aiming at is not a new and better form, but another and quite dubious matter.

Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His latest book is The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West.

(c) 2009 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (5)Add Comment
0
Hope
written by William Dennis, March 24, 2009
Judging by the many comments to Professor McInerny's article, many Catholics are aware of the dubious matter and alien form that permeates certain areas of the Church. We are now dealing with infallability of the progressives rather than Papal infallability. No doubt the clerical abuse scandel has contributed to the reticence of bishops who should be thinking about Christ rather than secular appeasement. In these days economics rather than virtue rule our culture. This website generates hope!!
0
Hope and Change
written by Brad Miner, March 24, 2009
Chesterton wrote: “[R]eform is a metaphor for reasonable and determined men: it means that we see a certain thing out of shape and we mean to put it into shape. And we know what shape.” The Church needs reforms; it remains to be seen if we'll embrace Christ or hug the world. The allure of secular life is great; God's grandeur is greater:
"Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings."
0
...
written by William H. Phelan, March 24, 2009
At a recent private luncheon, a business colleague brought up an interesting question which I think appropriate: If you were suffering in a concentration camp, would you take more hope if you knew that Catholics OR Protestants were coming to rescue you? Even I had to admit, when one considers WWII, for example, that I would probably die in the camp or in my mother's womb if Catholics were responsible for saving me.
0
WWJD
written by Carmen V, March 24, 2009
It is such a shame that so much value is being placed on the speaker because of a title that is given. The amount of extra letters following a person's name does not make them an expert. It doesn't take much to influence a young person when beliefs are taken so lightly. Why take a chance with exposing a student to a person who is known as a non-supporter of human life? I don't care how much a person knows, I only want to know how much they care. What would Jesus do?
0
A simple protest
written by Dr. Jim Garrow, March 25, 2009
The dubious matter at hand is the willingness of Notre Dame University to redefine itself in anothers image. It would appear that populism has become the idol of "this present darkness". I would suggest that the good students of this institution need to rise up as we did in days gone by and protest this "sin". All will graduate even if they do not attend. I received one of my degrees by mail when I was taken ill an could not attend. I would suggest that a "sick in" is in order and appropriate.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Other Articles By This Author

CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US