Neo-Catholicism

1
Neo-Catholicism
Neo-Catholicism and neo-Catholic are shorthand terms for a new form of "conservative Catholicism" or
"neo-conservative Catholicism" that emerged in the Catholic Church during and after the Second Vatican Council.
Use of the terms was first popularized in the book The Great Faade; Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the
Roman Catholic Church (2002),
[1]
a study of changes in the Catholic Church since Vatican II. The essential element
of this current in the Church is its progressivism relative to Catholicism as it existed before Vatican II.
Terminology
Neo-Catholicism is analogous to neoconservatism in the political sphere, as distinguished from Catholic
traditionalism, which can be likened to political paleoconservatism. Neo-Catholicism, like neoconservatism in
politics, is not simply traditional conservativism, but rather a combination of conservative and liberal elements
representing a progressive tendency overall.
The neo-Catholic is thus distinguishable from the traditionalist Catholic Just as the neoconservative is fiscally
conservative but socially liberal, the neo-Catholic is doctrinally conservative while nonetheless progressive in
embracing or defending changes in Catholic practice, attitudes, and theological speculations arising during the
post-conciliar period, none of which have been imposed as doctrinally binding but rather represent predilections of
the neo-Catholic current.
General description
Neo-Catholicism as a new phenomenon in the Catholic Church was described in 1996 by the Catholic commentator
George Sim Johnston in an essay favorably reviewing the book Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America.
Johnston outlined a form of "conservative" Catholicism that was, he noted, quite different from the Catholicism of
the pre-Vatican II era:
The featured players James Hitchcock, Helen Hull Hitchcock, George Weigel and James Sullivan,
formerly of Catholics United for the Faith do not locate themselves on the theological "right." They
embrace Vatican II, don't pine for the Tridentine liturgy, and support the historically radical ecumenism
of John Paul II....
By any historical measure, the "conservatives" in this volume are progressive Catholics. Until recently,
their views on the role of the laity would not have played well with the Roman curia. Nor would their
choice of philosophical mentors: von Balthasar, de Lubac, Congar, Danielou not to mention John
Courtney Murray...
Unlike the Sadducees on the Catholic left and the Pharisees on the truly Catholic right, the
"conservatives" in this volume understand the pontificate of John Paul II because they understand the
Second Vatican Council. They understand that Christ founded a teaching Church whose doctrines are
not subject to whim and manipulation. But they also realize that the Church, being human and organic,
has to change. Vatican II was the antidote to the triumphalism, legalism, clericalism, and, yes,
Jansenism, that plagued the Church forty years ago.
[2]
Neo-Catholicism denotes the current of Catholicism that Johnston describes: a form of liturgical, theological,
philosophical, and ecclesial progressivism that would not have been viewed favorably by Rome before Vatican II.
Neo-Catholics are, in fact, Catholics in good standing, as are Traditionalists, but there are marked differences
between the two constituencies. The term is intended to capture the development Johnston describes: the
post-conciliar division of the body of Catholics into three main currents: a Catholic "left" (Modernists or liberals), a
"truly Catholic right" (traditionalists), and the new "conservative" middle ground occupied by those who "by any
historical measure... are progressive Catholics." A rough parallel is that of the division of Judaism into Reform,
Neo-Catholicism
2
Conservative and Orthodox branches. Such a division was not seen in the Catholic Church before Vatican II. The
distinction between neo-Catholicism and traditionalism is most pertinent at the level of public discourse and debate
in the Church over ecclesial developments since the Council.
The terms also designate the ensemble of ecclesial innovations following the Council, which, according to
traditionalists, have produced drastic correlative declines in the areas of ecclesial life the innovations have impacted:
vocations, Mass attendance, Catholic education and formation, Catholic baptisms and marriages, and adherence to
the Church's teaching on faith and morals among the generality of Catholics.
[3]
The terminological problem the terms address is that two groups of Catholics claiming to be "simply Catholic" differ
markedly and sometimes dramatically in matters of theology and praxis, a development not seen until after the
Council. The terms express the difference between traditionalists and those Catholics who adopted progressive
theological views and new practices after the Council. The resulting dynamic tension throughout the ecclesia
between two essentially orthodox constituencies, one of which did not exist a half-century ago, does not appear to
have any parallel in Church history.
References
[1] [1] Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (Wyoming, MN: Remnant Press, 2002),
[2] [2] Crisis, May 1996, p. 6 (paragraph breaks added). Emphasis added. All emphasis in this article is added unless otherwise indicated.
[3] See, e.g., Kenneth C. Jones, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators (Roman Catholic Books: 2003)(providing statistical evidence of immediate
and drastic declines in the the vital statistics of the Church after the post-conciliar reforms were introduced).
Article Sources and Contributors
3
Article Sources and Contributors
Neo-Catholicism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=609593586 Contributors: Acather96, Benkenobi18, CaptRik, Circa Corleone, Discospinster, Elizium23, Marauder40,
Rinfoli, Tutelary, Wavelength, 23 anonymous edits
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/