Is There a SIN of Indifferentism?
I was born and raised in the mother parish of the Paulist Fathers, St. Paul the Apostle, in New York City. As a little urchin off the streets I listened, in awe and fascination to the theology and Catholic insight from such giants as James M. Gillis, William Finn, John Harney, Bert Conway, Iggy Malloy, Joe McSorley, Peter Moran, and the younger zealots like Walter Sullivan, John Fitzgerald, Tom Fox, Al Murray and ever so many others.
While they were all singularly different in style, manner, gait and temperament, I was struck, as a half Jew, by the uniformity of belief, in their Church. Some of their positions seemed to me to be a bit stretched such as the prohibition on the use of the YMCA pool lest we get contaminated. Yet, I understood that their seeming intractability stemmed from a basic belief that Catholicism was the SUPREME expression of God's love of us and the truly perfect way to worship Him. And that, putting it bluntly and, hopefully, honestly, it is the ONE true Church of Christ and all others, bar none, regardless of their beauty and sincerity, are a notch or more 'below.' However, their sophisticated terminology focused more on the notion of "Fullness" rather than superiority.
This assumption obviously justified the enormous missionary spirit they felt towards the Non-Catholic. My classmates ( pictured above) and I felt the same way when I was ordained and, subsequently, I was sent to South Africa to preach to Non-Catholics. There was nothing to compare with Catholicism. I tried to influence everyone I met to consider the possibility of his "going to Rome." It was the mood of Chesterton, Ronald Knox, Belloc, Clare Booth Luce, Louis Budenz and Heywood Broun. I was an outright and unabashed Convert-maker. It was exciting and rollicking and fun! I was very successful at it. I made many converts while ostensibly giving the credit to the Holy Spirit. My life was delightful and fulfilling working at the Paulist Information Center in New York City for ten years.
This Catholic Church was the one true Church of Jesus, Himself. This WAS ITI Energy and zeal I had aplenty! Reasonable intelligence and some sense of social interaction was mine. And I got all of this from the Paulists, all the way back to Isaac Hecker, with the pamphlets and books and lectures. My vision was that This was REALLY Paulist! None of us believed or taught that one HAD to be Catholic in order to enter Heaven. Pope Plus XII in his beautiful encyclical MYSTICI CORPORIS clearly taught the inclusion (in the issue of salvation) of ALL people of Good Will who followed their consciences. This included my Jewish father who had not the slightest interest in becoming Catholic.
But then there came the cataclysm! Vatican Council II. When all the hoopla died down a few years after its conclusion, a blunt, startling (to us) position was placed before convert-makers. The Convert making was over at least as we knew it. Henceforth, we were not to solicit recruits to the Faith. Protestants whom we had considered fair game for conversion to Rome were now out of bounds. So were Jews and everyone in an established religion.
We could only reach out to fallen away Catholics or those who had NO religion whatever. .Those of other Faiths who wished to join us MIGHT come "in" but were to be received as already Christianized persons. The Council clarified more clearly the meaning of "Membership" in the Church.lt was a gentler and more loving stance but always with a view to Religious Unity under the Holy Father. But the negatives and distortions which followed the Council could not be traced to the exciting decisions of the Bishops but rather from misinterpretations of many misguided if well-intentioned people. How often we heard the cliche " in the spirit of Vatican II" to justify so many trendy and short lived projects dear to the hearts of the "Reformers."
However, there was a subtle, unintended effect of a gradual weakening of the Catholic Faith. This included, of course, clergy and religious who now became champions of a broad notion of inclusion and the somewhat elusive idea of " tolerance" (often meaning there is no real difference in various Faiths, including the Catholic one)
Were I to ask even senior priests friends for their understanding of what we mean by the sin of Indifferentism, they would look at me as if I were from Mars but then, perhaps from their point of view, the traditional belief in the one true Church of Christ belongs with aging Polish popes and Neanderthal German Cardinals who teach all that " stuff." It is all Passe, anyway, they say. Of course, most of us were delighted with the demise of much behavioral nonsense and plain stupidity of the past. How pleased we were with the new (or very old) forms of worship. But how we lamented the ditching of some of the beautiful, supportive, devotional practices of the Faith. We saw the arrival of wheat stalks and roiling streams as instructionary devices to replace the thrilling, confident, gorilla-like theological chest thumping bred of two thousand years of existence. How offensive to hear the ugly twangings of cheap guitars played by untalented teenagers instead of the glorious Palestrina or Mozart music we had always loved!
But beyond esthetics, with the "changes" there often came diluted, pallid, non passionate belief and a consequent way of life which nicely accommodated to trendy secular "winds."
Churches emptied alarmingly. Fewer and fewer young people entered religion. In those who did enter, we saw a distressingly high proportion dissenting from Catholic moral standards. In time, we were rocked with the worst clerical scandal in our history. Yet there was a strong core of Believers in the Faith who have kept the torch undimmed. Perhaps the "remnant" theory of Ronald Knox will be relevant in that more and more Catholics will desert the Faith and only a few will hold fast until the Second coming of Christ. Perhaps only diehards like Benedict Groeschel, Bill Buckley (even with his occasional theological deviance) and Alan Keyes who have the courage, psychological balance and extraordinary intelligence to stand tall, even if battered and bruised, will remain loyal to their "Old Time Religion."
Truly Adult Catholics are not embarrassed by unadorned Catholic teaching. Rather, they delight in the peace and warmth that the Ancient Faith brings. There is a deep joy in knowing that we belong to the Church Jesus, Himself, founded with the manifold gifts which only a God Who loves us so implacably could bestow. Yet it does require a strong belief that we are God's Chosen Ones. There is no trace of personal superiority or greater holiness in the Catholic stance. There is only awe and gratitude and a profound wish that ALL people could share in these riches. This is the sense of the Encyclical DOMINUS JESU. This is love and not exclusion but a true wish to share with all our brothers and sisters what we so fondly treasure.
Incidentally, Michael Novak makes an interesting distinction between what Americans call "Tolerance" and Religious liberty. The former may arise from a temporary lack of power to enforce uniformity and does not by itself invoke a natural right. Religious liberty, on the other hand, depends upon a particular conception of God, a particular conception of the hu- man person, and a particular conception of liberty. For Americans, it is also interesting many of us believe that the foundation of our rights lies in God's work. Such a belief has been deployed many times in Presidential decrees and proclamations
However,the foregoing is an attempt to share the inner feelings of those of another era who were raised in the belief herein described. Moderns often seem amazed at what they call "rigid" attitudes. Perhaps, the above, hopefully, will help the Amazed Ones to understand us oldsters.Perhaps, we might expect some of
the oft verbalized compassion and diversity. Can others understand why we cling so jealously to what we see as the Pearl of Great Price? One of the most famous and scholarly of Paulists, Fr. Bertrand L. Conway, wrote the following in his widely read book, THE QUESTION BOX: "a good man is bound to search for the Revelation of God.... It is Just as much a sin to deny the known truth or to be indifferent in its search as to commit murder or adultery.....She (Catholic Church) dare not sacrifice one jot or tittle of the divine message, which Christ gave her for the healing of nations." (page 31/Question Box). Fr John Harney Csp wrote expansively in a similar way in his explosive work, "is One Religion as Good as Another?" As did other
Catholic scholars like McLaughlin and Otten and Finlay, all of whose works are readily available.
Were they all mistaken? Was their theology, their history, valid then but NOT now? Has the Holy Spirit so misled others or become misled Himself? Have we become so Postmodern that we also believe that all ideas are equally valid? (which position might discourage reason). Is the idea that all ideas and religions are not only equally tolerated but equally valid except for those who refuse to accept the doctrine that all religions and ideas are equally valid? Clearly the Holy Spirit has His own way and time. Yet the all-religions-are-the-same belief is open to interesting psychological rationalizations - even self delusions. (As is, of course, the "stand pat" position). Subjective preferences, of whatever stripe, allow academics to re write history and theologians to re write the Holy Spirit's urgings. We are urged to be relevant and current.Yet, as Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, points out ".....sometimes, what people mean by relevance is that we really should jettison some of our hard teachings and be saying what is politically correct or what is fashionable. And fashions change."
Nevertheless, even if "Moderns" can't so understand, to a traditional Believer there is OBJECTIVELY a sin of indifferentism. Whether or not a modern, under the enormous bombardment of modern "correctness", is responsible becomes, obviously, a question only the Almighty can answer.