Pursuing the Truth in Love

Printer-friendly versionMatt Malone, S.J.
The mission of 'America' in a 21st-century church

The mission of America, wrote its first editor in chief, is not only to “chronicle events of the day and the progress of the church” but also to “stimulate effort and originate movements for the betterment of the masses.” When John Wynne, S.J., penned those words in 1909, he was expressing one of the venerable teachings of St. Ignatius Loyola: “Love manifests itself more in deeds than in words.” America has never been content to play the role of the aloof interpreter of events. We aspire to something more: to be contemplatives in action at the intersection of the church and the world. Thurston N. Davis, S.J., editor in chief from 1955 to 1968, put it this way: America is “a weekly raid on the City of God in order to publish, in the City of Man, a journal that talks common Christian sense about the world of human events.”

Yet while America’s mission remains constant, the challenges we face today are unprecedented. It is no secret that the vanguard of the digital revolution has toppled the ancien régime: a billion tweets, for example, will be sent in the five days it takes to process and print this issue of the magazine; more than 10 billion pieces of content will be added to Facebook in that same period. Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, once rightly regarded as the Ford and Chrysler of news magazines, have virtually disappeared.

America will not meet a similar fate. Like most magazines, we will probably stop publishing an edition in print someday, but that day is not anytime soon. For a variety of reasons, America is better positioned than most to meet the challenges of the digital age; we also have a talented staff and the most loyal readers in publishing.

The most important challenge we face, moreover, is neither technical nor financial; it is existential. It is also the most important challenge facing the Catholic media at large. In fact, if the Catholic media are to have any reasonable hope of meeting the serious technical and financial challenges we face, then we must first reckon with a more fundamental question: Who are we?

For America, indeed for all Catholic media, questions of mission and identity were more easily answered in times gone by. Throughout much of American history, when the church in the United States was relegated to a social, cultural and sometimes a literal ghetto, the need for a uniquely Catholic press was obvious. Today, thanks be to God, Catholics are no longer second-class citizens. At the same time, however, the public square has less space for overtly religious perspectives than at any previous time in American history. The last two decades have also seen the emergence of an increasingly moralistic and dogmatic secularism among the nation’s political class. The twin scandals of sexual abuse and ecclesiastical mismanagement have further enfeebled the church’s public witness.

The complex problem is simply put: While we may have solved the problem of the relationship between the church and the state, the problem of the relationship between the church and the political remains. Solving that problem, or at least presenting credible solutions to it, is the pre-eminent task of the Catholic media in the United States.

The View From Here

Another of my predecessors, Joseph A. O’Hare, S.J., editor in chief from 1975 to 1984, bequeathed a warning to his successors: “Beware of metaphysical traps!” So I will not attempt to answer the question “Who are we?” on behalf of the entire Catholic media; that would be futile as well as presumptuous. My aim is more modest: to answer the question on behalf of America, to state simply what we believe. Yet while “we are a people who respect belief,” Father Wynne wrote, “we value action more.” Any discussion, then, of America’s identity and mission necessarily involves some analysis of the contemporary social and political context.

From our window overlooking the public square we see many of the same things you see. Chief among them we see a body politic sickened by the toxin of ideological partisanship. As the theologian William T. Cavanaugh has observed, American political discourse is dyadic; it oscillates between certain dualisms: left and right, liberal and conservative, public and private, secular and religious. These dyads structure and sustain conflict. While this kind of thinking may or may not be helpful in our secular, civic discourse, it is a mortal threat to the ecclesiastical discourse for it reduces the one to the many. When we conceive of the church in predominantly secular, political terms, then it is no longer in principle the church; it is no longer a communion but a polis composed of factions. As a result, the terms and the tenor of the ecclesiastical conversation become increasingly indistinguishable from those of the larger culture. For our part, the Catholic media become the ecclesiastical equivalent of the cable news lineup: everybody has a favorite outlet, and more often than not it is the one that caters best to our pre-existing views.

If the Catholic media are to make a meaningful contribution to solving the problem of the church and the political, then we must first reckon with how we have been complicit in this subtle secularization of the church in the United States. America is no exception. We too must return to the basic question: Who are we?

Who Are We?

America is not a magazine, though we publish one; nor is America a Web site, though we have one of those as well. America is a Catholic ministry, and both of those words— Catholic and ministry—are carefully chosen. We are not journalists who happen to be Catholic, but Catholics who happen to be journalists. That is not to denigrate or neglect the good and valuable work that the non-Catholics on our staff do every day; it is simply to express our fundamental commitment. America does not labor in the service of mere speech, words with a lower case w; nor are we in pursuit of some idealized, dreamy, Platonic-style discourse. Rather, we labor in the service of the Word with an upper case W, the self-communication of God in Jesus Christ.

Admittedly, these words “might sound a bit pretentious,” as Father Davis once said about a similar statement of his own. Journals of opinion are constantly at risk of taking themselves too seriously. America is no exception here either; we freely admit that some of our opinions can have a preachy, eat-your-peas quality. Still, it is nonetheless true that America’s fundamental commitment is to God in Jesus Christ. This must be so if we are to fulfill the purpose envisioned for America by its founders: to furnish “a discussion of actual questions and a study of vital problems from the Christian viewpoint.”

The Christian viewpoint involves a constitutive element that a Catholic media ministry like ours must constantly bear in mind: “Communication is more than the expression of ideas and the indication of emotion,” says “Communio et Progressio,” the 1971 pastoral instruction on the means of social communication. “At its most profound level, it is the giving of the self in love. Christ’s communication was, in fact, spirit and life.” This sentiment is also expressed in America’s motto: Veritatem facientes in caritate (which we loosely translate, “Pursuing the truth in love”). America, then, is also a ministry in the service of the truth. In the Catholic tradition, truth is ultimately a person, whose name is Jesus Christ, the one who is both the mediator and the content of revelation, “the way and the truth and the life.” Without this personal dimension, truth becomes strictly propositional and therefore incapable of sustaining an authentically human moral framework.

It is now possible to see better how America’s fundamental mission and identity—who we are—relate to the question of the church and the political in the 21st-century United States. For they suggest certain political positions, not in a partisan or policy sense, but in the sense of our basic orientation to American political life.

First, since our principal point of reference is Jesus Christ and his body, the church, then our principal point of reference is not civil society, and it is not the state. We are not, moreover, by any stretch of the imagination, disinterested observers of civil society and the state. America, Father Davis once wrote, is “deeply committed…to the moral law of God as this is promulgated through the universal forum of human conscience,” and, “on a wide and varied field of subjects, to the principles enunciated by the Popes, the Vicars of Christ, and in the major statements of the American hierarchy.” Further, while we may incorporate the insights of the secular sciences and secular culture into our analyses of ecclesial events (in fact, the integrity of our work requires it), we understand these events first and most importantly in terms that are proper to the church herself. In other words, America seeks to understand and interpret the church principally through theology, not politics.

Second, America examines secular politics through theology. When we analyze the church in categories that belong more to secular politics than to theology, then we inevitably debase the church’s intrinsic identity. Similarly, when we neglect theological categories in our analyses of secular politics, then the church’s prophetic mission is further removed from its source. The solution to the problem of the church and the political, therefore, is not for the church to retreat from the public square, but to assume a more robust presence there. The church is not merely one more private actor organized for public action. The church makes truth claims that are per se public claims. While the church and state must remain separate, then, the separation of the church and the political is inconceivable.

Third, America understands the church as the body of Christ, not as the body politic. Liberal, conservative, moderate are words that describe factions in a polis, not members of a communion. It stands to reason, moreover, that America’s fundamental commitment precludes certain self-conceptions. Since the word of God is incoherent when it is separated from the church and its living teaching office, America could never envision itself as “the Loyal Opposition.” Nor do we understand the phrase “people of God” as a theological justification for setting one part of the body of Christ against another. The people of God are not a proletariat engaged in some perpetual conflict with a clerical bourgeoisie. It is obvious to us, moreover, that a preoccupation with episcopal action, whether it bears an ultramontane or a Marxist character, is nevertheless a form of clericalism. None of this is to say that America cannot bring a critical eye to ecclesiastical events; this is, in fact, our very purpose.

Fourth, as St. Paul reminds us, “There is neither Jew nor gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Accordingly, there is no faithful Catholic voice—“liberal,” “conservative,” “moderate,” male, female, gay, straight, young, old, clerical or lay, American or not—that is not welcome in the pages of America. There is no quarter of the church, moreover, in which America is not at home. The prevailing notion that Catholics cannot work together, worship together or reason together, simply because we hold different worldly philosophies or vote differently or have different habits of dress or liturgical tastes—such a notion has no place in the body of Christ. Partisanship is the stuff of parliamentary politics, not sacramental life.

Fifth, America’s fundamental commitment means that we view ideology as largely inimical to Christian discipleship. Revelation is humanity’s true story. Ideologies, which are alternative metanarratives, invariably involve an “other,” a conceptual scapegoat, some oppressor who must be overthrown by the oppressed. Only the Gospel’s radical call to peace and reconciliation justifies a radical politics. Catholic social teaching is not the Republican Party plus economic justice, nor is it the Democratic Party minus abortion rights. Yet neither is it some amalgamation of the two. Catholic social teaching is far more radical than our secular politics precisely because it is inspired by the Gospel, which is itself a radical call to discipleship, one that is subversive of every creaturely notion of power. There is more to Christian political witness than the tired, quadrennial debate about which presidential candidate represents the lesser of two evils.

Sixth, our fundamental commitment means that we are not beholden to any political party or any special interest. “America will aim,” wrote Father Wynne, “at becoming a representative exponent of Catholic thought and activity without bias or plea for special interest.” Admittedly, we do harbor one bias: a preferential option for the poor and vulnerable. “The poor,” however, “are not ‘special parties’ and they usually have no ‘special parties’ to speak for them,” wrote Father Davis in 1959. America believes that the work of social justice is a constitutive element of Christian discipleship. We also share with the Society of Jesus the conviction that “the faith that does justice is, inseparably, the faith that engages other traditions in dialogue, and the faith that evangelizes culture.”

Seventh, America’s fundamental commitment means that what we communicate is inseparable from how we communicate it, since both are inseparable in the one we seek to serve. We must not be afraid to speak the truth. But if truth is ultimately a person, who is love, then no statement, however factually accurate, can ultimately be called truthful if it is not spoken in charity. This is precisely what it means to say, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal”(1 Cor 13:1).

We Are Christians

Every Christian ministry, as a participation in the one ministry of Christ, is necessarily a ministry of reconciliation. Through our media ministry we seek to address the problem of the church and the political by generating content that bridges the divides created by faction. That means we must generate content that applies the insights of the Second Vatican Council to the 21st-century church, that bridges the generational divide between those who came of age with the council and those who have come of age with the Internet. It means generating content that is nonideological, that bridges the partisan divide, that finds its dynamism and credibility in the scandal of the Gospel rather than in some self-affirming worldview. It means generating content that is postmodern, being unafraid to proclaim the final inadequacy of every metanarrative except for revelation. It means generating content that builds on the work of John Courtney Murray, S.J., respecting the distinction between church and state, as well as the relative autonomy of culture, but also building bridges between public and private and religious and secular.

Addressing the problem of the church and the political is critically important not only for the credibility of the church’s public witness but also for our spiritual well-being. If the church is to find its distinctly American voice and the Catholic media are to survive and prosper in the digital age, then we must remember who we are: members of the body of Christ, the truest res publica. We love our country. We cherish our country’s freedoms, and we are grateful to share in its abundance. The United States is our home, and “the object, scope and character of this review,” as Father Wynne wrote, “are sufficiently indicated in its name.” Still, a Christian’s true home is the city of God. Our hope lies not in worldly utopian dreams, but in the saving love of Christ; our communion is revealed and realized anew in the Eucharist, not in the paraliturgies of the nation-state. We are disciples of Jesus Christ, not subjects of any Leviathan.

America aspires to nothing more than to live up to the fullest meaning of our motto, to pursue the truth in love, for as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has written, “The only strength with which Christianity can make its influence felt publicly is ultimately the strength of its intrinsic truth.” The fundamental truth of Christianity is personal, the person of Jesus Christ, the one for whom love and forgiveness and justice are the only standards of human action. The political witness of Christians, then, is the witness of sinners who are loved and forgiven and are ever ready to love and to forgive in turn. Only in this way is Christianity “credible.”

If you ask us, therefore, whether America is a philosophical or theological journal, we will answer: “We are Christians.” If you ask us whether America is modern or postmodern, we will answer: “We are Christians.” If you ask whether we are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, we will answer: “We are Christians.” If you ask whether we have really said anything at all, we will answer: “We have said everything.”

Next Steps

“Love manifests itself more in deeds than in words.” America makes the following commitments:

1. Church. The church in the United States must overcome the problem of factionalism. This begins by re-examining our language. America will no longer use the terms “liberal,” “conservative” or “moderate” when referring to our fellow Catholics in an ecclesiastical context.

2. Charity. How we say things is as important as what we say. America seeks to provide a model for a public discourse that is intelligent and charitable. In the next few months, America will announce a new set of policies for the public commentary on our various platforms.

3. Community. America will appoint a community editor who will moderate our public conversation, ensuring that it rises to the standards we set for thoughtfulness and charity. We will continue to provide a forum for a diverse range of faithful, Catholic voices.

Matt Malone, S.J., is editor in chief of America. This article is based on a talk given at the American Bible Society in New York on Feb. 27, 2013.

Comments

new
CAROL STANTON | 5/27/2013 - 12:02pm

Fr. Malone, I have been reading America for over half a century now, since grade school, as it was always in our home. While I appreciate fully your need to state the mission for this age as your predecessors did for theirs, reading your article was a little like reading the documents of Vatican II, During the Council process the constant challenge was to keep the ecclesial space open enough to hold all the diversity. On some level the documents reflect this and leaves them open to factionalism; at the deeper root level, if John O'Malley SJ is correct, there lives a linguistic deep down cohesiveness which propelled us into the ever ancient/ever newness which was the future.

I believe America has intelligently kept ecclesial space open for diversity all these years and I look forward to your continuing that tradition for another 50 years in the articles under your editorial control. Blogs are more like the public square where the best we can do is to set the tone by engaging with civility. Some monitoring is inevitable, but readers of America who also blog are smart enough to recognize and to challenge those who enter the space in bad faith.

Michael Barberi | 5/25/2013 - 6:48pm

The problems of factionalism will not be resolved by examining our language with the objective of not using terms such as liberals, et al. The definition of factionalism is:
1. A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group.
2. Conflict within an organization or nation; internal dissension.

I submit there is a majority, not a minority, group within the Church, as constituted as the People of God, that dissent to certain teachings that are dividing the Roman Catholic Church. This does not minimize the concept of factionalism and I agree with Fr. Malone that we must overcome this problem.The issue is "how"?

While we could eliminate words such as liberal, conservative, moderate, as well as assenters, dissenters, faithful, unfaithful, traditionalists, revisionists, et al, in describing certain groups within the Church, will there be a significant difference if we describe those who disagree by saying something like "some, or many or most theologians argue this way or that way about this or that issue or teaching"? Or, that most Catholics who attend weekly Mass have the following opinions about sexual ethical teachings...? Or, that many priests offer this or that advice on this or that subject in tension with official teachings? Or, that the decision by this or that person or group reflects inconsistency and contradiction?

I agree that the use of "disparaging classifications and descriptions" of groups of people who have certain opinions, beliefs and legitimate philosophical and theological arguments must be eliminated because they further divide us as Catholics and as Church rather than solidify us. This applies to every Catholic, especially popes, cardinals, bishops and priests. The last 45 years beginning in 1968 was characterized by profound disagreement within the Church. A brief survey of the literature would find the frequent use of demeaning words to describe those in disagreement. The use of some words were not as charitable as we would like them to be especially in the many pronouncements from Rome. Nor were charitable words often used by non-clergy in describing clergy who sexually abused children and the bishops and cardinals who covered up these crimes. Some would argue the lack of charitable words were indeed appropriate and justified in this case.

If Fr. Malone's objective is to encourage and expect the use of more charity and balanced discourses, less use of demeaning and disparaging words by all Catholics, inclusive of the hierarchy, I totally endorse his efforts. However, to resolve the problem of factionalism will require much more than better language. It will require more transparency, openness, honesty, more collegiality, more justice and a willingness to dialogue and not to close the book on further debate to the problems that divide us. We do need a more charitable striving towards a better understanding of the truth, and to live a life according to God's Will in a community of believers in solidarity with each other.

Anne Chapman | 5/25/2013 - 7:21am

A lengthy article - it will take some time to learn what it means. On a practical note, one can't help but wonder what will replace the short-cuts to understanding provided by using the now-banned adjectives "liberal" and "conservative" when discussing "ecclesiastical" matters. These words, while not always totally precise, are still a handy way to convey a great deal of meaning without excessive verbiage. For example, describing Bishop Thomas Gumbleton as a "liberal" or "progressive" bishop or Raymond Burke as a "conservative" Cardinal is a short-hand way to indicate their general approach to "ecclesiastical" matters. Imperfect and imprecise, but these adjectives do convey a lot of meaning, without having to provide multiple examples of how each man looks at church matters (as well as political issues).

One might also ask precisely what is meant by the claim that America "has said [or will have said] -"everything" by answering questions with "We are Christians". Because, after all, within christianity itself - even within the Roman Catholic church - there is no universal agreement on what it means - in the nitty-gritty details - to be Christians. And, although America pledges to continue to provide a forum for a "diverse range of faithful, Catholic voices", the reality is that very often there is little agreement on what the words "faithful Catholic" mean - especially within the context of assent or dissent from selected teachings. This then, often leads to differences of opinion (often described in terms of 'liberal" or "conservative" shorthand) on the meaning of "primacy of conscience" and "obedience". Etc. As one can see, even though it's possible to censor articles in order to cleanse them of a few specific words, it is far harder to address the underlying disagreements within Catholic understanding that have led to using these shorthand words when discussing matters in the church.

This article seems to acknowledge the reality of the situation in the RCC. Unfortunately, banning the use of certain words will not make it go away.

Ron Chandonia | 5/24/2013 - 8:17pm

I read this piece right after a lengthy discussion with our youngest child about possible college choices. It occurred to me as I was reading it that we would like to find an American college dedicated to "pursuing the truth in love" in much the same spirit that Fr. Malone describes here. I refuse to pay to place my child in a secularist cesspool like Tom Wolfe's Dupont University, nor do I wish to hide her from the world in the parochial confines of a Hillsdale or a Franciscan U. Yet I sent an older son to Georgetown, which wooed us with a language not unlike that found in this article, and then offered my boy such a spiritually enervating experience that I now wish we had given the tuition money to the poor instead. So I will wait with skepticism to see if the new AMERICA and its blog really provide readers what these hopeful editorial words promise.

Gregory Lynch | 5/24/2013 - 5:55pm

"The church in the United States must overcome the problem of factionalism. This begins by re-examining our language. America will no longer use the terms “liberal,” “conservative” or “moderate” when referring to our fellow Catholics in an ecclesiastical context."

Congratulations and major kudos on this policy! The factionalization on the one holy catholic and apostolic Church is demoralizing and contrary to the spirit of the Gospel.

Peace,
Greg Lynch
www.teilhard.com

Christopher Rushlau | 5/24/2013 - 3:03pm

While my comment, cross-posted from Bacevich's review of Packer, is "awaiting review by site administators," let me ask you this: what would Karl Rahner make of your essay? No, let me make that, what would Ignatius make of it?
The motto seems best translated as "truth accomplishing itself in love". That phrase almost defines all three terms.

Rosemary McHugh | 5/24/2013 - 2:26pm

"America aspires to nothing more than to live up to the fullest meaning of our motto, to pursue the truth in love, for as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has written, “The only strength with which Christianity can make its influence felt publicly is ultimately the strength of its intrinsic truth.” The fundamental truth of Christianity is personal, the person of Jesus Christ...."

As a Catholic physician and as a graduate of Loyola University Chicago with a Bachelor of Science in Biology in the honors Pre-med Program in the past, and this month with a Masters in Spirituality in Spiritual Direction, I am grateful for the Jesuit concentration on education and inclusiveness.

Because I have met many who have been sexually abused by clergy in the Roman Catholic Church, and because all roads of accountability lead to the Vatican in Rome, I believe that there is real need for transparency and accountability by the Pope and by other leaders of the Church, in order for the truth to set us free.

Sadly, for many centuries, the Popes have covered up for predator priests and bishops. There have been at least 19 American bishops who have been abusers, according to the website: www.BishopAccountability.org. For more information, I refer to: www.snapnetwork.org.

There have been many suicides around the world of those who gave up hope that anyone would believe their story of being sexually abused by a priest. For too long, priests and bishops have followed the secrecy and denials of the truth, which was and maybe still is, the policy of the Vatican, rather than doing what Jesus would have done. Jesus was very clear about the importance of protecting the innocence of children.

I am a cradle Catholic. I know that my Church can do better in becoming transparent and accountable, in protecting children from sexual abuse, in listening and supporting the victims and their families, and in removing predators from the priesthood and reporting them to civil authorities, the same as happens with any sexual predator.

Before Catholics will truly believe that all sexual predators have been made accountable, I believe it will be necessary for all the records of the Vatican on clergy sexual abuse be given to the police for investigation, as Archbishop Diarmuid Martin did in Dublin, Ireland.

Sincerely, Dr Rosemary Eileen McHugh, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Christopher Rushlau | 5/24/2013 - 3:09pm

I imagine this comment would be in jeopardy once Editor Malone has his comment moderator in place. It seems somewhat of a cheap shot given that Malone acknowledged the church's problem with sexual abuse and executive inefficiency. But what does it hurt? A comment section is like a priest asking if there are any comments after the homily or sermon. If the priest is going to interrupt the commenter and say, "No, I'm sorry, that's off subject, rude, demonic, or whatnot," the evangelical effect is less than nothing, self-destructive. Why should a priest ask the people in the pews how they feel? It is up to the priest if she is then going to model her "policies" on the poll of the pews. You cannot manufacture prophets. And if you could, you cannot force people to buy them. That fact seems at the heart of the Christian message.

Recent Articles

See for Yourself: Interfaith Conversations at Harvard (May 2013)
Francis X. Clooney, SJ
Pope Francis: Open the doors! (May 2013)
Kevin Clarke
A Papal Cure for Intolerance (May 2013)
Francis X. Clooney, SJ