We Have Never Been Postliberal Catholics?

=================================

UPDATE: Professor Deneen now denies he wrote the anonymous First Things piece. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, the following post on his wall bears a lot of stylistic resemblance to the FT piece. Despite its postmodern dissimulation it remains a rejection of postliberalism in defense of Douthat’s schismatic publications. [There’s also the evidence of Deneen’s enthusiastic retweeting of nearly everything Pecknold posted in support of #IStandWithDouthat. If that’s not intentional, then it’s something else.]

I’ll let my readers decide for themselves:

Will the real authors of the FT piece ever come forward? It would be interesting to see whether they have the courage to stick out their necks with their names and credentials like Douthat’s critics.

=================================

Now, being fully committed to the postliberal cause I do like how Douthat used the category of heresy in accusations he leveled against his critics. Liberal or conservative are not theological categories, but orthodoxy and heresy are.

However, I am convinced that Douthat’s critics were correct in attempting to stop his schism-fomenting, and he got off easy:

Given no shortage of #Synod15 reax in cyberworld, suffice it to say, good thing Francis isn’t a legalist: pic.twitter.com/FZ3fNShZyx

— Rocco Palmo (@roccopalmo) October 25, 2015

They were wrong in asking the NYT for a censure. That was their major mistake. They should’ve asked Douthat’s bishop to apply the thumb-screws, then they too could claim #IStandWithDouthat for themselves.

With this major tactical-theological misstep the Douthat-detractors also showed themselves to not be postliberal Catholics, but merely liberal Catholics. Then again, they never claimed to be such, whereas Deneen, Bp. Barron, and Pecknold (his first book was on postliberalism) actually see themselves, to various degrees, as postliberals.

Now, if you think all of this is too much for you to handle, then you really need to familiarize yourself with Catholic history:

Accusations of heresy? Bubonic plague? Two living popes? Oh, hello 14th century. — Greg Hillis (@gregorykhillis) October 30, 2015

There is no excuse for ignorance. What seems to be clear for now is that the Catholic postliberal moment was a mirage.

The postliberal moment has come to a close for now, but I hope it comes back like Roscoe’s Oriental Rug Emporium:

By the way, this post takes its title from Bruno Latour’s We Have Never Been Modern. Year in and year out this book is the most cited book in the world. I bet you did not know that Latour is a Catholic who wrote his dissertation on Peguy. Then again, Catholic do tend to be ignorant of their history and how much they already lead the intellectual pack in philosophy, poetry, and fiction. They instead make up conspiracy-theory inspired narratives of Catholic decline to provoke their readers into buying more copies of the liberal-liberal NYT–if there’s any conspiracy then that’s it. So let’s leave the professors out of the schismatic battlefield. This ain’t no Game of Thrones.

I’m done with commenting on the Douthat Battlefield (deliver me from . . . rubbernecking). I’ll wait for the pope and bishops to call me when they’re done. They are the only legitimate interpreters of Tradition. We are not all Catherine of Siena, she is one of the very, very few exceptions of successfully resisting papal authority while maintaining orthodoxy. Saturday was Reformation Day and we would do well to remember that  the vast majority of papal critics were heretics. Going the anti-papal route one is much more likely to follow the schismatic paths of Wycliffe, Hus, Waldo, Zwingli, Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, or the Cathars.

#WeAreNotAllCatherineOfSiena

With all that said, please remember to donate via the PayPal button on the homepage of this blog to help me in my transition into the role of Channel Manage at Patheos Catholic and struggle to pay rent in the meantime.