Well, a recent post by Michael Iafrate caused quite a stir among Catholic blogs, not least of all due to its radical message. Not that radicality is necessarily a bad thing, but it can certainly cause unease, however remotely, among those caught off-guard regardless of whether the radical proposal is right or wrong, cogent or preposterous, adequate or insufficient. One observation that I have made on the number of posts that sought to address, counter and refute Michael is a remarkable misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misdiagnosis of the meaning and intent of Michael’s Memorial Day message. In sum, I’m rather discouraged and disappointed by the strikingly low level of reading comprehension that has been exhibited. I’d like to take the opportunity to raise the consciousness, so to speak, of these bloggers.
I waited until now to address this matter in order to allow tempers to cool and passions to subside. Michael and I have both been through graduate school in theology, so we understand that positions taken are often times disputed. In graduate school one is accustomed to listening to objections to one’s positions and to be prepared to provide an expected answer to those objections and critiques that directly meet the heart of one’s position. But sometimes the objections leveled are so subpar and so off-the-mark that no response is really necessary. I suspect Michael realized this when his post came under attack, which is why his follow-up post did not respond to his objectors, despite their perceptions that they were offering smart, informed and balanced critiques. However, while Michael is content not to respond to his detractors–and that is just what many of them have become–I am not so patient. I want to address two bloggers in particular and relay the fundamental misrepresentations they contrived in response to Michael.
But let me not be disingenuous before I address the bloggers. A lot of Michael’s material resonates deeply in me. But a few points in his Memorial Day post I simply do not embrace, such as his call to resist certain American holidays. Within a framework of hermeneutics of memory and identity, holidays such as Memorial Day, Independence Day and President’s Day have positive meaning to me. What I recall and commemorate identifies that particular day and marks its myths, so to speak. For example, a holiday such as Memorial Day does not symbolize, recall and celebrate the sacrifice of U.S. soldiers. It cannot for me, and it never will. The dedication of soldiers, fallen and standing, is admirable in my eyes. But I do not celebrate Memorial Day. I can never forget the pain and suffering of the families who lost a son, daughter, mother or father on behalf of executive order. Memorial Day is a day of deep sorrow rather than national pride. The U.S. did not fight a war, the U.S. did not die in a war. Human persons, put in harm’s way by the U.S. government–however justified or unjustified this action was–killed other human persons and were killed by human persons. I do not celebrate Memorial Day; I silently commemorate and demythologise. I commemorate because I am a Christian, not in spite of the fact that I am a Christian. Recognition of the suffering of families and friends over the loss of a loved one along with the lingering question of the true necessity of that loss of life constitutes my hallowing of Memorial Day. War is always tragedy, with or without the accomplishment of peace. To think otherwise is to mythologise, as Michael rightly noted, this American holiday.
I think the closeness of war has shaped my view of Memorial Day and other American holidays that seek to celebrate any sort of war effort. My grandfather was a Army sergeant on active duty during World War II. My other grandfather was in the Navy and was wounded in the Korea War. My step-grandfather was enlisted in the Army during World War II and later enlisted in the Marine Corps. He fought and was severely disabled from mortar fire in Korea, receiving disability from the U.S.M.C. until his death. My paternal uncle was wounded in Vietnam while in the Army. My maternal uncle is Army Reserve. My father was a Marine during Vietnam. My cousin served in active and inactive duty for the Army, fortunately between the two wars in Iraq. I am surrounded by war veterans and military servicemen. As a military family that has seen and tasted the bitterness and death of four wars, we do not allow ourselves to fancifully mythologize the life of an American soldier under the direct command of generals and the indirect command of politicians whose vision of war too often involves post-war economic and political ambitions. We honor the dedication of the fallen soldier and his/her family; we do not honor our state on Memorial Day. We are patriotic, but we are not fools.
Returning to Michael’s post, I again reiterate that I feel a Christian can rightly commemorate and participate in American holidays that signal historical conflict and wars only insofar as that Christian retrieves from the collective national memory a holistic and sober identity for that particular day. But I believe that Michael’s viewpoint has plenty of space within the Catholic tradition (which is far broader than the thin smattering of undigested quotes from Augustine, Aquinas and Fulton Sheen to which Michael’s detractors refer). Maybe I have not yet allowed the radicality of the Christ-event to fully transform me to the point that I can embrace Michael’s conviction. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Unfortunately, a few Catholic bloggers launched a bit of an offensive (pardon the pun) against Michael. Perhaps even more unfortunate is how hollow this offensive is in terms of exhibiting even a meager knowledge of Catholic social teaching and demostrating a basic understanding of Michael’s post.
Michael’s post has a direct three-point thesis, which was clearly lost on the bloggers to whom I refer. The thesis is:
1. There is a tendency in America to unite Christian faith with American civil religion.
2. There is a dangerously prevalent inability among Catholics to distinguish between the mythology of the state’s holidays and the mythology (perhaps Michael is referring to hagiographical consciousness) and holidays of Christian history.
3. To counter, Catholics in America are in need of a greater consciousness of the transnational, that is, catholic, character of the Church.
Neither of our two bloggers even bothered to seek out this three-point thesis, instead getting wrapped up in Michael’s specific example of Memorial Day which he used only to illustrate and not prove points 1 and 2, and to elucidate how he specifically applies point 3 to his own life. Michael’s objectors chose to attack Michael’s example rather than Michael’s thesis, which is a cardinal sin in good argumentation. If these bloggers wish to even understand Michael (one must understand before one can reasonably critique), they must grasp his thesis.
Here’s the round-up of Michael’s detractors:Christopher Blosser – Proud to be Catholic and American?
Christopher’s was the first post I noticed that dealt directly with Michael’s. Christopher kicks things off with a bit of Christian effrontery: “Some of our Catholic brethren have an . . . alternate take (to put it charitably) on Memorial Day and other American holidays.” First, what is this “alternate take” business? An alternate take to what and to whom exactly? Is Christopher implying that there is a standard “take” on Memorial Day and other American holidays among Catholics? Also, why does Christopher have to feign charity? Cannot one read Michael’s post without the possibility of succumbing to uncharitable action? The fact that Christopher adumbrates some alternative take to our standard take suggests to me that the desired rhetorical effect is to marginalize Michael’s viewpoint in order to paint it as extreme. If the desired rhetorical effect is achieved, then Christopher has already cast enough doubt on the legitimacy of Michael’s ideas for Christopher’s readers to read Michael’s post in a mode of suspicion rather than receptivity. That’s great politics, but terrible philosophy and theology.
After quoting a section of Michael’s post, Christopher links to a number of blog “responses,” some of which do not actually demonstrate any capacity to comprehend the heart and drive of Michael’s post. Does this oversight on Christopher’s part, that is, his seeming approval of misrepresentations, betray his biases or does it indicate that Christopher, too, has failed to comprehend Michael’s message? We’ll never know because Christopher, as usual, offers us no explicit original insight, relying only on the material available to him (online, no less!) regardless of its aptitude, incisiveness or adequacy. This tendency at Against the Grain to avoid full disclosure, to directly engage other Catholic bloggers and to avoid extended and informed commentary on primary sources in Christian tradition achieves, I think, the ideological front that is desired. Rather than being a politically unbiased Catholic portal to the greater discussion of issues, the abundance of politically insular links betrays a bias that even sides often against the very man for him the “fan club” is inaugurated. Of course, “prudential judgment” is the get-of-jail-free card despite the fact that it is the state, not the magisterium, that makes “prudential judgments.”
After linking these various blogs, Christopher presents some Incentives to Further Thought. He links to four online essays, all of which do, in fact, give me incentives to further thought…but on topics other than the one on which Michael actually writes. Not one of these essays gives me incentives to further thought on precisely what Michael was writing about in the first place. These “incentives” turn-out to be, honestly and regrettably, nothing but a smokescreen designed to convolve the real, thoughtful and formidable elements of Michael’s post. In other words, Christopher presents us with what may be the very first (but certainly not the last) amorphously indirect online strawman.
For example, in the essay by Joseph Varacelli–first on Christopher’s list–one finds a good primer for the renewal of American public life by means of the Catholic worldview. But what has this to do with Michael’s post? Perhaps Christopher really wants us to read Varacelli’s seventh proposition which reads:
This means rejecting both a “knee-jerk,” idolatrous worship and defense of things present-day American as well as the invitation, offered from the secular and religious radical left, to join the “America hating club.” The former denies the many failures of our civilization, past and present, while the latter, conversely, studiously and quite consciously ignores this country’s many undeniable accomplishments and virtues.
I do not think Christopher would accuse Michael of “idolatrous worship and defense” of America. But does Christopher think that Michael gravitates toward Varacelli’s opposite pole, that is, the “America hating club.” If one carefully reads Michael’s post–a task I doubt Christopher has done–then one will discover that Michael nowhere states, let alone hints at, his hatred for America. Rather, Michael admonishes Christians to maintain their (gasp!) Christian perspective and sobriety lest they distill Christian realism with American mythology. It would have been helpful if Christopher had actually addressed this central point.
To finish out his hyperlink bazaar, Christopher directs us to a theologically antiquated 1917 article marred by cultural and geographical localism on civil allegiance (did Michael advocate the contrary???), to an article by Mark Brumley entitled “Can Catholics be Real Americans?” (sadly, Brumley assumes rather than explicates his conceptual model of what a “real American” looks and smells like), and to a scattered article on the Catholics in the Military site that fictionalizes the Catholic America-hater whose military pacifism propels him/her toward blindness of the justice of the war in Iraq (whew!). Predictably, we weren’t given this imaginary Catholic America-hater’s address or phone number, but presumably he exists somewhere.
So what we have from Christopher is a post that utterly and miserably fails to understand and informatively engage Michael’s post. Rather, Christopher provides us with links to a number of separate issues. While his efforts might pay great dividends when combating hypothetical Catholics who advocate civil disobedience or promote hatred for America, Christopher just didn’t bother to really consider what he thought he was self-appointedly up against.
Michael Denton – I am Catholic and I Love America and So Should You; Reaction to Memorial Day & Catholicism Argument
Michael Denton gives us two posts, the second being a follow-up composed of a bit of boasting over his support among like-minded blogging cohorts and challenging Vox Nova to “authenticate” its diversity and to “refute” Michael. I hate to disappoint Denton, but our purpose here is not to refute one another, though this may occur on rare occasion.
Denton commences his attack on Michael with misrepresentation, one of the high crimes in thoughtful blogging. He writes the following:
Michael Iafrate posts on the Paganism of celebrating Memorial Day & Independence Day Paganism?
Did Michael write any such thing (go back right now and read Michael’s post)? No, he didn’t. What I think Denton’s got confused is the difference between paganism, by which I think he means non-Judeo-Christian religious practice, and mythology. Mythology is an important form of communicating truth through the combination of symbol and history for the express intent of sustaining and purging memory while constituting identity. Catholics know mythology quite well, be it the mytho-poetic texts of the Old Testament accounts of creation or our robust hagiographical paradigms in the lives of the saints. Myth is apt to be just as much a vehicle for truth as for fiction. In fact, we even find the early enlightenment figures like Descartes invoking myth (Latin: fabula) in order to express the geometric and physical ideal of the world’s supposed mechanistic composition. “Myth” is no dirty word. Myth was used by pagans (e.g. Hesiod, Homer, Virgil), but it most certainly is not synonymous with, or derived from, paganism. If I am correct that Denton innocently conflated mythology and paganism, then it should come as no surprise that Denton likewise misrepresented and misunderstood the heart of Michael’s post, which may be shed light on Christopher’s choice to link to Denton.
Denton’s next step is to quote Ven. Fulton Sheen on patriotism. Now, Michael nowhere attacked patriotism in his post. While I cannot speak for Michael, I will readily announce that I consider patriotism a noble and distinguished virtue. But if his comment on my post is any indication, Michael does not disavow patriotism as a virtue. But patriotism, unlike nationalism, is simultaneously an amorous and realist perspective of one’s country; to opt not to embrace holidays that commemorate war, injustices against peoples and the like in no way diminishes patriotism. However, it is categorical rejection of nationalism. This distinction between patriotism and nationalism is lost on Denton from what I can tell.
Denton takes issue with Michael on six points (note that not one of these points is actually Michael’s main point!):
1. Flags should not be in sanctuaries – Denton asserts that an essential dimension of the human person is government. Then he asserts that the human person is intricately connected to the society in which he/she was raised (to say nothing of the connection with other societies). The symbol for that society is the nation’s flag, therefore it should stay up in the sanctuary. A number of problems with this reasoning are evident, not least of all because society, state and government are not the same, are not coextensive and are not of equal proportion in relation to the essential nature of the human person. Because a discussion of the differences would be too onerous for the reader of this already verbose post, I simply refer all to John Paul II’s wonderful and lucid descriptions of these differences in his Memory and Identity (esp. 59-64, 69-72).
I personally am not opposed to having an American flag in the narthex of a church. However, when we participate in the Liturgy, we receive the Sacrament though which Christ consorts with us and every other Catholic in history. This transcendence soars beyond the meager concepts of “society” (in local terms) and nation, uniting us in a sort of eternal society that knows no locale, state, country, anthem or flag. Thus, I would argue from a strictly liturgical vantage point that any nation’s flag in the sanctuary detracts and distracts from the awareness of communio.
2. We ought not sing the national anthem in Mass – Denton suggest that, because John Paul II publicly said “God bless America!” during his 1979 pastoral visit to the U.S., that no serious objection to the singing of “God Bless America” in the liturgy can be levelled. First, did John Paul II even say “God bless America” during a Liturgy? If so, when? During the homily? During the closing prayer? And if John Paul II simply prayed that God would bless America (I am sure the holy Pontiff publicly implored the Lord to bless every country he visited), does that mean that we should add the tune “God Bless America” to our catalogues of sacra musica?
3. American troops are not “our” troops. – Denton launches a war of semantics here that really ends up nowhere. Should we or should we not, in the context of liturgy, qualify our troops as “our” troops? Michael fears that “our” indicates an exclusivity, a risky retreat from the transcendence of Liturgy to the mundanity of our nation. Denton thinks Catholics are clever enough to know that “our” does not mean that the Liturgy has become nationalized. Good points from both Michael and Denton. Let’s move on from this matter of taste since it really was only a side-point in Michael’s post.
4. Catholics sometimes describe soldiers as making the “ultimate sacrifice” for us. This is nonsense, as Christ’s sacrifice is the “ultimate sacrifice.” – Denton quotes Jesus to counter Michael: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). But Denton is tearing this verse from its true context and contorting it to fit over the sacrifices of our military. Right after Jesus says this, he explains what “friends” are: “I have called you friends because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father” (John 15:15). Christ is referring to himself and only to himself when he poetically remarks: “No one has greater love than this…”. But aside from this misuse of scripture, I think Denton is waging another semantic battle that really does not affect the drive of Michael’s post.
5. and 6. National holidays – Denton sorely misrepresents Michael in his last two qualms on national holidays. Denton confuses Michael’s juxtaposition of American holidays and Chuch feastdays for a dichotomy. I quote Michael:
We get into a really dangerous place when we start confusing our myths and our holidays. Memorial Day honors the memory of those who gave their lives serving the United States in its military, many of them making the “ultimate sacrifice” (in the state’s view) in service to the nation. That’s fine. The state needs holidays like this to support its grand narrative and mythology, just like any community of persons. The Church, however, has its own “sort” of “Memorial Day.” In fact, our celebration of the Christian “Memorial Day” spans two days: All Saints Day and All Souls Day, November 1 and 2, respectively. These are the days that Christians celebrate the lives of those who have gone before us giving their lives specifically as followers of Christ, many of them making the ultimate sacrifice as martyrs on the way of the cross.
Notice that Michael acknowledges that the state needs holidays to support its narrative and mythology, and that it is “fine.” Michael then notes that the Church, too, has its own, far more important holidays which commorate and, at times, mythologize her history. No indication that we must choose either national holidays or Church feastdays. No indication that Church feastdays must somehow “supplant” (Denton’s interpretation of Michael’s words) national holidays. Denton accuses Michael of holding a position that Michael explicitly denies: separatism and sectarianism! Michael writes in the context of his admonition to Catholics not to equate in importance and reverence or to conflate American holidays with Church feastdays. He advocates a hermeneutics of suspicion with regard to national holidays that commemorate moments in our nation’s history that carry controversy:
I think we need a healthy, Catholic suspicion of alternative metanaratives to our own, an ability to clearly understand the differences between the two, and the courage to let that test our celebrations and our social ethics as Catholic Christians.
This is Michael’s opinion based on his own reflections on the challenge of the Gospel. I, for one, do not hold in suspicion the mythological narratives America’s national holidays recite. But I can see from where Michael derives his points, and I would hope that Denton and Christopher would admit that Michael is free to hold such an opinion, particularly because it stems from carefully reasoned theological grounds.
A few other responses to Michael’s post included:
Patrick O’Hannigan – Shade of (red, white, and) blue – Without question, Patrick offers us the only semblance of informed criticism of Michael’s post. However, the accusation of Michael being “ahistorical” is a misgiving. Independence Day does indeed commemorate the actual revolution and the defeat of the British alongside the notions of colonial emancipation.
Coalition for Fog – Catholic hatriotism; More Rebuttals
Victor from Coalition for Fog sympathizes with Michael on flags in the sanctuary and singing national anthems or pride songs in the Liturgy. I think Victor provides a thoughtful critique that stands as a worthy alternative to Michael’s take on national holidays. However, labelling Michael a provocateur of “anti-American left-wing hatriotism” is not only unconstructive, it casts Michael’s post in the light of the very simplictic American political categories that Michael seeks to shatter in his invocation of the Gospel example. In other words, such labels deafen others to the heart of Michael’s concern. Again, great politics, but poor philosophy and theology.
Irish Elk – On Perusing Vox Nova
I truly have no clue what is going here. Irish Elk labels all the contributors (13 as it currently stands), many of whom have yet to post anything, as “liberation theology-reading anarcho-pacifists who quote Dorothy Day while demanding America renounce military force.” Wow! I, for one, am no anarchist, nor have I quoted Dorothy Day on this blog. But as I told Domenico over at BettNet, who similarly relies upon the uncritical, undiscerning and simplistic use of political labels in an effort to kindergardenize our material so that it is soft enough to spoon feed himself, if the only rebuttal that can produced is a barrage of categories without any semblance of a coherent argument, then I think Michael’s post actually emerges unscathed.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In