By DONALD DeMARCO
I received a letter from a dear friend who is “steadily pursuing a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith.” Her disclosure pleased me very much. Such a journey, however, is not easy. Anyone these days who is orthodox will be ridiculed in some way. A colleague in her theology class has typed her as a “fundamentalist.” There is hardly a more scorching term in the English language that can be leveled at a person who adheres to the fundamental truths of religion. But it is most unfair. Label is often libel.
Presumably, a person is called a fundamentalist for not being progressive. Being “progressive,” on the other hand, places one on a safety island, immune from any criticism. Yet, the notion of being progressive is fraught with problems. At present, Canada sees itself as progressive because it is widening the circle of people who are candidates for euthanasia. As G.K. Chesterton has pointed out, “progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative.” If progress has any real meaning, it must be an advancement to some worthy goal.
Yet, the trendy meaning assigned to progress is that it is an end in itself. It is detached from any vision of the future. We should invite change that fits the vision rather than continually changing the vision. In other words, progress should be subordinated to an end. At the same time, it should not be detached from the past. To cite Chesterton again, “real development is not leaving things behind, as on a road, but drawing life from them as from a root. . . . We need whatever is fundamental in order to feed the future.”
The problem with the progressivist is that he does not know where he’s going. On the other hand, the problem with the strict fundamentalist is that he is not going anywhere. But it must be stated that honoring the things that are fundamental does not make one a “fundamentalist.” By honoring what is fundamental a person is prepared for progress.
The late Pope Benedict XVI, always a man of common sense, put the matter in a nutshell when he issued the following statement: “Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today’s standards.”
If there is one biting phrase by which Benedict’s philosophy will be remembered, it is “The Dictatorship of Relativism.” The phrase is both tragic and humorous at the same time. It is tragic because it steers people away from the truth, not only the truths of the creed, but truths that are readily grasped by the human mind. It is humorous because it is a contradiction. How can one justify dictating something that is blowing in every direction at the same time?
I am reminded of a famous remark made by Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock: “He jumped on his horse and rode off in every direction.”
Allan Bloom began his bestselling tour de force, The Closing of the American Mind, by stating that all or nearly all of his students are “relativists.” This is to say that they shy away from any fixed standard, such as truth, and take pleasure in being free to believe in anything. His students are not fundamentalists, but it is to their misfortune that they avoid the fundamentals of logic that allows them to reason and to be free in the best sense of the term.
When Christ declared that He was the embodiment of Truth, He was not being relativistic, He was shining a light. Relativism is a philosophy for those who shun responsibility. It is the avoidance of anything fundamental.
A 17-year-old student in Los Angeles has made the news by referring to Johann Sebastian Bach as “that old, dead punk.” This sad caricature of Bach did not receive criticism from his fellow students. Bach, in fact, was more responsible for the development (or progress) of music in the West than anyone else. “Progressivists” are in the habit of demeaning the true architects of progress while claiming to be progressive themselves. Bach’s music is fundamental, as is his Well-Tempered Clavichord.
In learning the alphabet, the child is learning something that is fundamental. We need the letter of the alphabet to build a sentence, and then a paragraph, and then a book. That movement is rightly called progress for it has a worthy end and draws upon that which is fundamental. So too, learning the notes of the scale provides one with the fundamentals of music. The notes continue their life in the form of various forms of music from songs to symphonies.
One is not a “fundamentalist” because he recognizes the indispensability of the letters of the alphabet and the notes of the scale. But those who fancy themselves to be “progressive,” being eager to claim being up-to-date, are quick to ridicule others who do not share the outlook.
We need to go back to the “fundamentals” in order to understand that true progress relies on its fundamental building blocks. Being able to understand this is no reason to be proud or to ridicule others who understand the continuity between formation and growth. There is fun in the fundamentals (though not in fundamentalism) because one can imagine, with some degree of excitement, the many possibilities that lie within them.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress