Ideology Isn't the Truth

I began to write this piece, scrapped it, started again and once more deleted what I had written. I was getting into "issues." I was so caught up trying not to sound partisan in light of the shootings (insurgency?) in Dallas, while also straining to come off as relevant that I was tying myself up into knots. I still don't want to be partisan, or political. It's partisan politics and dogmatic ideology that's gotten us into this mess, at least partially so.  

I've been reading a lot of Dorothy Day recently. I approached her with trepidation many years ago, when I read the Long Loneliness. I'd heard a lot about her, and was put off by descriptions of her by both critics and devotees (Day reminds me of what a professor of mine once said about Pope St. Pius X - that he needs to be rescued from his supporters). I wasn't converted by reading her autobiography, but gained a more three dimensional understanding of the woman, and a true admiration. I was also not convinced that her canonization was necessary. While I still can't say that I'm all in on her thought, I am on her as a person. She tried to live an integrated Christian life of a contemplative in action. Now, I still don't think her canonization is necessary, but it would be welcome.

What I find most challenging in her writing is encapsulated in what I read today. It was from 1936. The Spanish Civil War was raging, and the persecutions in Mexico were still going on, though winding down. In both places left wing ideologies were amassing a body count of Catholics, clergy and lay. In Spain the Church was associated with the Nationalists of Franco, and became a target of the Loyalist forces. 498 Catholics, mostly clergy and religious - including nuns - were martyred during the Civil War. Ninety-five of them were Salesian brothers, seminarians and priests. In Mexico 25 martyrs have been recognized by the Church from the Cristero War, though I've heard the number should be closer to 90. The revolt ended in 1929, but in '36 there was a spike in the persecution. Day called for pacifism, that for Catholics to take up arms would be to ignore the words of Jesus to Peter in the garden, that he should stay his sword. To resort to violence would be to mimic those who stood around the cross and told our Lord to come down, if he be the Christ. It wouldn't be Jesus we were depending on, but our own powers to save. Christ could only save us through the passion. As His mystical body on earth we are also called to carry the cross, and suffer with Him. It is through that suffering of Christ on the cross and of Christ through his Church that salvation is accomplished. Not by our own efforts, but by His grace. These are difficult words, at least for me.

I don't disagree with the particular examples she makes. There was enough blood flowing in Spain without Catholics seeking revenge, which is never the proper Catholic response. As for Mexico, I've always felt uncomfortable with he glorification of the Cristersos in the movie For Greater Glory. I don't despise the historical Cristeros by any measure, I understand why they fought. But the image of men on horse back shouting "Viva Cristo Rey!" while gunning people down, as is depicted in the film, seems unfortunate. 

Yet, I can't cross the line into pacifism, to say that armed resistance is always and everywhere morally wrong. If we see a weaker party being butchered, are we to sit back, say our prayers and sleep well, confident that nonviolent resistance will win the day? There were nonviolent resisters in Nazi Germany, and they were guillotined with the public mostly ignorant that they were ever alive, let alone resisting. Martyrdom is not something that can be stumbled into. For those who have assumed the age of reason, it must be embraced, or it really isn't virtue.

I'll save further thoughts on direct action for another time. I do not dismiss Dorothy Day's call to nonviolence. I hold it, caress it, and try to make it fit, but so far I can't. 

Dorothy Day's dilemma wasn't over pacifism or embracing the just war theory. She knew very clearly that she believed in nonviolence. Her struggle was over ideological labels. She advocated for the poor, living poor herself, turning a critical eye on capitalism and consumerism. Of course, the thanks she got was having to contend with constantly being called a communist. She wasn't. She may have had no love of big business, and avoided enticements from corporate America, famously rejecting a potentially life changing grant from the Ford Foundation, but she didn't have any love for big government either. She was trying to forge a philosophy of social action, while avoiding partisan entanglements. 

I've been thinking a lot about Dallas today, as you might imagine. I was hoping to get this post ripped off quickly this morning, but as I started off saying, I've been through several revisions (and still managed to get the business of the parish done). What I've written so far bears no resemblance to what I started out with as the sun was climbing the sky. Now as I wrap up the sun is almost set, and I'm sure it'll be dark by the time this hits the web. My struggle has been over avoiding partisan entanglements. No one will ever accuse me of being a communist. Some might try to pin the right wing label on me, though. And thats the problem. We are in this crisis because ideologues have dominated the conversation, and I'm struggling to find the truth through the spin. This is bigger than Dallas, because the troubles are only beginning. Spin and ideology aren't going to bring us together - aren't going to bring peace.

I am not convinced that pacifism is the always and everywhere correct response to injustice, true. But this was not violence against an unjust oppressor. The police on the streets of Dallas last night weren't the enemy. This is national suicide. 

So I grope, trying to parse words, trying to sound above the partisan fray. Maybe that's impossible. Maybe I should say what I'm thinking, and let others apply the labels, no matter how simplistic and false. I'm trying to cut through the ideology, and drive at the truth.

We've arrived at this place because many of us have put ourselves into partisan, ideological boxes. Secularists accuse Catholics of being rigid and dogmatic, of being closed minded and unable to explore other possibilities, except for what the Catechism allows. I say progressives and movement conservatives are more hemmed in intellectually than Catholics are. Catholics are actually free to take the best of both (and I wish more would, instead of climbing into boxes like the rest). We can debate the just war theory, the death penalty, and how the principles of Catholic social teaching should be applied in concrete situations, sometimes taking very different approaches, and remain faithful Catholics. I'm not sure that's true with progressives and conservatives. 

Catholics follow a person, the Word made flesh, not a platform on paper. Our only hope is to be liberated from the intellectual shackles that bind us, and be free. Not to abandon reason - that's not Catholic either. Christ perfects our reason, sharpens our intellects, makes us free, because He is the truth.