Tom Wolfe (1931-2018)

If you want to be a good writer, we are told, you need to read. A lot. I must confess, I haven't read nearly enough in my life, and if my writing is deficient you know at least part of the reason why. Another side effect of my reading deficit is that it's always hard for me to identify influences. In some ways I've read broadly, but not so deep into any one or two particular authors so as to call my self a disciple. But if pressured I would say that Ive been influenced the most by the New Journalism, and by extension one of this late 20th century movement’s great exemplars Tom Wolfe, who passed away this week at the age of 87. 

Wolfe was a bit of an enigma. He was embraced by conservatives, though he really wasn't a movement conservative himself. His voting record includes both Republicans and Democrats with Bill Clinton and Barak Obama being the most noteworthy Dems on the list. He was a southern gentleman who lived in New York City for over 50 years. He was an American writer who wore white suits in homage to Mark Twain, yet was heavily influenced by Dickens, Zola, and Flaubert. 

In the style of New Journalism, Wolfe placed himself in the middle of his stories, acting as a not so passive observer of the action. He presented himself as more detached, and was certainly less flamboyant, than his literary contemporary Hunter Thompson, but was still accused of embellishing his scenes, blurring the lines between journalism and fiction. When he switched to straight out fiction he brought a journo’s eye to novel writing. He claimed that any major scene in his novels were based on things he had either seen in person, or were taken from interviews of multiple sources. 

He was sympathetic toward those he considered on the outside of high society. While not blind to the absurdities of the hippie culture, he showed a certain affection for the Merry Pranksters of The Electric Cool-Aide Acid Test. On the contrary he had a barely disguised disdain for the Manhattan elites of Radical Chic, his eye witness account of a cocktail party cum Black Panthers fundraiser at composer Leonard Bernstein's Park Avenue penthouse. In his penultimate novel, I am Charlotte Simmons, we see a highly intelligent, if naive freshman co-ed from the wrong side of the socioeconomic tracks corrupted by a cynical and depraved university culture. Somewhere in the middle we have A Man In Full’s Charlie Crocker, an Atlanta real estate developer in the 1990’s; a sort of cross between Donald Trump and Foghorn Leghorn. He’s at once a nouveau riche bafoon and lovable crumugion from a bygone era, struggling to make sense out of the social mores shifting around him.

In what you might imagine is par for the course for me, I never read his two most famous works: the non-fiction The Right Stuff, about the early days of the U.S. space program, nor his first novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, about New York in the roaring '80's, though I did read bits and pieces of it as it was being serialized in Rolling Stone, before it's hardcover release in 1987. But what I have read of him, Thompson and Joan Didion, a strong woman's voice from that era, have influenced how I see the world, and express my self in words, even if I don't agree with everything those authors put down on paper. He, and they, have certainly made me a better writer. For that I am indebted. 

Thomas Kennerly Wolfe, Jr....Eternal rest grant unto him oh Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul, and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace,

AMEN 

Proposing Catholic Social Teaching by Leading with Jesus

As I said in a previous video, I found the recent V Encuentro a truly moving experience. I don't think it would be exaggerating to say that it was life altering. Not a radical, Seven Years in Tibet, kind of life altering event, but nonetheless it stands as one of those small, yet profound moments that marks a refocusing or a renewal of how I see our mission here at the parish and in the wider Church. I've gotten some limited feedback, both in person and through social media, from others who share this view. People especially appreciated the time that Cardinal Cupich took during the Q and A session, as well as during the liturgy. The people felt close to their shepherd, and that he is truly caring for them.

Since the Meyers-Briggs people tell me that I have a tendency to analyze and criticize things, excuse me if I interrupt this mini era of good feelings to let my natural impulses come out. I did notice one tendency, embodied in the questions we were asked to work on during the breakout sessions, that I believe could actually be counter productive in the long run. I didn't keep the worksheet, so excuse me if I work from memory. At one point we were asked to discuss how we could be better prepared to go out and "transform society." Whether the question revolved around how we were to be formed, or how we can be more effective or how are we doing it already, I don't exactly remember, but the point was that we are to go out and “transform.” 

Ok, "what's wrong with that?", you may be asking. Nothing, in so far as it goes. Christians are to be a leaven in the world, no doubt. Faithful Catholics are to be engaged in the political process, as the Cardinal told us.  This is best done by the laity, with the clergy offering support and spiritual direction. And these young people seem open to the task. They made it very clear that they are dedicated to the Church’s mission to promote social justice. While the discussions were far reaching, not limited even to the broad topic of Catholic social teaching, or the specific issue of immigrant rights, these things colored the proceedings throughout, as one would expect. My observation is that here, as in other forums I've been involved in, there seems to be a blurring of the line between evangelization and the proposition of the social doctrine, as if both things are synonymous. I would suggest that they are not. 

I'm not sure of the exact origin of the term social justice, and to a certain degree it doesn't really matter. In the 1950’s and ‘60’s the Venerable Fulton Sheen was using the phrase favorably, though with caveats of his own. I doubt that such a well educated anti-communist would have included the words in his personal lexicon if they were of questionable provenance. 

All the same what is understood by social justice depends on who’s talking about it. The socialist sees social justice as a matter of leveling the economic playing field by bulldozers and dynamite. Taxes are punitive rather than purely fiscal. In classical socialism there is a constant struggle between economic classes. In our present age the struggle is between races, cultures, genders, and those who divide themselves by their sexual proclivities. Traditional institutions, designed to keep the dominant race, culture, gender, and sexual cohort in power are to be overthrown, replaced by institutionalized revolution. I don't hesitate to call this movement demonic because it promotes a constant struggle with no rest, no sabbath, no jubilee. Its purpose is to divide and ostracize, not unite. One change hits rapidly upon the next, and the only prerogative is that we do not question the validity of the change in question. As happened in the French Revolution, a terror ensues that begins with destroying the movement's enemies, and ends with the revolution eating its own. When the likes of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris, both liberal atheists, are pilloried as being "alt-right" you know we've taken a trip in the way back machine and landed in 1792.  Today there is no time to sit and ponder, discuss debate. Justice deferred is justice denied, with justice dispensed through the barrel of a gun (though in our time riffles have been replaced by Twitter). We simply accept on blind faith, and keep on pushing forward to the next change to be enacted. If we don't we risk being publicly shamed, sent off to the oblivion of a social gulag. 

Catholic social thought is a far more subtle affair. It sees the dignity of the individual, yet never separates it from life in community. It believes in the right of private property, but stresses that this right isn't absolute. There is a universal destination of goods that promoted solidarity between people and nations. It celebrates technological and scientific progress, but knows that true human progress is something deeper than what can be measured and weighed. It sees science, technology, economics and the social sciences as tools to help people, rather than ends in and of themselves. It recognized the need for a strong central government while respecting local customs and authority through the principle of subsidiarity. By way of her social doctrine, the Church always tries to play a balancing act, perceiving the excesses of the current moment, then offering the proper counterweight. 

Since Pope Francis' election in 2013 the Church's social doctrine has been placed front and center like never before. While those who accuse the Holy Father of being a "socialist" or even a "liberation theologian" in the strict sense are mistaken, he does bring the Latin American concern for economic and social justice with him to the papacy. Another misconception, I would argue, is that there is a great dichotomy on this point between Francis and his two immediate predecessors. Pope St. John Paul II, while acknowledging the utility of markets (and the need to regulate them) after the fall of communism, was consistently critical of Western consumerism. Benedict XVI is on record as stating European social democracy comes the closest to embodying Catholic social teaching.  There is a cliché that states that Her social doctrine is the Church's best kept secret. Just because its a cliché doesn't make it not true, and Francis isn't really saying anything new as much as he's trying to put the lie to this well worn bromide.

That the bishops and pastors of the Church are running with this program of highlighting the Church's social doctrine is only right. But, as I've said, I see a danger. To propose a transformation of society by means of the social doctrine of the Church without an explicit proclamation of the Gospel, with it's call to personal repentance, renders Her teachings just another political agenda that can be easily relativized and rejected. Only by proposing Jesus Christ do the children of light distinguish themselves from the various political movements that abound, and their promise of an unattainable utopia here on earth. 


In my lifetime I've never found the USCCB shy about speaking out on any number of social issues. I know that some criticize the bishops for focusing too much on abortion or same sex marriage, but they haven't demurred from criticizing economic policy when they felt that the deck was being stacked against the poor. More recently the bishop's conference came out for net neutrality and and has been outspoken on migrants' rights since well before President Trump took office. I'm not sure the Conference needs a public opinion of every issue, like net neutrality for instance, but that it has stood squarely behind the poor and marginalized is nothing to be ashamed of, to say the least. 


The question isn't whether we should promote the social teaching of the Church, or advocate for the marginalized. The question is does this take the place of proclaiming Jesus Christ explicitly. I'm not sure Jesus talked about transforming society. He talked about repentance. He talked about personal conversion. There were numerous injustices perpetrated by the Roman Empire, yet we don't hear Jesus addressing any of them. He speaks of feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner and the sick. He makes the living of these actions the conditions for salvation: the visible measure of our invisible faith. It's true that we should expect our government to reflect these concerns, but governments, especially Western democracies, only reflect the values of its citizens. If citizens don't hold Christian values we shouldn't be surprised that their government doesn't either. 

One mistake we make is the believe that our society is still Christian, informed by Christian values. Or that Christian values are self event, ingrained in human nature, so that explicit faith in Jesus isn't necessary for Gospel values to be embodied in public policy. We have rejected the idea of original sin that disorientates us, making it hard to chose the good (or that even in a state of original blessing, Adam and Eve still chose to sin). We still need grace to lift us up, strengthen us. We need the Spirit to guide us, to lead us to all truth. It is only through Christ that we are assured to receive God's grace, and the accompaniment of the Spirit. 

A past president of the United States said that whatever the U.S. was, it is no longer a Christian nation. We know that it was never a Catholic one. In light of Christ's commandment to make disciples of all the nations, we have our work to do. We can go on, a voice among many working for societal transformation and social justice. We might have limited success, but we'll pretty much be spinning our wheels. Unless the goal is evangelization, the conversion of the nation to Christ, one person at a time, we will continue to be a singular voice among a cacophony of competing political movements. We might be shown a certain perfunctory respect, but in the end we will be easily dismissed. Our goal needs to be the conversion of hearts, and the acceptance of Christ, as King of our hearts and our world.