The Catholic Weekly 28 June 2020

19 28, June, 2020 catholicweekly.com.au COMMENT XIII been swapped out for Hegel? There are many, many disturbing things about Amer- ican culture, society, and pol- itics today; in some quarters, “I Did It My Way” has become an alternative national an- them. But to suggest (as some in- tegralists seem tempted to do) that the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision impos- ing same-sex “marriage” on the country was gestated in the womb of the Declaration of Independence is ahistorical nonsense. There is a complex caus- al chain leading to Oberge- fell and it doesn’t run back to “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” To suggest that it does – and that Catholic so- cial doctrine provides the key to understanding Obergefell’s alleged inevitability – is to re- place Leo XIII’s interpretation of St Thomas Aquinas with G.W.F. Hegel’s historical deter- minism in the foundations of the Church’s social teaching. Question 3: Where did John Paul II and Benedict XVI go? As I explained in The Irony of Modern Catholic His- tory , John Paul and Benedict offered acute analyses of the crisis of the West without fall- ing into an authoritarian trap in their prescriptions. Empha- PC’s bitter aftertaste Loony theories hurt the Church L ately, I have found myself pondering one of the strangest phe- nomena in this sea- son of many discontents: the emergence of a new “Catho- lic integralism” that (in the words of an advocate) pro- motes the notion that “the state should recognise Ca- tholicism as true and unite with the Church as body to her soul.” The proponents of a con- fessionally Catholic state as the optimum form of govern- ment are small in number. But they’ve demonstrated an impressive ability to rile up the debate about the current American political situation, and about Catholic social doctrine generally, so a few questions are in order. Question 1: Haven’t we seen this, or something like it, before? European Catho- lic intellectuals’ dismay over their continent’s cultural and social disarray after World War I led some of them to flirt (and worse) with various forms of authoritarian rule in which the Church partnered with the state. Some found in Italian Fascism a rough but serviceable form of the social doctrine of Pope Pius XI (be- fore being caught off-guard by Pius XI’s condemnation of Mussolini’s thuggery in the 1931 encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno ). In 1933, a priest from the Benedictine abbey of Maria Laach described the ascen- dant National Socialist Ger- manWorkers Party as the “re- alisation” of the Body of Christ in the secular world. Emman- uel Mounier, a prominent French thinker and activist, first found a complement to his rejection of modernity in the right-wing statism of Mar- shal Petain’s Vichy regime, before pivoting 180 degrees af- ter WorldWar II and trying to forge a Catholic alliance with Stalinist communism. Living in the rarified air of high-altitude abstraction, the new integralists seemuninter- ested in this history. Neverthe- less, such fiascos are import- ant cautionary tales for any Catholic thinker who imag- ines that the moral and cul- tural crisis of the West is going to be resolved by the Catholic Church allying itself with state power or by the state endors- ing the Nicene Creed. Question 2: Has Pope Leo sising the crucial importance to democracy of a vibrant, truth-based, public moral cul- ture, they correctly diagnosed the deepest causes of today’s political distortions and dys- functions. Teaching that the Church’s public role is to shape that public moral culture by form- ing citizens who live in the truth, they set Catholic social doctrine in the context of the New Evangelisation and de- fended the Church’s liberty to be itself. Stressing the theological in- competence of the state, they helped strengthen the barri- ers to any new form of author- itarianism, left or right. The more sober of the new inte- gralists admit that they’re not offering a practical program for here-and-now. What’s the project, then? Would it be uncharitable to suggest that this might be a game played by Catholic in- tellectuals who, so to speak, never ran for office them- selves – a game that, however unintentionally, is complicat- ing the Church’s public wit- ness by misrepresenting Cath- olic social doctrine? George Weigel is the Distin- guished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies att he Ethics and Public Policy Centre in Washington A Western Australi- an brewery is yet another innocent victim of cancel cul- ture because of its name, ‘Co- lonial Brewing’. Add Coon Cheese to the list and Eskimo Pie and it’s obvious like Alice in Wonderland we have gone through the looking glass and cultural-left, politically cor- rect madness rules. Freelance journalist Shaad D’Souza argues Colonial Beer offends because “it glorifies and glamorises the colonial process that destroyed cul- tures and countries across the globe”. Such has been the back- lash, the brewery’s owners have been forced to act and to rethink how their beer is branded and sold. The vin- dictive and senseless woke campaign against Colonial Brewery is not the only exam- ple of PC cancel culture. Even though not remote- ly connected to issues of race Coon Cheese is now con- sidered guilty of the heinous crimes of unconscious bias and cultural appropriation – Some found in Italian Fascism a rough but serviceable form of the social doc- trine of Pope Pius XI (before being caught off-guard by Pius XI’s condemna- tion of Mussolini’s thuggery in the 1931 encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno ).” the same with Eskimo Pie. Such is the dominance of cancel culture people must wonder where will it end. Is Beef Wellington off the menu as the Duke of Wellington was a British imperialist and member of the aristocracy? What about the pudding Spot- ted Dick? It’s obviously phal- locentric. Ordering a short black cof- fee is guaranteed to offend both vertically challenged people and people of colour while Cherokee SUVs are yet another example of cultur- al appropriation by capitalist exploiters only interested in making a profit and complic- it in destroying the environ- ment. Humpty Dumpty tells Al- ice “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”. After Alice disagrees, arguing words have agreed meanings and it’s not a matter of personal choice Humpty Dumpty replies “The question is…which is to be master – that’s all”. Welcome to the topsy turvy world of political correctness where words and phrases have been weaponised by the cultural-left to enforce mind- less group think and to indoc- trinate all with its neo-Marxist inspired ideology. While many of the exam- ples of enforcing politically correct language are senseless and laughable, there is a dark side (if I can use that expres- sion). As the author of 1984 George Orwell well under- stood, in addition to violence, the way totalitarian dictator- ships dominate and control is by exploiting language. Given his experience of the way communist and fas- cist regimes enforce language control, Orwell knew the abil- ity to think independently and rationally depends on the ability to use language with- out interference. Once words are corrupted and used as vehicles to indoctrinate and coerce then the freedom and liberties we too easily take for granted are lost. Orwell’s warning “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” has never been more relevant. While there’s no doubt some words and expressions are unaccept- able and offensive the reality is politically correct language represents an insidious and unacceptable form of thought control. In 1984 Orwell gives the ex- ample of Big Brother’s slogan “war is peace, freedom is slav- ery and ignorance is strength”. Instead of promoting rational and intelligent discussion and debate the cultural-left en- forces mindless conformity and groupthink. Criticise multiculturalism (now rebadged as diversity and difference) and you are labelled racist and xenopho- bic. Support same-sex mar- riage and you are condemned as homophobic and heter- onormative. Argue that gen- der and sexuality are biolog- ically determined and a man can never be a woman and you are transphobic. Defend Western civilisation and the on-gong debt owed to Judeo-Christianity and you are mocked and vilified as a Eurocentric, white suprema- cist god-botherer. Humour and satire are es- pecially victims of political- ly correct thought control. As illustrated by Jonathan Swift’s ‘AModest Proposal’ concern- ing the best way to address the Irish famine and ‘Gulliv- er’s Travels’, often the most ef- fective way to undermine and defeat totalitarian thought control is irony and laughter. And if you transgress the retribution is unforgiving and swift. Australia’s most famous comedian Barry Humphries had his name airbrushed from the Melbourne Comedy Festival for daring to question transgenderism. The American comedian Jerry Seinfeld who has enter- tained generations for years is no longer kosher (whoops, I’ve yet to be re-educated) and refuses to visit college campuses because he knows it’s impossible to be funny giv- en the current politically cor- rect climate. Such is the puritanical and oppressive nature of public and private discourse that the radical non-binary feminist Camille Paglia argues we now live in a time when “intoler- ance masquerades as toler- ance and where individual liberty is crushed by group think”. One of the cornerstones of an open and democratic soci- ety where liberty is safeguard- ed is freedom of speech and the ability to use language without unwarranted inter- ference or discrimination. It’s clear that cancel culture and politically correct thought control represent an existen- tial threat that must be op- posed. Dr Kevin Donnelly is a Senior Research Fellow at the Australian Catholic University and author of ‘A Politically Correct Dictio- nary and Guide’ (available at kevindonnelly.com.au ). Kevin Donnelly The backlash on Colonial Brewing has forced the owners to rethink how their beer is branded. PHOTO: ROBYN JAY/FLICKR, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Some Catholics flirted with the thuggery of Mussolini and the totalitarianism of Hitler. Posing some sort of ideal Catholic state is a mistake of similar proportions. PHOTO:WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/PUBLIC DOMAIN George Weigel Columnist