Redefining the Center -- II

The July 21, 2005 Catholic Herald runs this July 11, 2005 column by Fr. Richard McBrien.

There is a familiar Scholastic axiom, "In medio stat virtus," which some Catholics in the middle-aged and senior generations may recall from their college years. It meant literally: "Virtue stands in the middle."

Derived from Aristotle, I believe, this is more a generalization than an axiom; it is not self-evidently always true. But Fr. MrBrien rolls on.

The corollary of that medieval principle is that neither virtue nor truth can be found at the extremes. ...

Of course, he merely asserts this extension of what he asserted was an axiom: if virtue is found between extremes, then so is truth.

Thus, the theological virtue of hope is located somewhere between the extremes of presumption on one side and despair on the other.

Similarly, in seeking the truth of Christ's identity, one must steer clear of Nestorianism on the extreme left (a heresy which exaggerated his humanity) and Monophysitism on the extreme right (which exaggerated Christ's divinity).

Which analogy you already expect Fr. McBrien will use to claim to be the moderate. The reason he has to claim to be a moderate is that terms like "left" and "liberal" are a bit discredited. Rather than engage in some introspection on his part in bringing this about, Fr. McBrien embarks on discrediting the term "moderate" by trying to claim if for himself.

Catholics of an older generation were taught that, in the face of serious conflict over truth or virtue, the center is always the safest place.

This Catholic of an older generation can't recall being taught about martyrs who died for their moderate views.

Indeed, if you happen to find yourself attacked from both sides, you can be reasonably sure that you are doing something right.

I don't believe that, but if Fr. McBrien does, it would be interesting to hear him tell about those attacking him from the left.

But, of course, a crucial question was begged, and no one, at least not in my memory, ever raised it: Who defines the center? The question is crucial because those who define the center also define the extremes. And in defining the extremes, they also marginalize them.

And here's his example of marginalization.

There is much to be learned today from the historic Christological debates of the 4th and 5th centuries and their doctrinal resolution at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Most mainline Christians today would place the Chalcedonian teaching in the orthodox center, and would regard Nestorianism and Monophysitism as extreme positions that were rejected as heresies.

That is, Christians hold the Chalcedonian teaching as orthodox, and regard the others as heresies. Fr. McBrien characterizes this as center versus extremes to fit the facts to his argument. Having done so, he presents this hypothetical, again with his own characterizations of left, center and right.

But if Monophysitism were to claim the center of the Christological spectrum, Chalcedonian orthodoxy would be pushed to the left (and Nestorianism still further to the left, if not off the doctrinal chart). On the right-the new right-would be the Julianists (followers of Bishop Julian, an extreme Monophysite), who in effect denied that Christ's earthly body was truly human.

Imagine now if a Catholic with Monophysitic devotional and theological tendencies were elected to the papacy. Imagine, further, that he appointed numerous priests of similar orientation to the hierarchy and to key offices in the Roman Curia. It would not take long before closeted Monophysites, sensing a new atmosphere in the Church, began coming out in the open to bask in the sunlight of a restored "orthodoxy."

We end up where we knew we would, with Fr. McBrien claiming to be in the center, that center of virtue and truth.

For the Chalcedonians it would not be a conflict between the left and the right, but between the center and the right.

And so it is with the Catholic Church today. What we have been witnessing over the past two and a half decades is a concerted (and increasingly successful) effort to redefine the center, and in the process to redefine the extremes.

And so it is with Fr. McBrien. To construct a claim that he is among the true moderates, Fr. McBrien was willing to analogize Pope John Paul II to a hypothetical pope who revived Monophysitism.