E.J. Dionne Jr. writes about the case of Rev. Thomas Reese being removed as editor-in-chief of America magazine:
Writing in the Boston Globe, Neuhaus argued that because America is "a Catholic magazine in the service of the church and its mission," it has a special obligation to uphold orthodoxy as defined by the pope. That's especially true, he said, on "publicly controversial questions such as the moral understanding of homosexuality, same-sex marriage and the exploitation of embryonic stem cells."
"On such questions, the church has clearly defined positions," Neuhaus wrote. "The practice of America suggested to some the magazine's neutrality or hostility to the church's teaching. Not surprisingly, they asked of the magazine, 'Whose side are you on?' " That last question is a good one, relevant to all traditions and not just to Catholics. I answer it differently from Neuhaus not only because I failed to see hostility toward the church in Reese's magazine, but also because I think we see tradition differently.
The Catholics Reese's magazine spoke to, and often for, are loyal to their tradition but also understand, as the philosopher Michael Walzer has put it, that "traditions are sites for arguments." Traditions stay alive by nurturing a spirit that is at once loving and critical. If every question is kept open, there are no answers. But if too many questions are closed, the answers the tradition offers become steadily less compelling, less fresh and less persuasive.
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead," wrote the great religious historian Jaroslav Pelikan. "Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Father Reese stands for a living faith serene enough to argue with itself. I worry that's why he was asked to leave his post.
Upholding orthodoxy cannot include dismissing debates about orthodoxy or giving a fair and reasoned hearing to those who dissent from orthodoxy. If orthodoxy itself is reasonable and right, then it cannot be harmed by a fair and reasonable debate — it can only be strengthened. Indeed, it is arguable that the best place for such a debate is a magazine like America because orthodox Catholics should be able to trust that there is no hidden agenda against orthodoxy, that orthodox positions will be presented fairly, and that only the most sound of dissenting positions will be presented.
I think that the contrast above between tradition and traditionalism is insightful. There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with tradition or with respecting tradition. When tradition is placed beyond questioning or debate, however, it becomes traditionalism. Tradition that doesn't adapt over time becomes dead and ultimately irrelevant to how people need to live their lives. People who actually care about tradition should want to ensure that it remains relevant and, therefore, should be among the first to oppose traditionalism.
Read More: