Concilium’s Attack on Confession (Part 3): Reconciliation as Socio-Political Struggle

This is third part of an article which Mr Phillip Campbell, author of the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam, has very kindly shared with us, his investigation into what the “progressive” theological journal Concilium was saying about reform of the sacrament of Confession in the years which immediately followed the most recent ecumenical council. The first part was published in February, and the second in March. Once again, we are very grateful to him for sharing his work with us.

A confessional in the cathedral of St Stephen in Toulouse, France. Image from Wikimedia Commons by Didier Descouens, CC BY-SA 4.0. 

In our previous installments in this series on the journal Concilium’s 1971 attack on Confession, we have documented the progressives’ attempts to frame the traditional administration of the sacrament as in a state of crisis (Part 1), and their subsequent call for a redefinition of guilt as a social construct (Part 2). Today we continue with a study of their attempt to recontextualize the nature of reconciliation in order to undermine the foundation of private penance.

Christian Duquoc’s “Repugnance” to the Sacrament of Penance

We have already had occasion to mention the French Dominican Christian Duquoc (1926-2008) in our previous essays. He was a prominent voice in French progressive circles, with over forty-five titles to his credit from 1942 to 2006; his writings appeared in French, English and Spanish language journals. 

Fr Duquoc wearing the updated habit of a Dominican Doctor of Theology.

In the pages of Concilium he stands out as the most vitriolic critic of the traditional sacramental forms, sometimes devolving into downright scorn. In the 1971 issue titled “Sacramental Reconciliation,” he published a scathing criticism of traditional forms of confession, which he castigated as “useless” and “meaningless.” [1] Entitled “Real Reconciliation and Sacramental Reconciliation,” Duquoc’s piece argued that sacramental reconciliation—as experienced by most Catholic penitents in 1971—was insufficiently authentic. He called for a radical reconsideration of the meaning of reconciliation, grounding it not so much in the cleansing of one’s conscience through reconciliation with God, but in communitarian reconciliation grounded in socio-political struggle. As we shall see, Duquoc will ultimately call for sweeping changes to the form of the rite in order to reflect these new priorities.

Like the other Concilium authors, he begins his essay by pointing to a crisis in the sacrament of confession. He frames the situation thus:

Yet reconciliation is an object of suspicion owing to the forms it assumes in the Catholic Church, and notably owing to the celebration of penance… The sacrament of penance, as it is practiced today in the Catholic Church, gives rise to many reservations. There are fervent Christians, including priests and religious, who are unable to overcome their repugnance to its method of administration. There are many facile explanations of their allergy: the loss of a sense of sin, forgetfulness of God, distaste for prayer. But these explanations are unfortunately of too universal a kind to throw light upon this particular phenomenon—for they would apply just as much to lukewarm believers who nevertheless experience no distaste for the existing forms of the sacrament of penance and often have recourse to them. It is precisely where Christianity is taken most seriously that repugnance to the sacrament of penance is most apparent. [2]

As we have repeatedly seen with other progressives, Duquoc takes the crisis of confession as axiomatic; it is assumed, never justified with data. The traditional form of confession is the object of “suspicion” and “repugnance”; it elicits an “allergy” from “fervent Christians.” Duquoc offhandedly dismisses any possibility that this is related to modernity’s eclipse of the sense of God, as spoken of by John Paul II. [3] Instead, he invokes a No True Scotsman fallacy to argue that the problem is the ritual itself, which is said to be universally disdained “precisely where Christianity is taken most seriously.”

Penance: A Superfluous Obstacle

Duquoc argues that the traditional manner of confession is either superfluous or an obstacle to Christian growth.

In the first place, he claims the rite’s redundancy by an appeal to the Eucharist, the ultimate sacrament of reconciliation. For the Eucharist, “through the sharing of bread, symbolizes not only the reconciliation to come, but offers thanksgiving for reconciliation already received.” [4] And if the Eucharist both effects and foreshadows man’s ultimate reconciliation, then is not the sacrament of penance, in the words of Duquoc, “superfluous, if reconciliation is already achieved”? [5]

He also argues that penance is an obstacle to Christian growth because it is ineffective. Like other critics of the sacrament, Duquoc views penance as a form of dry ritualism that does not offer men the transformative power that authentic reconciliation should make available. At best, it is a mechanical “process of guilt-shedding… without accession to responsibility”; at worst it engenders an “unhealthy and inward-looking return to the past” that he characterizes as reflecting a “neurotic character”, especially when it comes to sexual sins. [6] For this reason, Duqouc says penance has a “fictive nature,” an empty formalism that yields no meaningful outcomes for those who frequent it. [7]

For now we shall pass over his first objection that the Eucharist makes penance superfluous — although it should be noted that this argument frequently shows up in progressive literature on the subject. [8] Duquoc’s second point deserves further consideration, for, we might ask, how can he possibly argue that penance is an obstacle to Christian growth? Many Catholics have the experience of going to confession for the same sin repeatedly, but we do not find this formulaic; rather, we find in it an expression of the boundless mercy of Christ. Is not “guilt-shedding” one of the reasons why we frequent the sacrament, so that our conscience may be purified through absolution of sin? Pope Pius XII encourage the frequent confession of even venial sins:

As you well know, Venerable Brethren, it is true that venial sins may be expiated in many ways which are to be highly commended. But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, for a constant and speedy advancement in the path of virtue, we highly recommend the pious practice of frequent confession, introduced by the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; for by this means we grow in a true knowledge of ourselves and in Christian humility, bad habits are uprooted, spiritual negligence and apathy are prevented, the conscience is purified and the will strengthened, salutary spiritual direction is obtained, and grace is increased by the efficacy of the sacrament itself. Let those, therefore, among the younger clergy who make light of or lessen esteem for frequent confession realize that what they are doing is alien to the Spirit of Christ and disastrous for the Mystical Body of our Savior. [9]

Duquoc’s view is diametrically opposed to the sensibility expressed by Pius XII, for he absolutely repudiates the notion that confession is about personal reconciliation with God through private confession of fault and purification of conscience. What, then, is confession ultimately about?

“Historical Reconciliation”; i.e., Marxism

For Duquoc, reconciliation is about what he terms historical reconciliation; that is, not a private reconciliation with God through confession of faults, but a social reconciliation with our fellow men through rectifying historic injustices. He writes:

The current emphasis in Christianity on the dynamic and future character of reconciliation [i.e., concern for the Last Judgment] robs forgiveness of its historicism, reduces it to a private dimension, in short, devalues it. Struggle, as the active and committed form of reconciliation, has pride of place. Forgiveness, seen as obsessed with the past, is an obstacle to the freedom required for political struggle. The shift in emphasis in reconciliation makes the sacrament of penance meaningless; the social import of forgiveness is underestimated. [10]

Duquoc’s argument against penance therefore is analogous to Marx’s critique of Christianity as a whole: by compelling men to think about eschatological rewards or punishments, it distracts them from political struggle against injustice here and now. Some further quotations should demonstrate how seriously he stresses this point:

Here and now we are immersed in the class-war and injustice. Brotherhood, transparency, peace are no more than hopes; whenever they have a germ of reality, the reality is regional… Today, in the Churches, small spontaneous groups, deeply committed and politically like-minded, are fighting for a Church to their image, purified of hierarchical and anonymous relations, a place of free expression. These communities are revolutionary in aims and status… believers most sensitive to collective phenomenon and social injustices are also the most hostile to the existing forms of penance. Militant Christians engaged in trade-unions or political activities, or involved in the class-war, are the first to be infected by the allergy to sacramentality as it exists in the Church today. There is no question at all of indifference to God or to the Gospel of Christ, but in their daily fight for the setting up of a less inhuman society, and in their political projects, the sacrament of reconciliation strikes them as either meaningless or ineffectual. A serious attitude to reconciliation as something to be effected here and now empties of its meaning reconciliation symbolized in the sacramental act. [11]

Given his idealization of “militant Christians” forming “communities revolutionary in aims” focused on “political projects” and social justice “to be effected here and now” — and his condemnation of any celebration of penance which distracts from this — it does not seem an exaggeration to label Duquoc’s analysis as positively Marxist.

We can summarize Duquoc’s view as follows: for reconciliation to have meaning, it must be present-oriented, focused on correcting injustices here and now. The traditional method, however, is the opposite of this; traditionally, we are contrite for actions committed in the past and confess in hopes of attaining heaven in the future. For Duquoc, traditional confession seems a Janus-headed monster that focuses attention everywhere but where it ought to be pointed: historical reconciliation in the present.

The Reform of the Rite

Given these ideas, how can the rite of penance be reformed to reflect his proposed emphases?

Duquoc begins his analysis of the rite by affirming that any ritual, to be effective, must adequately convey its supporting theology through the symbolic actions of the rite itself, for “we cannot take refuge in appeasing theological meaning so long as this meaning does not become apparent in the rite.” [12] Contemporary traditionalist readers will find this ironic, as the entire drama of the post-Conciliar reform is specifically that the reformed rites do not reflect the Church’s traditional theology. Duquoc, of course sees the problem in reverse: it is the traditional rite doesn’t reflect his new theology. “Current uneasiness regarding the sacrament of penance,” he says, “derives from the dichotomy between the manner of celebration and the meaning of sacramental reconciliation.” [13] In other words, there is a disconnect between the lex orandi and the lex credendi. But unlike traditionalists — who would argue that the lex orandi should be brought into conformity with the lex credendi — Duquoc will simply argue that the traditional lex credendi is wrong. Regarding traditional forms of confession, he says:

The existing form, inherited from Irish missionary monasticism, robs sacramental penance of its social character and implies that forgiveness and reconciliation belong to an inner conscience. Moreover, it encourages the sentiment already too prevalent in our society that religion is a private affair. So the form of a sacrament does influence its meaning; and as things are now it obscures its true significance. The reform of rites is thus not an undertaking of secondary importance — it is the very condition of understanding what Christianity is about. [14]

This is a slippery series of propositions. Historically, the claim that the traditional rite of penance was created by Irish monastics is an exaggeration. The contributions of the Irish were more particular; at most we can credit them with the system of specialized penances for specific sins as evidenced in the famous Irish penitentials, as well as the custom of bringing even sinful thoughts to sacramental confession. [15] But to claim the entire rite was their creation is inaccurate, though it is often repeated in an attempt to push the creation of the traditional practice much later into the Middle Ages that it might be shorn of its antiquity. (Incidentally, even if the traditional rite was entirely a creation of the Irish monastics, I’d much rather follow the precedent of an emaciated, wild-eyed 7th century Celtic hermit living on a rock than entrust my spiritual formation to a Concilium author from the 1970s).

Regarding Duquoc’s second claim, that the traditional rite is in danger of making penance a private affair, we have to ask: a private affair in contrast to what? Because it is certainly true that, strictly speaking, there is no “private” sin. Every sin at least involves a broken relationship with God; “Against you and you alone have I sinned, O God,” says the Psalmist (Ps. 50, 6). In addition, every sin wounds the Body of Christ collectively, even in ways that aren’t immediately apparent. And there can certainly be “structures of sin,” as the Catechism says [16], institutionalized expressions of personal sin which perpetuate cycles of evil. But is this what Duquoc means?

No. Duquoc is contrasting confession as a “private affair” with his view of historical reconciliation — that is, reconciliation as a tool of socio-economic justice:

The purpose [of reforming the sacrament] is clear; it is provided by the necessary link between forgiveness and reconciliation at the level of true history. The sacramental symbol should make clear that forgiveness is a social function necessary to our history as it makes its way toward reconciliation. [17]

There we have it. The sacrament of penance to be transformed into “a social function” necessary to bring about socio-economic justice in our current day.

Duquoc’s Recommendations for a New Rite

Duquoc concludes his essay with a blistering criticism of the traditional form, which he decries as being too focused on personal sin. He phrases his criticism as a series of hypotheticals, presumably to maintain plausible deniability that he is actually asserting such things, but his disdain rises to the surface easily enough:

Does this private form of penance represent a concession to a mediocre form of Christian life? Is it a sacred therapy to appease consciences that are incapable of making their own the evangelical demands? Or does it illustrate an obsession with legalism in our relations with God? Is the institution of confession for faults that do not stop the forward-march of the community ascribable to an unhealthy desire for purity? It is difficult to answer these questions. [18]

But for those who have been reading attentively, Duquoc has already answered all of these questions in the affirmative. He goes on to complain that the traditional rite “tends to remain silent on political and economic matters” and suggests a reform of penance should adopt an aggressively communitarian perspective. [19] He does not give any concrete rubrical recommendations, but we may presume he envisions something akin to what his fellow Concilium author Franz Heggen proposed in his 1971 fabricated ritual for First Confessions, which was specifically designed to reflect a more communitarian emphasis. [20] Duquoc does argue, however, that whatever new form is adopted, it should encapsulate a symbolic repudiation of the theology underlying the traditional form. His conclusion merits being quoted at length:

The reconciliation celebrated in the sacrament of penance [i.e., the traditional form] is first and foremost reconciliation with oneself, which becomes the sign of reconciliation with God—this is a far cry indeed from the symbol advocated by the early Church, reconciliation with one’s brother as the sign of reconciliation with God. The form of the administration of the sacrament is not harmless; it favors one aspect of reconciliation. The private form favors reconciliation with oneself in the interior of one’s conscience, sole seat of authentic relationship with God. Other human realities, and notably economic and political relationships, escape all interference from Christianity …

… This situation invites us to a great creative effort in the liturgical domain — otherwise the seeming discrepancy between our history and the symbolic celebration of reconciliation will grow; sacramental reconciliation will be seen as factitious, and be abandoned, or it will appear politically as a structure upholding the status quo. Hence the urgency of discovering new forms of celebration … The rites passed on by our history were imposed on it without sufficient attention being paid to local forms of possible signs of reconciliation. Certainly efforts are being made today to extricate Christian sacramentality from the situation in which it finds itself. Up till now these efforts have not amounted to much — they have combined a public penitential liturgy with private confession [i.e., the penance services of the Novus Ordo]. The gap between reconciliation with oneself and reconciliation with mankind, sign of reconciliation with God, is far from being overcome at the level of symbol. Confession still seems too bound up with an abstract law.

Yet I do not think we need despair. The current criticism of the insignificance of the sacrament of reconciliation spurs us on to new discoveries. The Church cannot for long do without an effective symbolization of the social, historical and collective function of forgiveness. [21]

What could go wrong? (Victims of a struggle session in occupied Tibet during the Chinese cultural revolution. Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.) 

Conclusion: A Wrongness So Big

The first time I read Duquoc’s essay, I was overwhelmed by the sheer breadth of his errors: a web of bad theological premises and faulty history, tied up with a bow of historical determinism with some logical fallacies sprinkled on top. Its wrongness was so big it was difficult to zero in on where, specifically, his wrongness lay. But upon further readings, I think I can pinpoint a few things that merit special critique:

First, Duquoc is simply incorrect about his history. While the sacrament of penance did undergo development over the centuries — and while it is true that penance in the early Church included more communitarian elements — it is simply wrong to posit a dichotomy between some primitive public penance focused on communal reconciliation and private confession focused on reconciliation with God. Both elements have always been present in the Church’s practice. It has always been understood that a sin against our brother damages our communion with God and that we must be reconciled with our neighbor; likewise, it has always been acknowledged that clearing our conscience of all known sins is an integral part of reconciliation with God. St. Paul said he strove to “live in good conscience before God” and affirmed “I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward God and toward men” (Acts 23,1, 24, 16).

Furthermore, contrary to Duquoc’s assertions, private confession was certainly practiced in the early Church. There are many testimonies to its existence, but a particularly poignant text comes from Pope St. Leo the Great, who, in a letter to the bishops of Campania in the year 459, said the following:

I have recently heard that some have unlawfully presumed to act contrary to a rule of Apostolic origin. And I hereby decree that the unlawful practice be completely stopped. It is with regard to the reception of penance. An abuse has crept in which requires that the faithful write out their individual sins in a little book which is then to be read out loud to the public.

All that is necessary, however, is for the sinner to manifest his conscience in a secret confession to the priests alone... It is sufficient, therefore, to have first offered one’s confession to God, and then also to the priest, who acts as an intercessor for the transgressions of the penitents. [22]

Like many post-Conciliar reformers, Duquoc is simping for a fantastical antiquarian history that never existed.

Duquoc’s Marxist analysis of the needs of the modern Church should be self-refuting in light of five decades of the abject failure of this hermeneutic. While Christians should certainly never turn a blind eye to social injustices or “structures of sin”, as the Catechism calls them, there is no reason such social issues cannot be addressed within the traditional forms. It is mystifying that Duquoc thinks the Church of his day had been silent on economic and political matters; one wonders if he had ever read the writings of Leo XIII or Pius XI—or, for that matter, texts like Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio, published four years before he authored his essay. If Populorum Progressio was “silent on political and economic matters,” then one wonders what constitutes “political and economic matters” for Duquoc.

We should also note how brazenly he affirms that the post-Conciliar Church is operating under a fundamentally new theology. He does not say this explicitly, but it is at the heart of his argument for sacramental reform: the rite should symbolically express the theology it is meant to encapsulate. But the old rite of the Church does not express Duquoc’s new theology. Therefore, the rite must change: the evolving lex credendi must be reflected in a reformed lex orandi. We see therefore in Duquoc’s argument the underlying assumption of so many reformers that was recently made plain by Cardinal Roche — “the theology of the Church has changed.” [23]

Finally, Duquoc argued that the Eucharist, as the source of reconciliation, gave the sacrament of penance a kind of redundancy; if the Eucharist both effects and signifies our reconciliation with God and man, what is the point of sacramental confession apart from the Eucharistic liturgy? We will take up this point in our next installment when we consider the work of Jean-Marie Tillard, O.P., a peer of Duquoc who argued that the general absolution at the Mass could replace the sacrament of penance.

NOTES

[1] Christian Duquoc, “Real Reconciliation and Sacramental Reconciliation,” Concilium: Sacramental Reconciliation, Vol. 61, ed. Edward Schillebeeckx (New York: Herder & Herder, 1961), p. 28-29

[2] Ibid., 27-28

[3] John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, § 21 (1995)

[4] Duquoc, 27

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 30

[7] Ibid., 31

[8] In the same issue of Concilium, author Jean-Marie Tillard devotes an entire essay to arguing that the Eucharist is the only sacrament we need for forgiveness of sins. See Jean-Marie Tillard, “The Bread and Cup of Reconciliation,” op. cit., 38-54

[9] Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 88

[10] Duquoc, 29

[11] Ibid., 30, 28

[12] Ibid., 34

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., 35

[15] See Chris Antenucci, “A history of the use of the sacrament of reconciliation in the early church,” Mar. 28, 2018, available online at https://medium.com/@chrisantenucci/a-history-of-the-use-of-the-sacrament-of-reconciliation-in-the-early-church-8d0eaf275faf. See also, Phillip Campbell, The Saga of Ireland (Cruachan Hill Press: Grass Lake, MI., 2024), pp. 90-92 for a discussion of the contributions of St. Finnian to the development of Irish penitential practices.

[16] CCC 1869

[17] Duquoc, 35

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid., 36

[20] See Phillip Campbell, “A 1971 Proposal for a New Form of First Confession for Children,” Unam Sanctam Catholicam, Oct. 16, 2023. Available online at https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/10/a-1971-proposal-for-revised-childrens.html

[21] Duquoc, 37

[22] Pope Leo the Great, Magna Indignatione, March 6, 459. Letter 168. PL 54, 1210=Ballerini 1753: 1430. Available online at http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=1817

[23] See Joseph Shaw, “Cardinal Roche on the Vatican II Rupture,” One Peter Five, Mar. 4, 2023. Available online at https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-roche-vatican-ii-rupture/

Is This An Image of Inclusion or Exclusion?

The Holy Family, by Janet McKenzie

In a recently posted an article, I discussed the legitimacy of representing Christ or Our Lady as an ethnicity that is not historically accurate. In this post I want to consider situations when it might not be appropriate. Consider first some well known, relatively contemporary examples: a series painted by a Japanese Discalced Carmelite nun in a Carmelite convent in Japan.

It is apparent to all that these are not historically accurate images. The question of their appropriateness relates to who is going to see these images, and whether the painting will communicate to those people the theological truths that are connected with images of Our Lady and Our Lord. Deviating from historical accuracy will always require some compromise, whereby it is felt that what is lost is more than made up by the gains in communicating the Gospel. In this regard, it occurs to me that contemporary Japanese are not so parochial as to justify such images. Perhaps I am wrong on this, I am certainly no expert on Japanese culture, but I would imagine that Japanese people are well aware of what people from the eastern Mediterranean would have likely looked like 2,000 years ago, and so an historically accurate representation, informed by Christian tradition, would not alienate any Japanese observers. Given that it always better to be accurate if you can, for all the charm of these images, I might have counselled against painting them, if I were asked today. It is of course, ultimately, a matter for those who commissioned them to decide. I have little doubt that the intentions of this artist were good.

Here is something a bit different and which raises different questions, a depiction of an African American Christ by the American artist Janet McKenzie, titled, “Jesus of the People.”

As to the validity of its use as sacred art, I would make the same argument as with the Japanese images, that even if the intended audience is predominantly African-American (or any others of African descent), the best sort of image for communicating the gospel would not be an African American Christ, but rather a more historically accurate depiction. This is because on the whole, African-Americans, in common with most other Americans, are aware of what people from the eastern Mediterranean look like. So again, for all the beauty and power of these paintings, I would be against using such an image as sacred art.

There is another argument to be made here, which addresses another, more disturbing, possible reason for painting this. There is a review of the painting posted on the artist’s website from National Geographic which says the following:

For twenty years Janet McKenzie’s Jesus of the People has moved across the world serving as an image of inclusion, hope and love. This iconic painting - a force for good - challenges racial prejudice and social injustice by reminding and celebrating that we are all created equally and beautifully in God's likeness.

This looks suspiciously like standard ‘woke’messaging of Critical Race Theory, which is a late 20th century iteration of Marxist theory. This being the case, for all the language of inclusion, the intention is not to be inclusive but rather to undermine the Church and Christianity by causing division. The Marxist interpretation of history includes the idea that modern society is bad because it is the product of Christianity, which is a tool for power exercised by the white patriarchy. The Christ of traditional Christianity is traditionally portrayed as a white and Western European, so the argument runs, in order to promote and uphold power of the controlling group. This assertion about Christian art is false, I have argued here, as is not backed up by history (see The Woke Fallacy That Christianity Traditionally Portrays Christ as a White European). Nevertheless, consistent with this flawed view, the message of this painting is one of an inclusion that is open to all except, that is, for white men. It is therefore in fact highly exclusionary. For the woke Marxist, such a painting would be intended to communicate to all people who see it, regardless of race, that Christ was not white, on the false assumption that Christianity propagates the idea of a white Christ ii order to promote an oppressive power structure. The goal is not justice, but rather to incite anger and violence, by pitting all minorities against supposed oppressors who are the “white patriarchy.”

We should be clear that the wider goal of Marxism is not to eliminate injustice from society through the transformation of Christianity, but rather seek the total destruction of both contemporary society and Christianity. By their theory, this will usher in the spontaneous emergence of a new, just society untainted by Christianity (a staggeringly superstitious idea that has no basis in reason). Their method is to infiltrate institutions, and then to cause division within them, and ultimately bring about their destruction through violence. By this theory, conflict and violence are necessary components of the required destruction, and therefore resentment and anger should be stoked. If a publication such as National Geographic is championing this painting, then it suggests to me that they at least believe it furthers the woke cause. Not all who go along with the woke rhetoric are aware of the ultimate goals of those who formulated the theories and so have become unwitting agents of these evil forces.

Elsewhere, the artist is quoted as saying:

My art presents Jesus and Mary and many others in diverse ways because the essence of Jesus is about inclusion, not exclusion. Every one of us is created beautifully, mysteriously and equally in God’s likeness.

One implication of this statement might be that in the view of the artist, using traditional portrayals of Christ is bad and exclusionary; otherwise, why not conform to tradition? This view, which I disagree with strongly, is consistent with the Marxist critique of Christianity and traditional Christian art.

I will let the readers decide for themselves on whether these paintings are good or bad and if there is a risk of their spreading (whether intentionally or unintentionally) anti-Christian Marxist propaganda. In the meantime, here is an ancient Coptic painting, dating from the 6th century. It comes from Africa and was painted when the West was a cultural backwater.

The Philosophy of Mainstream Art Education and Criticism: Part 3

How Marxist theory has entered the mainstream, and more on how radical, Christian ‘counter-revolutionary’ beauty is the response that will save the world.

This the third in the series. In part 1 and part 2, I discussed how the contemporary art world presents itself as Postmodern, but in fact is in fact just Marxist ideology intent on destruction of the tradition, faith, family and the Church. Here I consider the various forms that it appears in the contemporary worldview, going beyond the art world, and how a Christian culture of beauty ought to be part of the response.

Giotto, fresco, St Francis Preaching to the Birds, Italian 13th century.

The assumptions of Marxist ideology have seeped into the mainstream and have been adopted by people who very often are not aware of the implications of what they think. This is true of many who call themselves Christian. As already stated, many Catholics, for example, accept the Marxist critique of capitalism and the free economy without realising that this critique promotes a worldview that is contrary to their own faith. It is not common for people to see private property as necessary evil rather than a good upon which a Christian society must be founded. Similarly there are many Christians who are sympathetic to other socialist or Marxist ideas and who are unaware that they are working with a force that is directed towards the destruction of their Christian faith and all the main institutions of society. It sounds virtuous to be in favor of diversity and equality, for example, as long as we don’t investigate too far the consequences of the policies proposed to rectify the supposed lack of diversity and inequality.

We should be under no illusions that Marxism and Christianity are mutually exclusive and one cannot profess both simultaneously.

It is difficult to know why the art world claims that post-modernism as defined above is the ethos of contemporary art when it is clearly following a Marxist path. One suspects that this is not subterfuge. Rather, that the Marxist worldview is so deeply embedded in the psyche of modern academia that many are simply unaware of the axiomatic principles that become the measure of truth. So perhaps Chris Ofili, described in part 1, thinks he is a postmodernist, and does not realise that he is only permitted to be one insofar as it doesn’t contradict the Marxist narrative of what constitutes truth. To highlight one other example of how the battle of ideas has played out in the art world. Marxist philosophy is the main driving force behind the frequently stated, but false, claim that Christ is traditionally painted as a Caucasian, and that this has been done in order to promote a white patriarchy. It displays a shocking ignorance of Christian art (as I described in this article here), and of the origins and attitude of Christians through centuries, yet it is a story that surfaces regularly.

For example, a random search on the internet revealed that on April 19th, 2019, an article appeared in the New York Times headed, ‘As a Black Child in Los Angeles, I Couldn’t Understand Why Jesus Had Blue Eyes’. If the writer in question had seen authentic Christian liturgical art, and had a good appreciation of the traditions from which it comes, then he wouldn’t have asked such questions. There are images of Christ with blue eyes, no doubt, but they are not representative of the norms of Christian tradition through centuries.

A Byzantine image of Christ, a mosaic, created in the 13th century in modern day Turkey. There is no Western European influence on either the style or content of Byzantine art of this period. I’m looking in vain for blue eyes, by the way. The white highlights are not representative of the skin color (which is brown) but artistic portrayals of uncreated light emanating from the Light of the World

Consistent with this broader narrative, art history for the cultural Marxist is always described through the lens of class struggle, defining categories of people by race or gender, for example, in which one category, for example, caucasian males, are oppressors who exerts power and domination over all others, who are the oppressed. Rarely, for example, is an artist or his patron of the past assumed to be motivated by an authentic faith and by the love of the Church. Human motivation, in their eyes, is always attributable to socio-economic factors and to promote the power, the wealth and the status of the oppressor class.

As Christians we must be aware of this narrative and be ready to counter it forcefully. Striving for an authentic and beautiful culture is part of how we wage the war for the good and, contrary to the effect of Marxism, the measure of our victory is peace. The culture war is a real one, and those against whom we are pitted are setting a trajectory that has the elimination of the Church as one of its goals.

As part of our response, we must first appreciate the importance of culture in transmitting values, just as the socialists have done, and then strive to create a beautiful culture that reflects our values and will displace the Marxist inspired culture. We should reject the assertion that cultural diversity is a good and assert, rather, that a Christian culture is superior to, and more beautiful, than all other cultures.

In the context of sacred art it means that we assert the value of the traditions of Christian sacred art forcefully and counter the Marxist narrative of history with the Christian salvation history. It means also, working to change or replace existing art schools, and providing a more compelling critique of art than that of the critics in the mainstream media. Nearly every newspaper or TV station art correspondent is pushing Marxist ideology in the form of Critical Theory. In order to do this we must be aware of both what we stand for and what the Marxist theorists stand for.

 

Liberation theology, condemned by the Church, is a failed attempt to reconcile Marxism and Christianity

The most powerful way to counter this threat to the Church is by creating a culture that reflects the beauty of God and the divine order that is more desirable than all others. A Christian culture is a beautiful gift that should be offered to all peoples, along with the Faith that it emanates from and directs us to. A Christian culture should characterize the society from which emanates and so, as Americans, we should aim to reestablish American culture, a culture that is beautiful, Christian, and characteristically American.

American gothic: Duke University Chapel, exterior and, below, interior

The Philosophy of Mainstream Art Education and Criticism: Part 2

The appeal of Neo-Marxism as a quasi religion, and the counter-revolutionary power of Christian sacred art.

Last week, in Part 1, I described how, despite the fact that it is often cited as the driving force of the contemporary art world, postmodernism as it appears in art schools is not distinguishable from Marxist ideology and one of its recent iterations, Critical Theory. This week I examine the nature of the Marxist ideology in more depth.

Marxism originated as a pseudo-scientific method of inquiry made in the 19th century by Karl Marx, and is therefore, ironically, firmly part of the ‘modernity’ that the contemporary art movement claims to be a reaction to. It was first known as ‘scientific socialism’ because it claimed a methodology that applied the principles of analysis of natural science to history, in order to predict the future of society. By tracing the chain of events in history and applying the laws of cause-and-effect, Marxists predict a Utopian future in which all human needs are met. The necessary causal influence for change that pushes mankind on to its final destiny is in their view, violence. The violence that will bring about the desired change is, they claim, the product of an ongoing struggle between oppressor classes and the oppressed that will lead first to the total destruction of present society, and then the rise of a utopia out of the ashes.

In this scenario the oppressors fight to maintain the status quo which benefits them, and the oppressed fight to destroy it. Building on ideas developed by the German philosopher Hegel, this ‘dialectic’ of opposites, oppressors and the oppressed, is not seen as a harmonious process of resolution by discussion, but rather one that can only be resolved by the victory of the oppressed over their oppressors. Violent conflict is seen therefore as a necessary component to its resolution.

This is not a political movement that seeks to change modern society into one that is more just. Rather, it is an ideology, a cultish pseudo-religion that seeks the total destruction of the present society so that a fresh start can be made. There is however, no template for what this new society will look like, for it is assumed that it will emerge naturally from human interactions free from the traditions of the past. 

In the 19th century and earlier 20th century, it was thought that the struggles between the capital-owning class, bourgeoisie, and the workers, would usher in the new Utopia. The Russian revolution of 1917 brought in a Marxist government, and the expectation was that this would be the first in a wave of such revolutions across the Western world.

It quickly became clear, however, that the expected wave of revolutions was not going to happen. The workers didn’t want to be revolutionaries because their living conditions were steadily improving in the capitalist system without the need for revolution. The response of the Marxist theorists to the failure of history was to revise the hypothesis.

Mexican revolutionary art

In the new theories, which began to take hold after the Second World War, the need for violent destruction of contemporary society remained, but the class struggle became one between a different set of parties. Rather than traditional class struggle with bourgeoisie as oppressors and workers as the oppressed, the violent dialectic of destruction was proposed as one between Caucasian men - the ‘white patrimony’ - as the oppressor class, and everybody else - minority groups -  as the oppressed. Therefore women, non-Caucasian races, gay men and women, and transsexual people  were all now classed as victims who are to be incited to fight for their freedom. This revised theory of Marxism is referred to today as Critical Theory and is the ethos that dominates modern universities. It is particularly prevalent in the humanities and fine arts programs.

The great appeal of socialist theory is that even though it is an atheist and materialist philosophy, it provides a narrative for the emergence of a perfect world, without requiring its adherents to believe in God or the Christian moral code. Its promise of a materialist Utopia is an atheist-materialist alternative to the salvation history offered by Christianity. Further, it indulges the unhappy, whom it recruits to its cause, by indulging their desire to blame others - the oppressor class - for their unhappiness.

Given that man is made by God to desire God and heaven, and to recognize the account of salvation history recounted in Scripture as the truth, this alternative ideology with its superficial similarity to some aspects of what the Christian faith teaches, even though false, has the capacity to appeal powerfully to that part of us that yearns for God and for the truth. That place deep in the core of us which grasps such fundamental truths is referred to traditionally as ‘the heart’. It is in our hearts that we assent to, or reject, God. The false teachings of socialism fall very easily into the vacuum that is created in our hearts by the rejection of God.
   
Socialist ideology, therefore, plays the part of a quasi secular faith for so many of those who accept it. So strong is this appeal and the desire for it to be true that even when the events of history fail to confirm its hypothesis, many just flatly ignore the contradictions, or seek to revise the hypothesis to fit the facts rather than admit it is wrong.

Critical theory, the latest iteration of Marxist theory, is responsible for the grievance politics of race, gender, and sexual orientation that dominate so much political discourse today. They deliberately provoke disharmony and sometimes even violence between different groups of people, based upon race, gender and sexuality.

Chinese revolutionary art

Marxist theorists argue that all the current institutions that form the basis of Western society are created by Caucasian men as instruments of power that enable them to oppress all other groups of people. The critique is all encompassing and includes every aspect of contemporary society, including liberal democracy, the free market economy, the right to private property, our universities and schools, the Christian religion, and even the family. The critique of Western society and culture goes beyond the institutions that uphold them, it goes to the very ideas upon which they are founded. The existence of God, and even the existence of objective truth (beyond the Marxist narrative itself which is the only measure of truth they will acknowledge). All are viewed as instruments of oppression by the white patriarchy. Similarly, all art, architecture, music and other aspects of the culture that emanate from traditional Western values are seen as instruments of oppression, for they all help to sustain and transmit Western values.

The Marxist asserts that there is no possibility of modifying these institutions, because their very existence is built on the premises of Western thought. Therefore, the only way to remove the oppression and injustice, which they suppose is permeating all of Western society, is to destroy all the institutions, and every aspect of the culture that reflect it and have grown up within it and continue to transmit and sustain its values. This goal of destruction applies to everything, right down the family.

Marxists are aware of the profound influence of culture on forming opinion and have always sought to control and manipulate the institutions of the culture - universities, the news media, as well as political institutions. They have been extremely successful in manipulating the form and message of contemporary art, music, architecture, film etc., so that it is consistent with their world view. This at a time when Christians, who should have opposed this all the way, seem to have lost sight of the importance of a contemporary culture that supports a culture of faith.

At the same time, Marxists rarely reveal that this is what their theories are. So many who push Critical Theory will do so without fully revealing the source of these theories, or what their ultimate goal is. While the political rhetoric of Marxism is deliberately presented as though it is interested in righting wrongs and countering injustice, in practice it does the opposite. Its actions are aimed at amplifying the sense of victimhood and grievance. The intention in doing this is to raise anger in the assigned oppressed groups so that they will rise up violently.  To this end Marxists are happy to engage with any forces that are likely to engage in a forceful struggle against the West. This explains the apparent paradox in the Left’s tolerance of fundamentalist Islam, even when some tenets of the Islamic faith contradict those of Marxism.

As a result of this, the assumptions of Marxist ideology have seeped into the mainstream and adopted by people who very often are not aware of the implications of what they think. This is true of many who call themselves Christian.

Cuban revolutionary art

This runs deep. There are Catholics, for example, all the way to Rome who accept the Marxist critique of capitalism and the free economy, without realising that this critique promotes a worldview that is contrary to their own faith. It is not common for people to see private property as necessary evil rather than a good upon which a Christian society must be founded. Similarly there are many Christians who are sympathetic to other socialist or Marxist ideas, and who are unaware that they are working with a force that is directed towards the destruction of their Christian faith and all the main institutions of society. It sounds virtuous to be in favor of diversity and equality, for example, as long as we don’t investigate too far the consequences of the policies proposed to rectify the supposed lack of diversity and inequality.

Christ Carrying His Cross by Annibale Caracci, Italian, 17th century baroque

Above and below: Christian sacred art, which I present by way of contrast to the revolutionary art shown. It is important for Christians to assert the story of the Salvation in order to supplant the story of the revolution. All aspects of the culture should play a part in this, and by all good means possible. However, the source and summit of our weapons in this cultural war should be in the liturgical forms.

Regarding sacred art, I suggest that as a starting point, we can consider that what was good for the Catholic Counter-Reformation is good for the the Catholic Counter-Revolution. Just as sacred art played a vital part in the Counter-Reformation (in the form of the Baroque art) so it will now.

Notice how this Christian art shows not conventional victorious heroes, in the manner of the Marxist inspired art, but rather, the paradoxical victory by death and suffering. Christian ‘counter-revolutionary’ art is sacred art in which the New Jerusalem is ushered in not by a a military or political leader, but by God through Christ, whose victory was achieved through his own death. And the measure of that victory is peace in the hearts of Christians. It is the peace that passeth understanding that will displace the Marxist ‘anti-faith’ from the hearts of men.

The Martyrdom of St Bartholomew by Mattia Preti (1653-60). The great Christian counter-revolutionary heroes are the martyrs who accept suffering for their faith and participate in this victory.

And the greatest counter-revolutionary is Mary the Mother of God, whose humility and maternal love is the antithesis of all that the Marxist theorists stand for. This is painted by Theophan the Greek, who was born in Constantinople in the 14th century and moved to Russia, becoming influential on Russian iconography.

The Philosophy of Mainstream Art Education and Criticism: Part 1

Postmodernism: an art movement that doesn’t really exist?

In the past, when someone decided that they wanted to be an artist, it was usually because they liked to draw and paint or sculpt, and thought they were good at it. Learning to be a good artist always meant primarily learning how to be better at drawing, painting or sculpting.  

This is not the case nowadays. It is still true that many artists begin their journey as children when they first pick up a crayon and draw. However, many of those who complete fine art degrees at university do not spend a high proportion of their time studying what used to be considered the basic skills of the artist. Rather, if they complete a fine arts degree, they have very likely lost the desire to draw, under the influence of their art-school education. Typically, contemporary art students are told that they must conform to a worldview that rejects the values that underlie traditional art, and abandon traditional methods altogether. Those who resist will not do well unless they can persuade their teachers that their use of drawing skill is in pursuit of ‘irony’. If they use their art to mock those traditions, then they will be permitted to flourish.

Above: My Bed, by Tracy Emin, contemporary British, post-modernism. Shortlisted for the Turner Art Prize, she argued that her work was like Turner’s because Turner was a ‘really raunchy man’. It sold most recently for over $2.5M.

William Turner, British, 1838: The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last berth to be broken up. Putting aside the alleged raunchiness of the artist for a moment, does this look like Tracy Emin’s art to you?

This is a generalization of the situation today, but to a greater or lesser extent it is true for most art schools that participate in the modern university system. The highest praise that the teacher and critics can give an artist is that he ‘challenges established norms’ (here meaning Christian and Judeo-Christian values). So, for example, any artist who  expresses, through his work, an unorthodox approach (from a Christian point of view) to sexual morality will be praised for doing so, especially if his art has the power to shock conservatively minded people.

A typical example of work consistent with these ideas is by the British artist, Chris Ofili who was born in 1968. In 1999 a painting of his was part of an exhibition shown in New York City. It was a Madonna described by Wikipedia as follows: 

Chris Ofili: The Holy Virgin Mary - image designated Fair Use

On a yellow-orange background, the large painting (8 feet high and 6 feet wide) depicts a black woman wearing a blue robe, a traditional attribute of the Virgin Mary. The work employs mixed media, including oil paint, glitter, and polyester resin, and also elephant dung, map pins and collaged pornographic images. The central Black Madonna is surrounded by many collaged images that resemble butterflies at first sight, but on closer inspection are photographs of female genitalia; an ironic reference to the putti that appear in traditional religious art. A lump of dried, varnished elephant dung forms one bared breast, and the painting is displayed leaning against the gallery wall, supported by two other lumps of elephant dung, decorated with coloured pins: the pins on the left are arranged to spell out “Virgin” and the one on the right “Mary.” 

A distorted image of the Virgin Mary adorned with pornography and elephant dung was clearly intended to deride Christian values. I have read accounts of comments by the artist that, along with everything else, he thought the depiction of Virgin Mary as a black woman did this too.  If so this was a mistake on his part, given the tradition of the portrayal of black and brown skinned Madonnas in both Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Our Lady of Czestochowa

Initially Ofili’s painting did not attract much attention. This changed, however, when the then mayor of New York, Rudy Guiliani, publicly objected to it. His discomfort and the wider interest it generated, combined with the fact that Christians and conservatives who were now aware of it also hated it, delighted the art world. The fact that Ofili had succeeded in baiting such people gave his work new value in their eyes. As a result of the publicity it attracted, the painting was quickly snapped up by a collector, and sold in 2015 by Christie’s for $4.6M before being given to the Museum of Modern Art in New York. The artist himself was elevated into the mainstream of the art establishment as a result. He would go on to win the Turner Art Prize - one of the most prestigious awards the British art establishment can bestow, to become a member of the Royal Academy, and to sit on the board of the Tate Modern gallery in London.

What is the basis of the philosophy of this particular brand of anti-traditionalism that Ofili typifies? It is often characterized as postmodernism. The Tate Modern website tells us that artistic postmodernism started to catch on around 1970 and defines it as ‘a reaction against the ideas and values of modernism, as well as a description of the period that followed modernism's dominance in cultural theory and practice in the early and middle decades of the twentieth century. The term is associated with skepticism, irony and philosophical critiques of the concepts of universal truths and objective reality’.

This, it seems to me, is disingenuous, because it does not tell the full story. While artists today do challenge the principle of objective truth and any institution based upon that principle such as mainstream religion, they are certainly not even-handed about it. It is Christianity and especially the Church over and above all other religions (with the possible exception of orthodox Judaism) that is targeted. Similarly, while all natural science is founded on the principle of objective truth, there seems to be a selective approach to their challenges to the scientific establishment too. Rarely do we see ‘postmodern’ artists attacking such politically fashionable scientific hypotheses as anthropogenic climate change or Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The driving principle behind the contemporary art movement is not, in fact,  post-modernism as it is described by Tate Modern, but rather the latest iteration of Marxism called Critical Theory.

Marxism originated as a materialist, pseudo-scientific method of inquiry made in the 19th century by Karl Marx, therefore it is part of the ‘modernity’ that the contemporary art movement claims to be a reaction to. It was first known as ‘scientific socialism’ because it claimed a methodology that applied the principles of analysis of natural science to history in order to predict the future of society. By tracing the chain of events in history and applying the laws of cause-and-effect, Marxists predict a Utopian future in which all human needs are met. The necessary causal influence for change that pushes mankind on to its final destiny is in their view, violence. The violence that will bring about the desired change is, they claim, the product of an ongoing struggle between oppressor classes and the oppressed that will lead first to the total destruction of present society, and then the rise of a utopia out of the ashes.

In this scenario the oppressors fight to maintain the status quo which benefits them, and the oppressed fight to destroy it. Building on ideas developed by the German philosopher Hegel, this ‘dialectic’ of opposites, oppressors and the oppressed, is not seen as a harmonious process of resolution by discussion, but rather one that can only be resolved by the victory of the oppressed over their oppressors. Violent conflict is seen therefore as a necessary component to its resolution.

This is not a political movement that seeks to change modern society into one that is more just. Rather, it is an ideology, a cultish, pseudo-religion that seeks the total destruction of the present society so that a fresh start can be made. There is however, no template for what this new society will look like, for it is assumed that it will emerge naturally from human interactions free from the traditions of the past.

Part 2 to come: Marxism and Critical Theory in the culture.

The Mother of God, by Theophanes the Greek, painted in Russia in the 14th century

See also my past article The Fallacy that Christian Art Generally Portrays Christ as a Northern European Man.