Peter Kreeft on "Dominus Iesus", ten years later

The prolific author asks this question in a piece for National Catholic Register: Is "Dominus Iesus: Liberal or Conservative?":

Dominus Iesus, published Aug. 6, 2000, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is one of the most important Church documents of modern times because it concerns what is absolutely central and primary in Christianity, Christ himself, because it defends the most unpopular aspect of the Church’s claim today — its “absolutism” — and because it overcomes the dualism of “liberal” vs. “conservative” by which the media classify and evaluate everything. (I wonder how they will classify the Second Coming when they see it.)

To see these three points, all we have to do is try to classify Dominus Iesus as “liberal” or “conservative.” I put an “L” after all its main “liberal” points and a “C” after all its “conservative” points, and I ended up with 30 Ls and 38 Cs.

But the “kicker” is that it is not half and half, or halfway in between; it is so “liberal” precisely because it is so “conservative.”

To understand this, we should first try to spear those two slippery fish: the “liberal” and the “conservative.” (You can’t fry them if you don’t catch them.)

I see four essential differences, which are the roots of all the others.

Read the entire piece, which is vintage Kreeft.

If you've never read Dominus Iesus, do so as soon as you can. It's worth reading and studying and reading again. An excellent follow-up to Dominus Iesus is Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, written shortly before Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope.

• Socrates and Hume | Peter Kreeft | The Introduction to the just published, Socrates Meets Hume.
• Ignatius Insight Author Page for Peter Kreeft

Comments

[Greg]

Gotta love Kreeft.

[LJ]

Like some of those who posted comments to the article, I was somewhat surprised that Kreeft used the popular but erroneous paradigm to illustrate conservative vs. liberal, by evoking naziism vs. communism.

It seems a little sloppy on his part, and that is unusual. Popular discourse throws around the epithet "Nazi" with as much frequency as "racist" and so often in either case the accuser has little or no concept of the true meaning of the word.

Naziism as a political philosophy is the antithesis of modern-day conservatism in any social, political or cultural sense.

If he had presented the context that naziism is on the conservative side of the socialist spectrum, he might have a case, based on his original four declarations about conservatism and liberalism, but even then he needs to clarify that both naziism and communism are manifestations of the socialist ideology both of which require severe coercion to function; both of which are atheistic in nature; and both of which deny the fundamental American constitutional truth that individual rights come from God, apart from government.

Without that clarification he helps perpetuate the recent (I think deliberate) misconception that naziism corresponds to present day conservatism, or at minimum it is the extreme conclusion of modern day conservatism.

[Brian J. Schuettler]

Well said, LJ. In some quarters, the ill-defined use of "conservative" has become something of a verbal whipping boy. As in this effort by Kreeft, his renown as a writer gives support to your observation. Some writers are perhaps too quick to simplify and publish without the necessary clarification in support of their position. Unfortunately,being a prolific writer can have an unintended consequence.

[Nancy D.]

A liberal conservative Catholic is one who conserves all The Truth (including the Filioque)and applies The Truth liberally.

[Mark Brumley]

"A liberal conservative Catholic is one who conserves all The Truth (including the Filioque)and applies The Truth liberally."

But what is a conservative liberal Catholic :)?

[Jon]

A conservative liberal Catholic is one who liberally recognizes the inherent worth of the individual and endeavors to conserve the institutions and traditions which protect them.

[Nancy D.]

In order to be Catholic, one must first conserve all The Truth before one can apply The Truth, liberally.