Sticks and stone may break my bones...

... but superficial labels will only confuse me:

The American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who has given a significant speech to Australian Catholic students, under the title "The Fall of the Christian West" is an emerging leader of the most conservative form of Catholicism. ...

If Catholics can be superficially divided into progressive, traditional and reactionary, Burke falls firmly into the third camp. Supporters find in him a strong voice for traditional teaching, for standing fast in the faith and not "blowing in the winds" of modern relativism. Critics see him as harsh and inflexible, retreating behind the battlements of the church rather than engaging with the world.

So, Burke is "firmly" in the "reactionary" camp, but he is apparently a strong voice for the "traditional" camp as he expresses "traditional teaching"? No? Yes? What, exactly, does "reactionary" mean here? I take that it is meant as a negative descriptive, as Burke is said to hold "narrow views on the Mass", which must refer to his adamant belief that the Novus Ordo is from the pit of hell and is a false liturgy. Oh, wait a second—Cardinal Burke doesn't hold that position, although it is one held by many folks who describe themselves as Catholics—indeed, as the "true Catholics". Could it be, then, that he is not really a leader of the "most conservative form of Catholicism"?

But, back to "reactionary"; here is the apparent reason for the descriptive:

Burke, 62, is also a strong opponent of euthanasia, same-sex marriage and stem cell research – particularly hot issues in the United States.

In the 2004 US election campaign, Burke said that Catholic voters who supported pro-choice candidates because they were pro-choice committed a grave sin, and they too should not receive communion without having their sin absolved. He acknowledged it would not be a mortal sin if a voter believed there was a more important moral issue than abortion at stake but could not imagine what such an issue might be.

In other words, those who hold to official, magisterial teaching are "reactionary", since the Correct Default Position of All Enlightened People is the progressive, liberal one. But what if this were stated instead?

Burke, 62, is also a strong opponent of sexual abuse, pornography, murdering old ladies, beating little kids, torture, rape, genocide, and drug abuse.

Is that "reactionary"? If not, why not? In other words, the author accurately conveys at least one bit of opinon: his divisions are indeed superficial and ultimately of little value, especially since he doesn't define them well or use them consistently. Quite in contrast to the Cardinal's fine speech.

Comments

[Charles E Flynn]

It was my understanding that the correct term for the views of Cardinal Raymond Burke was the same as the one applied to the views of one Pope Benedict XVI:

dynamic orthodoxy

However, it appears that dynamic orthodoxy is somewhat disparaged at:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/03/an-emerging-understanding-of-orthodox-2-six-views-of-orthodoxy/

Do any of you who have read more Ignatius Press books than I have have any clarification of what the correct term for an orthodoxy that has not ossified is?

[Gregory Williams]

It seems to me the article quoted by Carl says more about the author than it does about Burke.

[Lauri Friesen]

Why do we need labels at all, except to sow division and suspicion? To give you my best guess, though, Charles E. Flynn, I would say that an ossified orthodoxy is akin to a hard-hearted Phariseeism and an obsession with legalism. An unossified Orthodoxy would be, then, Catholicism. What label would people who have read more popular religious tracts than I apply to a progressivism that has not become a confused stew of relativism and radical individualism?

[Titus]

It's hard to be an actual reactionary these days. The traditions and mores that H.E. Cdl. Burke defends in his public statements are sufficiently marginalized in the wider society that his defense of them is actually quite proactive.