I want to present to you the rather odd ecclesiology of James Carville. It is taken from the video at the bottom of this post, (hat tip to Elizabeth Scalia). I think Mr. Carville’s odd bifurcation of the Church is somewhat emblematic of the problems and misunderstandings that many have, both of the Church, and of Jesus. Too easily do people engage in the kind of a heresy, emphasizing some aspects of Jesus teachings to the exclusion of others. And while it is true that there are some tensions in the ministry and the teachings of Jesus, orthodoxy holds these tensions, while heresy picks one and excludes the other to avoid the tension.
More of this in a moment, but for now let’s look at how Mr. Carville divides up the Church into two camps. The first camp he describes as the “anti-sex camp:”
Those who say the primary teachings of Jesus were sexual, and therefore, our 1st obligation should be to prevent gay people from getting married, or intercourse out of marriage, or contraception, or, you know, forcing people who have been raped to have abortions and things like that.
Mr. Carville then describes camp two (unnamed) of which he says he is a member:
There are other people who say that the important part of the Catholic Church should be the way we treat each other. That Jesus’ life was more about how we treat each other, and that you should love your neighbor as yourself.
He then goes on to say that he is distinctly in camp two.
Consider the eccelosiology James Carville sets forth. Somehow he imagines that it is impossible for the Church to actually be both, namely, setting forth clear moral norms in terms of sexuality and many other issues, and also, among these moral norms, reminding us that we must love one another, and both speak and act in truth and love.
We have spoken on this blog before of the masterful work of Ross Douthat, the New York Times columnist who wrote the book Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. In that book he well describes the problem of modern heresy, which cannot abide the paradoxes and tensions of the real Jesus Christ, or of the Scriptures, and thus picks certain aspects, to the exclusion of others, in order to resolve that conflict. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, seeks to hold these tensions and allow them to balance each other.
One of the great paragraphs of Douthat’s book, worth the entire price of the book, is his description of Jesus, of the complex, balanced, and paradoxical nature of Jesus. Douthat writes:
Christianity is a paradoxical religion because the Jew of Nazareth is a paradoxical character. No figure in history or fiction contains as many multitudes as the New Testament’s Jesus. He’s a celibate ascetic who enjoys dining with publicans and changing water into wine at weddings. He’s an apocalyptic prophet one moment, a wise ethicist the next. He’s a fierce critic of Jewish religious law who insists that he’s actually fulfilling rather than subverting it. He preaches a reversal of every social hierarchy while deliberately avoiding explicitly political claims. He promises to set parents against children and then disallows divorce; he consorts with prostitutes while denouncing even lustful thoughts. He makes wild claims about his own relationship to God, and perhaps his own divinity, without displaying any of the usual signs of megalomania or madness. He can be egalitarian and hierarchical, gentle and impatient, extraordinarily charitable and extraordinarily judgmental. He sets impossible standards and then forgives the worst of sinners. He blesses the peacemakers and then promises that he’s brought not peace but the sword. He’s superhuman one moment; the next he’s weeping. And of course the accounts of his resurrection only heighten these paradoxes, by introducing a post-crucifixion Jesus who is somehow neither a resuscitated body nor a flitting ghost but something even stranger still—a being at once fleshly and supernatural, recognizable and transfigured, bearing the wounds of the crucifixion even as he passes easily through walls. (Kindle Edition Loc. 3005-16)
Douthat goes on to conclude:
The boast of Christian orthodoxy, as codified by the councils of the early Church and expounded in the Creeds, has always been its fidelity to the whole of Jesus…..[Where heresy says which one] Both, says orthodoxy….The goal of the great heresies, on the other hand, has often been to extract from the tensions of the gospel narratives a more consistent, streamlined, and noncontradictory Jesus. (Ibid).
And this describes well Carville’s fundamental error. To oppose the Jesus who said love one another to the Jesus who forbade even lustful thinking and spoke of unchastity as evil is to fail to hold the balance and end up in a heretical and incomplete view. James Carville of course is no theologian, but he does articulate here a common misconception of both Jesus and the Church.
Orthodoxy is in the balance. The true faith cannot be truncated as Carville thinks, the true Faith is richer than he knows and more balanced than the extreme and incomplete little “camp” that he imagines the Church to be.
As for his other silly notions about Bishops being Republicans, well, a lot of Republicans would surely differ with that claim, and the Nuns on the Bus being Catholic – Well lets pray on that one.
Here’s the Video of James Carville’s strange ecclesiology
Despite living in the most intellectually advanced and with the most widely educated populace in history it is even more so the most intellectually dishonest as well.
“Intellectual(ly) advancement” is not an achievement which mens anything. It’s selfservice, science, for example, is nothing more than a system of simple discovery. Remember when it was a common thought that we should all have “faith” in science?
???
Some Americans have misunderstandings of distant figures and political understanding of religion. Hence, some believe the Buddha was a pacifist man, and some believe orthodox Catholics are conservatives.
Emotional manipulation, coupled with bad example for children and activities that make you unable to think straight (like pornography), tends to make people rashly judge others rather than seek the truth.
There’s also the problem of dishonesty among atheists, where knowing and understanding what theists and Christians believe is considered the same thing as believing in God and believing Christianity.
You should elaborate. There are some good ideas in there. I’ve thought about myself, but they are not clear enough to articulate. I agree the oversimplification of a religious belief or denial lends itself to polarization. Apparently, as a Catholic scientist, my atheist colleagues feel I don’t exist or offer excuses to keep their “belief” intact. The problem is, at least for this group of atheist activist types, that Catholic scientists are ever present throughout history. And today.
Bravo, Monsignor Pope! Thank you for introducing us to Ross Douthat–and for exposing the Carville heresy for what it truly is. Do you suppose that future students of church history and systematic theology will be required to examine “carvillism” alongside all the other heretical “isms?”
This has a parallel in the pontificating of those “Christians” who declare that they “don’t believe in religion”, and prefer to only “follow Jee-zhus”. False dichotomies fabricated and ignoble dissension spewed as piety and wisdom – ever the hallmarks of Satan’s machinations to divide the Body of Christ.
Yes, there is a kind of self-congratulatory attitude among many in the “tolerance” and syncretistic school, they congratulate themselves for their open-mindedness etc.
“There are other people who say that the important part of the Catholic Church should be the way we treat each other” … I seem to remember that the important part was our relation with God, from which stems our love of neighbor, but never mind. When he got to the part about being in the second camp I almost choked on the smug.
This is one of those areas where I don’t see any tension. Sex is intimately (sorry) bound in how we treat each other.
Agreed. As I pointed out in an article earlier this week, the sexual teachings of the Scriptures and the Church are very much a part of justice toward others.
With…uh…respect to our sex obsessed culture, I don’t think giving it the status, as carvill does is correct. It’s a very real part of our culture and it is not separable from how we think or act anymore than the thoughts we have, work we do. It ties into our total being and like any part, if run amok, can be damaging to the whole person.
He does not say what or which camp he is in. I sure hope this James Carville stay away and far from God’s children. Sounds like the enemy and the father of lies
Actually he does say which camp he is in, camp 2. If you listen to the video again it is there.
I truly thank you for this article. So many of my own thoughts have fallen in place after reading it. What I like the most is the capacity of situating false compassion / solidarity (towards gay people, in this case) in the broader context of the various theological approaches. Again, thanks.
If you’re in Wasington,if you have any apostolic zeal,why not have coffee with the guy? You;ve got the clout.To expose this good man to the tender mercies of his hypocritical conservative foes,even if they are “fervant” Catholics just doesn’t seem right.
Well, Joseph, please remember that he is the one who put the video out there, I’m just doing the reaction to his action and pointing out a very problematic ecclesiology that a lot of people have. As for “hypocritical conservative foes” would you admit that there might be such a thing as a non-hypocritical conservative foe, or do all three words always go together for you? As for meeting James Carville, I have once or twice in the local market. A nice guy really, some one I’d enjoy having a beer with. Alas I think he has moved from the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Ah, the bitter fruit of sola scriptura. You’d think an all-knowing God would have left some sort of living teaching authority instead of writing the Bible after the Last Supper and ordering the Twelve to “interpret this in memory of me.” Oh, well…
I don’t believe the ecclesiology espoused by Mr. Carville is at all the result of sola scriptura. He is being selective not only about which Church teachings “count;” he also is failing to consider the Bible as a whole.
Interesting about the comment on “sola scriptura” here. I first encountered it when receiving e mails a few months ago from people endorsing it. Could that have been about my ‘blog responses and the share this, and the like which pop up if one enters my name in a search engine?
The one who claimed that praying for guidance was satanic – I wonder if the authour heard of the unforgiven sin. Matthew 12:32 Mark 3:29 Luke 12:10
We seek to measure, and it serves us to a point. A board has a certain length which can be measured empirically or by observation without much intellect. It can also be too short for some things; just right for others and longer that required so that comparing to something else – such as the usage of the board. Measuring relatively by using the intellect to compare. Intellect that God gave us to be used, not abused by thinking we can apply it (and the derived measuring systems) to Him.
However, it takes humility, such as the concept of “insufficient data” to understand that we need to go beyond any measure we know and to refrain from judging, by human standards, that what we need is beyond any form of measurement we have, or even by our ability to measure.
Paradoxes are mentioned but, they seem contradictory without necessarily being contradictory. For spiritual health we need more than what we have, or can understand. When the structure stretches so far in so many directions that the parts “seem” incompatible we (including myself) become uncomfortable. So, it becomes tempting to buy into the comments of people who figuratively tell us that we can “put God in a box” as I’ve heard it said.
If we can discard the worldly concept of measurements and quit grasping heresies that offer false comfort then, perhaps, we can accept the infinite and quit looking among ourselves for God and be free of the bondage of sin which came into being after it was hinted that eating of the forbidden fruit would make us gods. Genesis 3:4&5
Notice, a cunning hint, not a commitment. On such deceits many have been ruined; after which the hinter reminds that no promise was given – a reminder which comes after disaster.
But acceptance of the infinite, and its harmonious parts that are so big that they seem paradoxical, could free us from competing for the false comfort of the heresies and their hints of god like status for individuals who claim that they must be believed (without the support of evidence) in what is based on their limited, and measureable knowledge. Or the champions that groups put forward for that status.
In my adult Catechism I was told that the Pope was infallible when under the guidance of The Holy Spirit. How many critics don’t even finish the sentence? Incomplete evidence in seeking more than human status for themselves?
Wondering if there was guidance just now. Upon pausing to get a cup of coffee it came to notice that; even after purchasing a very large (but measureable) container of coffee; it was now nearly used up. Is there a large enough, but measurable, container of any item of groceries that’s good enough for ever? Maybe large enough to last into generations past my lifetime but; would they be deprived by inhereting these groceries and not knowing how to aquire because human creation doesn’t last? What a dirty trick this appears to be. Offering a false comfort about untrue all encompassing (and finite) perfection in human creation that needs no proof.
The previous paragraph may appear a bit ponderous due to an effort not to use the word “I” Oops, just did. Guess I’m not perfect so better take my words with a “grain of salt”
third line from the bottom; “…that needs no proof.” Try; “that is presented as needing no proof” Not perfect me.
This is one of my favorite subjects these days, this false dichotomy and dialetic view of our Church as right/left, traditional/modern, conservative/progressive. The true faith and our Church has survived over 2000 years and will continue to survive, it seems to me, precisely due to it’s immunity to this false dichotomy and dialectic. Jesus is I Am and so is our Church.
My hope is that the time of sifting and shedding pointed out by Pope Benedict in 1969 is comming to a crescendo or a close. I’m very exicted about the Year of Faith, it seems Pope Benedict has been preparing us for it a very long time. I know Msgr Pope has brought this our attention before, but here it is again. Faith and the Future by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, first published in 1969. Here’s an excerpt from his book:
“The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard-going for the Church. … It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will will have to be shed. One may predict that all of this will take time. …. But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church….”
Hate the sin–Love the sinner. This is not so very hard to understand, but perhaps difficult to practice.
Hypocritical conservatives are probably as rare as hypocritical liberals.James did put the video into the domain and could justly be publicly answered.I just like the guy,and am inclined to think he is worth approaching.God only knows the result of such a meeting.Thanks for your kind answer.
Against fundamental Christian values, Carville exudes venom like a viper and foams at the mouth like a pitbull. He has a pitch to his voice that exhibits an inner rage. And he has a nervous restlessness that is written all over his face. His eyes wander insanely. He visibly shuts himself off from reality; he is deaf and blind, but certainly not mute. To say he is tightly wound is an understatement. Carville is his own ad hominem.
Well, I obviously disagree with Mr. Carville on a LOT, but I cannot say your characterization of him is necessarily accurate. In particular I question the “rage” you attribute to him. I presume that he certainly has his convictions, but some of his “trash-talking politics” is a persona he adopts in something of the “loveable rogue” motif. I am not sure how seriously to take his personal characteristics. I DO however take his errors very seriously and that is why I have critiqued those here.
Funny, maybe it’s just me but I couldn’t find many distinctions between this James Carville video and many Vortex/Michael Voris videos I’ve viewed.
It must be difficult for someone like Mr. Carville to free himself of the world view that everything breaks into two camps. His entire life view has been Dem/Rep. so he needs the voice of our good Monsignor all the more. I bet his wife would ask us to keep him in our prayers… We all do.
James Carville acted as gift bearer at the installation Mass of a certain archbishop. Later, when I asked the archbishop why that had been allowed, given Carville’s public record of excusing abortion as compatible with the Catholic faith, he (the archbishop) told me it had been arranged by others and done without his prior knowledge. I am unable to make myself believe that.
Why assume the worst Romulus, even when you have been told the contrary. I can assure you that whoever the Archbishop was, had a lot more on his mind getting ready for that day than who the gift bearers would be and it seems very likely to me that such a matter would have been handled by others. I know that even as a mere priest, I am never involved in determining who the gift bearers will be, even at prominent parish masses, I leave this to the ushers. Is it really of God for you to be cynical?
Such statements are easier to believe when said bishop follows up by circulating a Never Let That Happen Again memo. The memo can be mild but must never be equivocal. But the bishop must communicate disapproval and do so as speedily as possible after the infraction occurs. Silence implies consent.
What Mr. Carville describes as a Camp 1 v. Camp 2 is not limited to the realm of the Church. The same dichotomy can be seen in many other venues: giving awards for merit v. handing out trophies just for showing up; avoiding hurt feelings v. expecting accountability; refusing to acknowledge fault v. accepting consequences.
In other words, Carvile is expressing the rellgion of It’s All About Me.
“Somehow he imagines that it is impossible for the Church to actually be both…setting forth clear moral norms…and also…reminding us that we must love one another…”
Monsignor, the reason that Carville cannot reconcile the Church’s moral and social doctrines is that the modernist heresy to which he subscribes regards individual freedom as the absolute good. Thus, any attempt to regulate another’s personal choices (especially those that are sexual in nature) is condemned by modernists as oppressive and uncharitable.
For this reason, modernist heretics can’t even be said to fully live Christ’s command to love one’s neighbor, since they reduce love of neighbor to unconditionally affirming others’ choices with no reference to objective truth.
Well said!
There is nothing strange about Carnell. He is nothing more than a political hack. His attempt here is to divide the church, good catholic, bad catholic. He decides which is which. Since he hated Dylan’s speech, bishops are now bad and the nuns who did not say anything are held up as good. Silence is golden. This is more of the same that’s going on all the time, and that is to politicize everything. Attack attack attack. He is so caught up in his job as a political consultant I bet you could never get an honest answer from him about anything. The only reason this man is on tv is because he is so outrageous. The media love this type, personally I cannot stand him at all, he is quite repulsive.
I agree with everything in this post. My question is how does one speak to someone like James Carville in way that opens his eyes?
We should hope and pray, that the mother of that young daughter has a solidly Catholic view of things,
and will influence her more than the modernist father. I wonder what the good sisters at Sacred Heart Academy
are teaching these girls…or are they also passengers “on the bus” going nowhere? We saw many at the Democratic Convention, mostly women, calling themselves Catholic, all the while supporting the culture of death espoused in their platform. No one of ecclesial authority seems to be publically correcting these notables
so many of the poorly catechized faithful absorb their ignorance…or worse. Thank you Monseignor for making
this correction public.
My personal favorite quote from both conventions came about concerning the 2nd day of the activities at the DNC ( the yay/nay vote and former President Clinton’s speech):
” After they denied God 3 times, the cock crowed”!
I saw this on The Anchoress blog but it was sadly not attributed to any specific person there. It is one of those
quotes that will stick in my mind forever…and I just had to share.
Mary Matlin, the wife and mom, is a faithful Catholic and much more in line with what Msgr Pope has said. Btw, I thought the ideas of the Nuns on the bus giving the Benediction was ingenious. Much more in line with DNC policy, not what they needed to hear but what they would have preferred. I think it was a snarky comment from the senior daughter. I could not tell you what political party the most faithful priests and bishops I have heard belong to because they preach Truth, not politics. Thanks Msgr Pope
James Carville should not even be identified as having an Ecclesiology as he has neither the education nor the standing to comment on Church Doctrine.
In these matters Mr. Carville is clearly irrelevant
Well, he is relevant to the extent that he exemplifies what a lot of people incorrectly think
James Carville is the poster child of the post-vat2 Catholic.
As part of my daily prayer i always include this from a prayer card:
“Hate the sin and love the sinner and put squarely before people what sin is and never condone it. But love, cherish and heal the sinner, for God came for sinners.”
The Paulist verses the Christians, classic battle!…
The Paulist versus the Christians, classic battle!…
There are so many factors. Certainly a case of Sola Ego (at it were). Too much education, worldliness, and pride without sufficient prudence, humility, or wisdom. A big undercurrent of no-consequence Universalism (which Fr. Lucie-Smith addressed this week: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/09/06/the-church-must-challenge-the-idea-that-life-on-earth-always-ends-with-heaven/ ).
Carville is right that there 2 camps, but he’s missed the true distinction. St. Ignatius could have helped him here. One camp is under the command of our Savior and Lord, and the other of Satan. A little caution is advisable before taking up the standard of Camp #2. Kyrie eleison.
The sort of thinking espoused by Mr. Carville comes from the (mistaken) view that, ” I will decide what is righteous and what is not; what is truly important and what is less so.”
Sadly, too many of us (Catholics included) hold this view. The basic problem, whether Mr. Carville (and those like him) will admit it or not, is that we put ourselves at the center of the universe, and not God and the teachings of His church. My will be done!(sic).
Jesus left us with THE interpretive key to sacred Scripture. It is the Catholic church. It was not an afterthought, but a crucial step in God’s plan of salvation. Fidelity to church teaching is vital, as is faithfulness to God. You cannot separate the two and still call yourself faithful.
God bless you, Msgr. Pope.
Thank you for this article, and for the excerpt from Mr. Douthat’s book, Monsignor. I did watch Mr. Carville’s video, all the while remembering that his wife (I assume he is still married to Mary Matalin, the Republican “strategist”) and wondering what her video on the subject might go. I really have no idea. Such people, the Carvilles and matalins are first of all political animals, and secondly “fighters”. Perhaps Mr. Carville merely intended in his video to stir up the pot, hoping to animate and inspire his side and frustrate and enrage the other. He is an amusing little terrier, but do remember to keep your slippers away from him.
James Carville is a classic mental contortionist. He shows he has no clue of what the Gospel message consists. Many will be surprised when they go to judgment thinking they will be rewarded because of their liberal “compassion,” yet end up being condemned because of their lack of conformity to Christ in sexual matters. It is the whole Gospel we are to conform to, not the mental contortions of liberals like James Carville. Remember, popes have roundly condemned most of liberalism itself ( I think of the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX)
Thank you for the clarity on this, Monsignor. A timely reminder.
Loving God ‘with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your whole soul’ IS indeed the most important. This is so very simiple for the Christian. Jesus said it. If you believe Him, and DO that loving…all else will faill into place. You won’t be able to stop yourself from loving your neighbor as yourself.
I’ve noticed that the more time I spend in prayer-worship of God (in home, on the go, and inside the church itself), the more charitable I become towards others. When I’m NOT charitable in thought, word, and deed…I have purposefully separated myself from God in order to become uncharitable. I’ve ‘gone rougue’, so to speak, and start making up my ‘own’ religion/beliefs.
As you pointed out, the tendency today across all politics and societies (and sadly, Christian denominations) is to serve man first, not to first serve the One who created man.
….oops, I mean “If you believe Him, and DO that loving…all else will FALL into place” — not ‘faill’ …
Most would benefit from reading that stuning theologian Bernard Lonergan – especially Metaphysics – for a good many answers.
Msgr Pope, did you happen to see Dr Shneck on Raymond Arroyo’s show on EWTN? He seemed to be doing the same thing Carville does, justifying being chair of Reelect Obama because he wants to protect Medicaid. He claims to be pro-life, while supporting a pro-abortion president. You don’t have to publish this if it is too political, just wondering about your take. Thank you
You can almost hear the voice of Satan in the statement “these are interesting times in the country, these are interesting times in the Church”. I guess there is wishful thinking in hell. It seems that Mr. Carvile has not a clue to the basic belief of God having become man, dying, rising from the dead and now Present in the Eucharist just as He said. And Mr. Carville is not alone, I have met far too many “Catholics” just like him. Ironically their rejection of the basics is a kind of proof of the reality of the Church, and the devil.