Pondering the Hermaneutic of Suspicion

I know! I apologize for using one of those rather haughty theological words: Hermeneutic! I also know that many DO in fact know what the word means. But just in case you don’t let’s define. Fundamentally a “hermeneutic” is an interpretive key, a way of seeing and understanding the world.

So what do I mean when I speak of a “hermeneutic of suspicion?” Well, consider the times in which we live. Most people are suspicious of just about everything and everyone! It is a common and usual worldview that politicians lie, the Government is lying, big business is lying, advertisers are lying, the Church is lying. It is presumed that cover-ups are common and, even if there is not outright lying most people and organizations are just acting out of selfish motives and self-serving agendas. If their motives are not selfish they are otherwise bad motives: Liberal! Conservative! Bigoted! Homophobe! Hater! Infidel! Socialist! Selfish Capitalist! Reactionary! Well, you get the point. Everyone is simply dismissed because they have an ”agenda” and this agenda is somehow less than pure, fair or neutral.

You may well think that some or much of what is said abouve is true. But in pondering this all-pervasive “hermeneutic of suspicion” I wonder if there do not have to be some limits to its application and conclusions. Is “everyone” really lying or just acting out of a less than pure agenda? Is it always wrong to have an agenda? Is self interest always a bad thing? Is it always wrong for groups to seek to influence the national discussion even if that influence serves their interest and worldview? Clearly lying is wrong and there is such a thing as lying but is everything I call lying really lying?

I don’t have simple answers to these questions and PLEASE understand I am not some moral relativist who is simply asking for everything to be murky and gray. But our culture is really overheated at the moment with suspicion. There is a pervasive presumption of the worst in terms of motives, sincerity and the like. It is getting harder and harder to have any kind of a conversation at all about issues without the names and the labels sallying forth and the impugning of motives. I don’t have a simple formula to come up with the right balance between a healthy skepticism and pathological suspicion but I would like to propose a few benchmarks toward a better balance.

1. Everyone DOES have an agenda and that is OK. It’s not wrong to have a worldview and to seek to influence others to that way of thinking. The very word “agenda” is intended as pejorative but it need not be. The problem seems to come up when everyone is defensive about having and “agenda.” Since that is somehow supposed to be “wrong” we start to do unhealthy things. We often try to hide our truest agenda and paper it over with less than sincere descriptions of what we think and what we want. We start to talk in code and engage in political correctness, jargon and other circumlocutions that are not always true or at least frank. We become less transparent and this fuels suspicion. If we can just accept that we all have agendas and that’s fine, then we become more frank and honest, and suspicion recedes. In terms of full disclosure let me share my agenda: I am a Roman Catholic Christian and I believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. I believe Jesus Christ Founded the Catholic Church, that it is the one true Church. It is my desire that everyone on this planet become Roman Catholic and thus embrace the fullness of the faith given by Jesus Christ and revealed through the Apostles. Clear enough? That’s my agenda.

2. Self interest is not always bad– I do a lot of organizing work in the neighborhood working with the Washington Interfaith Network, a local chapter of the Industrial Areas Foundation. One of our key principles is to help people identify their interests and then act upon them. If they want more affordable housing, great! Then let’s work to find others who have a similar interest and build power around that shared interest. Self interest can be a powerful motivator toward great ends. Instead of being suspicious and cynical that people have self interest in mind, what if we just accepted that this is the universal human condition and used it to engage people for good ends? It’s not wrong to care about myself. I really ought to get my needs met and that also helps others because I am less of a burden on them. If ALL we care about is our self that is a problem. But most people instinctively understand that their self interest is linked to the good of others too. My life is more secure and stable if there is a healthy, strong and vibrant neighborhood. So I can be engaged around my own interests to work for a just and healthy world. The fact that I get something out it does make my motives somehow impure. But the hermeneutic of suspicion demands “pure” motives and unrealistically defines pure as completely selfless. What if we just stopped all that and accepted that people act on what interests them and that it isn’t necessarily bad. Accepting this makes us less suspicious and cynical.

3. Faith and Trust in the Church are an essential balance to the hermeneutic of suspicion– While it is true that we have to be sober that live in a world where lies are told and where motives are not always pure, it is also true that we have to refuse radical suspicion and cynicism. There IS truth, and there are those who do speak and teach the truth. We must find and seek those harbors of the truth and build and lower our anchor there. For Catholics, the harbor of the truth is the Church. Scripture describes the Church as the Pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). One of the great tragedies of the hermeneutic of suspicion is that many Catholics have adopted this attitude toward the Church. Yes, there is sin and even corruption in the Church, but despite that the Church has never failed to hand on the authentic truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ does speak through his Church. I emphatically trust that fact. I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to have been revealed by God. I can do no other. This is my faith. I trust God and believe that he speaks through the Catholic Church despite whatever human weakness is evident in the Church. God can write straight with crooked lines and he can teach infallibly even despite human weakness in the Church. Without a harbor of truth the hermeneutic of suspicion can and will overwhelm us. We will mistrust everyone and everything and have no real way to sort out all the conflicting claims and counterclaims. Without faith and trust both in God and in the Church I am lost, adrift on a sea of suspicion and cynicism and the hermeneutic of suspicion overwhelms me. This is sadly true today of so many who are cut off from the truth thinking they can trust no one. In them the hermeneutic of suspicion has its most devastating effect. The lack of trust locks them into a tiny world, dominated by suspicion and doubt. Only the gift of faith and trust can diminish such deep suspicion. With faith we can measure all things by God’s truth and know what is true from what is false. We have a measuring rod to judge what is true and thus we need not flee to suspicion.

This video fits with my agenda! 😉

11 Replies to “Pondering the Hermaneutic of Suspicion”

  1. Epistle 235
    My some thoughts about “the homily” of Msgr. Charles Pope are here below:
    Firstly, in the homily, Msgr. Charles Pope considered hermeneutic of suspicion.
    Here, hermeneutic is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation, and suspicion is doubt.
    Msgr. Charles Pope said that every Catholic needs to have a agenda.
    Agenda of Msgr. Charles Pope is “I am a Roman Catholic and I believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. I believe Jesus Christ Founded the Catholic Church, that it is the one true Church. It is my desire that everyone on this planet become Roman Catholic and thus embrace the fullness of the faith given by Jesus Christ and revealed through the Apostles”.
    Basically, I agree with Msgr. Charles Pope on the homily and Father’s agenda.
    Secondly, now permit me to add some matters to relate to the homily hereafter:
    In my opinion, the Church we seek must be: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
    Here, Apostolic Church is the Church was revealed through the Apostles.
    Therefore it is not my desire that everyone on this planet become Roman Catholic and thus to embrace the fullness of the faith given by Jesus Christ.
    Here, I dare to reason with Msgr. Charles Pope because he said he is a Catholic.
    However, I will not dare to reason with Msgr. Charles Pope when he is a Priest because Priest also is an Apostle.
    In other words, when Priest preaches Lord’s word in a Holy Mass, we must obey the Priest’s preaching, but when Priest writes an article or a book, we can reason with him.
    This called methodological principles of argument with a Priest or a Bishop./.

  2. “The fact that I get something out it does make my motives somehow impure.”
    Did you mean “…does NOT make…”?

  3. You are so right, Father, and it is not just unbelievers who employ the hermeneutic of suspicion. How many times I heard the term “hermeneutic of suspicion” used approvingly in the Catholic Seminary I attended!

  4. This is possibly the most shockingly refreshing statement I’ve heard in a very long time:

    I am a Roman Catholic Christian and I believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. I believe Jesus Christ Founded the Catholic Church, that it is the one true Church. It is my desire that everyone on this planet become Roman Catholic and thus embrace the fullness of the faith given by Jesus Christ and revealed through the Apostles. Clear enough? That’s my agenda.

    Thanks for this! You may see this show up elsewhere. (Dismas is a thief after all!)

  5. Yesterday I was walking through my county fair with family, and we passed a booth for a Baptist church. The Baptists tried to get us to stop by with a catchy challenge: “Name three things God cannot do.” I paused because I thought it would be interesting to start a conversation, but I ended up declining because I thought I would get nowhere. They would be thinking I have an agenda as a Catholic, and I would be thinking they have an agenda against Catholics because they’re Baptist. Later, when I mentioned this little scenario to someone, he scolded me, saying I couldn’t know what good it would have done without trying. I see now I was totally operating under a hermeneutic of suspicion…

    I struggle with suspicion and cynicism all the time. It is a cause of sadness to me, and I wish I could break out of it faster. Perhaps I need to acknowledge my own weakness and accept that growth in virtue is a lifetime process.

  6. If you have ever argued religion with a non-Catholic, or
    if you have ever argued life with an abortion supporter, or
    if you have even argued evolution with a Darwinist,
    you begin to see a pattern emerge. About the only response many are capable of is an ad-hominem attack.

    Gee, when did the civilization go out of our civilization? I guess at about the same time that prayer went out of our schools…

  7. Interesting article Msgr. Pope. I am wondering to myself if self interest as a motive isn’t at best flawed to the proportional degree that it makes no attempt to allign wtih other interests.?. I suspect that considering Aristotle’s 3 criteria for a moral act 1. right act, 2. intentions, and 3 context, that a safe bet would be right acts of selfless gifting in the correct context is the gold standard for our actions. What I am troubled about is that considerations of self interest leads to the slippery slope of the ‘ends justifies the means’ error, at least I am thinking. Of course I have spent nearly my entire life, if not my entire life acting out of self interest, and it has been starkly brought to my dense attention jsut recently that the results are disastereous. In my case it is easier to tell mud from gold, but in better people I wonder is bronze may be more easily mistaken.
    Thanks for you interesting blog.

  8. Well said. I wish we had priests in the UK writing with such clarity and integrity.

Comments are closed.