ACA THOLI CMODERNI TY?This page intentionally left blank ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?CharlesTaylor'sMarianistAwardLecture WITHRESPONSESBYWI LLI AMM.SHEAROSEMARYLULI NGHAUGHTONGEORGEMARSDENJEANBETHKEELSHTAINEditedandwithanIntroductionbyJAMESL.HEFT, S. M.NewYorkOxfordOxfordUniversity Press1999OxfordUniversityPressOxfordNew YorkAthensAucklandBangkokBogotaBuenos AiresCalcuttaCape TownChennaiDares SalaamDelhiFlorenceHong KongIstanbulKarachiKuala LumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityMumbaiNairobiParisSao PauloSingaporeTaipeiTokyoTorontoWarsawand associated companies inBerlinIbadanCopyright 1999 by OxfordUniversityPress, Inc.Publishedby OxfordUniversity Press, Inc.198 MadisonAvenue, Newyork, New York10016Oxfordis a registered trademark ofOxfordUniversityPressAll rights reserved. NoPartofthis publicationmay be reproduced,storedina retrievalsystem, ortransmitted, in any formor by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording, orotherwise,withoutthe prior permission ofOxfordUniversity Press.LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataACatholicmodernity?Charles Taylor's Marianist Award Lecture,withResponsesby WilliamM. Shea, RosemaryLuling Haughton,George Marsden, and JeanBethke Elshtain /editedby JamesL. Heft.p.cm.ISBN0-19-513161-41.Catholic ChurchDoctrines.2.Civilization, Modern.I. Heft, James.BXI75I.2.C34661999282DC21i98-541333 5 7 9 8 6 4Printed in theUnitedStatesof Americaonacid-free paperContentsContributorsVIIIntroduction3J A ME SL.HE F T ,S. M.1ACatholic Modernity?13C H A R L E STA YLO R2"A Vote of Thanks to Voltaire"39WI L L I A MM.SHEA3Transcendence and the BewildermentofBeing Modern65R O S E MA R YL UL I N GHA UGHT ON4Matteo Ricci and theProdigal Culture83GE O R GEMA R S D E N5Augustine and Diversity95J E A NBE T H KEE L S HT A I N6ConcludingReflections and Comments105C H A R L E ST A YL ORIndex127This page intentionally left blank ContributorsJ E A NBE T H KEE L S H T A I Nis the Laura SpelmanRockefellerProfessorofSocialandPoliticalEthics attheUniversityofChi-cago. She is theauthor ofmany books, includingPublic Man,PrivateWoman:WomeninSocialandPoliticalThought;MeditationsonModernPoliticalThought;PowerTrip sandOtherJourneys;Womenand War;DemocracyonTrial;and AugustineandtheLimitsofPolitics.SheistheeditorofTheFamilyinPolitical Thought;coauthorofButWas It Just?ReflectionsontheMoralityofthePersianGulfWar;editorofPoliticsandtheHumanBody;andeditorofJustWar Theory.Elshtainis alsotheauthorofmorethantwohundredarticles andessays inschol-arly journals and journals ofcivic opinion. In1996, she was electedafellowoftheAmerican Academy ofArtsandSciences. Shealsowrites a regularcolumnfortheNewRep ublic.ROSEMA RYLULI NGHA UGHTONis halfBritish,halfAmeri-can.Shewas borninEnglandandas a younggirltraveled widelythroughoutEurope. Shestudied artfora timeat theSlade SchoolinLondonandalsoinParis. Herlaterstudiesintheologyhaveearned hera highplace among moderntheologians. In April 1981,RosemaryLulingHaughtonandsixcompanionsboughtWell-spring Houseandestablished itas a refugeandplace ofhealingforthehomeless. She is theauthorofmorethanthirty-five books,in-cludingTheCatholicThingandhermostrecentwork,ImagesforChange: TheTransformationofSociety.Currently,sheistheassociatedirectorof Wellspring Housein Massachusetts.VIIGE OR GEMA R S DE Nhas beenFrancis A. McAnaneyProfessorofHistoryoftheUniversityofNotreDamesince1992.Beforethat, he heldpositions at the DivinitySchool, Duke University andatCalvinCollege.HisbooksincludeFundamentalismand AmericanCulture(1980),TheSoulofthe AmericanUniversity(1994), andTheOutrageousIdeaofChristianScholarship .HeisamemberoftheChristian ReformedChurch.WI L L I A MM.SHEAgraduatedfromColumbiaUniversityin1973withadissertationonAmericannaturalist philosophers.HetaughtatCatholicUniversityofAmericaandtheUniversityofSouth Florida and was chairpersonofthedepartment oftheologi-cal studies at St. Louis University from1991 to1997. Hewas presi-dentoftheCollege TheologySociety (1984-1986)anda residentfellowofthe Woodrow WilsonCenterat theSmithsonian(1986-1987). HisNaturalismandtheSup ernaturalwas published byMercerUniversity Press (1984), and hehas editeda collectionofpapersonfundamentalism,TheStruggleoverthePast,forUniversityPressofAmerica(1994)andKnowledgeandBeliefin America:EnlightenmentTraditionsandModernReligiousThoughtforCambridgeUniversityPress(1995).HeiscurrentlyworkingonabookonAmericanCatholicismandevangelicalism andonacollectionofessaysonCatholichighereducation.J A ME SL.HEF T,S.M.,a Marianist priest, is the UniversityPro-fessorofFaithandCultureandChancellorattheUniversityofDayton. Heis theauthorofJohnXXII(1316-1334)andPap alTeach-ing Authority(Mellen Press, 1986) andeditor ofFaithand theIntellec-tualLife(NotreDamePress, 1996). HeiscurrentlyworkingonabookonCatholichighereducationandservesas thechairoftheBoardofDirectorsoftheAssociationofCatholicCollegesandUniversities. Heis also leading an efforttoestablish a nationalInsti-tute for Advanced Catholic Studies.C HA R L E STA YLORisaprofessorofPhilosophyatMcGillUniversityinMontreal.Hehas taughtat otheruniversities intheUnitedStates, Germany, andFranceandheldtheChicheleChairforSocial and Political Theory at Oxfordfrom1976 to1981.Heis oneoftheleading theorists ofthe intellectual movementknownas communitarianismandisconsideredtobeamongtheCONTRI BUTORS VIIIkey thinkersin laying thefoundation forcommunitarianthought.Muchofhisrecentworkstakesoutwhathecallsa"middleground"oran"alternativeposition"betweentheextremesintoday's political and cultural controversies.Over thedecades, Professor Taylor has been involved in QuebecandCanadianpolitics.Hewas acandidate fortheFederalParlia-menton behalfofthe New Democraticparty on a numberofoc-casions duringthe1960sand also served ontheexecutive commit-teeoftheparty until1976. Hehas beenactively engagedonthefederalistsideinthetworeferendaonQuebecindependencein1980 and1995.AgraduateofMcGillUniversity, Professor Taylor receivedhisM.A. and D.Phil,fromOxford.HereturnedtoMcGillin1961 toteachphilosophyandpoliticalscience.HeismarriedtoAlbaRomer, an artist, and has five children.CONTRI BUTORSIXThis page intentionally left blank ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?This page intentionally left blank IntroductionJAMESL.HEFT,S. M.In January of1996, Charles Taylor, whomRichard Rorty recentlynumbered "amongthe dozen most important philosopherswrit-ingtoday, anywhere inthe world,"1gave a lecture at theUniversityofDaytonentitled "ACatholicModernity?" Theoccasion was hisreceptionoftheMarianist Award. TheSocietyofMary,whosemembersareknownasMarianists, isaCatholicreligiousorderfoundedinBordeaux,France,in1817;in1850,itsmembersfoundedtheUniversityofDayton. Theuniversity annuallyrecog-nizes prominentCatholicscholars, whoare invitedtothe campusand asked to speak about howtheir religious faithhas affectedtheirscholarshipandhowtheirscholarshiphasaffectedtheirreligiousfaith.Anumberofthesescholarshavecommentedthattheyhadneverbeforebeenaskedtodosucha thing butnonethelesswel-comedtheopportunity.Forsome,theoccasionhasprovidedachancetolookattheir professional workandtheirpersonalfaithfromadifferentangle.Thosefamiliar withTaylors publications,and withsomeofthecurrent developmentsintheCatholictradi-tion, willbeable tosee that hisCatholicismhas beena central, ifmostlyimplicit,elementinhis philosophicalwritings. Atthebe-3ginning ofthe Marianist Award lecture, he explains that the invita-tionpermits himtoraise issues "whichhave beenat thecenter ofmyconcernfordecades." As a philosopher, hehas feltit necessarytospeakindirectlyaboutthereligiousdimensionsofhis intellec-tual commitmentto "tryto persuade honest thinkers ofany and allmetaphysicalortheologicalcommitments,"butinthislecturehehas a chance to "open out" a number ofthe questions that notonlyCatholicsbutalsoall those tryingtobeauthentic andhumanfacein the modernera.Taylor's lecture notonlyraises some questions about modernityandCatholicism,as hemodestly putit, butalso provides a charac-teristicallythoughtfuldescriptionandevaluationofimmenselycomplexhistorical, cultural, andreligiousdevelopmentsthatspanthelast several hundred years. Someofwhat Taylor says inthelec-ture has beendeveloped at greater length in his magisterial study ofthehistoryofphilosophy,SourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheMod-ernIdentity(Harvard University Press, 1989), and in themore recentand more widely accessible TheEthicsof Authenticity(HarvardUni-versity Press, 1992). Forexample, at theconclusion ofSources, Tay-lorwritesthatthedilemmaofmodernityinthe West presents anunacceptablealternative:eitheracommitmenttovarioustradi-tionalreligiousvisionsthathaveprovidedgreatspiritualfruitaswellas untoldhuman sufferingora commitmenttoan Enlighten-mentnaturalism, or"exclusivehumanism,"whichsuppressesthespiritualdimension. Eitherofthese alternatives, argues Taylor, willsimply notdo.Adoptingastripped-downsecularoutlook, withoutanyreli-gious dimension or radical hope in history, is nota way ofavoid-ingthedilemma, although it may bea good way tolive withit.Itdoesn'tavoidit, becausethistooinvolvesits "mutilation." Itinvolvesstiflingtheresponseinus tosomeofthedeepestandmostpowerfulspiritualaspirationthathumanshave conceived.This, too, is a heavy price topay.(p. 520)Inhis "CatholicModernity?"lecture, Taylorstatesthatonepathoutofthedilemmais providedbyChristianspirituality, described"eitheras alove/compassionwhichisunconditional,thatis,notbasedonwhatyoutherecipienthave madeofyourself; oras onebasedonwhatyouare mostprofoundly, a beingintheimageofI NTRODUCTI ON4God."Moreover,such loveis possibleonlyifpeopleopenthem-selves totheloveofGod, which, Taylor adds, "means infact, over-stepping the limits set in theoryby exclusivehumanisms."Inthebodyofhis lecture, Taylortouchesonthecomplemen-tarityandidentitythatarecharacteristic ofauthenticcommunity.Herecalls thestance ofMatteo Ricci, thesixteenth-century Jesuitmissionarysent toChina.Ricci'sapproachtoevangelization helpsus tosee ourowncultural and religious situation more clearly. Tay-lorsees that theaffirmationofuniversal human rights and ofordi-nary humanlifeand thenotionofhuman flourishingall positivevaluesofmodernityrootedhistoricallyinChristianityare rea-sons for bothhumilityand liberation: humilityinthatthese mod-ernnotions wouldnever have taken roothad notChristendomas apolitically coercive forcedissolved and liberation for Catholicswhoaretherebyfreedtorecognize honestlytheChurch'smixedrecordandtodrawconclusions forappropriating thetraditionforthem-selvesandtheirowntimes. Finally, havingsketchedtheextraordi-narilydemandingidealsofmodernity'shumanism,including"worldwide movementsofsympathy andpractical solidarity," Tay-lorasks howCatholicsand other peopleofgood will can live uptothese ideals and suggests threesources ofmotivation.Taylor's lecturedeserves furthercommentandevaluation. Fourdistinguishedobservers ofthecomplexrelationship betweenreli-gionandourownage wereinvitedtorespondto Taylor's lecture.Thefirstresponse, from William M.Shea, professor oftheologyatSt. Louis Universityandstudent ofAmerican philosophy,fillsoutthehistoricalbackgroundforrecentextensiverevisioningofCatholicismandhighlightstheimpactoftheSecondVaticanCouncil(1962-1965).Hesinglesoutfivecontributionsas crucialforourowntime. InviewofthehistoryoftheCatholicChurchduringthemodernperiod, Shea explains that theologymust maketwocrucial judgments: "modernityhasnotbeenall wrong...and theChurchhas notbeenall right." Shea agrees with Taylor thatwhat is needed is neithera "Catholic modernism," whichwouldbetoadapt uncritically tothe Enlightenmentproject, whichhas bothpositiveandnegativecharacteristics, nora "modernCatholicism,"whichwouldconstitutethehegemonyofCatholicliberals. LikeTaylor, Sheachoosesthemoredemandingpathofthoughtful andcarefuldiscernmentofthoseelementsinmodernculturethatcommittedChristiansnotonlycanlearnfrombutalsomayem-I NTRODUCTI ON5brace.SheaisalsoconfidentthattheCatholicChurchistodaymovingin a positivedirection.IfCatholic"supersessionism"(the ChristiandoctrinethatthechurchsupersedesIsraelinthehistoryofsalvation)couldbeabandonedandanti-Semitismcondemnedontheological anddoctrinal grounds, ifthe Pope can pray with Hindus, if CatholictheologianswillriskalltorethinktherelationsbetweentheChurchandJudaism,Islam,andotherworldreligions, whatclosed door cannot be opened?SheafindsthatCatholiccollegesanduniversities,ratherthansecularuniversities, nowprovidethemostpromisingarena fortheexplorationofthemeaningofCatholicisminthemodernage.Theseindependentinstitutions have broken withChristendomandwiththe"bloodyforcingofconscience,"forwhich,headds, weowea "voteofthanksto Voltaire."Sheaasksthreekeyquestions,theanswerstowhich,hebelieves,willdetermineinlargepartwhetherCatholicuniversities becomeplaces wherecommunitiesoffaithandofintellectualscancontinue,afterTaylor'sexample,"evaluatingandreconstructingthepast,discerningwhatcanbecarriedonandbuiltupon,whatmustbereconfiguredandwhatlaid aside inthechurchas wellas theculture."RosemaryLulingHaughton,authorofmorethanthirty-fivebooks,motheroftenchildren,andcurrentlycoordinatorofawomen's shelter in Gloucester, Massachusetts, found Taylor's lecturesostimulating thatshe is temptedtowritestillanotherbook!In-stead, she chooses heretofocusherresponse ontwoconcepts thatsheseesas centralto Taylor's lecture: the"gospelethic" and "tran-scendence."Shesees, as shebelieves Taylordoes, thelinkbetweenthese concepts as thesourceofthe bewilderment thatmany mod-ernChristiansexperience.LulingHaughtonisespeciallycon-cerned with thechangingexperiencesthat make it verydifficulttoexpress those newexperiences by simply using olderconcepts, suchasthoseprovidedbyEnlightenmentphilosophyor "thecurious,puritan fastidiousnessof neo-Thomism, neatly crossing theriver bystepping on well-balancedstones without noticingthe water."Shedoes notassume a clear understandingofwhatmightbemeant bythe "gospelethic," noris she confidentthat Taylor has advanced hisownanalysis oftheweaknessesofmodernity,especiallyits exclu-I NTRODUCTI ON 6sive humanism,by using thegeneral wordtranscendence,a wordthattooeasily lends itselftofalsedualisms.The"Renaissancemyth"thatis, themythoftheindividual'spowertoachievehasnotled to justiceinourowntimeexplainsLuling Haughton. Even those democracies that extendvoting privi-leges to all their citizens have failed to contain "corporatepowerandtheoppressionandcivilrightsabuses towhichit leads." Atleast intheMiddle Ages, the juristscouldassume thattheChurch'smoralcode was universaland that theculture supportedthecarryingoutofthatcode. Thesocial andmoralassumptionsofthattimehaveevaporated, continuesLulingHaughton.Exactlywhatthe "gospelethic" mightmeaninoursituationis hardtodetermine;despite"stronglyarguedopinions," wearetodaynotreallythatclearonwhat the social ethic of Jesus was. We do know that thecommunityat thetimeof Jesus had a clearer sense ofits moral responsibilityforits individual membersthan oursociety does today. Inourown day,the "rights culture" assumes that the needs of individuals can be metby laws "quiteapart from the moralresponsibility ofthelocalcom-munity."Developingherargumentalongtheselines,LulingHaughtonconcludesthatthegospelethicflourishedinaculturevery different from our own rights culture. Christendom, whichex-tended from about the eighthto the fifteenthcentury, supportedthegospel ethic and, unfortunately, justified a lot of barbarity. Yet, Chris-tendomdefendedindividualsbypromotingasenseofjustice,thoughtheChurch'sperformanceinthisregardwascertainlyflawed.Today thecare ofindividuals is associated with various formsofcharity.Andin theChurchtoday, LulingHaughtonsees plentyof"life-affirming"attitudes,suchastherejectionofCatholicguiltandgloomaboutsex, buttheseattitudesaresometimescarriedtoanextremethatdeniestherealityofevil. Theseconflictingmove-mentsin the Church she finds bewildering.ModernCatholics(and many otherChristians, Jews, andpeo-pleofotherfaiths)havetriedtocaptureanintegral andnondualisticvisionofreligionthatembraces joyandindeedfunbutalsoacceptswithenthusiasmnecessarydiscomfort, painorworseifthatisnecessaryforthesakeofjusticewhichturns outtomean a way oflifeformedby an awareness ofcre-ated interdependence.I NTRODUCTI ON7Giventhiscurrentsituationaflawedmodernityanda confusedChristianityLulingHaughtonaskswhetheritis possibletofinda language toexpress "the longing,thepassionate unquenchedde-sirethat so manypeopleexperience."Sheconcludesthatithastodowith"mythmaking,"notina naivesortofwaythat wemightimagineas mass-producing meaningful stories throughliteraryef-fortbutratherinanintelligentwaythatmakesitpossibleforbelievers toparticipate ina process ofbirthing, notonlyat thein-stinctuallevelbutalso ata levelofunderstandingofwhatis hap-pening. She underscores theimportanceoftheCatholicnotion ofsacrament(expressed sowellinthefilmBabette'sFeast),thenewstudiesonJesus, somerevivals(withadifference)ofold"devo-tions," theemergenceofwomen'srituals (both fairlyorthodoxandnotsoorthodox),andtherevivedinterestinCelticChristianity,withits uncentralized ecclesial system andits ability toabsorbandtransformpre-Christianmyth and ritual. Luling Haughtonbelievesthat, werewetodrawonthesesources withintheCatholicmyth,suchaviewofaCatholicmodernity"seemsbothmoredifficultandmucheasier, morecentraltohumanity'sfutureandalsoalotmore fun."GeorgeMarsden, a Notre Damehistorian ofAmerican Protes-tantintellectual life, believesthat Taylor'slectureexemplifies whatChristianscholarsoughttobedoing: namely,reflecting onhowtheir faithprovidesimportant perspectives oncontemporaryissues.Butratherthanuse theRiccianapproachtomodernity,MarsdenproposesthatmoderncultureisChristianity'sprodigalchild.Modernityis notforeigntoChristians,as Ricci'sChinawas,be-causeaChristianlineagestandsbehindtheaccomplishmentsofmodernity. Modernityneeds to be called back homethrougha re-pentance, for itis not just non-Christianbut, insomerespects, alsoanti-Christian,"withallthebitternessthatabrokenfamilyrela-tionshipcanengender." Taylor'sanalysis wouldbedeepened, addsMarsden,ifhesaidsomethingaboutsinandrebellion,as wellasabout culturaldifferences.Marsdenalso encourages Taylornottoshy away fromthe par-ticularities ofChristian doctrineandasks, "LikeRicci dressing as aConfucianscholar,dowealways havetodressourviewsinthetermsalready acceptable tothecontemporaryacademy?" Marsdenpointstotheexampleof Alasdair MacIntyre, whoas a philosopherhasenjoyeda widehearing, eventhoughheexplicitlyadvocates aI NTRODUCTI ON 8Christianalternative. Marsdenadmires Taylor'sworkparticularlythislecturebutwantshimtoexerciselessself-censoringofhisreligiously informed positions. Heeven prods Taylor by asking himwhyhehas notdonemoreofthis explicitlyChristiantypeofre-flection and suggesting that the Marianist Award lecturecould sup-plytheconcludingchapter ofhisSources.Finally,Marsdenunderscorestheimportance,muchasSheadoes, ofparticipating in Christiancommunitiesofworshipand re-flectioninordertosupportandsustaindistinctivelyChristianscholarship. Peopleareconvertedfromoneparadigmtoanothernotfirstby arguments but, citing ThomasKuhn, by "observingthefruitfulproblem-solvingofanothercommunity."Inotherwords,themostprofoundargumentsare providedbyexampleindeed,by witness. Despite these many suggestions, Marsden applauds Tay-loras oneofthefewmajorChristianintellectualswhohascriti-cizedmoderncultureinthelightofhisChristiancommitment,evenifthatcommitmenthasremained,exceptforthislecture,implicit.Thefinalcommentary,offeredby JeanBethkeElshtainoftheUniversity ofChicago, focuseson Taylor's vision for a humancom-munitythat, inher judgment,happily avoids theextremesofho-mogeneityandincommensurability. She providesanextendedre-flectiononAugustine'sthoughtontheTrinity,bybuildingonTaylor'saffirmationthathumanbeingsare made intheimageandlikeness ofGod, who, for Christians, is trinitarian. So, Elshtainasks,assomanyreligiouspeoplehaveasked, whatdoes itmeantobemade inthe image and likeness ofa trinitarianGod? She findsthat"thinkingwithandthroughthe Trinitypermitsus tounderstandwhyitis that weareunabletoexpress ourselves transparently andtoget others torespondtous completely. Itenables us toseek thesaving graceofourfellowhumanbeingsthroughthe transforma-tiveandconstitutiveforceoflove,caritas". Trinitarianreflectionstrains language. God'sineffabilityremindsus thatwe "cannotpindownallofhumanreality."RecallingthatAugustineoncere-markedthatfellowshipwithone'sdogiseasierthanfellowshipwitha human being speaking a foreign language, Elshtain nonethe-lesscontinuestoaffirmthatbeingcreatedinGod'simageallowshumans whospeakdifferentlanguages and live indifferentculturalworldstorealizethattheyalsohavesomethingveryprofoundincommon.I NTRODUCTI ON9MuchofTaylor'sinterpretiveworkonthehistoryofphiloso-phy uses a methodof "retrieval," a sympathetic efforttounderstandcarefullywhathas beensaid, andthenadiscernment,inlightofcurrentconcerns, ofwhat remains ofvalue and ofwhatmighten-largeourunderstandingofourselvesandourculture. Taylor readsthesefourresponsestohisreflectionsonthepossibilityforaCatholicmodernityinasimilarway, ponderingwhattheyhaveobserved,freelyadmittingproblemsinhisownthinking,clarify-ing someofhis originalstatements, andtaking thediscussion evenfurther.Hedivideshisreplyintosevenparts.InresponsetoLulingHaughton'scriticismofhis choiceofthe wordtranscendence,heex-plainsthathewantedto "openouttherangeofpossibilities."Healso used the Riccian metaphorfora similar reason: to get a certaindistancefromthesubject, a distancethatallows a deeperhistoricalsenseandprovidesaclearerviewofmultipleinsights,noneofwhichneedsthentoassume "the crushingweightofbeingtherightanswer." Hegentlytouchesona "nuanceofdifference"be-tweenhimselfandLulingHaughtonconcerningjusthowheroicmostChristians can be expectedto be.InresponsetoElshtain'strinitarianreflections, Taylorproceedstoexplainthatmuchofmodernphilosophy,andcertainlyKant,has unfortunately turned "monological"; that is, ittakes "verylittleaccountofthefactthat humanbeingsare plural, andevenlessoftheirdifference." Here, touching onpoints raised both by MarsdenandShea, Taylorspeaksaboutfriendshipandcommunity.In gen-eral, Taylorfindsthatmuchofmodernthoughtisincapableofgrasping thosegoodsthatexistonlywhenpeoplecometogether.Theexclusive focusontheindividual greatly impoverishesourvi-sionfor authentic human flourishing. Perhaps themostradicalde-nialofhumancommunity, adds Taylor, can befound inthewrit-ings ofMichelFoucault, for whom freedom was mainlya negativeideathatmeantescaping thepowerofothersover you. Unfortu-nately,muchoftoday'smulticulturalismsharesinthisnegativeviewoffreedom and underestimates the possibilities ofmutualun-derstanding that respects realdifferences.InresponsetoSheaandMarsden, Tayloradmitsthatintoday'sacademytheChristianstudentandprofessormustbreatheinan"atmosphereofunbelief," a factabout which thereis neithersuffi-cientreflectionnorsurprise. Taylorconfessesthat hewas struck by10I NTRODUCTI ONthefactthatsomanyreviewersofSourceswereunabletograspwhathemeant by "moralsources." Hewas tryingtoget at a ques-tionthatmodernmoralphilosophers,especially utilitarians, con-stantly miss: "What should we love?" Instead, contemporary moral-istsfocusalmostexclusively onwhatshould bedone. Taylor arguesthat issues ofmoral motivationare just as important and even priortothose ofmoralrightness.But,onewantstoprotest,don'tyouseethatitalsomatterswhetherpeoplecanactuallybringthemselvestodotherightthing? Butthen your interlocutor looks at youblanklyandsays:ofcourse, butthat's notmoral philosophy; howpeople actuallyget motivated, that's inthedomain ofpsychology, orsociology,or whatever.In the light of such a disconnectionbetween what ought to be doneand how we can find the strength to do it,Taylor calls uponChristianscholars to "change the agenda, open it up." In fact, he believes that itis the most important thing Christianscholars should be about.Taylorconcludeshis conversationwithhis respondents by ask-ing whyanger, even righteous anger, is so dangerous for theChris-tianscholar. Theconversation amongtheseChristianthinkersex-poses thestruggle ofChristianintellectuals tograsptheirvocationin modernculture. Evenmorebroadly, thisconversation pinpointsthose aspects ofmodernculture that needto bechallenged ifafullsense ofhumanlifeis to be realized.I wish tothank firstCharles Taylor for his stimulating reflectionsonthepossibilitiesandchallengesinherentinCatholicism'srela-tionship withmodern Western culture. I also wish to thank WilliamShea,RosemaryLulingHaughton,GeorgeMarsdenandJeanBethkeElsthainfortheirequallystimulating responses to Taylor'slecture. CarolFarrell, myassistant, and RichardDrabik, mygradu-ateassistant, each contributedgenerouslytothe preparationofthetextandtheindex. Finally, I wishtothankmyownuniversity forits persistent effortsto understand theCatholicfaithin themidst ofthe promise and perils ofmodernity.Note1.Adam Begley,"The MenschofMontreal,"LinguaFranca(May/June1993): 39.I NTRODUCTI ON IIThis page intentionally left blank 1ACatholicModernity?CHA RLESTAYLOR(Thefollowinglecturewas givenattheUniversityofDaytononthe occasion ofthe presentation ofthe Marianist Award to CharlesTaylor,January 25,1996.)Iwanttosay first howdeeply honoredI am tohave beenchosenas this year's recipientoftheMarianist Award. I am verygratefultotheUniversityofDayton, notonlyfor theirrecognitionofmyworkbutalsoforthischance toraise withyoutodaysomeissuesthat have beenat thecenter ofmy concernfor decades. Theyhavebeen reflected in my philosophical work, butnotin thesame formasI raise them this afternoon, because ofthenature ofphilosophi-cal discourse (as I see it, anyway), whichhas totryto persuade hon-estthinkersofanyandallmetaphysicalortheologicalcommit-ments. I am very glad ofthechance toopenout with you some ofthequestions that surround thenotionofa Catholicmodernity.IMytitlecouldhave beenreversed; I couldhave called this talk "AModernCatholicism?" Butsuch is theforceofthis adjective mod-13eminourculturethatonemightimmediatelygetthesense thattheobjectofmysearchwasanew, better,higherCatholicism,meanttoreplaceall thoseoutmodedvarieties thatclutterupourpast. Buttosearch forthis wouldbetochase a chimera, a monsterthatcannotexist in thenature ofthings.Itcannotexistbecauseofwhat'Catholicism' means, atleasttome. So I'll startbysaying a wordaboutthat. "Goyeandteach allnations." Howto understandthis injunction? Theeasy way, theonein whichit has all toooftenbeentaken, has beentotake theglobalworldviewofus whoare Christiansand strive tomakeoverothernationsandculturestofit it. Butthisviolates oneofthebasicde-mandsofCatholicism.I wanttotaketheoriginalwordkatholouintworelatedsenses,comprisingbothuniversalityandwholeness;onemightsay universalitythroughwholeness.RedemptionhappensthroughIncarnation,theweavingofGod'slifeintohumanlives, butthesehumanlivesaredifferent,plural,irreducibletoeachother.Redemption-Incarnationbringsreconciliation,a kind ofoneness. This is theoneness ofdiversebe-ings whocometo see thattheycannotattain wholenessalone, thattheircomplementarityis essential, rather thanofbeingswhocometoacceptthattheyare ultimatelyidentical.Orperhapswemightputit: complementarityand identitywillbothbe partofour ulti-mateoneness.Ourgreathistoricaltemptationhas beentoforgetthecomplementarity,togostraightforthesameness,makingasmany peopleas possibleinto "good Catholics"andin the processfailingofcatholicity: failingofcatholicity, becausefailingwhole-ness; unityboughtat the price ofsuppressing somethingofthedi-versityinthehumanitythatGodcreated;unityofthepart mas-queradingas thewhole. It is universalitywithoutwholeness, and sonot trueCatholicism.Thisunity-across-difference,asagainstunity-through-identity,seemstheonlypossibilityforus, not justbecauseofthediversityamonghumans,startingwiththedifferencebetweenmenandwomenand ramifying outward. It's not justthatthehumanmater-ial, with whichGod'slifeis tobeinterwoven,imposesthis formulaas a kindofsecond-bestsolutiontosameness. Noris it just becauseanyunitybetweenhumansandGodwouldhavetobeoneacross(immense)difference.ButitseemsthatthelifeofGoditself,un-derstoodas trinitarian, is already a onenessofthis kind. Humandi-14ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?versityis partofthewayinwhichwearemadeintheimageofGod.So a Catholicprinciple, ifIcan putitinthis perhaps overrigidway, is no widening ofthefaith without an increasein thevarietyofdevotionsand spiritualities and liturgical formsand responses toIncarnation. Thisis ademandwhichweintheCatholicChurchhaveoftenfailedtorespect butwhichwehave also oftentriedtolive upto; I'mthinking, for instance, ofthegreat Jesuit missions inChinaand India at the beginningofthe modernera.Theadvantage forus modernsis that, livinginthewakeofsomany varied formsofChristian life, we have this vast field ofspiri-tualities already there before us withwhichtocompensate forourownnarrowness,toremind us ofall thatwe need tocomplementourownpartiality, onourroadtowholenesswhichis whyI'mcharyofthepossible resonance of"amodernCatholicism,"withthepotentialechoesoftriumphalismandself-sufficiencyresidingintheadjective(added tothose whichhave oftenenoughresidedin thenoun!).Thepointis notto bea "modernCatholic," ifby this we(per-hapssemiconsciouslyandsurreptitiously) begintosee ourselves astheultimate "compleatCatholics," summingupandgoingbeyondourless advantagedancestors1(a powerfulconnotationthathangsoverthewordmoderninmuchcontemporaryuse). Rather,thepointis, takingourmoderncivilizationfor anotherofthosegreatculturalformsthathavecomeandgoneinhumanhistory, toseewhat it means to be a Christianhere, tofindourauthentic voice intheeventual Catholicchorus, totrytodoforourtimeand placewhatMatteo Ricci was striving todo fourcenturies ago inChina.Irealizehowstrange, evenoutlandish, itseemstotakeMatteoRicci and thegreat Jesuit experimentinChinaas ourmodelhere.It seems impossibletotake this kind ofstance towardour time, fortwooppositereasons. First,wearetooclosetoit. Thisisstill, inmanyrespects, aChristiancivilization;atleast, itis a societywithmany churchgoers. Howcan we start fromtheoutsider's standpointthat was inevitably Ricci's?Butsecond, immediatelyafter we say this, we are remindedof allthosefacetsofmodernthoughtandculturethatstrivetodefineChristianfaithas theother,as whatneeds tobeovercomeand setfirmlyinthepast, ifEnlightenment,liberalism,humanismistoCHARLESTAYLOR15flourish. With this in mind, it's nothard tofeellike an outsider. Butjust for this reason, the Ricci project can seem totallyinappropriate.Hefacedanothercivilization, onebuilt largely in ignorance oftheJudeo-Christianrevelation, so the question could arise how to adaptthis lattertothese newaddressees. Buttosee modernityunder itsnon-Christianaspect is generally tosee it as anti-Christian, as delib-eratelyexcludingtheChristiankerygma. Andhowcan youadaptyour message to its negation?SotheRicciproject inrelationtoourowntimelooksstrangefortwoseeminglyincompatiblereasons. Ononehand, wefeelal-readyathomehere,inthiscivilizationwhichhasissuedfromChristendom,so whatdo weneedtostrive furtherto understand?Ontheotherhand, whatever is foreign toChristianity seems toin-volvearejectionofit,sohowcanweenvisageaccommodating?Putinotherterms, theRicciproject involvesthedifficulttaskofmakingnewdiscriminations: whatintheculture represents a validhumandifference,andwhatis incompatiblewithChristianfaith?Thecelebrateddebateaboutthe Chinese rites turnedon this issue.Butitseemsthat,formodernity,thingsarealreadyneatlysortedout: whateveris incontinuitywithourpast is legitimateChristianculture,andthenovel,secularist twisttothingsis simplyincom-patible. Nofurther inquiryseems necessary.NowIthinkthatthisdoublereaction,whichweareeasilytemptedtogoalong with, is quitewrong. TheviewI'd liketode-fend,ifIcanputitina nutshell, is thatinmodern,secularist cul-turetherearemingledtogetherbothauthenticdevelopmentsofthegospel, ofanincarnationalmodeoflife,andalso a closing offtoGodthat negates thegospel. Thenotion is that modernculture,inbreakingwiththestructuresandbeliefsofChristendom,alsocarriedcertainfacetsofChristianlifefurther thantheyeverweretaken orcould have beentaken within Christendom.In relationtotheearlierformsofChristianculture, wehavetofacethe hum-bling realization that the breakout was a necessary conditionofthedevelopment.Forinstance, modern liberal political culture is characterized byanaffirmationofuniversal human rightstolife, freedom, citizen-ship,self-realizationwhichareseenasradicallyunconditional;thatis, theyarenotdependentonsuchthingsas gender,culturalbelonging,civilizationaldevelopment,orreligiousallegiance,whichalways limitedtheminthepast. As longas wewereliving16ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?withintheterms ofChristendomthatis, ofa civilizationwherethestructures, institutions, andculturewereall supposed toreflecttheChristiannatureofthesociety(eveninthenondenomina-tionalforminwhichthiswasunderstoodintheearlyUnitedStates)we could never have attained this radical unconditionality.Itisdifficultfora "Christian" society, inthissense, toacceptfullequality ofrights for atheists, for people ofa quite alien religion,orforthose whoviolate whatseems tobetheChristianmoralcode(e.g., homosexuals).This is notbecause having Christian faithas such makes younar-row or intolerant, as many militant unbelievers say.We have our shareof bigots and zealots, to be sure, but we are far from alone inthis.Therecord of certain forms of militant atheism in this century is far fromreassuring.No,theimpossibilityIwasarguingfordoesn'tlieinChristianfaith itself but in the project ofChristendom: the attempttomarrythefaithwitha formofcultureanda modeofsociety.There is something noble in the attempt; indeed, it is inspired by thevery logicofIncarnation I mentioned previously, whereby it strivesto be interwovenmore and more in human life. But as a project to berealizedinhistory, itis ultimatelydoomedtofrustrationandeventhreatens to turn into its opposite.That'sbecause humansociety inhistoryinevitably involvesco-ercion(as politicalsociety, atleast, butalsoinotherways); itin-volvesthepressureofconformity;itinvolvesinescapablysomeconfiscationofthehighest ideals for narrowinterests, anda host ofotherimperfections. Therecan never bea totalfusionofthefaithandany particular society, andtheattempt toachieve itisdanger-ous forthefaith. Somethingofthis kindhas been recognizedfromthebeginningofChristianityinthedistinctionbetweenchurchandstate. ThevariousconstructionsofChristendomsincethencouldbeseenunkindlyasattemptspost-ConstantinetobringChristianitycloser toother, prevalent formsofreligion, wherethesacred was boundup withand supportedthepoliticalorder. A lotmorecan besaid for the project ofChristendomthan this unfavor-able judgmentallows. Nevertheless, this project at its best sails veryclose tothe wind and is inconstant danger ofturningintoa paro-dic denial ofitself.Thus,tosaythatthefullnessofrightsculturecouldn'thavecomeabout underChristendomis notto pointtoa special weak-nessofChristianfaith.Indeed,theattempttoputsomesecularCHARLESTAYLOR1 7philosophyintheplaceofthefaithJacobinism,Marxismhasscarcelyledtobetterresults(insomecases, spectacularly worse).ThisculturehasflourishedwherethecasingofChristendomhasbeenbrokenopenand where noothersingle philosophyhas takenits place, butthepublicsphere has remainedthelocusofcompet-ing ultimate visions.I also make no assumption that modernrights culture is perfectlyall rightas itis. Onthecontrary, ithas lots ofproblems. I hopetocome to some ofthese later. But for all its drawbacks, it has producedsomethingquiteremarkable:theattempttocall political powertobookagainst a yardstick offundamental humanrequirements,uni-versally applied. As the present pope has amply testified, it is impossi-ble for the Christianconscience notto be moved by this.ThisexampleillustratesthethesisI'mtryingtoarguehere.Somewherealongthelineofthelast centuries, theChristianfaithwasattackedfromwithinChristendomanddethroned.Insomecases, itwasgraduallydethronedwithoutbeingfrontallyattacked(largelyinProtestantcountries); butthisdisplacementalsooftenmeant sidelining, renderingthefaithirrelevant to great segments ofmodernlife. Inothercases, theconfrontationwas bitter, evenvio-lent;thedethroningfollowedlongandvigorousattack(e.g.,inFrance, inSpain, thatis, largelyinCatholiccountries). Inneithercase is thedevelopmentparticularly comfortingforChristianfaith.Yet,wehavetoagreethatitwasthisprocessthatmadepossiblewhat we nowrecognizeas a great advance inthe practicalpenetra-tionofthe gospel in humanlife.Wheredoesthis leaveus? Well, it'sa humblingexperience,butalso a liberating one. Thehumblingside is that we are remindedbyourmoreaggressive secularist colleagues: "It'sluckythattheshowis nolongerbeing runby youcard-carryingChristians, or we'dbeback with the Inquisition."The liberating side comes when werec-ognizethe truthin this (howeverexaggerated the formulation)anddrawtheappropriateconclusions. Thiskindoffreedom, somuchthe fruit ofthegospel, we have onlywhennobody(that is, nopar-ticular outlook) is runningtheshow. So a voteofthanks to Voltaireandothersfor(notnecessarily wittingly)showingusthisandforallowingus tolive thegospelin a purer way, free ofthatcontinualandoftenbloodyforcingofconsciencewhichwasthesinandblightofallthose"Christian"centuries. Thegospelwas alwaysmeanttostandout,unencumberedbyarms. Wehavenowbeen18ACATHOLICMODERNI TY?abletoreturna littleclosertothisidealwitha littlehelpfromourenemies.Doesacknowledgingourdebtmeanthat wehave tofall silent?Notat all. Thisfreedom,whichis prized by so many differentpeo-ple fordifferentreasons, also has its Christianmeaning. Itis, forin-stance, thefreedomtocometoGodonone'sownor,otherwiseput,movedonlybytheHolySpirit,whosebarelyaudiblevoicewilloftenbeheardbetterwhentheloudspeakersofarmedau-thorityare silent.Thatis true, butitmay wellbethat Christianswillfeelreticentaboutarticulating thismeaning, lest theybeseenas tryingtotakeover again by giving the(authoritative) meaning. Herethey may bedoinga disservice tothisfreedom,andthis fora reason they are farfrom alone inseeingbutwhichtheyare oftenmorelikelytodis-cern than their secularist compatriots.Theveryfactthatfreedomhas beenwellserved bya situationinwhichnoviewis inchargethatithasthereforegainedfromtherelative weakeningofChristianityand from theabsence of anyotherstrong, transcendental outlookcanbeseentoaccredit theviewthat humanlifeis betteroff withouttranscendental visional-together. Thedevelopmentofmodernfreedomis thenidentifiedwith therise ofanexclusive humanismthatis, onebasedexclu-sively on a notion ofhuman flourishing, whichrecognizes no validaim beyondthis. Thestrongsense that continually arises that thereis something more, that humanlifeaims beyond itself, is stamped asanillusionandjudgedtobeadangerousillusionbecausethepeacefulcoexistenceofpeoplein freedom has already beenidenti-fiedas thefruitofwaningtranscendental visions.To a Christian, this outlookseems stifling. Dowe really havetopaythispriceakindofspirituallobotomytoenjoymodernfreedom? Well, noonecan denythat religiongenerates dangerouspassions, butthatis farfrombeingthewholestory. Exclusivehu-manismalsocarriesgreatdangers,whichremainveryunderex-ploredin modernthought.IIIwanttolookatsomeofthesedangershere.Indoingso, Iwillbeofferingmy owninterpretationofmodernlifeand sensibilities.CHARLESTAYLOR19Allthis is verymuchopentocontestation,butweurgentlyneednewperspectivesinthisdomainasitwere,Riccireadingsofmodernity.Thefirstdangerthatthreatensanexclusivehumanism,whichwipesoutthetranscendent beyondlife,is that itprovokes as reac-tion an immanent negation oflife. Let me try to explainthis a littlebetter.I have beenspeaking ofthetranscendent as being "beyondlife."Indoingthis, Iamtryingtogetatsomethingthatis essentialnotonlyinChristianitybutalsoina numberofotherfaithsforin-stance, in Buddhism. A fundamental idea enters these faithsinverydifferentforms, an idea onemighttry tograsp in theclaim thatlifeisn'tthe wholestory.Oneway totake this expression is that it means somethinglike:lifegoesonafterdeath, thereis a continuation, ourlives don'tto-tallyendinourdeaths. Idon'tmeantodenywhatis affirmedonthis reading, butI wanttotake theexpression hereinasomewhatdifferent(though undoubtedlyrelated) sense.WhatImeanis somethingmorelike: thepointofthingsisn'texhausted by life, thefullnessoflife, eventhegoodness oflife. Thisis notmeanttobe justa repudiationofegoism,theideathatthefullnessofmylife(and perhaps thoseofpeopleI love)shouldbemy onlyconcern. Let us agree with John Stuart Millthat a fulllifemust involve striving for the benefit ofhumankind. Thenacknowl-edgingthetranscendent means seeing a pointbeyondthat.Oneform ofthis is theinsight that we can findinsufferinganddeathnotmerelynegation,theundoingoffullnessandlife,butalsoa place toaffirmsomethingthat matters beyondlife, onwhichlifeitselforiginallydraws. Thelastclauseseemstobring us backintothefocusonlife. It may be readily understandable, evenwithinthe purviewofan exclusive humanism, howonecouldaccept suf-feringanddeath inordertogivelifetoothers. Ona certain view,that, too,has beenpartofthefullnessoflife. Acknowledgingthetranscendentinvolvessomethingmore. Whatmattersbeyondlifedoesn't matter just becauseit sustains life; otherwise,it wouldn't be"beyondlife" in themeaning oftheact. (For Christians, Godwillshuman flourishing, but"thywillbedone"doesn'treduceto"lethuman beings flourish.")Thisis theway ofputting itthat goes mostagainst thegrain ofcontemporary Westerncivilization. Thereare otherways offram-20ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?ing it. Onethat goes back to the very beginningofChristianity is aredefinitionofthetermlifetoincorporatewhatI'mcalling"be-yondlife":forinstance, theNew Testamentevocations of"eternallife" and John10:10, "abundantlife."Orwe could put it a third way: acknowledgingthe transcendentmeansbeingcalledtoa changeofidentity. Buddhismgives us anobviousreasontotalkthisway. Thechangehereis quiteradical,from selfto "noself"(anatta). ButChristianfaithcan be seen inthesameterms: as callingfora radical decenteringoftheself, inrela-tionwithGod.("Thywillbedone.")InthelanguageofAbbeHenriBremondinhis magnificentstudyofFrenchseventeenth-century spiritualities,2 wecan speak of "theocentrism."Thisway ofputtingitbringsoutasimilarpointtomyfirstway, inthatmostconceptionsofaflourishinglifeassumeastableidentity,theselfforwhom flourishing can be defined.Soacknowledgingthetranscendentmeansaimingbeyondlifeoropeningyourselftoachangeinidentity. Butifyoudothis,wheredo you stand in regard to human flourishing? There is muchdivision,confusion, anduncertaintyaboutthis.Historicreligionshave, infact, combinedconcernforflourishingand transcendencein theirnormal practice. It has even beentherule that thesupremeachievementsofthose whowentbeyondlifehave served tonour-ish thefullnessoflifeofthose whoremainonthis side ofthebar-rier. Thus, prayers at thetombsofmartyrs brought longlife, health,anda wholehostofgoodthingsfortheChristianfaithful;some-thing ofthesame is truefor thetombsofcertain saints inMuslimlands, andin TheravadaBuddhism,forexample,thededicationofmonksis turned, throughblessings, amulets, andthelike, toall theordinary purposes offlourishingamongthe laity.Overagainstthis, therehaverecurrentlybeenreformersinallreligions whohave considered this symbiotic, complementary rela-tionbetweenrenunciationandflourishingtobeatravesty. Theyinsistonreturningreligiontoits purity, andpositthegoals ofre-nunciationontheirownas goalsforeveryone,disintricatedfromthepursuitofflourishing.Someare evenmovedtodenigratethelatter pursuit altogether,todeclare it unimportantor an obstacle tosanctity.Butthisextremestancerunsathwartaverycentralthrustinsomereligions.ChristianityandBuddhismwillbemyexampleshere. Renouncingaimingbeyondlifenotonlytakes youawayCHARLESTAYLOR 21butalsobringsyoubacktoflourishing.InChristianterms, ifre-nunciationdecentersyouinrelationwithGod,God'swillis thathumansflourish,andsoyouaretakenbacktoanafHrmationofthisflourishing, which is biblically called agape. In Buddhistterms,Enlightenmentdoesn'tjustturnyoufromtheworld; italsoopenstheflood-gatesofmetta (loving kindness) andkaruna (compassion).There is the TheravadaconceptofthePaccekabuddha, concernedonlyforhisownsalvation,butheisrankedbelowthehighestBuddha, whoacts for theliberationofall beings.Thus, outside the stance that accepts the complementarysymbio-sis of renunciationand flourishing, and beyond thestance of purity,there is a third, whichI could call the stance ofagape/karuna.Enough has been said to bring out the conflictbetweenmodernculture andthetranscendent. Infact, a powerfulconstitutive strandofmodern Western spirituality is involvedin an affirmationoflife.It is perhaps evidentinthecontemporaryconcerntopreservelife,tobringprosperity, andtoreducesufferingworldwide,whichis, Ibelieve, withoutprecedent inhistory.Thisarises historically outofwhatI have called elsewhere3"theaffirmationofordinarylife." WhatI was tryingtogestureatwiththistermistheculturalrevolutionoftheearlymodernperiod,whichdethronedthe supposedly higher activities ofcontemplationand the citizenlifeand putthe center ofgravity ofgoodness inor-dinary living, production, and thefamily. It belongstothis spiritualoutlookthatourfirstconcernoughttobetoincreaselife, relievesuffering,andfosterprosperity. Concernaboveallforthe"goodlife" smackedofpride,ofself-absorption. Beyondthat, itwasin-herendyinegalitarianbecausethealleged "higher" activitiescouldbecarriedoutonlybyaneliteminority, whereasrightlyleadingone's ordinarylifewas opentoeveryone. This is a moraltempertowhich itseems obviousthatourmajorconcernmust beourdeal-ings withothers, injustice, and benevolenceandthat these dealingsmust beona level of equality.Thisaffirmation,whichconstitutes a majorcomponentofourmodernethical outlook, was originally inspired by a mode of Chris-tianpiety. Itexaltedpractical agapeandwas polemicallydirectedagainst the pride, elitism, and, one mightsay, self-absorption ofthosewho believed in "higher" activities or spiritualities.Considerthe Reformers'attack on the supposedly highervoca-tions ofthemonastic life. Thesevocations were meantto markout22ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?elitepaths ofsuperiordedication butwere, infact, deviations intoprideandself-delusion. ThereallyholylifefortheChristianwaswithinordinarylifeitself, living in work and householdin a Chris-tian and worshipfulmanner.Therewas anearthlyonemightsay earthycritiqueoftheallegedlyhigherhere,whichwasthentransposedandusedas asecularcritiqueofChristianityand,indeed,religioningeneral.SomethingofthesamerhetoricalstanceadoptedbyReformersagainstmonksandnunsis takenupbysecularistsandunbelieversagainstChristianfaithitself. Thisallegedlyscorns thereal, sensual,earthlyhumangoodforsomepurelyimaginaryhigherend,thepursuit ofwhichcan lead onlytothe frustration ofthe real, earthlygoodandtosuffering,mortification,repression,andsoon.Themotivations ofthose whoespouse this higher path are thus, indeed,suspect. Pride, elitism, andthedesire todominateplay a part in thisstory, too,alongwithfearandtimidity(also presentintheearlierReformers'story, butless prominent).In this critique, ofcourse, religionis identifiedwiththesecond,puriststance orelse witha combinationofthis andthefirst"sym-biotic" (usually labeled superstitious) stance. Thethird, thestance ofagape/karuna,becomesinvisible.Thatisbecauseatransformedvariant ofit has, infact, beenassumed by thesecularist critic.Nowone mustn'texaggerate.Thisoutlookon religion is far fromuniversal in our society. Onemightthink that this is particularly truein the UnitedStates, withthe highrates here ofreligious beliefandpractice.Yet, I wanttoclaim thatthis wholeway ofunderstandingthings has penetrated far moredeeplyand widelythan simply card-carrying, villageatheiststylesecularists, that italsoshapes theout-look ofmany people whosee themselves as believers.WhatdoImeanby"thiswayofunderstanding"? Well,itis aclimateofthought,ahorizonofassumptions, morethanadoc-trine. Thatmeans that therewillbesomedistortioninmy attempttolay itoutina set ofpropositions. ButI'mgoingtodothatany-way because there is nootherway ofcharacterizing it thatI know.Spelledoutinpropositions, itwouldreadsomethinglikethis:(I)thatforuslife,flourishing,anddrivingbackthefrontiersofdeathandsufferingare ofsupreme value; (2) that this wasn't alwaysso; it wasn't so forourancestors, orfor peopleinotherearlier civi-lizations; (3) that oneofthethings that stoppeditfrom beingso inthepast was precisely a sense, inculcated by religion, that therewereCHARLESTAYLOR23highergoals; and(4) thatwehavearrivedat(I)byacritiqueandovercomingof(this kindof)religion.We live in somethinganalogous toa post-revolutionaryclimate.Revolutions generatethesense that theyhave wona greatvictoryandidentifytheadversary intheprevious regime. A post-revolu-tionaryclimateisextremelysensitivetoanythingthatsmacksoftheancienregimeandseesbackslidingeveninrelativelyinnocentconcessionstogeneralizedhumanpreferences. Thus,Puritans sawthereturnofpoperyinanyrituals, andBolshevikscompulsivelyaddressedpeopleas Comrade,proscribingtheordinaryappellation"Mister" and "Miss."Iwouldarguethata milderbutverypervasive versionofthiskindofclimateis widespreadinourculture. Tospeak ofaimingbeyondlifeis toappear tounderminethesupremeconcernwithlifeofourhumanitarian, "civilized" world. It is to try to reverse therevolution and bring back the bad old orderofpriorities, inwhichlifeand happiness could besacrificedonthealtars ofrenunciation.Hence,evenbelieversareofteninducedtoredefinetheirfaithinsucha way as nottochallengetheprimacyoflife.Myclaimis thatthisclimate, oftenunaccompaniedbyanyfor-mulatedawareness oftheunderlying reasons, pervades ourculture.Itemerges,forinstance,inthewidespreadinabilitytogiveanyhumanmeaningtosufferinganddeath,otherthanas dangersandenemiestobeavoidedorcombated. Thisinabilityis notjustthefailingofcertain individuals; it is entrenchedin many ofourinsti-tutions and practicesfor instance, the practice ofmedicine,whichhasgreattroubleunderstandingitsownlimitsorconceivingofsome natural termto human life.4Whatgets lost, as always, in this post-revolutionaryclimate is thecrucialnuance. Challengingtheprimacycanmeantwothings.Itcan meantryingtodisplace thesaving oflifeand theavoidance ofsufferingfromtheirrankas centralconcernsofpolicy,oritcanmean making the claim, or at least opening the way for the insight,that more than lifematters.Thesetwo are evidentlynotthe same. Itisnoteventrue,as peoplemightplausiblybelieve,thattheyarecausally linkedin the sense that makingthe secondchallenge "soft-ensusup"andmakesthefirstchallengeeasier. Indeed,Iwanttoclaim(anddidintheconcludingchapterofSources)thatthere-verseis thecase: thatclingingtotheprimacyoflifeinthesecond24ACATHOLICMODERNI TY?(let's call this the "metaphysical")sense is making it harder forus toaffirmit wholeheartedlyin thefirst(or practical) sense.ButI don'twanttopursuethisclaimrightnow. Ireturntoitlater.Thethesis I'mpresenting here is that it is by virtue ofits post-revolutionaryclimatethat Westernmodernityis veryinhospitabletothetranscendent. This,ofcourse, runs contrarytothemainlineEnlightenmentstory, accordingtowhichreligionhas becomelesscredible,thankstotheadvanceofscience. Thereis,ofcourse,somethinginthis, butit isn't, in my view, themainstory. More,totheextent thatitis truethatis, that peopleinterpretscience andreligionas beingatloggerheadsitis oftenbecause ofanalreadyfeltincompatibilityatthemorallevel. Itis thisdeeperlevelthatIhave beentrying toexplorehere.Inotherwords, tooversimplify again, in Western modernitytheobstaclestobeliefareprimarilymoralandspiritual,ratherthanepistemic.Iamtalkingaboutthedrivingforcehere,ratherthanwhatis said in arguments in justificationofunbelief.IllButI amindangerofwanderingfromthemainlineofmyargu-ment. I have beenpainting a portraitofourage in orderto be abletosuggest thatexclusivehumanismhas provoked,as itwere,are-volt fromwithin. Before I do this, let us pause tonotice howinthesecularistaffirmationofordinarylife, justas withthepositingofuniversalandunconditionalrights, anundeniableprolongationofthegospelhas beenperplexinglylinkedwitha denialoftranscen-dence.We live inanextraordinarymoralculture, measured againstthenormofhumanhistory,inwhichsufferinganddeath,throughfamine,flood,earthquake, pestilence,orwar,canawakenworld-widemovementsofsympathy andpracticalsolidarity. Granted,ofcourse, this is made possible by modernmedia and modesoftrans-portation, notto mentionsurpluses. Theseshouldn'tblind us to theimportanceofthecultural-moralchange. Thesamemediaandmeans oftransport don'tawakenthesame response everywhere;itis disproportionatelystrong inex-LatinChristendom.LetusgrantalsothedistortionsproducedbymediahypeandCHARLESTAYLOR25themediagazersshortattentionspan, thewaydramatic picturesproducethestrongest response, oftenrelegatingevenneediercasestoa zoneofneglectfromwhichonlythecameras ofCNNcanrescue them. Nevertheless, thephenomenonis remarkable and, fortheChristianconscience,inspiring.TheageofHiroshimaandAuschwitz has also produced Amnesty International and Medecinssans Frontieres.TheChristian rootsofall this rundeep. Therewas theextraor-dinarymissionaryeffortoftheCounterReformationchurch,takenuplaterbytheProtestantdenominations. Thentherewerethemass-mobilizationcampaigns oftheearly nineteenthcentury:theantislavery movementinEngland,largelyinspiredandledbyevangelicals; theparallel abolitionist movementin this country, alsolargely Christianinspired. Then this habit ofmobilizing for there-dressofinjusticeandthereliefofsufferingworldwidebecomespartofourpoliticalculture. Somewherealongtheroad, thiscul-tureceasestobesimplyChristian-inspiredalthoughpeopleofdeepChristianfaithcontinuetobeimportantintoday's move-ments. Moreover, itneededthis breach withthecultureofChris-tendom,as Iarguedbeforeinconnectionwithhumanrights, fortheimpulse ofsolidarity totranscend thefrontierofChristendomitself.Soweseea phenomenon,ofwhichtheChristianconsciencecannotbutsay "fleshofmyflesh,andboneofmybone"andwhichis paradoxicallyoftenseenbysomeofitsmostdedicatedcarriersas conditionalonadenialofthetranscendent. Wereturnagaintothepointourargumentwas atsometimeago, inwhichtheChristianconscienceexperiencesamixtureofhumilityandunease: thehumilityinrealizing that thebreak withChristendomwasnecessary forthisgreatextensionofgospel-inspiredactions;theunease in thesense that thedenialoftranscendence places thisaction under threat.This brings us back to the main line ofthe argument. Onesuchthreatis whatIamcalling theimmanentrevolt.Ofcourse, this isnotsomethingthatcanbedemonstratedbeyonddoubttothosewhodon't see it, yet, fromanotherperspective, it is just terriblyob-vious. I am going tooffera perspectival reading, and intheendwehavetoask ourselves whichperspectivemakesthemostsenseofhumanlife.Exclusive humanism closes thetranscendent window,as though26ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?therewerenothingbeyondmore,as thoughitweren'tacryingneedofthehumanheart toopenthat window,gaze, and thengobeyond; as thoughfeeling this need weretheresult ofa mistake, anerroneousworld-view, badconditioning,or, worse, somepathology.Two radicallydifferentperspectives onthehumancondition:whois right?Well, whocan make moresense ofthelifeall ofus are living? Ifweare right,thenhumanbeingshavean ineradicablebenttore-spond to somethingbeyondlife. Denying this stifles. Butthen, evenforthose whoaccept themetaphysical primacy oflife, this outlookwill itselfseem imprisoning.Nowthere is a featureofmodernculture thatfitsthisperspec-tive. Thisis therevoltfromwithinunbelief, as itwere,againsttheprimacyoflifenotnowinthenameofsomethingbeyondbutreallymorejustfromasenseofbeingconfined,diminishedbytheacknowledgmentofthisprimacy. Thishas beenanimportantstreaminourculture,somethingwovenintotheinspirationofpoetsand writersforexample, Baudelaire (but was heentirely anunbeliever?)and Mallarme.Themostinfluential proponentofthiskindofview is undoubtedlyNietzsche, andit is significant thatthemostimportantantihumanistthinkersofourtimeforexample,Foucault,Derrida,behindthem,BataillealldrawheavilyonNietzsche.Nietzsche,ofcourse,rebelledagainst theideathatourhighestgoalis topreserveandincrease life, topreventsuffering.He rejectsthisbothmetaphysically andpractically. Herejects theegalitarian-ism underlyingthis wholeaffirmationofordinarylife. Buthisre-bellionis, ina sense, also internal. Lifeitselfcan push tocruelty, todomination,toexclusion, and, indeed,doessoinitsmomentsofmostexuberantaffirmation.So this moveremains within themodernaffirmationoflife, in asense. There is nothinghigherthan themovementoflifeitself (theWilltoPower). Butitchafesatthebenevolence, theuniversalism,theharmony,theorder.Itwantstorehabilitatedestructionandchaos, theinfliction ofsufferingandexploitation, as part ofthelifetobeaffirmed.Lifeproperly understoodalso affirmsdeathandde-struction. To pretend otherwiseis totry to restrict it, tame it, hemitin, deprive it ofits highest manifestations, whichare precisely whatmakes it somethingyoucan say yes to.A religionoflifethat wouldproscribe deathdealing, theinflic-CHARLESTAYLOR27tionofsuffering,is confining anddemeaning. Nietzsche thinks ofhimselfas having taken up some ofthelegacy ofpre-Platonicandpre-Christianwarriorethics and their exaltation ofcourage, great-ness,eliteexcellence.Modernlife-affirminghumanismbreedspusillanimity. Thisaccusation frequentlyoccursinthecultureofcounter Enlightenment.Ofcourse, one of the fruitsof this counterculture was FascismtowhichNietzsche'sinfluencewas notentirelyforeign, howevertrueand valid is Walter Kaufman'srefutation ofthesimple myth ofNietzsche as a proto-Nazi. Butin spite ofthis, thefascinationwithdeathandviolencerecurs, forexample, intheinterestin Bataille,sharedbyDerridaandFoucault. James Miller'sbookon Foucaultshows thedepths ofthis rebellionagainst "humanism"as astifling,confining space one has to break outof.5Mypointhereis nottoscoreoffneo-Nietzscheanismas somekind ofantechamber to Fascism. A secular humanist might want todothis, butmyperspectiveis ratherdifferent.Iseethese connec-tions as anothermanifestation ofour(human) inabilitytobecon-tent simply withan affirmationoflife.TheNietzscheanunderstandingofenhancedlife,whichcanfullyaffirmitself, also ina sense takes us beyond life, andinthis it isanalogouswithother,religiousnotionsofenhancedlife(liketheNew Testament's "eternallife"). Butittakes us beyond byincorpo-rating a fascination withthenegation oflife, withdeath andsuffer-ing. It doesn'tacknowledgesome supreme good beyond lifeand, inthat sense, sees itselfrightly as utterly antithetical to religion.Iam tempted to speculate furtherand suggest that theperennialhuman susceptibility to be fascinated by death and violence is at baseamanifestation ofournature ashomoreligiosus.Fromthepointofview ofsomeone whoacknowledges transcendence, it is one oftheplaces this aspirationbeyond most easily goes when it fails to take usthere. This doesn't mean that religionand violence are simply alter-natives.To the contrary, it has meant that most historical religion hasbeen deeply intricated with violence, from human sacrifice tointer-communal massacres. Most historical religionremains only very im-perfectlyorientedtothe beyond. Thereligiousaffinitiesofthe cultof violence in its differentforms are indeed palpable.What it might mean, however, is that the only way to escapefullythedraw towardviolencelies somewhereintheturntotranscen-dencethatis, throughthe full-hearted love ofsome good beyond28ACATHOLICMODERNI TY?life. A thesis ofthis kindhas beenputforward by Rene Girard, forwhose workI have a great deal ofsympathy, although I don't agreeon the centrality he gives to the scapegoat phenomenon.6OntheperspectiveI'mdevelopinghere,nopositioncanbesetasideas simplydevoidofinsight. Wecouldthinkofmoderncultureasthesceneofathree-cornered,perhapsultimatelyafour-cornered,battle. Therearesecularhumanists, thereareneo-Nietzscheans, and there are those whoacknowledgesome goodbe-yondlife. Any pair can gang up against the third on some importantissue. Neo-Nietzscheansandsecular humanists togethercondemnreligionand reject any goodbeyond life. Butneo-Nietzscheansandacknowledgersoftranscendencearetogetherintheirabsenceofsurprise at the continueddisappointments of secular humanism, andtogether also in the sense that its vision oflife lacks a dimension. In athirdlineup, secularhumanists andbelievers cometogetherinde-fendinganideaofthehumangoodagainsttheantihumanismofNietzsche's heirs.A fourth party can be introducedtothis field if we take accountofthefactthattheacknowledgersoftranscendence aredivided.Somethinkthatthewholemovetosecular humanismwas just amistake, whichneeds to be undone. We needto return to an earlierviewofthings. Others, among whichI place myself, thinkthatthepracticalprimacyoflifehas beena greatgainforhumankindandthatthere is sometruthinthe "revolutionary" story: this gain was,infact,unlikelytocomeaboutwithoutsomebreachwithestab-lished religion. (We might even be temptedto say that modernun-beliefis providential, butthatmightbetooprovocativeawayofputtingit.)Butweneverthelessthinkthatthemetaphysicalpri-macy oflifeis wrong and stiflingand that its continueddominanceputs in danger the practical primacy.Ihaverathercomplicatedthesceneinthelastparagraphs.Nevertheless, thesimplelinessketchedearlierstill stand out, Ibe-lieve.Bothsecularhumanistsandantihumanistsconcurintherevolutionarystory; thatis, theyseeusashavingbeenliberatedfromtheillusionofa goodbeyondlifeandthus enabledtoaffirmourselves. ThismaytaketheformofanEnlightenmentendorse-mentofbenevolenceand justice, oritmay bethecharterforthefullaffirmationofthewilltopoweror"thefreeplayofthesignifier,"theaesthetics oftheself,orwhateverthecurrentver-sionis. Butitremains withinthesame post-revolutionaryclimate.CHARLESTAYLOR29Forthosefullywithinthisclimate, transcendencebecomesall butinvisible.IVTheprevious pictureofmodernculture, seen fromoneperspec-tive, suggests a way in whichthe denialoftranscendence can putindangerthemost valuable gains ofmodernity,heretheprimacyofrightsandtheaffirmationoflife. Thisis, Irepeat, oneperspectiveamong others; the issue is whetherit makes moresense ofwhat hasbeenhappeningoverthelasttwocenturiesthan thatofanexclu-sive, secular humanism.It seems very muchto methat it does so.Inowwanttotakeupthisdangerfromanotherangle. Ispokebeforeaboutanimmanentrevoltagainsttheaffirmationoflife.Nietzschehas becomeanimportantfigureinthearticulationofthis, a counterbelieftothemodernphilanthropythatstrives toin-creaselifeandrelievesuffering.ButNietzschealsoarticulatedsomethingequallydisquieting:anacidaccountofthesourcesofthismodernphilanthropy,ofthemainspringsofthiscompassionandsympathythatpowerstheimpressiveenterprisesofmodernsolidarity.Nietzsche's"genealogy" ofmodernuniversalism,ofthecon-cernforthereliefofsuffering,of"pity,"willprobablynotcon-vinceanypeoplewhohavethehighestexamplesofChristianagapeorBuddhistkarunabeforetheireyes. Butthequestionre-mainsverymuchopenastowhetherthisunflatteringportraitdoesn'tcapture thepossible fateofa culturethat has aimedhigherthanits moralsources can sustain.ThisistheissueIraisedverybrieflyinthelastchapterofSources. Themoreimpressed oneis with this colossal extensionofagospel ethic to a universal solidarity, to a concernfor humanbeingson theothersideoftheglobewhom we shall nevermeetorneedas companionsorcompatriotsor,because that is nottheultimatedifficultchallenge,themoreimpressedweare atthesense ofjus-ticewecan stillfeelforpeoplewedohave contact withandtendtodislikeordespise, orat a willingnesstohelppeoplewhooftenseemtobethecause oftheirownsufferingthemorewecon-templateall this, the more surprise we can feelat people whogen-erate the motivationto engage in these enterprises ofsolidarity, in-3OACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?ternationalphilanthropy,orthemodernwelfarestateor, tobringoutthenegative side, theless surprised we are whenthemotivationtokeep these peoplegoing flags, as we see inthe presenthardeningoffeelingagainsttheimpoverishedanddisfavoredinWesterndemocracies.Wecouldputthematterthisway: ouragemakeshigherde-mandsforsolidarityandbenevolenceonpeopletodaythaneverbefore.Neverbefore have peoplebeenasked tostretchoutso far,soconsistently, sosystematically, soasamatterofcourse,tothestrangeroutsidethegates. A similar pointcan bemade, ifwelookattheotherdimensionoftheaffirmationofordinarylife,thatconcernedwithuniversal justice. Here,too, weare asked tomain-tainstandardsofequalitythatcoverwiderandwiderclassesofpeople, bridgemoreandmorekindsofdifference, impingemoreand morein our lives. Howdo we manage todo it?Perhapswedon'tmanageall thatwell,andtheinterestingandimportantquestionmightrun: howcould we manage to do it? Butat least to get close to theanswer tothis, we shouldask: howdo wedoas wellas wedo, which, afterall, atfirstsight seems inthesedo-mainsofsolidarityand justice muchbetter thanin previous ages?I.Performance tothese standards has becomepart ofwhatweunderstandas a decent, civilizedhumanlife. We live uptothemtotheextentthat we do because wewouldbesomewhatashamed ofourselvesifwedidn't. Theyhavebecomepartofourself-image,oursense ofourownworth. Alongside this, wefeela sense ofsat-isfactionand superioritywhenwe contemplate othersourances-torsorcontemporaryilliberal societieswhodidn'tordon'trec-ognizethem.Butwesense immediatelyhowfragilethisis as a motivation.Itmakes ourphilanthropyvulnerable totheshiftingfashion ofmediaattentionand the various modesoffeel-goodhype. We throwour-selves intothecause ofthemonth, raise fundsforthis famine, peti-tionthegovernmenttointerveneinthat grislycivil war, andthenforgetall about it nextmonth,whenitdropsofftheCNNscreen.A solidarity ultimately driven by thegiver's ownsense ofmoralsu-periorityisawhimsicalandficklething. Wearefar, infact,fromtheuniversalityandunconditionalitywhichourmoraloutlookprescribes.We mightenvisage getting beyondthis by a moreexigentsenseofour own moral worth, onethat wouldrequiremore consistency,CHARLESTAYLOR31acertain independencefromfashion,andcareful,informedatten-tion tothe real needs. Thisis part ofwhat peopleworkinginnon-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)inthefieldmustfeel,whocorrespondinglylookdownonus TV-image-drivengivers, as wedo on the lesser breeds whodon't respond to this type ofcampaignat all.2.Butthemostexigent,loftysenseofself-worthhaslimita-tions. I feelworthyinhelpingpeople, ingiving withoutstint. Butwhatis worthyabout helping people? It's obvious; as humans, theyhaveacertain dignity. Myfeelings ofself-worthconnectintellec-tuallyand emotionallywithmy sense oftheworthofhumanbe-ings. Hereis wheremodernsecular humanismis temptedtocon-gratulateitself.Inreplacingthelowanddemeaningpictureofhuman beings as depraved, inveterate sinners and in articulating thepotentialofhumanbeingsforgoodnessandgreatness, humanismnotonlyhas givenusthecouragetoactforreformbutalsoex-plainswhythisphilanthropicactionis soimmenselyworthwhile.Thehigher the human potential, the greater the enterpriseof real-izingitandthemorethecarriersofthispotentialare worthyofourhelp in achieving it.However,philanthropyandsolidaritydrivenbya loftyhuman-ism, just as that whichwas drivenoftenby highreligious ideals, hasa Janus face. Ononeside, in theabstract, oneis inspiredto act.Ontheother,facedwiththeimmensedisappointmentsofactualhuman performance and withthemyriad ways in whichreal, con-cretehumanbeingsfallshortof,ignore,parody, andbetraythismagnificentpotential,oneexperiencesagrowingsenseofangerandfutility. Arethesepeoplereally worthyobjectsofall theseef-forts?Perhaps inthefaceofall thisstupidrecalcitrance, itwouldnotbea betrayal ofhumanworth,orone's self-worth, toabandonthemorperhaps thebestthatcanbedoneforthemis toforcethemto shape up.Beforetherealityofhumanshortcomings,philanthropythelove ofthehumancangradually cometobe invested withcon-tempt,hatred, aggression. Theactionis brokenoffor, worse,con-tinues butis invested nowwiththese newfeelings, becomingpro-gressivelymorecoerciveandinhumane. Thehistoryofdespoticsocialism(i.e., twentieth-centurycommunism)is repletewiththistragicturn, brilliantlyforeseen by Dostoyevskymorethanahun-dredyears ago("Startingfromunlimitedfreedom,I arrivedatun-32ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?limiteddespotism"7),andthenrepeatedagainandagainwithafatalregularity, throughone-partyregimesona macrolevel, toahostof "helping" institutions ona microlevel from orphanages toboardingschools for aboriginals.Theultimatestoponthelinewas reached by ElenaCeausescuinherlastrecordedstatement before hermurderbythe successorregime:thattheRomanianpeoplehaveshownthemselvesun-worthyoftheimmense,untiringeffortsofherhusbandontheirbehalf.Thetragicironyisthatthehigherthesenseofpotential,themoregrievouslydoreal peoplefallshortandthemoreseveretheturnaroundthat is inspiredby thedisappointment. Aloftyhuman-ismpositshighstandardsofself-worthandamagnificentgoaltostrivetoward.Itinspiresenterprises ofgreatmoment. Butbythisverytokenitencourages force, despotism, tutelage, ultimatelycontempt,andacertainruthlessness inshaping refractoryhumanmaterialoddly enough, the same horrors that Enlightenmentcri-tique pickedup in societies and institutions dominatedbyreligion,andfor thesame causes.Thedifferenceofbeliefhere is notcrucial. Whereveraction forhighideals is nottempered,controlled, andultimatelyengulfed inanunconditionalloveofthebeneficiaries, this uglydialecticrisksrepetition.And,ofcourse, justholdingtheappropriatereligiousbeliefsis noguaranteethat this will be so.3.Athirdpatternofmotivation,whichwehaveseenrepeat-edly, this timeoccurs intheregisterof justice rather than benevo-lence. We have seen it with Jacobins and Bolsheviks and today withthepoliticallycorrectleftandtheso-calledChristianright. Wefightagainst injusticesthat cryoutto heaven for vengeance. We aremovedbyaflamingindignationagainst these: racism, oppression,sexism, or leftistattacks on the familyor Christianfaith.This indig-nationcomestobefueledbyhatredforthosewhosupportandconnive with theseinjustices, which, inturn, is fed by oursense ofsuperioritythat weare notlike these instrumentsand accomplicesofevil.Soon,weareblindedtothehavocwewreakaroundus.Ourpicture oftheworldhas safelylocatedall eviloutsideus. Theveryenergy and hatred withwhichwecombatevil proveits exte-rioritytous. We must neverrelent but, onthecontrary, doubleourenergy, vie with each otherin indignationanddenunciation.Anothertragic irony nests here. Thestronger thesense of(oftenCHARLESTAYLOR33correctlyidentified) injustice, themore powerfullythis patterncanbecomeentrenched. Webecomecentersofhatred,generatorsofnewmodesofinjustice ona greaterscale, butwestarted withthemostexquisitesense ofwrong,thegreatest passion for justice andequality and peace.ABuddhistfriendofminefromThailandbrieflyvisitedtheGermanGreens. Heconfessed toutter bewilderment.Hethoughthe understoodthe goals ofthe party: peace betweenhumanbeingsandastanceofrespectandfriendshipbyhumanstowardnature.Whatastonishedhimwas all theanger, thetoneofdenunciationand hatred towardtheestablished parties. Thesepeopledidn'tseemtoseethatthefirststeptowardtheirgoalwouldhavetoinvolvestilling theanger and aggressioninthemselves. Hecouldn'tunder-stand whatthey wereup to.Theblindnessis typical ofmodernexclusive secularhumanism.This modernhumanismprides itselfonhaving -releasedenergyforphilanthropy and reform; by getting ridof "originalsin," ofa lowlyanddemeaningpictureofhumannature, itencourages us toreachhigh.Ofcourse, thereis sometruthinthis, butitis alsoterriblypartialandterriblynaive becauseit has neverfacedthequestions Ihavebeenraising here: whatcan powerthis greateffortat philan-thropicreform? This humanismleaves us with ourownhighsenseofself-worthto keepus frombacksliding, a highnotionofhumanworthtoinspireusforward,andaflamingindignationagainstwrongandoppressiontoenergizeus.Itcannotappreciatehowproblematicall oftheseare, howeasilytheycanslideintosome-thingtrivial, ugly, or downright dangerous and destructive.ANietzscheangenealogistcanhaveafielddayhere.NothinggaveNietzschegreatersatisfactionthanshowinghowmoralityorspiritualityisreallypoweredbyitsdirectoppositeforexample,thattheChristianaspirationtoloveis reallymotivatedbytheha-tredoftheweak for thestrong. Whateveronethinksofthis judg-mentonChristianity,itisclearthatmodernhumanismisfullofpotentialfor such disconcerting reversals: fromdedicationto otherstoself-indulgent, feel-goodresponses, froma loftysense ofhumandignitytocontrolpowered by contemptand hatred, from absolutefreedomtoabsolutedespotism,fromaflamingdesiretohelptheoppressed toanincandescent hatred for all thosewhostand intheway. Andthehigherthe flight, thefarther the potentialfall.Perhaps,afterall, it'ssafertohavesmallgoalsratherthangreat34ACATHOLICMODERNI TY?expectationsand to be somewhatcynical about human potentialityfromthestart. Thisis undoubtedlyso, butthenonealso risksnothavingthemotivationtoundertakegreatacts ofsolidarityandtocombat great injustices.Intheend,thequestion becomes a maxi-mumone: howtohave thegreatest degreeofphilanthropicactionwiththeminimumhopeinmankind. AfigurelikeDr.RieuinCamus'LaPestestands as apossible solutiontothis problem.Butthat is fiction. What is possible inreal life?I said earlier that just having appropriate beliefsis nosolutiontothesedilemmas,andthetransformationofhighideals intobrutalpracticewasdemonstratedlavishlyinChristendom,wellbeforemodernhumanismcame onthescene. So is therea way out?Thiscannotbeamatterofguarantee, onlyoffaith.Butitisclear that Christianspirituality points to one. It can be described intwoways: eitheras aloveorcompassionthatisunconditionalthatis, notbasedonwhatyoutherecipienthavemadeofyour-selforas onebased onwhatyouare mostprofoundly, a being inthe image ofGod. They obviously amountto the same thing. In ei-thercase, theloveis notconditionalontheworthrealizedinyoujustasanindividualoreveninwhatisrealizableinyoualone.That'sbecause beingmadeintheimageofGod,asafeatureofeachhumanbeing, is notsomethingthat can becharacterized justby reference tothis being alone. Ourbeing in theimageofGod isalso ourstanding amongothers inthestream oflove, whichis thatfacetofGod'slifewe trytograsp, very inadequately, in speaking ofthe Trinity.Now, it makes a whole lotofdifferencewhetheryouthinkthiskindofloveis a possibilityforus humans. I thinkit is, butonlytotheextentthatweopenourselvestoGod,whichmeans, infact,oversteppingthelimitssetintheorybyexclusivehumanisms.Ifonedoesbelievethat,thenonehas something veryimportanttosay to moderntimes, somethingthat addresses thefragilityofwhatall ofus, believersand unbelievers alike, most value inthese times.Canwetrytotakestock ofthe first leg ofourstrange Ricci-like journeyintothepresent? Thetripis obviouslynotcomplete.Wehave just lookedatsomefacetsofmodernity:theespousal ofuniversal andunconditionalrights, theaffirmationoflife, universaljusticeandbenevolence.Importantas theseare,thereareplainlyothersforinstance,freedomandtheethicofauthenticity,8tomention just two. Norhave I hadtimetoexamineotherdark fea-CHARLESTAYLOR35tures ofmodernity, such as its drive toward instrumental reason andcontrol.ButIthinkanexaminationoftheseotherfacetswouldshow a similar pattern. So I'd like totrytodefinethis more closely.In a sense, our journeywas a flop. Imitating Ricci would involvetaking ourselves a distancefromourtime, feeling as strange init ashefeltas hewas arriving inChina. Butwhat wesaw as childrenofChristendomwas, first,somethingterriblyfamiliarcertaininti-mations ofthegospel, carriedtounprecedentedlengthsandsec-ond, a flat negationofourfaith, exclusive humanism. Butstill, likeRicci, we werebewildered. We hadtostruggle tomake adiscern-ment, as hedid. Hewantedtodistinguish betweenthosethings inthenewculturethat came from thenatural knowledgewe all haveofGodandthus shouldbeaffirmedandextended,ononehand,andthosepracticesthatweredistortionsandwouldhavetobechanged,ontheother.Similarly, wearechallengedtoadifficultdiscernment, tryingtosee whatinmodernculture reflectsits fur-theringofthegospel, and what its refusalofthetranscendent.ThepointofmyRicciimageis thatthisis noteasy. Thebestwaytotrytoachieve itis totake at leastsome relative distance, inhistory ifnotin geography. Thedanger is that we will notbesuffi-cientlybewildered,thatwethinkwehave itallfiguredoutfromthestart andknowwhattoaffirmand whattodeny. We thencanentersmoothlyintothemainstreamofadebatethatisalreadygoingoninoursocietyaboutthenature and value ofmodernity.AsIhaveindicated,9thisdebatetendstobecomepolarizedbe-tween"boosters" and "knockers,"whoeithercondemnoraffirmmodernityenbloc, thus missing whatis really at stake here,whichishowtorescueadmirableidealsfromslidingintodemeaningmodes ofrealization.From theChristian pointofview, thecorrespondingerror is tofall into one oftwo untenable positions: either we pick certain fruitsofmodernity, likehuman rights, and take themonboard butthencondemnthe whole movementof thought and practice thatunder-liesthem, inparticular thebreakoutfromChristendom(in earliervariants, even thefruitswere condemned), or, in reaction to this firstposition,wefeelwehavetogoallthewaywiththeboostersofmodernityand becomefellow travelers ofexclusive humanism.Better, I wouldargue, afterinitial(and, let'sfaceit, stillcontinu-ing) bewilderment,we wouldgradually find our voicefromwithintheachievementsofmodernity,measurethehumblingdegreeto36ACATHOLI CMODERNI TY?whichsomeofthemostimpressiveextensionsofa gospelethicdependedonabreakawayfromChristendom,andfromwithinthesegains trytomake clearer toourselves and others thetremen-dousdangers thatariseinthem. Itis perhaps notanaccident thatthehistoryofthetwentiethcenturycanbereadeitherinaper-spective ofprogress or in oneofmountinghorror. Perhaps it is notcontingentthat it is thecentury both of Auschwitz and HiroshimaandofAmnestyInternationalandMedecinssansFrontieres. AswithRicci, thegospelmessage tothistimeandsocietyhas tore-spond bothto what in it already reflectsthelifeofGodand tothedoorsthat have been closed against this life. Andin theend, it is noeasier for us than it was forRiccitodiscern bothcorrectly, even ifforoppositereasons. Betweenus twentieth-centuryCatholics,wehave ourownvariantsoftheChineserites controversy. Let us praythat we do better this time.Notes1.Thisisnottosay thatwecannotclaimincertainareastohavegainedcertaininsightsandsettledcertainquestionsthatstilltroubledourancestors.Forinstance,weareabletoseetheInquisitionclearlyfortheunevangelicalhorrorthatit was. Butthisdoesn'texcludeourhavinga lottolearnfromearlieragesas well,evenfrompeoplewhoalsomadethemistakeofsupportingtheInquisition.2.Henri Bremond,HistoirelitterairedusentientreligieuxenFrancedep uislafindes guerresde religion jusqu'anos jours(Paris: A. Colin,19671968).3.SeeSourcesoftheSelf(Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress, 1989),chap. 13.4.Cf.DanielCallahan,SettingLimits: MedicalGoalsinan AgingSociety(Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress, 1995).5.JamesMiller,ThePassionofMichelFoucault(NewYork: Simon&Schuster, 1993).6.SeeReneGirard,LaViolenceetleSacre(Paris: Grasset, 1972); andLeBoucEmissaire(Paris: Grasset, 1982).7.FyodorDostoyevsky,TheDevils,trans.DavidMagarshack(Har-mondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin,1971), 404.8.WhichIhavediscussedinTheMalaiseofModernity(Toronto:Anansi,1991); Americanedition:TheEthicsofAuthenticity(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress, 1992).9.Ibid.CHARLESTAYLOR37This page intentionally left blank HavingleftthewarmembraceoftheCatholicUniversityofAmericaandarrivedinthereligiouslychillier,andmorebracing, atmosphere ofa branch oftheFlorida state university sys-temin1980, I took an officeacross froma professorofclassical cul-turesandJudaica.AlGessmann,whomaywellhavebeenaCatholicas a child, became a JewafterHitlerhadbegunhis perse-cutionandsomehowmanagedtoavoidbeingkilled,thoughhelivedthoseterribleyears inCentralEurope.ProfessorGessmannwasalsoasonoftherationalist Enlightenment,adevoteeoftheReligionsgeschichteSchule, a delightedobserverofthe American reli-gious scene, anda manofvigorous opinions, such as theclaim thatMoses was anearly rationalist and Judaism(at least as practiced byAl himself!) fallswithin thelimitsofreason alone. Whatstruck memost, however, was his viewthatCatholicismis themostmytho-logicalversionofChristianityand his surprise that, withmy secu-lareducationand "rationalinterests"(many whoknowmewouldnotagreewithhimonthelatter),Icouldbea"practicing"Catholic.A few years later, I ran intoa similar perceptionoftherelation-ship betweenanenlightenedmindandCatholicfaithand practice392"AVoteofThanksto Voltaire"WI L L I A MM.SHEAwhen I walkedacross campus with a woman participatingin acon-ferenceonethicseducation.Shewaseditorofa journaloffor-merlyEpiscopalianand then socialist attachmentand, when she de-terminedthatI was a Catholicanda professor ina state university,said: "IshallneverunderstandhowanyeducatedpersoncanbeaCatholic."Thesetwopeoplehelpedsharpenmyalreadywell-developedsenseofthestrainsstillevidentinthelate-twentieth-centuryUnitedStates betweentheCatholicreligionand theculturebornofthe Enlightenment.lIfI had thought in all innocencethat I wasmodern, it becameclear to me earlyon thatothersdo notthink so,thatCatholicbeliefandpracticeconstituteaproblemforpeopleoutsidethetribe. They lookon me, I suspect, theway manyofmykindlook on Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.Muchofmy aca-demicandpersonalenergyoverthepastthirtyyearssinceen-teringColumbiaUniversity'sdoctoralprograminthestudyofreligionhasbeendevotedtounderstandingand livingwiththatstrain between my religion and my culture. Michael J. LaceyoftheWilsonCenterputhisfingeronthis"doubleconsciousness"ofCatholics.Inbroad cultural terms, Catholics, too, have longbeen regardedby America's non-Catholicintellectualelites as somethingofaproblem.Itis onlythedifficultyof"rightlyframing theques-tion," touseDuBois'sphrasing, thathas sparedusfrombeingasked moreoftenwhatitfeelsliketobea memberofaback-wardrace, intellectuallyspeaking, withanoldworldmumbo-juniboall ourown, fraughtwithformalism andclericalism, andmarked by a communalhistory that was shaped in America by aspiritofdefensiveness andthefeeling,so longevidenttoout-siders,ofbeingbeleagueredbythemaincurrentsinmodernthought. Like African Americans, Catholics, too, have long beenuncomfortablyconscious ofbeingwatched, ofa kindofcul-turalsurveillancein-whichtheconditionoftheirmindsandhearts was monitorednotonly by Rome, butby manyimpres-siveandperhapsequallywellintentionednon-Catholiccom-munities as well. As a result, Catholics, too, have experiencedthesense,asDuBoisputit,"...ofalwayslookingatoneselfthroughtheeyes ofothers, ofmeasuring one's soul by thetapeofa worldthat looks onin amused contemptandpity."240"AVOTEOFTHANKSTOVOLTAI RE"Modernity,modernism,modernization,andpostmodernismpresentaterminologicalthicketthatbrings joytotheheartofaphilosopher.Ishall stipulate whatItaketobe Taylor'susage ofacoupleofthese terms. To specifybrieflymyownviews at the out-set, letmesay that classic Catholicmodernismat thebeginning ofthecenturywas correctinits intention,occasionally brilliantin itsexecution, and made its tragic mistake in subordinatingthedoctri-nal tradition, the teaching authority ofbishops, and theologytothecourtruledbyhistoricalinvestigation, andthatpostmodernismisanunfortunate termforaninterestingandevenpredictablereap-pearanceofEnlightenmentskepticism. Idonotthinkthatpost-modernismis a decisivebreak withoradvance overmodernityortheotherphases oftheEnlightenment.Insome ways, it is a retreatfromtheachievementsofthemoderate,naturalist, andpragmatistphaseoftheEnlightenmentprevailingintheUnitedStates inthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury. Postmoderntheory'sdeclineoverthepast few years has beenmatchedby a vigorousreassertionoftheintentionofAmericanphilosopherstospeak tosignificantethical, political, andsocial problems.In this, thecurrentinheritorsoftheclassical AmericanmodernistphilosophiesjoinCatholicthinkerssuch as Alasdair Maclntyreand Taylorhimself.3ReflectivereligiousmodernizationisessentialforCatholicsiftheachievementsof Vatican IIaretobesupportedandextended.Thetermforthetaskofreflectivemodernizationis systematic the-ology,amomentintheology(distinctfromthehistoricalandthepracticalmoments)inwhichthetheologianattemptstomakein-tellectualsenseofChristiantraditioninhisorhercultural con-text.4Discussions oftheChurchandmodernity,then,fallundersystematics.5Two judgmentsarecrucialtosystematiceffortsatrevisionoftheChurch'sstancetowardmodernity.First,modernityhasnotbeenall wrong and, second, theChurchhas notbeenall rightinthestruggles ofthepasttwocenturies. Onemightwellpushthejudgmentabitfurther:modernityhasbeenquiterightandtheChurchquite wrong about somevery importantmatters(and viceversa), forexample, theimportanceofcriticalhistoryandoftheself-determinationofpeoples. Onemust leave theapportioningofpraiseand blametovaluative history6inits retellingofthetale ofmodernityand theRomanCatholicChurch,butwehave quietlynowputasidethemorefloridrhetoricofeachsidenamely,WI LLI AMM.SHEA41theCatholicclaimthatmodernityexpressesitstruemeaningintwentieth-centurytotalitarianismandtheEnlightenmentclaimthatthepapacyandthechurchare irrefbrmablyobscurantist andantidemocratic. Onceonehas achieved these key insights, essays atuntangling the relationship becomeplausible. With fallrecognitionofthesinsandgraces ofeach, finger-pointingcan be suspended,anddialogueandexplorationcancontinue. Shortofthese judg-ments,eachsidewillcontinueitsinvestigativereportingonthefaultsoftheother.Letmebeginwitha reviewofsomeofCharles Taylor's pointstobe sure that I am notstraying from his message. ThenI shall addsome commentsto his story and pointto theCatholicuniversity asthetestcaseoftherelationshipbetweenCatholicismand moder-nity, a relationship that carries tensions old and new.Retelling Taylor's StoryModernity, Taylortells us, must beseentoincludetheespousal ofuniversalandunconditionalhumanrightsandtheaffirmationoflife,universal justice, benevolence,freedom,andtheethicofau-thenticity. Italsohas its dark features, such as a drive towardinstru-mental reason andcontrol. Taylor distinguishes as well betweenthefactofmodernityandtwotheoriesofmodernity.7Thefactofmodernityis theculturalshiftthathas beentaking place overthepastfew centuries, whereasthetheoriesofmodernityofferexpla-nationsofand,inonecase,mythsaboutthatshift. Taylorhasatheoryaboutmodernitythatmarkedlydiffersfromthe Enlighten-mentpackagethatisstandardamongphilosophersand Westernculturalelites. Itis importanttorealizethis,forotherwisehisre-marks ona proper Catholicattitude toward modernitywill bemis-understood.He disagrees vigorously with what he calls an"accultural theory,"proposeshisown"culturaltheory,"andconsequentlylooksuponmodernitywithanequanimityanddetachmentthatwouldmakemyCatholicteachers uncomfortable. Modernityforhimdoesnotmeantherevolutionaryoccurrenceofa setofvalue-neutralfactsandtheconsequentreplacementofonesetofbeliefs(traditionaland mythic) withanother(modernandscientific), as the acculturalexplanation wouldhave it. Modernityrather originatedin a shiftin42"AVOTEOFTHANKSTOVOLTAI RE"our horizons ofunderstanding of humanity, the cosmos, society, andGodandconstitutedanunarticulatedbackgroundagainstwhichchanges, as well as continuities, ofpractice and beliefs stand outandmust be understood.8Itis notimportantatthis momenttogetthesweepanddepthofwhat Taylor is proposing in this regard, althoughit is bothbroadand deepand deserves theattentionofany person interested inthepuzzle ofthe remarkable and ironicsuccess ofreligions in contem-porary cultures, the CatholicChurchnotleast among them. I meantonotehereonlythathehas workedoutanilluminatingphilo-sophical understanding ofthe phenomenonofmodernityand thatitis inthelightofthistheorythathearguesthatCatholicscanparticipateconstructively init. Inotherwords, modernityfor Tay-lordoes notmeanwhat "themodernworld" seems to have meanttoPiusXandthepopesbeforeandimmediatelyafterhim9anymorethan it means whattheacculturists take it to mean. Althoughtheirevaluationsdiffer,manynineteenth-andtwentieth-centuryCatholicleadersandEnlightenmentacculturistsmeantheverysame thing, and they are bothmistaken. At the very least, it must besaidthat modernityobviouslydoes notimplytheendofCatholi-cism(and otherpremodernreligions).Butneitheris Taylor proposinga "Catholicmodernism"thatis, that Catholics accept theaccultural understanding oftheemer-genceofthe modernworldand thedogmas oftheEnlightenment("theEnlightenmentpackage").Norisheproposinga "modernCatholicism," onethat supersedes its more orless benightedprede-cessors, as some liberalCatholicsat timesseemtosuggest. Rather,heurges a "Catholicmodernity"thatis, a fullandcritical partici-pationin Westernculture (s),actingonacitizenshiplongdeniedCatholicsbythe"cultureddespisers" oftheChurchand, intheirownway, byCatholicleaders. TheproposalsquaresnicelywithwhatI take to bethe intentionoftheSecond VaticanCouncil,thelastthreepopes, and, mostsurely,theU.S.bishops.10ItalsoaptlydescribesTaylor'sownpracticeofphilosophyandtheaimsofmanytheologians.ItconstitutestheattitudeandhopeofwhatIcall reflectivereligiousmodernism.Taylor's altogether healthy and sensible prescription carries withit a puzzle, however, for oneis drivento wonderhowCatholics canparticipate fullyin this culture withoutdrowningin it intellectuallyandspiritually, thatis, howtheycanbeCatholicinaculturethatWI LLI AMM.SHEA43seemsantireligiousandanti-Catholic,whoselifeformsandprac-ticesundercuttheformsandpracticesofhistoricalCatholicism,andwhosepowerofattractionthreatenstobecomeapowerofcompulsion?Nooneshouldunderratethedangersposedtoreli-giousinsightand freedomby themanifoldperversitiesofthiscul-ture ofours.Tolookatitfromanotherperspective,supposingasuccessfulengagementwithmodernity,can Catholicsholdback fromacam-paign to restoreChristendom,a hope they set aside only in thepastthirty years? Here wehave thealternatives presentedin thepast byCatholicintegralistsandbyanti-CatholicsecularistsandProtes-tants. Neithergroup, it must besaid, lackedevidencetosupport itsjudgmentthatCatholicparticipationinmodernlifeis impossible.Nomatterhowabsurdthesealternativesappear inthefaceoftheactual experienceand historyofCatholics "inthestreets," we havenotcomesofarinthepastthreedecadesthatwenolongercanhearandbemovedbytheseghosts.11 Whenmyprofessorfriendand thesocialist editor spoke, theytoucheda sore pointin my ownpsyche, sensitive as I always am to tha