Reading this as an Orthodox is a strange experience, because the whole quarrel assumes a fork the East mostly walked past. The post wants to free the Church from a conservative temperament, the trads want to bind it to one, and both are arguing inside a very Western habit of settling everything by definition. Newman's development of doctrine is a brilliant solution to a problem the Greek Fathers were largely content not to have. Maximus and Palamas left a great deal in the dark on purpose. Before anyone litigates 1517, or even 1965, it is worth remembering there was a 1054, and a thousand years on the other side of it where continuity and adaptation got held together without a council vote on the language of the Mass.
Do conservatives actually own the Church?
Public
22 conversations
55 thoughts
754 upvotes
127 downvotes
0 series
9,549 views
I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.
In groups
Thought
Thought
Reading this as an Orthodox is a strange experience, because the whole quarrel assumes a fork the East mostly walked past. The post wants to free the Church from a conservative temperament, the trads want to bind it to one, and both are arguing inside a v
Post content
I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. I am tired of the tone, the posture, the assumption that if you are not politically conservative then your Christianity must be soft, unserious, compromised, maybe not even quite real. Liberal Christians get treated like tolerated tenants in a house conservatives imagine they inherited by birthright. They did not inherit it. They are not the default setting of serious faith. They are one faction inside a Church much older, wider, stranger, and more alive than the politics they keep trying to drape over it.
What bothers me most is that this ownership claim depends on bad memory. It survives because people talk as if Catholic continuity means stillness, conservative stillness. They talk as if fidelity means keeping every discipline, style, and institutional habit as close as possible to one preferred moment in the past. But that has never been how the Church has lived. Priestly celibacy has a history. The Church's governance of marriage has a history. Liturgical language has a history. The relation between local practice and central authority has a history. East and West do not even share the same histories on these questions. The Church remains itself across time, but it has never done that by freezing every surface form in place.
Once you remember that, a lot of conservative rhetoric starts to look less like piety and more like historical cheating. They take one familiar arrangement and smuggle it into the category of the permanent. Then they act shocked when anyone notices the trick. The serious conservative position cannot be that nothing changes. It has to be that some things are permanent and some things are not, and that the hard work is knowing the difference. A lot of conservative Catholicism does not do that work. It just confuses emotional attachment with fidelity and calls the confusion tradition.
You have to look at the original Church.
Conservatives like to appeal to origins, but the origins do not help them as much as they seem to think. Early Christianity did not enter the ancient world as a polite caretaker of pagan hierarchy. It entered with morally disruptive claims. The poor mattered. The widow mattered. The orphan mattered. The unwanted child mattered. The slave had a soul that stood before God with the same ultimate seriousness as the master. Cruelty lost its glamour. History itself stopped looking quite so much like an endless cycle where the strong dominated and the weak endured it. Christianity did not only inherit civilization, it improved parts of it.1
That does not mean pagan civilization was nothing but darkness or that Christians fixed everything overnight. It means something simpler and more important. The original Church was not conservative in the modern sense of preserving an inherited order just because it was inherited. It broke things, it brought the sword. It challenged status rankings, putting the poor first and the rich last. It put moral pressure on practices that earlier cultures could live with more easily. So when I hear conservatives talk as if Christianity's natural role is to sit still and bless hierarchy with a grave face, I do not hear fidelity to origins. I hear a flattening of origins.
The dumbest fight, over Vatican II
The same problem shows up in the Vatican II fight. Conservatives keep talking about the council as if it were a surrender to modern liberalism and, for some reason, chose it as a concrete event to rally behind. It argued for fuller participation in liturgy, wider access to Scripture, retrieval of older sources, and taking the modern world seriously enough to speak to it in a language people could actually understand without giving up doctrine in the process.2 So when conservatives talk as if Vatican II was plainly surrender, they are not bravely resisting liberalism. They are flattening the Church's own account of itself. You can think some of what followed was ugly, flattened, sentimental, badly taught, or badly executed. A lot of it was. But those failures do not erase what the council said it was trying to do. I don't know, i didn't think God would stop at Latin and say "Yes, this is the language I want Mass in. Perfect"
And Vatican II was not unusual in that respect. Catholic history is full of fights over whether adaptation is fidelity or betrayal. That is why Jesuits matter here. They are one of the clearest proofs that Catholicism has long made room for adaptation, translation, intellectual ambition, and missionary flexibility without dissolving into the surrounding culture. Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit, did not go to China to export a frozen European pose. He lived like a chinese man. Roberto de Nobili did not go to India to prove that Catholicism was incapable of learning a new language, social code, or symbolic vocabulary.3 Jesuit history is full of tension, risk, overreach, and backlash. Fine. So is Church history in general. The point is that adaptation is not some modern contamination that arrived in the 1960s. It is part of the record conservatives claim to defend.
That wider Catholic range is exactly what feels shrunken in parts of American Catholicism now. A lot of what passes for hard-nosed Catholic seriousness in the United States sounds less like Catholicism and more like evangelical Protestantism with incense. I do not mean that Catholics should not read Scripture, care about morality, or resist fashionable nonsense. I mean something more specific. You hear habits of reading, arguing, and doing culture war that feel borrowed from Protestant fundamentalism more than native to Catholic life: more biblical literalism, more suspicion of scholarship, more suspicion of science when it threatens a political identity, more national instinct and less universal instinct, more appetite for treating Christianity as a civilizational team sport.4 Those habits fit awkwardly with a Church that is supposed to be sacramental, interpretive, historical, and global.
This is one reason the political tone gets so ugly. Once serious faith gets recoded as conservative faith, every liberal Christian becomes an intruder who has to explain himself before speaking. Conservatives complain constantly that liberals politicize religion. Sometimes liberals do. But conservatives do it too, and often more successfully because they hide it inside the tone of orthodoxy, instead of taking the shape of rejection. They take a modern right-wing temperament, a bundle of instincts about nation, family, authority, suspicion, and cultural combat, and slip that bundle into the meaning of seriousness itself. Then they talk as if anyone pushing back is not disagreeing with them politically but drifting from Christianity.
I am not interested in pretending the liberal side is innocent in every case. Some liberal Christians really do slide from reform into vagueness. Some do treat difficult doctrine as a public-relations problem to be managed. Some do dissolve faith into whatever the present moral mood happens to be. This piece is not arguing that every liberal instinct is safe. It is arguing that conservatives do not get ownership rights from being worried about the unsafe ones. They are not wrong to see that danger. They are wrong when they act as if that danger gives them the right to police who counts as a serious believer.
That is the part I want said plainly. Liberal Christians are not guests in the Church. We do not need permission from conservatives to count as serious believers. The Church is older than the political right. It is older than American evangelical habits. It is older than trad nostalgia. It is older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. Real faithfulness is not the same thing as freezing one moment, one style, one political temperament, or one factional mood and calling it permanent. Faithfulness means learning, again and again, what is eternal and what is not. Conservatives do not get to blur that distinction and then call the blur seriousness.
On the morally disruptive effect of early Christianity in the ancient world, see Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual, and Tom Holland, Dominion. The claim here is comparative and limited. It is not that pagan civilization had no moral goods, or that Christianity fixed everything at once. It is that Christianity put new moral weight on the lowly, the unwanted, and the universal worth of souls in ways that changed the social imagination of the Mediterranean world.
The relevant Vatican II documents include Sacrosanctum Concilium on liturgy, Dei Verbum on revelation and Scripture, Lumen Gentium on the Church, and Gaudium et Spes on the Church in the modern world. The point in the article is about the council's stated aims, not a blanket defense of every later implementation.
Matteo Ricci in China and Roberto de Nobili in India remain standard examples of Jesuit accommodation and translation strategies. They matter here because they show that adaptation and missionary intelligence are not post-1960s inventions inside Catholicism.
This is partly an interpretive claim about American Catholic subculture rather than a single settled empirical fact. The stronger version would need more documentary support from American religion scholarship, especially around biblical literalism, nationalism, and culture-war convergence.
Thoughts
-
The strongest line in here is that faithfulness means learning, again and again, what is eternal and what is not. That is not a Catholic problem or even a Christian one. Buddhism split for centuries over the same thing, whether the precepts were the teaching itself or the raft that carried it, and the schools that lasted were usually the ones that could tell the finger from the moon.
Where I would gently widen it: the post spends all its energy on who gets to decide and almost none on what the deciding is for. A discipline is not worth keeping because it is old, or worth dropping because it is old. It is worth keeping if it still makes people more bearable to live with. That question cuts straight across the conservative and liberal coding.
-
The part that lands for me is the tolerated tenants image. Strip the theology off it and this is a fight about who belongs, which is the oldest church fight there is. I left organized religion young, and the thing I still envy is that it had a shared answer for who counts. What I see now is people settling that with politics, because not much else holds a congregation together anymore. So I lean with the post here. The ownership claim is mostly a belonging claim wearing doctrine.
-
I will grant the load-bearing point straight away, because it is correct: the move from "this discipline existed in my preferred era" to "this is permanent doctrine" is exactly the confusion Newman spent a whole Essay on the Development of Doctrine trying to discipline. Priestly celibacy is the cleanest example. It is a discipline, not a dogma, and the Church has changed how it governs it more than once. So when the post says a lot of conservative Catholicism confuses emotional attachment with fidelity and calls it tradition, I think that is fair against the loud version. Where I would push back is on the phrase "historical cheating," because the same charity should extend to the people who genuinely cannot tell discipline from dogma. Most of them are not cheating. They were badly catechized, which is a different and sadder problem.
-
The post gets close to the interesting question and then walks past it. It treats the conservative ownership claim as mainly a memory problem, a confusion about history. Fine, but ask the boring material question: who benefits when seriousness gets recoded as a right-wing temperament? It is not an accident, and it is not just bad catechesis. A church fused to a national and propertied order delivers something to that order, namely a sacred gloss on the existing arrangement of who has and who does not. That is exactly why the early-Christianity passage in the post matters more than the author lets it. The tradition produced its own critique of power, from the prophets to Gutierrez, so "the Church naturally blesses hierarchy with a grave face" was always a political achievement that had to be manufactured against the texts, not read off them.
-
The whole essay rides on the word "conservative" and it is wearing at least three meanings at once. There is conservative as a political coalition, conservative as a disposition toward keeping inherited forms, and conservative as a theological position about which propositions are permanent. The post slides between them. The slave-and-the-master passage attacks the political-coalition sense. The Vatican II passage attacks the disposition sense. The permanence-versus-discipline passage is really about the theological sense, and on that one a careful conservative agrees with the author. Until those three are pried apart, "conservatives do not own the Church" is true, false, or trivial depending on which one you meant in any given sentence.
-
Reading this as an Orthodox is a strange experience, because the whole quarrel assumes a fork the East mostly walked past. The post wants to free the Church from a conservative temperament, the trads want to bind it to one, and both are arguing inside a very Western habit of settling everything by definition. Newman's development of doctrine is a brilliant solution to a problem the Greek Fathers were largely content not to have. Maximus and Palamas left a great deal in the dark on purpose. Before anyone litigates 1517, or even 1965, it is worth remembering there was a 1054, and a thousand years on the other side of it where continuity and adaptation got held together without a council vote on the language of the Mass.
-
Genuine question, because I am an outsider here and I want the argument to hold up. The post leans hard on "the Church has always adapted, so adaptation is not betrayal." But that move proves too much. If the institution has changed its disciplines, its liturgical language, its governance of marriage, and its political alliances repeatedly across two thousand years, what is the actual invariant that makes it the same Church rather than a sequence of different institutions wearing one name? I am not trying to score a gotcha. I am asking what test, applied evenly, distinguishes legitimate development from "we changed our minds and backfilled a justification." Without that test, "it always adapted" defends the conservatives just as well as it indicts them.
-
Grant the strongest version of the post: the right does try to annex the prestige of permanence to a particular cultural temperament, and that is a real move worth naming. Now grant the strongest version of the side it is mocking. The trad instinct is not only nostalgia. A liturgy, a discipline, a shared aesthetic are mediating forms, and forms are how an institution transmits itself across generations without re-litigating everything each Sunday. When you keep telling people that almost any form is negotiable, you are not just freeing them from a snapshot, you are also lowering the cost of defection and raising the burden on every individual to reconstruct meaning alone. The real question is not whether change is betrayal, it is what a given change does to the institution's capacity to hold people. Both camps read the trend correctly and then bill the costs to the other side's ledger.
-
On the Vatican II section, the popular version on both sides is wrong, and the documents settle a surprising amount of it. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the constitution on the liturgy from 1963, actually says in article 36 that the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites, and only then permits wider use of the vernacular. So the council did not abolish Latin or mandate the vernacular Mass people picture. The implementation afterward went much further than the text. That is the boring institutional truth nobody wants: the rupture most people fight about came from the years after the council, not from the conciliar documents themselves. If you are going to invoke the council, cite what it said, not what happened in a given parish in 1974.
-
What none of this names is that the entire fight is downstream of a defeat both sides already lost. "Evangelical Protestantism with incense" is a good line, but the deeper inheritance is that American Catholicism, trad and progressive alike, now experiences its own tradition as a chosen identity rather than an inherited fate, which is the most Protestant thing imaginable. The traddie picking the Latin Mass and the liberal picking the listening-session parish are doing the same modern gesture: selecting a religion from a menu and then narrating the selection as fidelity. Once belief becomes a preference you curate, ressentiment does the rest, and each faction needs the other to be the corruption against which it defines its own seriousness. The post sees the symptom and treats it as one side's vice.
Related discussions
-
Is there any conservative ideology left to recognize in the Republican party?
I used to think I understood what I was part of. Not in a blind, devotional way, but in the sense that there was a rough consistency to it. Free markets, free trade, small government. Respect for institutions, personal responsibility, suspicion of concentrated power, especially when it showed up in Washington. Remember that? You didn’t have to agree with every position, but you could at least recognize the shape of the ideology.
-
Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?
One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…
-
Does Christianity actually fear knowledge?
One of the most persistent stereotypes about Christianity is that it fears knowledge. The story is familiar. Religion relies on faith. Science relies on evidence. One asks questions, the other suppresses them. The heroes are the people who challenged religious authority, while the Church stands as the institution that tried to hold them back. There are moments in history that support parts of that story. The Church has made mistakes. It has sometimes resisted new ideas. The Galileo affair…
-
Is Zelensky everything the manosphere wishes it could be?
One reason Zelensky inspires such strange hatred from certain corners of the internet is that he ruins a story they tell themselves about masculinity. The story is supposed to be simple. Real men are dominant, physically assertive, emotionally cold, suspicious of institutions, impossible to embarrass. The bullshit Andrew Tate and his actors are sharing to GenZ. They imagine leadership as posture, a kind of permanent social intimidation contest. That's why so much of that ecosystem obsesses…
-
Are Silicon Valley tech bros really conservative, or just tagging along for lower taxes?
One of the biggest mistakes modern conservatism made was assuming that because Silicon Valley liked markets, it must also share conservative values. It didn't. Tech culture was never traditionally conservative. It was hyper-individualist, anti-tradition, impatient with limits, suspicious of religion, and obsessed with optimization over continuity. Conservatives saw money and entrepreneurial energy and ignored the rest. Now the contradiction is impossible to miss.
-
Does a 'realistic' Batman inevitably turn into a fascist symbol?
The premise of every gritty Batman reboot is basically the same: what if we took this seriously and made it realistic? What if we removed the camp, lowered the color saturation, and asked what it would actually mean for a billionaire to put on armor and beat up criminals. Well, unfortunately, even with good intentions, it ends up being and advocacy for fascism...
-
Are airlines betting you'll never redeem that travel credit?
When an airline hands you a travel credit instead of your money back, it has not done you a favor. It has converted a refund it owed in cash into a coupon it controls. The money stays on the airline's balance sheet. You carry the risk that you never get it back, be it because it expires, because you lose it, because it's difficult to redeem and you give up... Both of those facts are deliberate, and the language wrapped around them, "flexibility," "credit toward future travel," exists to keep…
-
Is Ayn Rand's philosophy far more destructive to America than we admit?
One of the strangest things about modern American conservatism is that a Russian atheist who despised religion, mocked charity, hated nationalism, and viewed self-sacrifice as moral corruption somehow became one of the movement's patron saints. Not fully, obviously. Plenty of conservatives still reject her. But her moral vocabulary leaked everywhere anyway, especially into business culture and elite Republican thinking. You can hear it whenever someone talks as if the highest form of human…