With the passing of Pope Francis, commentators began the long debate over his legacy and place in history. I will refrain from such speculation, wishing simply to begin this column by thanking Francis for one of his last official public statements: a letter calling for a renewal of the study of Church history. History has always been something of a poor stepchild among the disciplines deemed essential to the Catholic intellectual life. The heavy hand of philosophy and a philosophized theology has privileged “timeless truth” over the “truth in time” model found in the historical narrative that shapes the Bible.
Despite his prominence and influence, the Thomistic philosopher Etienne Gilson suffered greatly at the hands of rival Thomists, who saw his efforts to introduce a historical dimension to the study of philosophy as a first step on the slippery slope toward relativism. These fears seemed confirmed by the turn away from orthodoxy that accompanied the embrace of historical models of thinking in the decades following the Second Vatican Council.
Nationalism and the spirit of America
I would like to consider a different danger in historical thinking, one that sheds a different light on the wrong turns after Vatican II: nationalism. In America, at the very least, much of what orthodox Catholics feel went wrong after Vatican II can be attributed to the desire of American Catholic leaders to show the rest of America that the Catholic Church was in tune with the spirit of America. This was, moreover, not a new development of the 1960s, but a persistent American Catholic concern, one that shaped the writing of American Catholic history from the origins of the discipline in the late nineteenth century.
The writings of these earlier historians seem pious and reverent compared with the oppositional tone taken by some post-Vatican II Catholic historians, yet the deference of these historians to American Church authorities belies their quiet challenge to at least one aspect of Church teaching: the relation between the Church and the State.
Prior to the 1965 Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, Church teaching offered no clear endorsement of American-style religious pluralism or religious disestablishment; for almost a hundred years before Dignitatis Humanae, American Catholic historians wrote American history as if it had. John Courtney Murray had been silenced for making such claims within the field of theology; American Catholic historians enjoyed a relatively free hand in making similar claims due largely to the comparatively low standing of history in the Catholic intellectual life during this time.
The nationalism of American Catholic historians was no accident. History as a modern discipline arose in the nineteenth century, largely as an exercise in explaining the rise of modern nation-states. From this, we get our notion of history as “politics past,” which still provides the basic structure of most textbook narratives. Often extolled by conservatives as “real history,” the centering of politics came at the expense of an earlier centering of the Church. The nation state could only emerge once the international character of the Church had been eliminated, either through the formal break achieved by Protestant princes or the de facto nationalization of the Church by Catholic absolute monarchs.
Secular and Protestant European historians celebrated these changes as progress. Catholic historians were somewhat adrift, falling into nostalgia for the Middle Ages or fighting against secularists over the role of religion in the national identity of traditionally Catholic countries (e.g., France).
America presented unique challenges to Catholic historians during this first age of nationalism. Founded by declaring political independence from Great Britain, America could never achieve true cultural independence from its Protestant motherland. Faced with the multiplicity of Protestant sects and inspired by the Enlightenment’s rationalism and principle of religious toleration, the Founders established the first Western nation without an established church. The generation that succeeded the Founders experienced an unexpected revival of Protestantism that for many rendered the fact of formal disestablishment moot: by the 1830s, evangelicals began to speak of America as a Christian nation, understanding that term as referring to Protestant Christianity and very definitely excluding Catholics. By mid-century, Catholic immigrants were pouring into America, committed to retaining the distinctive beliefs and practices that so offended Protestants but just as committed to claiming their right to consider themselves fully American.
The political and pastoral challenges of this era came to shape the writing of the first generation of American Catholic historians (and most subsequent ones as well). So too did the new standard of “objectivity” associated with the work of Leopold von Ranke, the German scholar generally acknowledged as the founder of modern academic history. John Gilmary Shea (1824-1892) stands as the first American Catholic historian who wrote both to serve the needs of the Church in America and earn the respect of secular academics. Shea followed the German model by promoting the study of American Catholic history through the use of a wide range of primary source documents.
In 1884, the same year as the founding of the American Historical Association, Shea founded the U.S. Catholic Historical Society to promote this new approach to history. Shea was, to be sure, respectful and deferential to the Church in all his writings; however, he was just as respectful and deferential to America. America, alas, did not return the deference. Anti-Catholicism remained strong among America’s intellectual elites, and mainstream scholars largely ignored Shea’s work. Undaunted, Catholic historians believed that the commitment to new scholarly standards itself reinforced the argument for Catholic belonging in America.
Peter Guilday (1884-1947) was undoubtedly the leader of these efforts in the years between the two world wars. Like Shea, Guilday fully embraced the modern scientific approach to history and sought to secure for it a firm place in Catholic higher education. In the tradition of the time, he established Catholic equivalents to secular institutions: he founded The Catholic Historical Review (CHR) in 1915 and explicitly modeled it on the secular American Historical Review; four years later, he co-founded the American Catholic Historical Association (ACHA), modeled on the American Historical Association. Most of Guilday’s contemporaries founded distinctly Catholic parallel institutions to insulate Catholics from the corrupting influence of secular institutions; Guilday founded his journal and professional society precisely to engage the secular world. Guilday’s motives were noble, but decidedly mixed. Speaking to the broader community of American historians, he once wrote:
We are all Americans, Catholic or non-Catholic, proud of our citizenship in this country, and we can all meet as brothers of the same household in the laboratory of historical research with the same enthusiastic hopes for the future and with the same strong love for the deeds of the men and the generations who have preceded us in this roseate land of opportunity.
Guilday here speaks in two registers: the professional and the patriotic. He holds out hope that the common standards of the new “scientific” history will function much like the common standards of the natural sciences, uniting scholars of any and no faith in the common pursuit of truth. Yet he also points to the potential for the study of American history to unite Catholics and non-Catholics in their common identity as Americans. Guilday never doubted that Catholics could be fully Catholic and fully American; many non-Catholic scholars did. As long as Catholic scholars worked primarily in separate Catholic institutions, they could continue to believe in the compatibility of the two sides of their dual identity.
A fault line and changes
This situation began to change in the era of World War II, some two decades before Vatican II. The war against Nazi Germany had de-legitimated racial and religious prejudice. In America, this opened the door to Jews in higher education and gave urgency to the fight for civil rights for African Americans. Doors opened as well for Catholics, yet anti-Catholicism of some sort proved strikingly resilient.
The writing of American Catholic history once again revealed a telling fault line. The key figure here is Msgr. John Tracy Ellis (1905-1992). A successor to Guilday as the leader of the field of American Catholic history, Ellis published American Catholicism (1956) in the prestigious Chicago History of American Civilization series. A brief narrative synthesis charged with covering the entirety of Catholic history in America, the book seemed to indicate secular acceptance of Catholic scholarship, even as it revealed persistent anxieties about the place of Catholics in America.
Despite the vocal patriotism of American Catholics from the Founding onward, public Catholics such as Ellis still felt the need to assert, once again: “the fundamental principle of separation of Church and State has always been accepted by the American hierarchy from the time of Archbishop Carroll to our own day. . . . There is not a bishop in the American Church today who would not wholeheartedly subscribe [to that principle].” Careful to avoid an explicit accusation of anti-Catholicism, Ellis simply states that Americans who continue to doubt Catholic devotion to democracy have simply allowed “their emotions and prejudices to override their reason.”
Elsewhere, Ellis seems to lay the blame for any persistent anti-Catholicism squarely at the feet of Catholics themselves. In 1955, Ellis published an article, “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life.” A scathing attack on Catholic anti-intellectualism, it set the tone for the trajectory of much of Catholic higher education to this day. With a vitriol worthy of a nineteenth-century Nativist, Ellis attacks the mediocrity of Catholic intellectual life. Catholics simply have made no significant achievement in any area of intellectual life. Even in the field most distinctively Catholic, Thomistic philosophy, Catholic institutions fall woefully short of secular standards: the best work in that field came out of Princeton and the University of Chicago.
A historian by training, Ellis surely felt the shame more powerfully than Catholic theologians and philosophers who had built up powerful fiefdoms within Catholic institutions. As we have seen, Catholic historians were far more outward-looking, trying for decades to collaborate with and earn the respect of secular historians. Decades of fighting for respect had come to nothing. Something had to change.
The soul-searching inspired by Ellis’s critique happened to occur at a time when the Second Vatican Council called for a new openness to the world. These two forces converged at the infamous 1967 Land O’Lakes Conference. A gathering of Catholic educators under the leadership of Father Theodore Hesburgh of the University of Notre Dame, the conference published a vision statement, “The Idea of the Catholic University”, which the historian Philip Gleason long ago described as a “declaration of independence from the hierarchy.”
Though many in attendance were themselves clerics, those present judged the traditional notion that Catholic scholarship should somehow serve the Church as an insurmountable obstacle to academic excellence. A Catholic university must be a university first and Catholic second. Theology and philosophy would retain a certain pride of place, but even these disciplines were to conform to secular standards of scholarship.
In such a climate, the willingness to challenge orthodox Catholic teachings in theology and philosophy became a badge of “excellence.”
Liberal triumphalism
The situation in history was a bit different. The stakes seemed lower, as history rarely dealt directly with sensitive doctrinal truths. Nonetheless, history, more than the carefully monitored fields of theology and philosophy, had an established track record of anticipating changes in Church teaching. Long before Dignitatis Humanae (1965), Catholic historians had been asserting the truth of American-style religious pluralism and democracy. Is it any wonder that post-Vatican II American Catholics continued to follow the spirit of the American age in their own time?
The historian Jay Dolan captured this zeitgeist in his 1985 work, The American Catholic Experience. A sweeping narrative synthesis, the book far outpaces Ellis’s American Catholicism in scholarly heft, yet carries on the tradition of writing the kind of history that shows how Catholics belong in America. Dolan presents the story of the Church in America as a struggle between two competing visions: “One desired to fashion an indigenous church, an American Catholicism; the other wanted to transplant to the new nation a continental European version of Roman Catholicism.”
The European model dominated the century prior to Vatican II, but now a “new model of church authority is replacing the old, monarchical and clerical conception of church and authority.” So too, a “new model of Catholic morality is replacing the traditional moral code with its exaggerated emphasis on sin and guilt.” Concerned by the “conservative swing” of the pontificate of John Paul II, Dolan assures his reader: “the ways of the past will no longer work. A new spirit is alive in American Catholicism, and the twenty-first century belongs to it.”
Faulty prognostications aside, it is tempting to see Dolan’s liberal triumphalism as reflecting “the spirit of Vatican II” at a high-water mark of dominance within American Catholic historical writing. Yet it also reflects an older spirit of American nationalism that has shaped American Catholic historical writing from the beginning. Guilday and Ellis bet on religious pluralism and won; Dolan and his generation bet on birth control, an issue which waits in vain for its Dignitatis Humanae moment of vindication.
Sadly, for all their real differences, pre- and post-Vatican II American Catholic historians both sought to align the Church with America rather than America with the Church.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
An underlying distortion is the academic periodization of history, maybe part of what John Courtney Murray might have sensed with his term “learned ignorance.”
Periodization, as in the linear or natural-history evolution from Ancient to Greek, Roman, Medieval, Nation States, and (hurray!) Modernity! C.S. Lewis’ “chronological snobbery.” St. Augustine would have none of this.
The Augustinian theologian Ratzinger recentered the draft document “Dei Verbum” not on other previous Church documents but rather and directly on the central and even alarming event (!) of the supernatural and triune One entering into “history.” The center, not a past episode flattened into a trend line. And now we have another Augustinian pope in Leo XIV.
History—personal and worldwide—consists more of pivot-point moments than of learned trend lines as framed and distorted in the rear view mirror.
To a large degree, “progress” or even “trend lines” are probably limited by our lifespans. When Dracula says, “For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you’re a wise man, Van Helsing,” he’s onto something.
A century ago, “progress” had given us Prohibition. Today, there are probably two dozen places selling marijuana within 5 miles of where I currently sit. We do not move along straight lines.
Within a short distance from where I sit we have drive-thru bars. Seriously.
Thanks, Dr. Shannon. Very informative and insightful. Perhaps we as Christians, yea Catholic Christians, should not be concerned so much with trying to reconcile our Faith with a particular form of government or a philosophy ; but rather concentrate on BEING Catholic no matter what or where. We must be in the world but not of the world. The Devil has been given dominion and he will never give it up. He can and does use all forms of governments and all philosophies to his advantage. While not all forms or government are not equally evil none are so intrinsically good that they promote true holiness. Paradoxically, the most vile, tyrannical governments have produced more saints than the benign tepid ones . Our seemingly greatest blessings can become our greatest curses. Health, wealth and comfort can be our greatest liabilities leading us into cold complacency and away from Christ- seeds thrown down on the path. We must not seek persecution or martyrdom but need to be aware of the dangers of the very “goods” that we seek to our spiritual welfare. We needn’t seek inclusion but must live peacefully wherever we are. Our resistance should be solid and passive. We must love those who disagree with us and our greatest desire should be that that become one of us.
The Gospel message is quite simple, but living it is not! It’s more about being than knowing.
An “autonomous” Catholic is an oxymoron, and being in Communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, is not a matter of degree.
“He that is not with Me, is against Me: and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth.”
“You cannot be My Disciples if you do not Abide In My Word.” – Christ’s Charitable Anathema.
Thus we can know through both Faith and reason, that there is nothing in our Catholic Faith that precludes us from being Good Citizens.
J.M.J.
Thus we can know through both Faith and reason that Nature’s God, with The Capital G, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost , The Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son (Filioque), Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, And Thus The Author Of Our Inherent Unalienable Right To Life, To Liberty, And To The Pursuit Of Happiness, for we can know through both Catholic Faith and reason , that only Perfect Divine Eternal Love Has Both The Ability And Desire To Sanctify Us, And Thus Raise Us From Death To The Joy Of Eternal Life In Perfect Divine Eternal Love.
There is nothing in our Catholic Faith that precludes us from being Good Citizens, in fact , Our Catholic Faith can only serve to enhance our ability to be Good Citizens on Earth preparing to be fully Sanctified and Perfected, in the Hope, that in dying, we are restored in Christ to Life Everlasting In God’s Perfect Divine Eternal Love.
As I read your article, a question just arose in my mind (considering the world political and economic situation today) could there be a hand of Mr. Trump, Elon Musk and the powers that could be to elect an American Cardinal as the Pope of the Catholic Church?
I am not against any Pope, Catholic Church or theologians, American Rich and influencing people be it economically or politically powerful.
Not helpful, your implication.
Although, assuming restored Vatican financial accountability, there must be a few wealthy Catholics in North America who together might generously find a way to offset the Vatican’s relatively paltry $100 annual deficit (1/270,000th of the United States’ annual GNP, or 1/2700th of one percent).
Here’s what $100 million gets us in the secular world: a super mansion in Los Altos (CA), or the auctioned Van Gogh portrait of a man without a beard, or one Airbus A320, or one high-tech roller coaster, or 28 wind turbines, or 13 miles of interstate highway, or the combined salaries of the two highest paid Hollywood stars.
Well, even if that was the case the Trump administration certainly didn’t pick one of their biggest fans amongst the US cardinals.
🙂
Indeed. Of course, there have been Popes (and antipopes) whose elections have been rigged by kings or emperors. But presidents do appoint Supreme Court justices to lifetime offices, often to discover that this doesn’t necessarily buy loyalty or even influence. I suspect it would be much the same even if a president COULD appoint a Pope.
Yes, Trump and Musk are evil geniuses who conspired together to manipulate the conclave to elect an American pope, because they both have hidden power to control world affairs. And the earth is flat. And the moon landings were all fake. And the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale, cheap.
With reference to Land O’ Lakes Conference of ’67, the author writes: “Though many in attendance were themselves clerics, those present judged the traditional notion that Catholic scholarship should somehow serve the Church as an insurmountable obstacle to academic excellence. A Catholic university must be a university first and Catholic second. Theology and philosophy would retain a certain pride of place, but even these disciplines were to conform to secular standards of scholarship.” Well, theology and philosophy didn’t retain their pride of place. I was an undergraduate at a Catholic men’s college in NYC (Manhattan) from ’66-’70. During that time, the “Theology Department” began to refer to its curriculum as “Religious Studies” which meant “Here Comes Everybody” and turned theology into a pursuit of knowledge that was inconsequential. The Philosophy Dept. was no longer headed by a Christian Brother (FSC) because he left the Congregation to get married. In retrospect, Land O’Lakes was not at all liberating for Catholic thinking but succeeded in what the secular world had in mind all along – removing Catholic thinking from mainstream intellectual circles. The only difference between 19th century anti-Catholicism and the anti-Catholicism of the post-Vatican II era is that the former was led by bigoted Protestants and the latter led by bigoted Catholics. Verdict: the effort was successful. You can count on both hands the number of non-secular orthodox Catholic colleges in the USA today. My alma mater is as secular as they come; it simply still a cross affixed to its buildings -mainly to appease wealthy, practicing Catholic donors among its alumni.
Your account conjures memories of a Dominican friend and mentor who had a different experience at a major and clearly secular university, majoring in in Latin and Classics and graduating as the top student of several thousand (the President’s Medalist in 1934). In short, as a devout Methodist, he was drawn into the Catholic Church by the nearby Gothic Revival Catholic Church, and particularly by the sacramental Real Presence. A personal and uncomplicated encounter: “Is that really YOU, Jesus?”
His vocation then took him to the seminary in California and Montreal, and then an uninterrupted 38 years at the same Blessed Sacrament Church, in Seattle where he sometimes offered six bible classes a week at six different locations. His authentically ecumenical “testimony” was legendary: “I am emotionally a Protestant….When I left Protestantism, I left nothing behind. Instead, I found what I thought I always had.”
Sponsoring him into the Church was a university professor of science and fine arts, both, and who had converted two years earlier from first being an “agnostic humanist.” His story might still be of interest (Herbert Ellsworth Cory, “The Emancipation of a Freethinker,” 1941), which strikes me as a sort of update to Cardinal Newman’s much larger Oxford Movement and conversion story “Apologia Pro Vita Sua” (1864). Cory deals with such as Augustine, Aquinas and Descartes, but also the likes of Dewey, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Spengler, and Thompson’s “Hound of Heaven.”
The Dominican priest, Fr. Joseph Fulton OP (1912-1998) received his early instruction at the University of Washington Newman Center, from a Fr. Francis Pope OP. Catchy name, that.
Parenthetically, if I’m not mistaken, Mr. McCarrick (erstwhile Cardinal) had a hand in Land O’ Lakes.
An article so convincingly true that little may be added except what is implied, that, “A new spirit is alive in American Catholicism, and the twenty-first century belongs to it” remains true within the American Church, as well as supreme headquarters, which lives under the shadowy spirit of Dignitatis Humanae’s skewed idea [at least the common perception] of religious freedom.
“A gathering of Catholic educators under the leadership of Father Theodore Hesburgh of the University of Notre Dame, the conference published a vision statement, “The Idea of the Catholic University”, which the historian Philip Gleason long ago described as a “declaration of independence from the hierarchy.”
It wound up being more of a Declaration of Independence from the Catholic Church for most so called Catholic colleges and universities.
As someone who finished her Catholic education before Vatican II–at an obscure woman’s college–let me tell you that the mediocrity of Catholic educational institutions was a very hot topic. Many of us had immigrant grandparents and were the first college grads in our families. We saw ourselves are the pioneer generation that would break out of the Catholic ghetto and Do Great Things. Didn’t quite work out that way. . . .
Dr. Shannon has given us a profound reflection on Catholic historiography and historical thinking among US Catholics.
Perhaps our first compatriot to be elected Pope, in his reflection upon the legacy of his namesake predecessor, will have in mind that it was Leo XIII who issued Testem Benevolentiae — to my way of thinking, a far more powerful and forward-looking intervention even than Rerum Novarum. Indeed, Testem laid the groundwork for Pius X’s full condemnation of Modernism in Pascendi. But, in a way, Testem got to the root of what became the source of the Catholic catastrophe of the 20th century, the “American century”: Americanism. Perhaps our Pope Leo will be moved, too, to restore Leo XIII’s prayer to St. Michael following Mass.
I am reminded why “History is bunk”, even if Ford never said it. Historians.
Dolan assures his reader: “the ways of the past will no longer work. A new spirit is alive in American Catholicism, and the twenty-first century belongs to it.”
Those aren’t the words of a historian, but the incantation of a political shaman.
“Dolan assures his reader: “the ways of the past will no longer work. A new spirit is alive in American Catholicism, and the twenty-first century belongs to it.”
Since it is True that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son , Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, we can know through both Faith and reason, there can only Be One Holy Ghost (Spirit Of Perfect Eternal Divine Love) Who Is The Holy Spirit Of Both God The Father And God The Son, thus either this by “new”, the author means “filled with The Holy Spirit due to being filled with The Courage To Be Catholic, or he is referring to a “new spirit totally, that denies The Unity Of The Holy Ghost and thus denies The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, which is, in essence, by denying the essence of God, apostasy.
Nationalism is always polluted by anti-pacifism. People always ignore the military’s role in threatening other nations and killing people.
In a fallen world we need armies. Sadly, one of the things soldiers may have to do is kill people. That’s what militaries train for. In a perfect world things would be different.
Dr. Shannon provides a really engaging account of the record of a selection of approaches by some Catholic to methodology and principles of historical research and recounting.
Article could have as its sub-title or sub-lede, “History of Historical Method among some U.S. Catholics”. I think it would enhance the reader’s appreciation of what is in Dr. Shannon’s study.
These particular Catholic approaches to the subject, history, are by no means exhaustive of the profession’s reach. Depending on evidence it can become arguable they pursue some legitimate Catholic ideal, but, however create their own obstacles and do not achieve an ideal while unnecessarily a) complicating this and that reporting of history and/or b) complicating professional participation in the given interest/intersection.
Surely adhering to basic practice norms like truth and evidences should be demanded. In fact it is demanding in any social setting Catholic or not; and they can’t be substituted for by, for example, a synthetical energizing of patriotic appeal wherewith to hallow the activity and the result -still less try to make Catholicism attractive. I am not saying it IS always so for the individuals, merely drawing what should be a serious concern.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s work provides insight into another area of concern. His historical method is to collate and arrange times and issues as seen and experienced by those who were involved and affected. Actually this basic approach inevitably yields very intriguing materials.
You can see this in for example his book Politics of Upheaval, Age of Roosevelt. Where the method could be seen to be deficient is in its limited appreciation of social, intellectual and religious nuance or significance; it’s a bit staid when it comes to human and epochal insight perhaps also defaulting unknowingly and, sometimes, deliberately, in neglecting relevant evidences.