The shifting meaning of 'progressive'; also, air and angels

[tree_and_leaf]

Various people have pointed out that one of the difficulties of the new Trek film is that things have changed so much that what looked progressive back in the day (the status of women in Star Fleet and presence of minorities or non-Americans in the crew) now looks positively bastion-of-male-white-American-privilege.

Sometimes, though, it's weird little details that bring back how much things have changed. I was flicking through the production notes on Memory Alpha for "Balance of Terror" (a very good episode indeed, with Romulans, Enterprise crew-members being bigoted and Kirk calling them on it, and a very non black-and-white enemy - and Mark Lenard, who is always good value even when not playing Spock's dad). The episode, though, starts with a wedding (apparently, and I'd forgotten this, the "Enterprise" has a chapel), at which Kirk officiates (which also makes me wonder, as a Patrick O'Brian fan, if the Enterprise ever has services which mostly consist of Kirk reading The Articles of War Star Fleet regulations, and if there is a (suitably space themed, and naturally inter-religious and non-specific) version of the Naval Prayer. Unlikely, I suppose, given the apparent American dominance of Star Fleet, but one can speculate.

Anyway: what caught my eye was that the episode notes draw attention to the fact that the bride genuflects to the altar in the chapel, and that this is noteworthy as a positive-without-making-a-very-special-episode-of-it depiction of Roman Catholic practice on 1960s television (also worth noting in that apparently, not every human member of Star Fleet is an atheist or a vague sort-of-deist after all). Was it really that noteworthy? One would hope that this is special pleading on the note-writers (who also note that some Anglicans genuflect - though their deduction from this, that it's not a markedly Catholic practice, is a bit shakier than they think!), but - I do not know. Any thoughts from older Americans - was this really progressive in the early sixties? Kennedy was Catholic, after all....

On a totally unrelated but extremely cool note, I have found a glossary of Naval Slang. It is quite fascinating (did you know that 'angel' is a unit measuring 1000ft of height?) Or that 'rabbits' is used to designate anything taken ashore from a Navy ship, especially if smuggled?

Heigh ho - back to work!

Comments

[wychwood]

Kennedy was Catholic, but I am led to understand that that was a Big Deal at the time.

And yes! on the progressive thing. So very much.

[tree_and_leaf]

It's strange to remember how much things have changed in a short time, really.

[twistedchick]

Yes, this was a Big Thing.

Think of all the Republican and white-supremacist hostility that was aimed at Obama. The same level of hatred was aimed at Kennedy for being Catholic, because the (uneducated) "common wisdom" was that his loyalty would first be to the Pope, and therefore electing him to the presidency would be a coup that would make America a satellite/colony of the Vatican. (Yes, I know this sounds stupid and extreme, but it was a real fear.) Add to this the civil rights marches and campaigns that were going on at the time of the ST episode, and the opposition by the KKK, who were not only anti-black but also anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish (and pro-ignorance), and you may begin to see just how large the simple symbolism of having her genuflect toward the altar really was.

[legionseagle]

Can I point out that when the threat was levied at Kerry in 2004 by the Vatican that he would be excommunicated if he did not disassociate himself from "pro-choice" elements that I went 'Um - ah - oh shit"? Because that was quite clearly the Catholic church choosing to apply exactly the sort of pressure on a political candidate that people such as me had been saying all along was no justification for ruling out particular candidates for being exposed to.

[Bad username or unknown identity: twistedchick"] Your views?

[twistedchick]

The major difference between 1960-63 and 2004 is the nature of the Pope. In 1960-63 we had John XXIII, who was as close to a saint as we are likely to see in our lifetimes, and the Second Vatican Conference, during which John did his best to make people open up the windows, air out the dusty musty preconceptions, look critically at what they were doing, and extend a hand to Protestants as fellow believers -- which was not done before. This continued through the papal reign of Paul VI, but ended when John Paul II took over. JPII gradually closed down the open windows, pushed hard to bring back the restrictions that had been pushed aside before.

And the current pope, Benedict, was JPII's enforcer, so to speak. He has less contact with ordinary people, and a greater adherence to pre-Vatican II legalistic thinking. His view seems to be that the one universal Church needs to be a little more picky and less universal, and that only the people he considers worthy should be allowed in. Benedict is what should be the last gasp of the legalism that the Roman Catholic Church has been subject to from 1854 or so until Vatican II -- I can date that fairly precisely, because the First Vatican Conference in the 1850s was interrupted by war in Italy, and so the conferees only had time to finish their first section of talks, concerning canon law. Everything else was pushed aside as they ran away to get out of range of various armies. So canon law became primary, spirituality took a secondary place, and anything that did not follow whatever was thought proper in 1854 was pushed out the window.

This is what John XXIII was trying to get away from. This is also why the majority of observant Episcopalians I have met are ex-Catholics (as well as many neoPagans, Wiccans, and not a few convincedQuakers.)

Then again, what can one say of a Pope who never actually renounced his time in the Hitler Youth and other Nazi groups?

[legionseagle]

I think that's where I get left. Started as quite observant C of E with exprience of Quaker and no example of anyone having the courage of their convictions. When writing, I trying to acknowledge my faith, ut they ll sneeer.

[twistedchick]

There are a lot of Catholics who still have the courage of their convictions; however, the pressure from Rome has made some of them move to denominations where they can follow their leadings (in Quaker terms) without being silenced by the Pope. I am thinking of such teachers as Charles Curran (silenced, ordered not to teach) and Matthew Fox (Dominican, silenced, left to become Episcopalian.) There are also hundreds, perhaps thousands, of women who are nuns, who have completed all the theological studies and other requirements to be ordained as priests, who were in hope that the study that Paul VI requested would result in women's ordination. The study was completed, but was presented to John Paul II, who dismissed it out of hand because he didn't believe women were theologically competent to be priests.

In New Zealand, the Anglican Church ordains women to serve as the modern equivalent of 'circuit-riding' priests that we had in the US 200 years ago, and it's not a big deal there.

Having faith is difficult these days; I try to keep it for God, rather than having faith in fallible people most of the time. I trust people to behave as well as they've shown they will behave -- which varies.

[gramina]

What twistedchick said.

<Rueful> Family history suggests that my father's father, a lifelong democrat, really *really* came close to voting for Richard Nixon in 1960 -- simply because Kennedy was Roman Catholic. In the end, his hatred of Republicans triumphed over his hatred of Roman Catholics, but it was a close thing.</Rueful>

I like to think we've improved since then -- but at least, push come to shove, he voted for the Catholic. sigh

[twistedchick]

My mother was Catholic, but she hated Nixon so much that she would probably have voted for *anyone* opposing him.

[tree_and_leaf]

Well, that's something. I guess!

[sara]

Indeed, we still worry about RCs -- this very week we're having flailing around the idea of six Roman Catholic justices on the Supreme Court (though really this is code for more racially faily stuff).

Though I don't think Kennedy's Catholicism was as big a deal as Obama being black continues to be.

[twistedchick]

The number on the Supreme Court is a concern -- if all of them are the same kind of Catholic, which I do not think they are. It is possible to be Catholic and progressive; it is just extremely difficult in the current church to do so. And historically the "immigrant" Catholics tend to push for progress far more than those who are entrenched at the top of the heap, which is why I think Sonia Sotomayor from the Bronx is a superior choice to, say, John Roberts.

[sara]

I don't feel comfortable putting political labels on a group of people as diverse as the Roman Catholic church.

And I think she's a superior choice because, well, she's got a helluvalot more experience than he does.

As I remarked to my husband a couple of days ago, what the number of Roman Catholics on the court mostly indicates to me is that this sneaky, subtle plan of building really good schools and educating their kids so they can get top LSAT scores has worked out well for their denomination....

[tree_and_leaf]

I don't feel comfortable putting political labels on a group of people as diverse as the Roman Catholic church.

Well, quite. Even if we're just considering the clergy, I know a number of very progressive Jesuits and Dominicans; and the laypeople I know are just as diverse politically as any other group.

[twistedchick]

Yes, there are many progressive people within religious orders and among lay people -- but those religious orders are not represented on the Supreme Court. The one order that is represented there -- and IIRC there are at least two members -- is the retro-conservative Opus Dei, which could have walked straight out of 1854 without a single change in terms of its views, outlook, and lack of progressive thought.

Within the Church's hierarchy, among the bishops and within the Catholic universities, progressive thought has been stifled and strangled for more than two decades, at the order of John Paul II and his 'enforcer', the current Pope.

[twistedchick]

Yes, the Church is diverse -- but a sizeable number of those who have come to power in and through it and associated with it in the last two decades are conservative, some of them extremely reactionary in their view. Thirty years ago? I would have had no concern about it. Now? It's not a dealbreaker for me, but it is vitally important that all of the Catholic justices on the Supreme Court *NOT* be conservatives.

Sonia Sotomayor will come under intense pressure from her bishop to conform to the Vatican's official line. I hope she will continue to vote her conscience, regardless of the views of a group of men in Italy who should have no say in US government.

[sara]

Well, I disagree regularly with Rowan Williams (who only thinks he's Pope); I suspect she'll be able to disagree regularly with the Bishop of Rome....

[twistedchick]

It's more a matter of being willing to stand up to her bishop than to the Pope. The American bishops function somewhat separately from Rome in terms of how they administer their dioceses. Some of them are to the right of Benedict; some are still willing to allow people to exercise their individual consciences -- as well they should. It is the duty of a Catholic to be informed, to weigh all the evidence and to make an informed decision and stand by that decision -- regardless of whether it agrees with Rome. Indeed, a significant number of canonized saints were persecuted by the Roman hierarchy for taking stands that were not considered politically suitable by their current popes.

[tree_and_leaf]

I think that's a bit unfair to ++Rowan. I don't agree with everything he's said or done either, but whatever his faults, attempting to his own views on the Communion over everyone else's head isn't one of them. (Indeed, some people would argue that that is in itself one of his faults...)

[sara]

Well, there we'll have to disagree; as an American Episcopalian, I have a great deal of difficulty with his attempts to impose his supposed authority over us.

But then, that's why nobody in my family is Roman Catholic any more; we're basically too small-r republican to want some unelected guy bossing us around.

[tree_and_leaf]

It's curious how different things look from the other side of the Atlantic; the usual criticism of RW from English Anglicans is that he's too prone to let himself be shoved about by GAFCON and their friends because he's terrified of precipitating a split in the communion, and that he's being driven rather than being led.

The trouble is, I think, that everyone has spent several centuries studiously avoiding thinking about the differences in concepts of ecclesial authority across the Communion, and now it's come back to bite us. (It also doesn't help that the C of E tends to be totally blind to the fact that there's more than one way to be Episcopalian. See the kerfuffle when RW said that it wouldn't be the end of the world if the C of E was no longer established, and various people said this would be the end of Anglicanism - overlooking the fact that it's the C of E that's the anomaly, really).

[tree_and_leaf]

really this is code for more racially faily stuff

Yeah, I wondered about that (wrt the current Supreme Court row).

Which reminds me of old fashioned Scottish sectarianism, where it was hard to work out what was anti-Catholic and what was anti-Irish (not that either's OK).