|
LABELS Or ‘To Be or not to Be....’ |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Justin Brett
|
|
I have been thinking about labels, and the way in which they can tend to pigeonhole people. For example, I have – quite publicly - described myself as a 'dodgy liberal'. It says quite a lot about where I stand on various issues, so in that sense 'liberal' is a useful label. However, it's not the only one I tend to apply to myself. I sometimes describe myself as a traditionalist too. People see these labels as in some way incompatible, but I disagree - at least in terms of what I understand them to mean.
As a traditionalist I don't believe in innovation for the sake of it. In particular I am liturgically traditionalist - I don't like 'modern' language because it sounds dated as soon as it is off the press, and I have always believed that any attempt to be hip with the kids is bound to end in disaster... What I don't mean by traditionalist is a belief that no change is possible or desirable within the body of the Church. So how can you be both a Liberal and a Traditionalist? It's an understandable question, but I think it is based on a misunderstanding of the words. The opposite of 'traditional' is 'progressive' or 'modern'. The opposite of 'liberal' is 'restrained' or 'narrow', or perhaps 'particular'. To be Liberal is to be tolerant or open-minded - to admit that one's own position on any issue might not be the only tenable one, or even that somebody else's position might actually be right. We use labels so glibly that all too often we forget what they might actually mean. At best they are convenient shorthand, but at worst they can be seriously misleading. So, this Liberal Catholic Traditionalist is hoping that as we all start to prepare for the election process next year, we are able to communicate clearly with our electorate, and not rely on labels which might be too simplistic to adequately reflect our views.
Justin Brett
|
November 2009 