Do Right and Left Labels Belong in the Church?

One of the most common statements in relation to the recent papal election concerned the inappropriateness of political labels in the Church. While it may be true that they shouldn’t belong in the Church, it doesn’t follow that they do not apply to factions and ways of thinking. St. Paul articulated something similar to the church in Corinth: “For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor 11:18-19). Despite protests to the contrary, we know there are two general schools of thought in ecclesial circles we call liberal and conservative and many subdivisions within them.

So, should “left and right” or “liberal and conservative” have a place in analysis of factions in the Church? To answer this, it’s important to look at the origin of the labels and how Catholics have fit into them over the last two hundred and fifty years.

“Right” and “Left” as political labels go back to the French Revolution, particularly to the National Assembly, where representatives lined up either to the right or left of the President, depending on whether they supported the rights of the king (the right) or favored abolishing the monarchy (the left). After the king’s downfall, those considered to be “on the right” favored a restoration of the ancien régime, while the left continued to advocate for the further liberalization of society along republican/democratic lines. The latter’s “progressive” advocacy included the French notion of laicité (the removal of any public role for the Church) and the legalization of divorce.

It certainly would have been possible to speak of Catholics on both sides of this political divide. Even with these anti-Catholic tendencies, there were Catholics who embraced liberalism (a term originally associated with the principles of modern democracy), above all, the infamous bishop Talleyrand (laicized in 1802), and, after the downfall of Napoleon, the group centered around Lamennais, including Montalembert and Lacordaire. Some French bishops continued to advocate for principles related to political liberalism, in part motivated by Gallican tendencies. The 19th century witnessed, however, a strong anti-liberal backlash in the Catholic Church with popes strongly favoring a restoration of monarchy and condemning liberal positions, especially in Bl. Pius IX’s “Syllabus of Errors.” We tend to look back on the positions embodied in the Syllabus and other documents as doctrinal, but it’s helpful to consider them as a response to political movements of the day (which is not to say they have no doctrinal significance). Conservatives, those on the right, seemed to have won the day (internally, at least), cemented by the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican I. If anything, the early twentieth century only hardened the Church’s opposition to leftist political movements with the rise of Communism and the persecution it brought.

The Second Vatican Council certainly brought about a rehabilitation for Catholics seeking to embrace positions associated with political liberalism, making statements open to democracy and freedom of conscience. Vatican II mostly buried the traditional right-left division of Catholics supporting either the restoration of monarchy or modern democracy. There may be some lingering remnants related to ongoing debates related to Communism (as in liberation theology), but now, politically speaking, the divide concerns those who support traditional values within modern democracy (the new right) versus those continuing to push the revolution against any form of traditional authority and morality (the new left).

Vatican II, however, created a new form of the Right-Left divide, not wholly unrelated to the prior usage. There is, on the one hand, the conservative or traditional movement that emphasizes continuity with the Church’s life prior to the Council, including a strong restorationist segment wanting to roll back major changes, especially related to the liturgy. On the other hand, progressives emphasize newfound openness to modern culture, shaped by modern democracy and its emphasis of freedom. Traditional liturgy versus dissent to moral teaching typifies the two sides of this divide more than anything else. Interestingly enough, those ecclesial positions often do coincide with preferences for conservative or liberal positions in modern political debates.

Someone still might insist that “left” and “right” are not the correct labels for describing current disputes in the Church. Pope Benedict XVI had his own way of characterizing it as two competing hermeneutics (interpretations) of Vatican II:

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture;’ it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

Address to Roman Curia, December 22, 2005

This divide certainly exists, and it has meaning in shaping our priorities in the Church. Even if doesn’t disappear overnight, it need not characterize the Church in the coming decades. In fact, many would be glad for the tiresome conciliar animosity and debates to end.

Pope Leo XIV, for instance, has emphasized unity at the beginning of his pontificate. In a recent interview, he was asked about his own experience in overcoming polarization in the Church. He responded by emphasizing how much his approach seeks unity: “I think that both personal style, my own personality, the gifts that I have been given, the way that I approach even the sense of leadership. A leader who’s walking by himself isn’t leading anyone, but if a leader is capable of bringing people together with himself or herself and moving forward, I think that’s a lot more effective.” We will see how much his papacy can lead the Church beyond the liberal-conservative divide that has shaped ecclesial politics over the last sixty years.