Thomas Merton is usually thought of as a liberal or progressive Catholic, which in many respects he was: he certainly tilted left politically, on civil rights and Vietnam; he wanted to explore new modes of monastic life, putting the Western monastic tradition in conversation with Eastern religions; he chafed under authority throughout his Trappist life; he had a strong sense of self, the twentieth-century equivalent of what the Reformation controversialists called “private judgment.” I've no ideas what Merton’s liturgical practices were, but it’s not easy to imagine him a rubrical traditionalist.
Yet for all of that, I’ve often had the sneaking suspicion that, had he lived beyond his untimely death in 1968, Merton might—just might—have become one of the first Catholic neoconservatives. Why?
One reason is that he was too smart to swallow the juvenile political leftism into which Catholic progressives fell from the late Sixties through the Seventies. Merton had known the real thing—that is, real communists—in his Columbia undergraduate days, and I suspect he would not have been much impressed with the Woodstock-generation imitation. Merton’s rivalry with Daniel Berrigan might have been another factor pushing him toward a critique of progressive Catholicism: as Berrigan, the Church’s other poet-activist, moved farther and farther left, Merton might have recoiled in a different direction. Then there was Merton’s interest in religion in Asia: had he lived to see the vast persecution wrought by communists on Catholics and Buddhists alike in Vietnam, Tibet, and China, the cause of religious freedom might have been for him, as it was for Richard John Neuhaus, a pathway out of “The Movement.”
No one will ever know for sure where Thomas Merton would have ended up, ideologically speaking. But we do know that he was not altogether comfortable with the Catholic progressives of his own time, and we know that from his own hand. Merton and his old friend Robert Lax wrote each other a long series of what they called “nonsense letters," crafted in a deliberately zany style but making serious points from time to time. Here, in that inimitable style, is Merton to Lax in 1967 on the subject of Catholic progressives:
I am truly spry and full of fun, but am pursued by the vilifications of progressed Catholics. Mark my word man there is no uglier species on the face of the earth than progressed Catholics, mean, frivol, ungainly, inarticulate, venomous, and bursting at the seams with progress into the secular cities and Teilhardian subways. The Ottavianis was bad but these are infinitely worse. You wait and see.
It’s hard not to see real prescience on Merton’s part here. Today’s progressive Catholic world seems to be coming unglued. Examples abound; here are two particularly ripe ones.
In May, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, wrote to Congressman Paul Ryan, laying out basic principles of Catholic social doctrine and welcoming a conversation with the House budget committee chairman on the application of those principles to political reality. This entirely sensible letter was greeted by one progressive blogger with a lengthy and vaguely paranoid post hinting at a vast and dark conspiracy to starve children and welfare mothers, the co-conspirators being Dolan; Ryan; Msgr. David Malloy (general secretary of the bishops’ conference); the Prefect of the Papal Household; Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln; your columnist; and a parish in Milwaukee I had never heard of. Very odd.
Then there was The Tablet, England’s premier progressive Catholic journal, which marked the April 29 Royal Wedding with an editorial recommending pre-marital co-habitation. The practice, it was argued, had proven such a good preparation for marriage (cf. William and Kate) that the Church ought to get with the program. Biblical morality and two millennia of Church teaching jettisoned because of ubiquitous contemporary randiness and despite empirical data showing that pre-marital co-habitation is a good predictor of eventual divorce: odder still.
Merton told us to “wait and see” about that “ungainly” species he called “progressed Catholics.” Well, we’ve waited. We’ve seen. The picture isn’t a pretty one.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Premarital sex is a fascinating topic as to the Bible. Aquinas had held that the death penalties in the Pentateuch for personal sins were a "tell" to modern Christians as to which sins were mortal sins (killed sanctifying grace)....but premarital sex of an odd kind (seemingly rape unless translations erred here below) was not punished with death in the Pentateuch; it was punished with lasting marriage while other Jews were allowed divorce. Yes....the couple actually had a punishment that was a hidden gift of mercy ("seizes" below may be bad translating since "they are discovered" speaks rather of consent):
Deut.22:28 "If a man comes upon a young woman, a virgin who is not betrothed, seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,
29 the man who lay with her shall give the young woman’s father fifty silver shekels and she will be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her as long as he lives."
Merton's nurse by the way was betrothed and in those long ago centuries, I doubt that "outercourse" would have protected him from facing a severe punishment corporally. Regardless....he is not the perfect witness against the Tablet.
Mr. Weigel, thanks for this great article.
Do you have those words of repentance (hopefully) at hand? Odd is that he argued for prolonged necking not being sin while breaking one's vow of chastity as a monk is definitely a sin. Breaking the vow and helping ruin an engagement should have been his first two concerns....necking last of the three in priority.
Here's an excerpt from "Learning to Love"-- Vol. 6 of Merton's published journals:
"I have no intention of keeping the M. business entirely out of sight. I have always wanted to be completely open, both about my mistakes and about my effort to make sense out of my life. The affair with M. is an important part of it - and shows my limitations as well as a side of me that is - well, it needs to be known too, for it is part of me." (234.)
I took this from the Thomas Merton Society summary of that journal:
http://www.thomasmertonsociety.org/learning.htm
Sin on the other hand involves the intellect and the will in concert even when the intellect avoids some mistakes as in Paul: "...the evil that I would not do is that which I do.". Paul's will overcomes the intellect....and thus the real problem is will not intellect with its mistakes.
I am so sick of this entire conservative vs. liberal (progressive) clap trap. Weigel seems to feed on it. It gets us nowhere. Most folks like myself are progressive in some ways. I thought the Iraq was was the stupidest move a president has made in my lifetime and I first voted for Johnson. But I am also conservative fiscally and don't think many social programs are worth the money.
I think Obama has settled that. He makes George W. Bush look like George Washington.
We are called to community and to be individuals and the vicissitudes of life for democratic men and women thoroughly lose themselves to this world.
If I may quote a website who discusses the essay:
"Merton stresses the distinction between the solitary and the individualist. The individualist does not seek transcendence, only a heightened self-consciousness, a higher form of diversion. He does not reject the social myth but maintains it as a backdrop to his own myths. He seeks not the hidden and metaphysical but the smugness of self-congratulations. In short, the individualist's model is not the desert but the womb.
"For Merton, the true solitary is "one who renounces ... arbitrary social imagery." The true solitary is united to others precisely by values that transcend nation-state, class, group, or other arbitrary social structures that serve to separate the family of humankind."
(http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/merton_notes.html is the source)
The progress Merton would be for is for us to be our own hermitage in this world.
There were two or three Republican primary candidates in 2000 that were more fiscally conservative than GW Bush, my favorite being Steve Forbes. No, the conservatives didn't get "their president." As in most elections, they just got the best of what was left. Bush should've worn out his veto pen, stopping the spending going on, but to his shame he didn't. But, the current President is making Bush look like a Scottish schoolmarm by comparison. He's Bush cubed. The only thing President Obama is improving is GW Bush's legacy.
Merton was a constantly evolving discontent who very much disliked authority. Disliked authority? Dislikers of authority make poor priests and even poorer saints.
Seven Story Mountain was the best of his books, filled with faith, hope and future. After that he grew away from Catholic orthodoxy into egotism and perhaps a form of pantheism. Perhaps it was an act of mercy for Merton that he was taken when he did.
uh, he died in 1968 long after most of us knew about the persecution of Catholics in North Viet Nam (not to mention the terrible persecution of Catholics and Tibetan Buddhists in China).
You mean he might have finally noticed it?
and his pacifism in World War II speaks volumes...it was very convenient for him: no ambulance driving under fire, you know...I mean he didn't even bother to work with the refugees fleeing Hitler.
The POTUS does not spend the country's money. At least Randy acknowledges the veto power which is about it for the president. Obama is and has not been spending the money, Congress has. And it has been a bi partisan spending spree. Bush got his Part D and Obama got his Health Care. Both are supposed to save money at the same time they spent money. What grates is some kind of smarmy and clueless broad brush about this president. Laying on him the issues which are flaming throughout the world, that are related to the financial scandals that have been raging for years, the derivatives, the mortgage meltdown, the lack of jobs that has been a trend in this country for decades..... READ guys. Read some real sources with real information not just some glop you heard at your last coffee get together.
That said I can't see him as a neocon AT ALL and here's why: Merton would have ultimately disagreed with their more or less wholesale alignment with the military and the wealthy, which he had a very healthy distrust of. He might see through the crap on the left but he would be appalled by the right.
I imagine him as more like N. T. Wright - but of the Catholic persuasion. Conservative (orthodox) in his theology, politically liberal when it comes to the poor, with a mix of liberal and Conservative views on culture and social matters. I think when lefties try to claim him they are off base but I think it is also off base to claim him as a neocon.
Did he have trouble with authority? Yes, but his abbot described him as always, always obedient - and he was. He was a walking contradiction. But he was considered at the monastery to be the holiest of men - the most trustworthy --that's why he was entrusted with the education of the novices - what great endorsement could there be?
Finally, in a letter to Dorothy Day he says that while he is absolutely against the Vietnam War specifically and war in general, he is NOT a pacifist as he feels war at times is justified.
He had trouble with authority but was always always obedient? You're in denial. If he was always, always obedient, he had no problem with authority.
He didn't obey His vow of chastity with perseverance which you allege was no big deal to the Abbot.
Then the Abbot was a jerk. Where is the sympathy of Christ in any of these people for the fiance. What if you were engaged to a young man and some famous writer nun was necking with your fiance and speaking of their love of each other for months? That would be no big deal? Something to tell the grandkids when it becomes public as it did because Merton's life is so important.
Tell me this. What was his relationship to the child he fathered when young? Or was he or she as out of sight out of mind as the fiance was.
http://mertonocso.wordpress.com/
Merton's affair almost certainly had something to do with his drinking problem. One of the saddest images comes from Walker Percy who describes rounding the bend to Merton's hermitage and seeing sad Merton, drunk, hitting from a bottle of whiskey. This was roughly at the time Merton was dating M. His dating of M. was short lived and then he ended it.
What would have happened to Merton is an excellent parlor game. Weigel's column is plausible and terrific. And who knows...
If you're going to look at a man who was a Christian monastic, you have to understand something about the inward aspect of religion, which is what monasticism is all about. If your whole consciousness is bound up (and bound is a good word) in the affairs of the world, you won't have a clue.
Merton was concerned about what it is to be a true human being in relation to God. He was concerned about being true to the "image of God" (the pre-fall Adamic nature) that each of us has either really or potentially. That is an inward concern. And loving that image of God in all of humanity, as well as loving the Creator in creation, is the primary outward concern. Any desire Merton had for social justice or for peace in the world came from this love of the Divine in all humanity. It was NOT about having the correct politics.
Withdrawing from the world is what monasticism is all about. Actually living in a monastery is one way to do this, but this withdrawal is more an attitude than a physical circumstance. It allows one the opportunity to get free of the outer noise and attend to quieting the inward noise in an attempt to actually experience the "image of God" that lies within us all.
Remember the two Great Commandments. Jesus said the second Great Commandment is "like unto the first". We are commanded to love God as God AND as neighbor AND in ourselves. Merton accepted the first of the two commandments as a given. He then went on to try to find out how to properly carry out the second one. There is nothing political about "doing unto the least of these". It is not socialism to seek to do unto Christ by doing unto our neighbor, it is Biblical.
Merton saw correctly in liberal Catholicism the danger of being preoccupied with social justice. A preoccupation with justice always carries the risk of justifying anger in the soul and becoming distant from God all the while thinking you are serving Him.
With all due respect you seem to misunderstand what obedience means. Obedience is action-based, following or submitting the will of another. One can have a rebellious streak, but still submit to and be obedient. It just makes it that much harder.
Finally his abbot's response was that Merton fell in love and this happens to monks sometimes. I imagine it does. As none of us is perfect and human love is very powerful and we are designed by God to seek it.
Mistake? This word was used by Merton to avoid an examination of the implications, the endless rippling effects, of what he had done and how he wrote about it. We are all sinners, including the saints of the Church. True repentance is key in attaining freedom. Leonard Cohen sings, "Repent, repent...I wonder what they meant." We have forgotten. Solzhenitsyn says the loss of a personal in-depth responsibility is often a by-product of a loss of understanding what repentance really means, a major tragedy of modern times. He wrote an essay on it and was laughed at.
We no longer sin. We make mistakes.
“The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves and not to twist them to fit our own image.”
That said, here is something from Merton that seems to identify very much with the spirit of today's Occupy movements:
“You do not need to know precisely what is happening, or exactly where it is all going. What you need is to recognize the possibilities and challenges offered by the present moment, and to embrace them with courage, faith and hope.”


