Kale, I loved this piece. Very insightful, and, as folks say, it "tracks" my experience as a Catholic thinking and writing about these things for 30+ years.
Interesting. I'm not sure I buy the "hyperobject" idea in and of itself, but I agree, Vatican II is still sending shockwaves through the Church, 60 years later. We're still grappling with it, still trying to interpret it, still trying to bend it to our own agendas and ideologies. I suspect there was a similar period of aftershock after Trent, and probably numerous other councils. We just don't have a Twitter archive back that far to be able to see it in such granularity.
I don't know if Trent was felt as a burden but as some kind of clarifying relief. It would be interesting to see if anyone has done a deep dive in that regard. Where there voices in the church that disliked Trent?
treating a council as if its a hot cake that needs 60 years to set before being eaten is one of the classic conservative objections to trad criticisms of the council. i cannot count the number of times i have heard it in attempts to guilt me in to supporting or at least remaining ambivalent about v2.
but common sense tells us this cannot be so with other councils because they arent intentionally ambiguous. the v2 fathers said they were intentionally ambiguous schillbex for instance. one look at trent and you see an thorough and clear teaching on the theology that animated the reformation church after as they opposed what was taught. but what was taught could not be disputed. even the practical reforms, seminary reform for example, were clear and practicable. conciliarists are still debating what exactly sacrosanctum concilium called for, etc. there is just no comparison.
im not sure if this captures the salient point of ideological parallel between the climate crisis and v-2. the point being that its a negative identity, the grounding point is something bad that happened and is going to happen if we do not abandon everything in service to the crisis. only the now can save us from the past and future. where as the catholic spirit says the opposite, only the now can disconnect us from continuity with the good of the past and a promising future. covid functioned this way .its this basic structure that sets up the unfalsifiable boogeyman in relation to whom the reforms can always find their justification.
Kale, interesting article; thank you for writing it. I wonder if the concept of hyperobject as you have explained it was operative to any degree for prior councils. Any thoughts?
I don't think so, which is why I was compelled by the comparison when it popped into my head. The other councils were called to deal specifically and tangibly with a crisis. The crisis that V2 responded too seems so inchoate. That doesn't mean it's bad, but that its reception has been wildly different.
I'm not sure I buy the idea of a hyperobject. Or I'm not sure the label helps us think about things. Granted, my only exposure to it is a few minutes' unsympathetic reading of the introduction you linked to. The sentenced that jumped out at me (which you also quoted) was "I should care about it."
Looking at global warming and Vatican II, it seems to me that a hyperobject is something people who have power over me tell me i should care about. Or I should care about disproportionately. Or I should care about in the way I'm told to.
I suppose in reference to Vatican II the term is useful in the sense that we can decide whether it is (or ought to be) a hyperobject. I suppose a lot depends on whether the rays in that "Better Tomorrow" picture are the sunrise or a nuclear blast.
By "I should care about it" I thought (and think) he meant that this thing is supposed to be so big and so vital and so necessary that everyone thinks he should care about it--even if he doesn't.
Ha ha, great piece. You're right--it's a giant thing everywhere, at all times, and impossible to really see or fully comprehend. Good? Bad? Who knows? Are things better than they were? Depends who you ask! Are they better that they would have been without it? We can't know...
Kale, I loved this piece. Very insightful, and, as folks say, it "tracks" my experience as a Catholic thinking and writing about these things for 30+ years.
Wow. I appreciate it. It popped into my head. I'll try to spend some time making more sense of it. Cheers.
Interesting. I'm not sure I buy the "hyperobject" idea in and of itself, but I agree, Vatican II is still sending shockwaves through the Church, 60 years later. We're still grappling with it, still trying to interpret it, still trying to bend it to our own agendas and ideologies. I suspect there was a similar period of aftershock after Trent, and probably numerous other councils. We just don't have a Twitter archive back that far to be able to see it in such granularity.
I don't know if Trent was felt as a burden but as some kind of clarifying relief. It would be interesting to see if anyone has done a deep dive in that regard. Where there voices in the church that disliked Trent?
treating a council as if its a hot cake that needs 60 years to set before being eaten is one of the classic conservative objections to trad criticisms of the council. i cannot count the number of times i have heard it in attempts to guilt me in to supporting or at least remaining ambivalent about v2.
but common sense tells us this cannot be so with other councils because they arent intentionally ambiguous. the v2 fathers said they were intentionally ambiguous schillbex for instance. one look at trent and you see an thorough and clear teaching on the theology that animated the reformation church after as they opposed what was taught. but what was taught could not be disputed. even the practical reforms, seminary reform for example, were clear and practicable. conciliarists are still debating what exactly sacrosanctum concilium called for, etc. there is just no comparison.
I don't know what the answer is, but I think you are right. We are told that it takes a 100 years for a council to settle in. Color me skeptical.
im not sure if this captures the salient point of ideological parallel between the climate crisis and v-2. the point being that its a negative identity, the grounding point is something bad that happened and is going to happen if we do not abandon everything in service to the crisis. only the now can save us from the past and future. where as the catholic spirit says the opposite, only the now can disconnect us from continuity with the good of the past and a promising future. covid functioned this way .its this basic structure that sets up the unfalsifiable boogeyman in relation to whom the reforms can always find their justification.
Good comment.
Kale, interesting article; thank you for writing it. I wonder if the concept of hyperobject as you have explained it was operative to any degree for prior councils. Any thoughts?
I don't think so, which is why I was compelled by the comparison when it popped into my head. The other councils were called to deal specifically and tangibly with a crisis. The crisis that V2 responded too seems so inchoate. That doesn't mean it's bad, but that its reception has been wildly different.
I'm not sure I buy the idea of a hyperobject. Or I'm not sure the label helps us think about things. Granted, my only exposure to it is a few minutes' unsympathetic reading of the introduction you linked to. The sentenced that jumped out at me (which you also quoted) was "I should care about it."
Looking at global warming and Vatican II, it seems to me that a hyperobject is something people who have power over me tell me i should care about. Or I should care about disproportionately. Or I should care about in the way I'm told to.
I suppose in reference to Vatican II the term is useful in the sense that we can decide whether it is (or ought to be) a hyperobject. I suppose a lot depends on whether the rays in that "Better Tomorrow" picture are the sunrise or a nuclear blast.
I think you get at it with the "I should care about it" bit. What exactly is "it" that I'm supposed to care about? Thanks.
By "I should care about it" I thought (and think) he meant that this thing is supposed to be so big and so vital and so necessary that everyone thinks he should care about it--even if he doesn't.
That's an interesting and useful way at looking big events. Thanks for posting it!
Ha ha, great piece. You're right--it's a giant thing everywhere, at all times, and impossible to really see or fully comprehend. Good? Bad? Who knows? Are things better than they were? Depends who you ask! Are they better that they would have been without it? We can't know...