Peter Espeut
WHEN IT comes to theft or murder, I am a conservative; I am decidedly against them! What would a radical say?
When it comes to poverty I am a radical; I believe that in Jamaica poverty has been carefully preserved at a high level to drive down wages and to keep the masses dependent upon politicians. What would a conservative say?
The trouble is that these words 'radical' and 'conservative' have been co-opted by political types to mean politically 'left' and 'right', two other words which have been co-opted.
ATTACHING LABELS
The word for 'left' in Latin is 'sinister', and the word for "right" is 'dexter' (from which we get the word dexterity). And of course, the word "right" also means "correct".
I have always been amused at the games people play when they glibly attach these labels to people or governments or churches or (more recently) to popes. Being left wing means having socialist or communist leanings (which to many is sort of sinister), whereas being right wing means being right, I suppose.
The English word 'radical' is derived from the Latin word 'radix' which means "root". So a 'radical' is someone who gets down to the root, basis or foundation of the issues. A political radical, therefore, is one who prescribes fundamental change, since their analysis of society turns up so much that is wrong.
A 'conservative' is someone who seeks to retain and preserve the status quo (things as they are).
Being conservative is not a bad thing if what you wish to maintain is good (like laws against robbery and murder). A political conservative wishes to keep things as they are, presumably since they value the present order, or feel that its continuance is in their personal interest.
Whatever labels like 'radical' and 'conservative' may mean politically, they lose their meaning when you apply them to morality and ethics. Is someone conservative because they believe in honesty, and radical if they believe in corruption?
I have been called both names in my short life, and I bear both titles proudly. I am radical because I seek to get to the root of Jamaica's social problems wherever the analysis may lead and I call a spade a spade.
I am proud to be a conservative because I believe in defending the values I hold dear, like justice and fair play. In both cases the issue is truth. I am therefore both a radical and a conservative at the same time, and there is absolutely no contradiction.
THEOLOGICAL CONSERVATIVE
I hear journalists particularly Americans calling Pope Benedict XVI a theological conservative because he defends the Roman Catholic Church's position on homosexuality, abortion and contraception. If they wished, they could label him a theological radical for the same reason.
Respect for life and the family is at the very roots of the Christian faith, and it is his duty to conserve it. To depart from the gospel of life would almost be to depart from Christianity itself. Terms like 'radical' and 'conservative' are profoundly useless in addressing moral issues.
What is even more interesting is that the American media include the issue of priestly celibacy along with homosexuality, abortion and contraception when calling Pope Benedict XVI a theological conservative.
The requirement that its priests and bishops be celibate (unmarried and continent) is neither a moral nor a theological issue, and does not belong in that list.
There is no theological or ethical imperative for Roman Catholic clergy to remain unmarried; and indeed, that was not the case in the early church.
Celibacy is a discipline which the Church requires priests and bishops voluntarily to impose upon themselves; this requirement could be changed tomorrow, with no moral or theological implications. Not so for homosexuality, abortion and contraception. A change in these positions would result in a different church!
The Anglican Church in parts of the United States is now a different church than it was a few decades ago, such that it has been suspended from the Anglican communion.
To say that homosexuals must not be discriminated against in the workplace, and that Christians must welcome persons of homosexual orientation into the church is one thing (both of which the Roman Catholic Church accepts, as do I). But to ordain as a bishop a practising homosexual who lives with his boyfriend in the presbytery with his boyfriend in the front row of the cathedral is quite another. A line definitely has been crossed.
And to castigate Benedict XVI for not following suit even before he is installed as Pope, calling him conservative, is poor journalism. I don't believe that the U.S. media really understand the issues.
Peter Aspect is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon.
