I really enjoyed this article and your perspective. I also admire Jünger and am Catholic. I do, however, have some reservations about your characterization of Gaudium et Spes. I think that it has much more in common with Jünger's statement than you give it credit for. If you go back and read Jünger's statement and then read this from Gaudium, I think you'll see the similarities:
"Never has the human race enjoyed such an abundance of wealth, resources and economic power, and yet a huge proportion of the world's citizens are still tormented by hunger and poverty, while countless numbers suffer from total illiteracy. Never before has man had so keen an understanding of freedom, yet at the same time new forms of social and psychological slavery make their appearance. Although the world of today has a very vivid awareness of its unity and of how one man depends on another in needful solidarity, it is most grievously torn into opposing camps by conflicting forces. For political, social, economic, racial and ideological disputes still continue bitterly, and with them the peril of a war which would reduce everything to ashes. True, there is a growing exchange of ideas, but the very words by which key concepts are expressed take on quite different meanings in diverse ideological systems. Finally, man painstakingly searches for a better world, without a corresponding spiritual advancement.
"Influenced by such a variety of complexities, many of our contemporaries are kept from accurately identifying permanent values and adjusting them properly to fresh discoveries. As a result, buffeted between hope and anxiety and pressing one another with questions about the present course of events, they are burdened down with uneasiness. This same course of events leads men to look for answers; indeed, it forces them to do so."
Jünger is more forceful, eloquent and sobering, but I think the Council Fathers understood the problems facing humanity just as well. Their desire to interpret the signs of the times came from a solidly Christian perspective. Indeed, the actual statement is: "...the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel." Note that last part of the statement. They were presenting a case for Christ and for the Gospel being the proper way to interpret, understand and respond to what they saw happening in the world at the time the document was written, fully understanding that much of their audience lacked even the most fundamental understanding of the Christian vision (as you noted). The document attempts to present that vision and apply it to the modern world for the benefit of everyone (hence why it is a "pastoral constitution"). I don't see it as particularly optimistic. They were pointing out that modernity has some serious flaws that are being magnified by technological and social progress and that those flaws can only be corrected by Christ and Christian virtues. The implication was that failing to live out the Gospel in the modern world would result in social breakdown, decadence, decay, inequality, war and spiritual bankruptcy.
Now, has the Church failed in the task they set for themselves? Yes, I think in many ways it has, and that deserves analysis and criticism. But I do think Gaudium et Spes is a valid and galvanizing document that deserves serious reading.
You know what, I appreciate the comment and you bring up some important points. I think you are right, inasmuch as the document is not quite as optimistic as I made it out to be. I think documents like "Pacem in Terris" and the subsequent attitude of the Church post-Vatican II give that impression retroactively, but read on its own, I think you are right that it doesn’t ignore dangers or overlook the threats of modernity. With that being said, every now and then in the document it seems as if the Council speaks of modernity as a neutral object of development that we have the power to use or abuse accordingly. For instance, the document treats modern technology essentially as a tool that we can use for good or ill, rather than recognizing that the technology may be insidious in and of itself. Similarly, democracy and liberal government are taken for granted as a good that we must advance and that is just naturally the best, when frankly this has turned out to not really be the case, at least by my estimation. These are just a few things.
Overall though your point is well taken and I do believe you are right in many respects. Perhaps I could go back and read some of these documents and reflect on them in another article.
Well spoken. I do think that Jünger had a much better grasp of the dangers of technology. In fact, his grasp of its dangers is almost uncanny considering he didn't live to see the smartphone or AI. I still marvel at his novel Glass Bees every time I read it.
Regarding liberal democracies, those were different times and the spread of communism was a pressing concern the Church was eager to address. So it doesn't surprise me that liberal democracies were the counterbalance they reached for.
I really enjoyed this article and your perspective. I also admire Jünger and am Catholic. I do, however, have some reservations about your characterization of Gaudium et Spes. I think that it has much more in common with Jünger's statement than you give it credit for. If you go back and read Jünger's statement and then read this from Gaudium, I think you'll see the similarities:
"Never has the human race enjoyed such an abundance of wealth, resources and economic power, and yet a huge proportion of the world's citizens are still tormented by hunger and poverty, while countless numbers suffer from total illiteracy. Never before has man had so keen an understanding of freedom, yet at the same time new forms of social and psychological slavery make their appearance. Although the world of today has a very vivid awareness of its unity and of how one man depends on another in needful solidarity, it is most grievously torn into opposing camps by conflicting forces. For political, social, economic, racial and ideological disputes still continue bitterly, and with them the peril of a war which would reduce everything to ashes. True, there is a growing exchange of ideas, but the very words by which key concepts are expressed take on quite different meanings in diverse ideological systems. Finally, man painstakingly searches for a better world, without a corresponding spiritual advancement.
"Influenced by such a variety of complexities, many of our contemporaries are kept from accurately identifying permanent values and adjusting them properly to fresh discoveries. As a result, buffeted between hope and anxiety and pressing one another with questions about the present course of events, they are burdened down with uneasiness. This same course of events leads men to look for answers; indeed, it forces them to do so."
Jünger is more forceful, eloquent and sobering, but I think the Council Fathers understood the problems facing humanity just as well. Their desire to interpret the signs of the times came from a solidly Christian perspective. Indeed, the actual statement is: "...the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel." Note that last part of the statement. They were presenting a case for Christ and for the Gospel being the proper way to interpret, understand and respond to what they saw happening in the world at the time the document was written, fully understanding that much of their audience lacked even the most fundamental understanding of the Christian vision (as you noted). The document attempts to present that vision and apply it to the modern world for the benefit of everyone (hence why it is a "pastoral constitution"). I don't see it as particularly optimistic. They were pointing out that modernity has some serious flaws that are being magnified by technological and social progress and that those flaws can only be corrected by Christ and Christian virtues. The implication was that failing to live out the Gospel in the modern world would result in social breakdown, decadence, decay, inequality, war and spiritual bankruptcy.
Now, has the Church failed in the task they set for themselves? Yes, I think in many ways it has, and that deserves analysis and criticism. But I do think Gaudium et Spes is a valid and galvanizing document that deserves serious reading.
You know what, I appreciate the comment and you bring up some important points. I think you are right, inasmuch as the document is not quite as optimistic as I made it out to be. I think documents like "Pacem in Terris" and the subsequent attitude of the Church post-Vatican II give that impression retroactively, but read on its own, I think you are right that it doesn’t ignore dangers or overlook the threats of modernity. With that being said, every now and then in the document it seems as if the Council speaks of modernity as a neutral object of development that we have the power to use or abuse accordingly. For instance, the document treats modern technology essentially as a tool that we can use for good or ill, rather than recognizing that the technology may be insidious in and of itself. Similarly, democracy and liberal government are taken for granted as a good that we must advance and that is just naturally the best, when frankly this has turned out to not really be the case, at least by my estimation. These are just a few things.
Overall though your point is well taken and I do believe you are right in many respects. Perhaps I could go back and read some of these documents and reflect on them in another article.
Well spoken. I do think that Jünger had a much better grasp of the dangers of technology. In fact, his grasp of its dangers is almost uncanny considering he didn't live to see the smartphone or AI. I still marvel at his novel Glass Bees every time I read it.
Regarding liberal democracies, those were different times and the spread of communism was a pressing concern the Church was eager to address. So it doesn't surprise me that liberal democracies were the counterbalance they reached for.