than in the response to the visits of PopenJohn Paul II to Mexico and the UnitednStates this past year. At Puebla, JohnnPaul forcefully rejected the notion thatnman could be reduced to the Marxistncategories of “liberation theology,” andnoffered instead the teachings of thenChurch, which proclaim the liberationnof man’s spirit from the wages of sin. Nonsooner had he returned to Rome than thenvehicles of the modernist persuasion begannto trumpethisendorsementoiVibeTationntheology, an assertion which theynmight well have believed in their ideologicalnrapture.nWhen John Paul visited the UnitednStates, the intensity of the modernistnthrust to by-pass his spiritual message,nor translate it into ideologically acceptablen(secular) terms, increased. Then”objective” media continually sought toncarry on the conversation in their ownnideological terms, and to enhance anyn”controversy” which lent itself to thatninherent bias. Consider the profeministnmotivation: one Washington-area priest,nwhose sole distinction is his support fornwomen’s ordination, was interviewed bynthe media no less than seventy-fiventimes. Sister Theresa Kane’s introductionnof John Paul in Washington wasnmore often noted for its “courage” innchiding the Pontiff about women’s ordinationnthan for the disruption which herntiny minority of followers caused duringnthe appearance. And as it became increasinglynclear that the Pope had comento America to restate clear and fundamentalnrules about magisterial (hierarchical)nauthority, sexual morality, andnthe permanence of marriage and religiousnviews, the airwaves were full ofninterviews of married priests who “loventhe Church no less” but were “forced tonchoose between the Church they servednand the women they loved.”nSuch dewy-eyed claptrap might appearnto be mere propaganda, but it is more:nthe famous Austrian novelist, RobertnMusil, observed in the period which followednthe collapse of the Austriannmonarchy the ideological phenomenonnwhich he called the “second reality,” annirrational dream world wherein the metaphysicalnrebel could freely indulge innspeculation unimpeded by reality of anyntheoretical niceties—truth, logic, andnthe like (DerMann ohne Eigenschaften,n1930-33). In this spirit, Latin Americann”liberation theologians” persist in theirnwillful ignorance of the binding relationshipnbetween economic prodution,ndemocracy, and capitalism. And innAmerica modernists thrive on suchnmake-believe, insisting that the Churchnconform to ideological categories —nMarxism, therapeutic psychology, positivism,nor sentimental liberalism —nrather than to the transcendental characternof her mission as instituted bynChrist and defined by Church authoritynand tradition. Such partisans will alwaysnconsider the Church as nothing morenthan one more “special-interest group”n—powerful, no doubt, hundreds of millionsnstrong, but of no more eternal consequencenthan, say, the DemocraticnParty. (But with the same temporal usefulness:nthe American Church has becomenincreasingly political precisely innthose matters where its pronouncementsnhave no divine dispensation—forninstance, SALT II and minimum-wagenlegislation; and socialists vibrantlynapplauded Pope Paul VTs aversion toncapitalism or any “liberal ideology whichnbelieves it exalts individual freedom bynwithdrawing it from every limitation.”nThe point to be made here is not thatnPaul VI misunderstood capitalism: thenChurch has long been clinging to thenaristocratic notion that capitalism isnmerely the economic dimension of thenReformation heresy of individualism.nRather, we must recognize that, inntaking positions on political issues onnwhich prudent men might find weightynreasons to take either side, the Churchntrivializes its function of speakingnauthoritatively to the faithful on thenmatters of faith and morals which constitutenthe deposit of faith.)nThe “second reality” thus proceedsnfrom wishful thinking which providesnthe ideologue with an imaginary alterna­nnntive to the real world. Such a precariousnvision must give way, however, whennconfronted with an unavoidable obstaclenin the dimension of reality. If the modernistsndeem the authority of the papacynas exercised by the new Pontiff to bensuch an impediment to their agenda,nHitchcock does not deny that the ensuingnconflict might well result in opennschism. Such an eventuality has alreadynbeen adumbrated in the firmness withnwhich the Pope has acted in matters ofndoctrinal discipline since his return tonRome. He has required that all Catholicnuniversities assure the Vatican that theirnteachers of philosophy and theologynactually conform to Catholic doctrine.nHe has reaffirmed the Church’s traditionnof male clergy, and encouragednwomen in the religious life to cultivatenthe virtues of sacrifice and service. Onenfeminist at Notre Dame was “enraged”nby this “arrogant, chauvinistic, andnvulgar” response to Sister Kane’s “restrained,nrespectful moderation,” andnsuggested “the possibility of beginning anparallel church.” Similar reactions bynthe American liberal elite have becomeneven more pronounced with the recentndisciplining of Swiss theologian HansnKiing, who has spent the past ten yearsnactively campaigning against fundamentalnChurch doctrine through hisnwritings, appearances on American universityncampuses, and articles on thenop-ed page of the New York Times. Itnis now more likely that the modernistsnwill suddenly discover that the Churchnhas passed them by. If they do, we mightnwell see the revolutionary tumult whichnnormally follows the collapse of annideological dream.nx5ut many show no sign of awakening:nwe are still told how John PaulnII’s “narrow Polish background” impedesnhis effectiveness, disappointingntheologians who “expected greater depthnand sophistication.” The New YorknTimes recently discussed the future ofnthe Church (and underscored Hitchcock’snemphasis on the dominance of thentherapeutic mentality in the “new”n^m^mm^mmmm^^nJanuary/February 1980n