"I enjoyed your essay on Morton, Ariel. It occurred to me that the context of Morton's first piece in November 1949 and its emphasis on 'national development' was, as well as European Communism, also that of the Atlee government's nationalization of the 'means of production, distribution and exchange' - the coal, iron and associated industries, the railways, the Bank of England, and the adoption of central planning for growth, against which a reactionary Catholic Church preached in its social teaching, as did, typically more ambiguously, the hierarchy of the Church of England, still very much 'the Tory Party at prayer', though in its parochial clergy probably more aware of the depth and extent of economic misery.
The second is more interesting. Edwards, and others, were engaged in a refurbishment of the history of the Catholic Church in the light of Vatican II and the emergence of 'liberation theology', which at least in the 'Third World' (as it was then called) supported left-wing or radical social and political reform movements. All such ideas were marginalized by John Paul II, and especially Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis has been opposed vigorously (and ironically) by an alliance of reactionary US and African cardinals and senior clergy in trying to resurrect a more subtle version of liberation theology. However, the 'Catholic turn' to which Morton was at least partly sympathetic in his second essay, has continued in historiography. It particularly bedevils Shakespearian scholarship, where it tries to make Shakespeare more 'relevant' to the contemporary world by concocting arguments that he was a subversive Catholic radical, opposed to the tyranny of the regnum cecilianum - in other words it reproduces the characterization of the Elizabethan and Jacobean regimes spread by contemporary polemicists like Robert Persons and William Allen, and fits Shakespeare into that mould, which takes a lot of pushing and shoving."
Glad you liked the piece Glyn, and thanks so much for your perceptive and extremely helpful comments. I don't know enough about post-World War II British history so this is really valuable and much appreciated context.
The turn towards liberation theology among certain Marxist historians was something I was aware of through the second appendix to Christopher Hill's book on the English Bible (1992). But I'd never followed it up. Looking at it again, Hill thanks Marcus Rediker for pointing him in this direction. Another reader has suggested that Morton might have know members of 'Slant' or 'New Blackfriars'; publications which facilitated Catholic-Marxist dialogue. He too wonders if the change in Morton's thinking came about because of the rise of Liberation Theology.
So lots for me to think about and explore. Thanks again.
Glyn Parry writes:
"I enjoyed your essay on Morton, Ariel. It occurred to me that the context of Morton's first piece in November 1949 and its emphasis on 'national development' was, as well as European Communism, also that of the Atlee government's nationalization of the 'means of production, distribution and exchange' - the coal, iron and associated industries, the railways, the Bank of England, and the adoption of central planning for growth, against which a reactionary Catholic Church preached in its social teaching, as did, typically more ambiguously, the hierarchy of the Church of England, still very much 'the Tory Party at prayer', though in its parochial clergy probably more aware of the depth and extent of economic misery.
The second is more interesting. Edwards, and others, were engaged in a refurbishment of the history of the Catholic Church in the light of Vatican II and the emergence of 'liberation theology', which at least in the 'Third World' (as it was then called) supported left-wing or radical social and political reform movements. All such ideas were marginalized by John Paul II, and especially Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis has been opposed vigorously (and ironically) by an alliance of reactionary US and African cardinals and senior clergy in trying to resurrect a more subtle version of liberation theology. However, the 'Catholic turn' to which Morton was at least partly sympathetic in his second essay, has continued in historiography. It particularly bedevils Shakespearian scholarship, where it tries to make Shakespeare more 'relevant' to the contemporary world by concocting arguments that he was a subversive Catholic radical, opposed to the tyranny of the regnum cecilianum - in other words it reproduces the characterization of the Elizabethan and Jacobean regimes spread by contemporary polemicists like Robert Persons and William Allen, and fits Shakespeare into that mould, which takes a lot of pushing and shoving."
Glad you liked the piece Glyn, and thanks so much for your perceptive and extremely helpful comments. I don't know enough about post-World War II British history so this is really valuable and much appreciated context.
The turn towards liberation theology among certain Marxist historians was something I was aware of through the second appendix to Christopher Hill's book on the English Bible (1992). But I'd never followed it up. Looking at it again, Hill thanks Marcus Rediker for pointing him in this direction. Another reader has suggested that Morton might have know members of 'Slant' or 'New Blackfriars'; publications which facilitated Catholic-Marxist dialogue. He too wonders if the change in Morton's thinking came about because of the rise of Liberation Theology.
So lots for me to think about and explore. Thanks again.