The suspicious mirage of Catholicism

Catholicism is in vogue in Spain, it seems. There are already many flashes that form a ray of light that illuminates society in a different way, that is, it seems to be more than just a “vintage Christian” vision. Diego Garrocho brilliantly described it in “El giro católico” (The Catholic Turn). But the two most talked-about examples are the aesthetics and spirituality of Rosalía's new album and the much-discussed film “Los Domingos” by Alauda Ruiz de Azúa, which showcase this change. Hakuna's religious music is another clear expression of this movement, because it is a cultural and spiritual product, consumed like any other standard cultural product on the market. 

Faced with this phenomenon, some wonder: are we talking about a patina that gives this movement its “retro” image, or is it a profound change? Is it an aesthetic that is useful for renewing the cultural landscape, but which ultimately contributes nothing new? Is it the use of nostalgia to capture general interest, or is it a change of direction? Is it a momentary mirage to keep Catholics calm and quiet, or does it mean that we are returning to our roots?

This seemingly disjointed resurgence, which has resulted in an apparent global renewal, is a clear sign of how our society, whether we like it or not, is steeped in Catholic culture. Deep down, it reminds us of who we are and that this movement is more than just a fad, as it transcends the cultural moment. Because, as we know, Catholic means “universal,” and if this “turnaround” is real, it transcends the temporal.

But above all, it implies that it is linked to the idea, so necessary today, of dialogue, which distances us from the polarization present in our society. In other words, if this spontaneous movement allows us to show that it is possible to have an opinion different from the prevailing one without prejudice, then this return to Catholicism is welcome, because it is proof that it is a real change. In other words, having polarity means having opinions, ideas, and a sense of purpose in life, which is very different from what polarization seeks to achieve. Polarization seeks to fragment, divide, and disunite.

This means that we must defend our principles, which are characteristic of the early West (Rome, Jerusalem, Athens), but under the umbrella of the common good and dialogue, something that is also characteristic of the Social Doctrine of the Church. In other words, we must not be victims of the sheep-like system; we must express and live what we think, without seeking conflict (sought by others), but knowing that this cost Christians martyrdom, and in these times it can often cost cultural martyrdom in Europe, imposed by wokeism. And in several countries in Africa and Asia, it is leading to real martyrdom, such as the genocides in Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and India. 

On the other hand, it is more than an invitation to return to Catholic roots; it is the resurgence of something that has not died, because it is in the substrate of our culture. The universal values of humanity have Christian roots, whether distant or recent, such as human rights: life, a dignified life, family, housing... Until now, the view of Christianity was hurtful, because it was attacked, what it said was misrepresented, and some aspects of its doctrine were used for political purposes. If we now truly see Catholicism with different eyes, we must recognize the great advances that Christianity has brought, regardless of the mistakes made by specific individuals, because the result is more positive than it was before.

All this does not prevent, but rather challenges, Catholics and Christians in general to help continue changing society, to make it more Catholic (in the sense of universal, not reduced, not politicized) in order to dismantle the immorality of economic, social, and institutional corruption. By seeking greater education and competence for each of us, the citizens. By encouraging civic leaders who seek the common good and not their own benefit or that of “their own.” Seek a dialogue where there is real consensus, not minimal consensus. Where those most in need receive help to be better educated and prepared. And where society is an extension of the family.