The post-papal visit analysis is a week old now, the questions being asked, “What’s the impact? What’s the long-term effect?”
The answer?
It depends on us.
The Pope spoke to everyone while he was in the United States, because he came as pastor, as successor of Peter, the Peter who was sent out with the rest of his brother apostles to spread the Gospel, to share the Good News of reconciliation and redemption, of God-Made-Flesh.
But his messages for Catholics were, I thought, very clear and consistent, no matter to whom he was speaking – bishops, educators, seminarians, youth…the rest of us.
The message, as I heard it, was essentially: “Good job so far. A great story, this Church in the United States. But now..get busy. Confront the divisions within the Church and work for unity in Christ. Let the point of this – the love of Christ, the presence of Christ – shine through and be what moves and motivates you, so that the world will, indeed, see the Light of Christ and come to Him to fulfill its hunger and quench its thirst.”
At every turn, the Pope highlighted, not only the strengths of the Church in the US, but weaknesses, sometimes in a backhanded way, but just as clearly. The ideological divisions. When Catholics fail to live their faith every day of the week. When bishops fail to be pastors or pursue holiness. When Catholic educational institutions turn from the fullness of faith and turn from the poor. When we let the voice of the culture guide us, not Christ. When we shrink from answering the questions, the needs of those around us, when we turn inward and are too afraid to let Christ lead us into this great adventure of faith.
Over and over, Benedict asked us to place Christ as the center. Challenged us to evaluate who, indeed, is at the center of our lives – Christ? Or someone else? Bishops, priests, religious…Christians of other traditions. Who is that we serve?
At the Commonweal blog, Fr. Robert Imbelli of Boston College reflects:
One cannot read a homily or a pastoral address of the Holy Father without sensing that the proclamation of Jesus as “Lord and Messiah” is the very heart of his message. Let one example, from his address in Washington to the Representatives of other religions, suffice:
Confronted with these deeper questions concerning the origin and destiny of mankind, Christianity proposes Jesus of Nazareth. He, we believe, is the eternal Logos who became flesh in order to reconcile man to God and reveal the underlying reason of all things. It is he whom we bring to the forum of interreligious dialogue. The ardent desire to follow in his footsteps spurs Christians to open their minds and hearts in dialogue.
But Benedict does not merely bear witness to this. He, in season and out of season, invites Christians to enter into ever-deeper relation with their Savior. Again, but one example — from his address to young people at St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie:
Dear friends, truth is not an imposition. Nor is it simply a set of rules. It is a discovery of the One who never fails us; the One whom we can always trust. In seeking truth we come to live by belief because ultimately truth is a person: Jesus Christ. That is why authentic freedom is not an opting out. It is an opting in; nothing less than letting go of self and allowing oneself to be drawn into Christ’s very being for others.
We can argue ceaselessly about why there is something rather than nothing or about the ultimate foundation for human rights. We can passionately debate structural reform in the Church. But in the quiet hours of early morning or late night do we not ultimately wrestle with the question: do I love him?
In the New Testament, a rich, but sometimes neglected text is the First Letter of Peter. We are, of course, reading it during this Easter Season at Sunday Eucharist. Peter joyfully exults in the faith of his (newly baptized?) hearers: “Without having seen him, you love him!” (1 Pet 1:8).
Is Peter’s successor posing this to us as a question: “Without having seen him, do you love him?”
If so, the Lord himself provides the precedent: “Simon Peter: Do you love me?” Peter, dense like us, had to be asked three times (Jn 21:15-19).
I do think that that simple phrase: Christianity proposes Jesus of Nazareth is my takeaway from this journey. It is the core of evangelization, of catechesis, of the Gospel.
Obvious, right? Why would it need re-iterating?
Well, consider. Consider your own religious education. Consider the preaching you hear in Catholic churches. If you work in the Church, whether paid or volunteer, consider your programs – what you do and what you fail to do or shrink from doing. What motivates you, what guides your decisions on how to spend your time and resources. When you look at the community you serve, what you are trying to get across to them.
Are you proposing Jesus of Nazareth?
Here is the Catholic problem that I see when Benedict’s words bounce around my head. Let me see if I can say this concisely:
For hundreds and hundreds of years, the Catholic “way” of being in this world has been rooted in some assumptions. For my purposes, I’ll highlight this one: The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. This is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and the relationship between one’s individual faith, Christ, and the Church is clear and intuitive.
You take that, and mix it with 1500 years of being able to maintain this assumption without any competing viewpoints, and you have a formula for being ill-equipped to make those connections in the contemporary world.
And as I see it, this is the core of what Benedict is trying to help us all do. Focus on Christ, take an honest look at the world around us, the questions people ask and the reasons people don’t believe and then be in this world, as the Body of Christ, in a way that makes it clear that Jesus Christ came to answers those questions, quench that thirst, give eternal life, and that the Church is where he is found.
I think in these present confused times, there are just a lot of missing links that Benedict is trying to help us refit.
Two examples.
A conference was recently held in which many involved in Catholic ministry, ordained and lay, came together to contemplate the future. The focus of the discussions and papers and conclusions was all on, well..ministry. How can we make members of the Church more aware of and appreciative of lay ministry? How can we interest people in lay ministry? What structural changes need to happen? Could, perhaps, a pastoral letter be written to highlight these issues?
Thousands of people. Good-hearted, faithful people. Challenging each other, not to go out and evangelize, but to revision, refashion, and think yet one more time about structures. Very anxious about numbers, about energy, about the Spirit, but totally blind, either through ignorance or a kind of bigotry, to the new movements and initiatives right under their noses which are drawing people to Christ through the Church, seeing all of these things, somehow, as problems instead of as good news.
It is so ironic to me that so many who have so much disdain for the institutional Church in terms of structure and even teaching function are fixated on structure and can’t seem to think about much else.
Secondly. I recently heard a homily. It was, naturally enough given the season, about a passage in one of the Last Discourses. The homilist spoke about Jesus, at a shared meal with his disciples, assuring them and telling them to not be afraid.
“Now,” continued the homilist, “We could imagine a situation in which Jesus gathered us, as his friends, having a meal with us, and talked to us about not being afraid. What would our response be?”
And he continued on in the vein of what objections we might raise to Jesus’ assurances.
I was waiting for what seemed to me to be a natural segue. It would go something like, “And do you know what? That is exactly what is happening here. Jesus has gathered us, his friends. He has, through his Word, told us not to be afraid. He has done this in the context of a meal – a meal in which he shares his very Self, his Presence, giving us, indeed, the strength and grace so that we will not, indeed, be afraid of what confronts us, whether it be small challenges we face today or death itself.”
But no. What then happened was a vague admonition that what Jesus wants us all to have is “faith” – and if we have this thing called “faith” we won’t be afraid.
To me, it was a vivid expression of this disconnect.
And why? What has disconnected us? That’s another blog post, but it all goes back to the last fifty years – not as any purposeful thing, but as the almost inevitable consequences of the confluence of circumstances both within and outside the Church. Circumstances in which sincere and well-meaning initiatives and movements to help people connect more intimately with Christ happened in a context that ended up leaving us more at sea, in many ways. There’s no blame – it’s just what happened. Perhaps it was even necessary. But the point is, when you take a rather urgent sense that perhaps there were some areas of Church life that were functioning as obstacles to Christ, rather than doors, combine that with Scriptural and historical studies which had the ultimate effect of casting doubt on the trustworthiness of anything we think we know about what the Scriptures or the Church tells us about Christ, and then combine that with ideological battles and then mix all of that up in a culture in which authority is a bad word, relativism reigns and the Catholic Church is not, to its great surprise, the only game in town…you have massive confusion as to why we are doing what we are doing and what we are doing at all.
In other words…the “new evangelization” called for by these last two Popes is not about reaffirming Catholic identity in some abstract or institutional sense. It’s about confidently believing that Jesus Christ is the answer and then just as confidently helping people see and experience Christ in the Church: in its spiritual tradition, sacramental life, teachings, artistic heritage and sacrificial service to the poor, sick and dying.
In other words: Cultural Catholicism, RIP.
What will rise in its stead?
Wonderful post, Amy. Thank you. Jesus tells his disciples in today’s Gospel that “when the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. And you also testify…”
Quite simple – we are asked to testify to Christ in all that we say and do. To go out to all the world and proclaim the Gospel by our words and deeds. It is really not all that complicated.
Agreed with Susan–superb post.
“Christ Our Hope” was not lightly chosen as the theme for the visit. In a nutshell, it is our marching orders.
Excellent post.
However, I would not be so quick to bury cultural Catholicism. I actually think it is a phenom on the rise. (See the current Commonweal for Pomp and Piety – an article that might turn your hair or cause the gnashing of teeth.)
I think that it is on the rise perhaps because of the confluence of three things: 1) the whole ’spiritual but not religious’ blather in the cultural mainstream. An example: Where people decorate with icons or crosses to ‘feel spiritual’ but where it is not connected to any spiritual reality. 2) The need for folks to have cultural markers, which is not new, certainly, but one’s religious heritage is as good a place to begin as anything. 3) The sense that one has a right to this heritage, or to elements of it, without having to embrace any meaning behind it.
One more example that made me a little nuts: Our local cathedral is out of commission because of problems with the roof. One of the papers interviewed a couple whose wedding was displaced because of the troubles. She did say that the church to which they were moved “does have the ambience we were looking for.” (The groom bemoaned the fact that the Cathedral had ‘history.’ What history? There was a famous gangland murder across the street in the ’20’s.) But that’s what I sometimes feel we are facilitating: nice ambience.
I’m not naive, mind you. I’ve heard stuff like this for years. But because it is so rife, I am not so sure that we can bury cultural Catholicism that easily.
About the conference you referenced, I decided that I didn’t want to go myself. I know exactly what you mean about the focus on the ministry, although to be fair, that was the purpose of the conference. And I have done a lot of heavy lifting trying to help make it possible for folks like me to continue to minister in the church. I honestly believe that the Spirit is calling us to new paradigms of ministy.
BUT, at the same time, it is entirely possible (been there, done that) to get completely caught up in ecclesial navel gazing. (And I don’t think that the clergy are exempt from this, certainly. It is not just a phenomenon in lay ministry.)
Cardinal George said at a talk I was at a few summers ago, “I sometimes wonder if the basic functions we perform as an Archdiocese would be any different if Christ had not died and rose.” Which sometimes lingers in my head and makes me think, every day of doing this job, “What difference does it make in what I am doing that Jesus took flesh, died and rose?” If I can’t answer that question at the end of the day (and often enough, I can’t), I realize that I am caught in one of the age old dilemmas of the church: How can we have an institution that serves a charism, and not stifle it? How can we make the institution not the point?
I am not completely sure we’ll ever be able to completely resolve that dilemma, but we can keep the question in front of us. How do we proclaim Christ and not ourselves?
But see, Cathy:
I don’t see most of what you describe as “cultural Catholicism”.
I see “cultural Catholicism” as essentially getting your Catholic identity via baptism and a social marker, having that identity reinforced primarily through ethnicity and the celebration of other sacraments primarily as social markers and the content of what is believed or how that is lived is essentially irrelevant.
As in “I can define myself as a “good Catholic” because I’m baptized and that’s how I want to define myself.”
I don’t mean that Catholicism is separated from culture in its broadest, or even particular senses. I mean that we can’t depend on a “culture” to transmit it, both because we can’t depend on a culture’s continued existence, and secondly because such transmission tends to strip the content from faith.
Great post, Amy, and good connection, Susan. The Greek word for “testify” is μάρτυς – transliterated martureo…”martys – martyr.” Where I think people (myself included
) complicate matters is when this “testifying” and “witness” requires the martyrdom that grew from this original meaning. Love requires the cross, and even though I KNOW that, I easily balk when my witness requires some loss or death on my part. I felt so exhorted by the Holy Father’s words – and felt renewed in my own work to, as Amy points out, “propose Jesus of Nazareth.” I pray for the grace and strength to do so – to testify as much as I am needed to, no matter the cost, because the cost here is nothing compared to my gain in Christ.
Amy:
I think your argument is more appropriate for pre-Reformation Europe than it is for the United States. That’s how THEY lived. That’s not how American Catholics ever lived. They weren’t isolated or hermetically-sealed from people of other faiths, especially in the cities. The only “cultural Catholicism” that existed there were the ethnic parishes that competed with one another, but they weren’t sealed off from the broader society. And there was always the idea that Catholicism was a choice: it was a faint idea, but it was there. There were “mixed” marriages, even before Vatican II, there were people who left the faith…. And, by the way, Protestants had the same little islands of people, analogous to the ethnic parishes, that Catholics had. The “Catholic ghetto” or “cultural Catholicism” are terms invented by people like John Tracy Ellis and others to describe what they conceived as a lost world, but it’s a construct, not a reality.
The one place in the US, analogous to pre-Reformation Europe, where the inhabitants could count on all believing pretty much the same thing, was the South and that was evangelical Protestantism.
The last paragraph of your argument is the most problematic: speaking of the Church in institutional terms is a Protestant argument, not a Catholic one. The Church is not primarily institutional and the Popes (not just the last two) do not talk about it this way. To talk about Catholic identity in an “abstract” (do you mean eurocentric?) sense is to talk about it in terms of inculturation, as a culturally-naked faith and I don’t see how this would be any more successful than it has been heretofore. Obviously, the Church had and has a culture and it is this culture as well as the faith with which it encounters a new culture.
I think what you’re really describing is the gradual widening of the Enlightenment and secularism, not really the demise of what you’re calling “cultural Catholicism.” Of course, the culture of the old ethnic parishes disappared because of the flight to the suburbs, but that doesn’t mean that what you’re calling “cultural Catholicism” is dead. Look at the resurgence of the traditional Latin Mass and the changes to the NO that the Pope is making. If you regard this as eurocentrism (and I’m not saying you are, I’m just guessing from your use of ‘cultural Catholicism’) then eurocentrism, which is also a canard, will always be part of the Church because it is part of its history.
Janice: See my response to Cathy above, and her clarification. “Cultural Catholicism” as I define it is claiming a Catholic “identity” stripped of belief. Politicians, who, for example, trumpet their Catholic identity while supporting from and benefitting from their support of abortion and other phenomenon contrary to Catholic teaching – a rather strong example. Another – the recent surveys indicate the numbers of Catholics who consider themselves “good” Catholics and who never or rarely attend Mass.
I think we’re on the same page of what ‘cultural Catholicism’ is – all the dress up and none of the faith. Getting married in Gothic splendor but not seeing one’s vocation to matrimony as a witness to Christ. Taking umbrage at asking families with children ready to celebrate communion to come to mass. “But, my child wants to walk down the aisle with the class!”
I could go on. And on.
I wish I could say that the brilliant talks and homilies of Benedict last week would wake people up. And I think he definitely drew a line in the sand.
But I think that in the long term, it is going to get worse before it gets better. More will seize on the trappings and skip the content.
I guess I am just saying that we should be realistic about it, as sad as it makes me.
Couldn’t have said it better.
The only addendum I’d make is that our “refitting,” as it were, will begin with the liturgy, because that is the source of our Catholic identity. If you think about it, that is probably the source (along with societal forces) of the attenuation that was at work for the last fifty years. Rebuilding that is the first job. I think the liturgical disasters of the last fifty years have created the idea that we did not take the worship of God seriously and that has filtered down to the Catholics in the pew. Why should Catholics go to Mass when no care was taken by the priests?
The second concerns evangelization itself. This is very problematic to me, since we hear constantly about the desparate straits we’re in and we forget that Jesus Christ will be with His Church until the end. I think the constant doom and gloom has taken its toll, especially when it comes from people who speak in the name of the Church.
Moreover, evangelization has to partake of the uniqueness of Catholicism, not simply to present Christ. Evangelizers should remember that: “No effort should be spared in seeking out those Catholics who have fallen away and those who know little or nothing of Jesus Christ, by implementing a pastoral plan which welcomes them and helps them realize that the Church is a privileged place of encounter with God, and also through a continuing process of catechesis (Benedict XVI, Address to the Brazilian Bishops, 11 May 2007).”
My last point is that this resurgence, especially if Pope Benedict’s example is taken seriously, might taken the form of some kind of premodernism. I’ve heard all the arguments about meeting people where they are (I notice the Pope did not do this, but elevated his audiences, especially the group at Yonkers), or speaking to “postmodern people” or the like, but the Pope wants to reclaim for God the ground once occupied by Him. That’s a tall order, but the Pope’s view is that until we have an essentially premodern view of our place in the cosmic structure, we will continue to misconstrue our own efforts and continue to make idols of ourselves. This is something that has to come, perhaps even before evangelization and catechesis and it’s also something with which inter-religious dialogue can help (cf. orthodox Judaism and Islam).
Janice said: “Moreover, evangelization has to partake of the uniqueness of Catholicism, not simply to present Christ. ”
Thanks, Janice. That’s exactly what I was saying. I’m glad you agree with me!
Amy-
It seems to me that somewhere along the line Catholics lost the knowledge about why the “good news” brought by Jesus is “good” in the first place.
Evangelism doesn’t work, and indeed faith doesn’t work, without a working understanding of why the “good news” is “good.”
Benedict is very good about zeroing in on that.
Sometimes the Church seems like a garage that needs cleaning. It’s so full we hardly know what it contains any more. Sometimes, the best way to clean the garage is to take everything out, discard what’s useless or broken, and put it back together again.
The task of educators, it seems to me, is like that of the garage cleaner. The “lost knowledge” of Catholicism—the value of authentic freedom, for example, and why the “good news” is “good”—can be rediscovered in the process.
Mike
When the Pope mischaracterizes the sexual abuse problem as one of pedophilia, instead of homsexuality, evangelization of the culture is a very long way off.
I disagree completely, Steve. Evangelizing the culture is not about simply classifying the world into a list of do’s and don’ts — in fact, that approach is part of the problem. That is the approach of the Pharisees, whose (initially laudable) emphasis on recovering the distinctives of the Jewish faith vis-a-vis the polytheistic faiths of their neighbors devolved into a ritualism centered around levitical correctness.
When the Pope can get people (non-Catholics included) thinking about truth, when he can start Catholics thinking about Catholicism as not just a way of life (much less a “lifestyle”) but a way of Life, then people will come to understand why pedophilia and homosexuality are violations of human purpose and dignity. Truth will out.
OK, I had nothing to do with the smiley-face above.
What will rise in its stead is the New Evangelization, please God.
In 1975, Pope Paul VI promulgated Evangeli Nuntiandi, and in it he identified three ‘burning questions’ that drove the synod that produced this document. The first is very compelling: “What has happened to that hidden energy of the Good News, that is able to have a powerful effect on man’s conscience?”
The Church was only then beginning to face the terrible fallout after Humanae Vitae which was, as it were, an insight into the true interior life of ‘practicing Catholics’ — including many theologians, bishops, priests and most married lay people. The hierarchy suddenly realized they no longer had the right to be heard among ‘the faithful’.
The thing is, if you get Jesus, you get the Church. If you don’t get the validity of the teaching authority of the Church, then in some ways you really haven’t taken on board Jesus and all that Jesus promised. It was as if Humanae Vitae revealed to us the truth about ourselves. We had become in some way an empty shell. That might sound harsh, but I think it’s true.
If we want the Church to thrive again, to be vibrantly alive in any quarter (Latin Mass, vernacular Mass, movements) we have to answer exactly the question the Pope (and you, Amy) propose: Do I love him? Do I trust him? Do I believe he was who he said he was, and that he can keep his promises, even through fallible men? Could I submit my life to his Lordship, extended by the Church–including my sex life, my fertility, and everything else?
In other words, when it comes to conscious and authentic faith in Jesus, where does the rubber hit the road in THIS life, MY life?
Excellent post. This conversation needs to be had.
I think you’re right on target, Amy, about the task that these two popes have set for themselves, and reason they find it an urgent and central aspect of their work. The remarkable thing is that so many “on the ground” — the parish leaders and organizations you refer to — have taken so long to catch up with the leadership we’ve received “from the top.” But the catching up is certainly happening.
Just to give credit where credit is due, I’d add the Second Vatican Council and Paul VI into any narrative of these efforts.
Several years ago, I came across a statistic that I thought was so interesting, I had to write it down. The documents of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) included the word “gospel” one time, and “evangelize” and “evangelization” not at all. The Second Vatican Council, on the other hand, included the word “gospel” 157 times,” “evangelize” 18 times and “evanglization” 31 times. (That’s from an article by Avery Dulles that appeared in America magazine in 1992.)
In short, “the new evangelization” was the intention of the Second Vatican Council, even if it took John Paul II to put a name to it.
Pope Paul VI took up this call and developed it beautifully with his apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Nuntiandi.” And he provided the model with his own historic pastoral visits. JP2, of course, took up both the teaching and the traveling and, to say the least, made it his own.
So the teaching and the practical examples have been coming on down to us for nearly half a century! And still, God forgive us, the parish-level “re-visioning” goes on.
Could the result of the Holy Father’s visit be lots of NEW Catholics? I know of one who has taken steps to begin RCIA in the fall. Have others had people who know you are Catholic want to talk to you about the Pope and Catholicism? I’m in minority Catholic country and I’ve heard nothing but positive comments and gotten lots of questions. The visit seems to have been a grand slam home run.
For a depressingly clear-eyed view of all the work still to be done (especially among so-called “thinking Catholics” in the American church) take a look at the comments that follow Father Imbelli’s beautiful post over at DotCommonweal. With only one exception they all focus on the need for institutional change, ignoring Imbelli’s question entirely. One might conclude from these comments that all the Church needs is the right structures (structures that have eluded her for 2000 years) in order to “get things right.” In other words, she needs new fangled structures, not a renewed faith.
Of course, one wonders whether the faith would remain the same if those new structures came to pass, whether the jettisoning of older structures wouldn’t also bring a jettisoning of the historic faith . . . but that’s really the point then, isn’t it?
Re: Dulles’ comment -
If you’re looking at 18-19th century texts, of course you’re not going to see much about “evangelization” or teaching the Gospel. You’re going to see talk about “missionaries” and “the missions”; missions to normal Europe places were big stuff in post-Revolution France, Italy, and other disrupted places. You’ll hear about famous “catechists”: lay men, women, and children bringing the faith to their neighbors, especially in the cities where life had been disrupted and many poor children had never heard of the Gospel. You’ll see lots and lots of “teaching orders”, which picked up on this and made it their charism. You’ll also see people being encouraged to read “the Sacred Scriptures”, “the Old Testament”, “the New Testament”, “the Evangelists”, “the Word of God”, etc.; but they didn’t usually call it “the Gospel” in Catholic circles back then.
I’m not saying that Dulles is entirely wrong. But a lot of people think evangelization wasn’t going on back in the olden days — when in reality, they’re just not familiar with what they called it back then. There’s a lot of disconnect because of this.
Terrific post. Sometimes I wonder if we busy ourselves with the non-essentials because the thing we fear most is not the outside world but rather the challenges of deeper faith in Christ. We know we can handle complacency. We know we can handle where we are at. Where we are at is not so bad. We have just enough faith to figure that our lives will turn out right – we’ll be saved — as long as we are basically “good folks.” What gives us fear though is finding out that perhaps we are not truly good followers of Christ. But as long as preoccupy and distract ourselves with the rubrics of the liturgy, random acts of kindness, and other nice but not necessarily essential acts of faith, we can avoid the deep conversion that we truly fear. We don’t know what Christ may ask of us. We fear what he may ask. We fear we won’t have the faith to let him sustain us in whatever he asks. It is just so much easier to content ourselves with worrying about the unessentials. We don’t want to rock the relationship. We fear that we will be found wanting. If we stay where we are, we know we can subsist and we don’t have to change and we don’t have to find that we are are not holding up our end of the relationship. We have gone as far as we know that we can for sure go. But Jesus says, “Do not be afraid.” “Come closer, enter into a deeper love. I, myself, will give you all that you need to love.” “Do not be afraid.”
One last commentary: the preoccupation with lay liturgical ministry really excuses us from preaching Christ where it is hard to preach Christ and where we are called to preach Christ — in the world.
Have we, the laity, shirked the ministry that is truly ours? How many Catholic schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions are no longer places that preach Christ? Are no longer places that have preferential options for the poor? The unordained religious (non-clerical brothers and sisters) started many of these institutions in response to a need to bring Christ to those in the world because lay folks were not doing what they should do to insure that the hungry are fed, the naked clothed, the sick, comforted, and the imprisoned, visited. Even closer to home, how many have shirked from preaching Christ in word and deed in our homes? I don’t see how we can lay claim to liturgical ministries when we are so miserable at the ministries that are properly ours?
First time posting here, so brushing through the comments:
Janice I disagree with your comment The only “cultural Catholicism” that existed there were the ethnic parishes that competed with one another, but they weren’t sealed off from the broader society. Without knowing your particular ethnic background, I can say that this is entirely false. Even today, there are places in CA, TX and AZ where entire Catholic Latino populations are in fact “sealed off” from broader society, due to linguistic and socio-economic reasons. The EXACT same thing happened in the early 20th century among Italians, Portuguese and other non-English speaking immigrant populations. It was not for a good 3 or so generations (after WWII) before these communities could easily and leave their ghettos and safely mix among the population.
I do agree with your comment about the liturgy, and all I can say is God Bless our Pope Benedict who has helped to restore the Tridentine liturgy.
Steve Murray your comment saying the Pope “mischaracterizes the sexual abuse problem as one of pedophilia, instead of homsexuality” shows a marked ignorance of the situation. Homosexual activity within the priesthood should of course never be tolerated…but neither should SEXUAL activity of ANY sort. A practicing homosexual should not be admitted into the priesthood. On this we probably agree. But neither should ANY man who does not respect or believe in the vow of celibacy/chastity. The elephant in the room here is the whole “I’m OK, you’re OK” mentality which sprang from post-Vatican II culture which feels it is “wrong” to judge anyone, which is why so many bad priests have been tolerated these past few decades.
Maureen,
That’s an excellent point. Thanks, it would be wrong to forget that in this conversation.
Still, there’s a difference or development since Vatican II. The difference, I suppose, is that the catechetical work of past days had that “cultural Catholicism” undergirding it. Those who passed on the faith could count on a lot of shared presuppositions with his audience, ideas and ways of looking at the world that supported the whole edifice.
That whole substructure has been washed away in the tsunami of modernity, and evangelization today must take that into account, or else the message is heard as nothing different than fairy tales.
And I’d say that’s true not just on some airy, philosophical level. I experience it day in and day out with the high school students I teach. Very few students, for example, bother any more to argue about the existence of God. It’s an unimportant question to most, because talking about God or his Church or his sacraments is no more or less meaningful or provocative than talking about Allah, Zeus, or the Mighty Thor. All of it, in the end, has little to do with reality to them.
Hence Benedict having to explain to us the very nature of reason, and telling us what love and hope are.
Beautiful job on the article! I think its a matter of our fire! Do we have it? How can we make it grow and spread to the hearts of others! Let’s continue to pray we can be all that God needs us to be! God bless and keep smiling! Padre Steve, SDB
Amen, Therese! Go on, talk about it – that’s right!
Deusdonat,
It was not 2 or 3 generations. It was the second generation. These people had to make a living and to do that they had to learn English and take jobs among the broader population. They didn’t work only in their small communities. The same is true for Latinos today. Their children will learn English and move out. There is one difference, however. The original immigrants (Italian, German, Polish, etc.) were adamant that their children learn English, even if they spoke their original language in the home. And your notion that these enclaves were virtually hermetically sealed is incorrect. The neighborhoods in which pre-Vatican II Catholics lived and worked had those of other ethnic heritages and faiths there, too. They had to get along with them and, at least to some extent, socialize with them. This canard about the “Catholic ghetto” was first started by John Tracy Ellis, but he was referring to the intellectual culture. But I notice that even today people who should know better still refer to the “ghetto” and revel in the greater freedom of Catholics today to engage the world. But, if you listened to Pope Benedict’s remarks during his US visit, he repeatedly referred to the ways in which US Catholics had not only built up their Church, but also their country. And they didn’t do this by being sequestered in a ghetto. They had great influence, in the arts, literature, local politics, in education, in their charitable works, etc.
Amy, to extend what you said: “[Benedict is telling us:]…/Let the point of this – the love of Christ, the presence of Christ – shine through and be what moves and motivates you, so that the world will, indeed, see the Light of Christ and come to Him to fulfill its hunger and quench its thirst.” and “It’s about … confidently helping people see and experience Christ in the Church.” –
Two concepts that need more airtime amongst Catholics are the lay vocation and charisms. I think it’s not so much a matter of what we think should be done as a matter of “Lord, what are You calling me to do?” (and I’m guessing you would agree with that emphasis). Part of what He wants to do through us (in the larger picture of continuing His saving work in the world) is to manifest His presence and grace through the charisms we received at our baptism — particular spiritual gifts that allow us to be agents of God’s power for the sake of drawing others closer to Him (i.e. “helping people see and experience Christ…”)
I haven’t time right now to develop these, but my main point is that many Catholics don’t seem to know the Lord personally (i.e., as a Friend), and also don’t seem to know that the Holy Spirit wants to work through them to accomplish His will.
Peace,
Ok — don’t know where the smiley face at end of 2nd paragraph came from, but I meant a ) there.
Deusdonat, the point is that the higher heirarchy refuses to admit the problem as it really is because it leads to the question of validity of Orders. The deeper problem is that homosexuals are most likely invalidly ordained, a problem so profound the Vatican is never going to confront it. Benedict and the rest have exerted all efforts to divert attention from this deeply troubling question. The point you missed is not that there is a difference between pedophilia and homsexuality and they are both wrong, as Benedict says, but that over eighty percent of the sexual abuse is homosexual in nature. This has nothing to do with “I’m okay, you’re okay”, but everything to do with a disturbed culture within the Church.
Margo,
You’re making a rather general statement here. How do you know that “many Catholics” don’t seem to know the Lord personally? Are you speaking in the sense of the evangelical Protestant “personal relationship with Jesus”? If so, that may be the case. However, if you’re referring to the Catholic way of knowing Jesus Christ, then you would be surprised how many Catholic have an exceedingly close and authentic friendship with Jesus Christ: through lectio divina, Eucharistic adoration, acts of charity, lives deeply Catholic lives, and most of all, through their presence at Mass and reception of the Eucharist.
By the way, the relization of and appreciation for the Catholic lay vocation is not something new. Even before the ubiquitous use of the word “charism,” lay Catholics made their presence felt across the world by virtue of doing the same things they are urged to do now. And the rates of conversion to Catholicism before Vatican II were far higher than they are now, with all the programs and strategies and jargon.
STEVE, the “I’m OK, you’re OK” culture was precisely the “disturbed culture” in the post-Vatican II church I was referring to. And it is not exclusive to homosexual practice, but also manifests itself in wayward ideas, beliefs and innovations often visible during the liturgy.
Without legitimizing your point of view, I am interested in how you arrived at how the offending homosexual priests were “invalidly ordained”. What is your basis for this comment?
And finally, whether you are Catholic or not, I will remind you that this is a Catholic forum, so you would do well to refrain from arrogantly and disrespectfully referring to the Holy Father of our church as simply “Benedict”.
Cultural Catholicism cannot be dead, as the condition for the possibility for the Church’s existence in the world is some form of a cultural matrix. As long as the Church is in the world it will have a culture and be a culture. What has happened in the past few decades is that the particular culture of the Church has been worn so thin in the West, that it is nearly gone, even within those cultural realities (families, institutions, etc,) which are meant to be instantiations of the ethos of the Catholic Faith. Even now, the Church has a culture, but it has become less and less its own and more and more merely an imitation of the ethos of secular modernity.
Janice:
In the case of Catholic French speaking Cajuns, it wasn’t the second generation that decided to abandon French. My ancestors arrived here in Louisiana in the early 1700’s with some parts of the family coming in the later 1700’s.
Laws were passed in Louisiana in the 1900’s to outlaw the speaking of French in public places. My father, who is now in his early 70’s, learned English at school the old fashioned way … at the end of a stick, beaten by public school teachers.
I have friends now who teach French in the same class rooms where they were beaten for asking for a hall pass to use the restroom in French. They make sure to tell every child the real history.
And our local television station broadcasts the rosary in English and then in French each morning. It’s great to be a Catholic in south Louisiana.
And I’m very proud of my Catholic, French, U.S., and English heritage even though from time to time my country did some very dumb things.
Deusdonat, they are invalidly ordained because homosexuals are not psychosomatically males, they are more like females in that they are sexually attracted to other males. In addition, they promise not to marry, of which they are incapable….how can anyone promise something of which they are not capable? In addition, celibacy does not refer to homosexuals. They can be chaste, but celibacy refers to male and female intersexuality. Only heterosexuals can be celibate, properly speaking.
The “I’m okay you’re okay” business is not a referrant of a disturbed culture, but the intellectual property of Thomas Harris from the late 1960’s along with transactional analysis. The reference is not apt.
“Benedict” is a term of affection. I am a Catholic. An ordained one. But, His Holiness, Benedict XVI, is perfectly fine with me.
Janice,
I’m not finding the all the words I’d like to use to clarify my meaning, and yes, that was a rather general statement I made.
Maybe a better way of expressing what I mean is to say that we Catholics could do a better job of fulfilling the mission of the Church if we let the Holy Spirit work through us more deeply and more often.
I’ve observed that it’s possible to walk the Catholic walk and not realize that God means it to be personal, a friendship. Pentecost wasn’t about starting an institution; it was God revealing Himself even more deeply to those receiving His Spirit. The world / mankind was created, we were redeemed, the Holy Spirit was poured out — all so that we could come into a deeper and deeper relationship with God. That’s what life on earth is for; that’s what Heaven will be about. “Joy is the serious business of Heaven,” to quote C.S. Lewis.
Does that make a bit more sense?
Janice It was not 2 or 3 generations. It was the second generation. These people had to make a living and to do that they had to learn English and take jobs among the broader population.
Your absolutism is really clouding your comments and you are losing credibility here. Andrew gave you one example above. Another not-so-nice example is the Italian community of New Orleans, which began arriving after the Civil War. For 4 (count them: FOUR) generations they were consigned to living in enclaves and “ghettos”. Then they began to leave the community to live and do business among the general population, a mass lynching resulted in 1891 to make the point. Whether or not various ethnicities sent their children to school to learn English is irrelevant, as they remained segregated (either de jure or de facto) in their enclaves. As far as living and working among the population, sometimes they did (if they were allowed) and sometimes they didn’t. Bank of America was originally Bank of Italy because American banks would not allow most immigrants (or certain ethnicities) to have bank accounts, essentially keeping them outside the population. Like Bank of Italy, many jobs, organizations and institutions were created to address the fact that these populations could NOT work outside their own community.
All of this is not to say that Catholics HAVE in many cases been a part, contributed to and even influenced general society. Neither is it to say that one scenario was the rule, while the other the exception. But both did exist and to deny this is to be dishonest or ingorant of American history, which as Andrew points out, needs to be addressed as a whole.
psychosomatically males, they are more like females in that they are sexually attracted to other males.
That is too laughible to even comment on. Show me any church teaching to support this and we can continue. Until that point, your views will be squarely your own here.
In addition, they promise not to marry, of which they are incapable….how can anyone promise something of which they are not capable?
Are you serious? Do you know how many homosexuals have married and had families throughout history? You really don’t seem to know what you are talking about here. The rest of your comments are cut from the same cloth.
I don’t know if you really are a priest, but you aren’t saying much that is in line with church teaching at all. And your tone and demeanor speak volumes here. The only other “priests” I have known who speak like you are errant dissenters who left the priesthood and whine about priests not being able to marry (although many of them still conduct ilicit sacraments). Either way, not really interested in carrying on a conversation with you on the subject since you are not adding anything of value theologically.
Hi Margo,
Yeah, I know what you mean as far as it is a misperception of what the Church is. Because the Church is not primarily or essentially an institution: it’s Christ’s presence among us. As Pope Benedict said to the Brazilian bishops last year: the Church is the privileged place of encounter with Jesus. No, Pentecost wasn’t about starting an institution and that wasn’t what happened.
The language of the “Church” as an institution is Barthian or evangelical Protestant. It’s not Catholic. And it’s fine to feel the “Spirit” pour through you as long as it’s within the dynamic of the Church. It’s not a private, individual, particularistic thing as it is in Protestantism. It’s like reading Scripture: you are supposed to read it privately, but with an eye formed by the Church.
Since the beginning of Christianity all of the saints had the deepest experience with God (both those we know and the millions we’ll never know) and absolutely remained within the Church. Of course, they had an authentic friendship with God, one mediated and enriched in the Church. The notion of an absolutely private, subjective personal relationship with Jesus is one that has filtered into the American Catholic Church via evangelical Protestantism and it’s not Catholic.
The road that Catholics walk is always informed both by a personal side and a communal side and by a personal faith and one’s faith as informed by the 2,000 year tradition of the Church. As lay Catholics we’re as obligated as anyone in the clergy to respect both sides, maybe more so if we really believe we must transmit our faith to the world. And through the ages, millions of lay Catholics have done just that and I think it’s a mistake to think that because they didn’t do it like you do that they were less committed or had a more superficial friendship with God. They certainly manifested the presence of Christ in the witness of their lives.
Why do you think we are any different than those who came before us?
Janice,
I agree with everything you said, except that I do not “think that because they didn’t do it like you do that they were less committed or had a more superficial friendship with God.”
Let me preface this by answering your concluding question: I think we are different in some respects — and let me narrow this to the Church in America — ‘than those who came before us’ in that there are more idols/gods competing for our attention, and competing in more subtle ways, than Christians a generation before us (and behind them) had to deal with. The current American emphasis on individual license and autonomy, for instance, can easily present a significant distraction to seriously considering the question, “God, what is Your plan for me? How do You want to draw me, and through me, others, closer to You today?”
To put my point another way, I think it has become easier for Catholics (all Christians, really) to focus more on doing good things directed/powered by one’s own ideas and strength than on submitting one’s heart/life to Christ and letting Him direct one’s life.
I’m not saying we’re totally different than those who came before us. I’m suggesting that perhaps not all the laity of this day and age realize the heights of relationship & cooperation with God to which they are called.
In the Catholic Church, Deusdonat, there is no such thing as sacramental homosexual marriage, just as there is no such thing as sacramental divorce. Once has commited marriage or not. Natural law accepts sexual attraction between a male and female. Males attracted to males are similiar to females in that attraction and vice versa. Natural law refers to reason, primarily; nature secondarily. You are not getting this. What happens in a any given culture has nothing to do with authentic Catholic teaching and is frequently opposed to it, as you seem to be. Since there is no such thing as homosexual marriage in the Church, ordinands are promising something they are not capable of. I am not a priest. You seem to believe that only priests are the ones ordained in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has a married clergy. Obviously, this conversation is getting beyond your ability to grasp it.
There are still growing pockets of cultural Catholicism as some have pointed out. I get to work in one. The problem we have isn’t the evangelical dimension, because part of what we train our college students to do here at A&M is to go out and evangelize. The problem is when they leave the pocket and “safety” of our campus ministry.
As I have said before, we need holiness in our Church for any true reform to take place. Just as JPII and Benedict XVI have emphasized, we have a crisis of saints. We need people that are deeply in love with Christ, who then allow that love to spill out into the world. From this deep love and holiness will come true and lasting reform.
There has been a pruning in the Church, but the new growth has definitely taken off. The question is – what direction the growth will continue in? I believe it to be mission-based. In some quarters, as Amy has pointed out, we have forgotten the reason the Church exists – to evangelize. When we forget our purpose, we cannot reform properly and we cannot make saints.
When we forget our purpose, we are in an identity crisis and talk of changing the culture is going no where fast.
I propose a simple plan of action:
1 – Train Catholics in holiness and evangelization through a good formation process that focuses on prayer, Sacraments, service and proclamation of the gospel.
2 – Send these people out.
3 – Harvest the fruit.
STEVE your words are both petty and banal. I was raised around the Eastern tradition and am well aware there are married clergy in the Catholic church (but with very few exception, NOT in the Roman rite). You have not refuted anything I said nor qualified what YOU said with any viable church doctrine, yet simply continued down your rant based on your own personal opinion citing “natural law” rather than any supportive church document. Your sole basis for your viewpoint is that according to you “Males attracted to males are similiar to females in that attraction and vice versa.” In which case, according to your logic (for lack of a better term) lesbians would be similar to males, and therefore should be allowed to take the priesthood. Bunk! Pure rubbish.
The point here is, you are full of hot air on this subject and have no basis in church theology to back up your own personal opinions. I am aware that there are other forms of ordination in the church (i.e. deacons and holy orders). And regardless of your particular ordination, as I have stated previously, you sound neither Catholic nor respectful to our church, clergy, magesterium or our Holy Father.
By their fruits shall they be known…
Marcel,
Elaborate, perhaps? What happens when they leave they graduate? Is there anything in particular you’ve seen?
Mark – thanks for asking, because it is an important point.
Many of the graduates struggle because of several reasons.
1 – They have a difficult time finding a community that is as strong as ours. We have many dedicated, like-minded Catholic young adults on fire for Christ. I don’t know of many parishes that can say the same. So, many yearn for such a community.
2 – Several young adults find themselves lost in the “real world” when they meet responsibility in the work place and then don’t have the kind of support we offer them. Also, a generation of what we call “hover parents” don’t help this.
3 – Others struggle because they don’t have anyone to socialize with or hold them accountable.
4 – Others struggle with dealing with non-peers in parishes that are generally not made up of single young adults.
5 – Other reasons for struggles include a lack of Catholic identity in some parishes, lack of solid faith formation, and few parishes use young adult’s gifts well – when they are some of the best to tap into because of time and talent.
6 – A few struggle when they run into leaders who have a different style, theological leaning or who dissent from Church teachings.
I could go on for a long time – but comboxes aren’t the place to do that.
I will tell you that we have programs in place to try and ease these problems, such as having contact persons in many of the large cities in TX that can “mentor” or help connect recent grads. We also have a grad retreat to start the transition.