The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF version'High tension' and 'low tension' religious life
by John L Allen Jr on Aug. 14, 2009
Anyone in or around religious life in the United States these days knows two things: New members tend to come from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, especially Hispanics and Asian-Americans; and they tend to be more traditional in both theological outlook and spiritual style than older religious.
Thus in broad strokes, the results of a study released on Tuesday by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, carried out on behalf of the National Religious Vocations Conference, didn’t offer any real thunderbolts. Titled “Study of Recent Vocations to Religious Life,” the research surveyed 4,000 new members of religious communities, and basically confirmed the anecdotal impressions noted above.
The study contains plenty of nuggets about “best practices” in fostering and sustaining vocations that will be of specialized interest to vocation directors and anyone involved in formation. At the big-picture level, however, the most striking findings focus on what the next generation of religious women and men will be like.
In terms of ethnicity, CARA found that 21 percent of new members are Hispanic, 14 percent Asians or Pacific Islanders, and six percent Africans or African-Americans, meaning that about 58 percent are white. Since 94 percent of older members are white, religious life is obviously becoming more ethnically diverse -- which means no more than that it’s coming into alignment with the demographic breakdown of the broader Catholic community. (According to a recent Pew Forum study of religion in America, by 2030 only 48 percent of the Catholic population in America will be white, 41 percent will be Hispanic, and 7.5 percent will be Asian-American.)
With regard to theological and spiritual outlooks, the CARA study found clear differences between the “Millennial Generation,” meaning religious born after 1982, and the “Vatican II Generation,” meaning religious men and women born between 1943 and 1960.
Millennials are far more likely to say they entered religious life out of a desire for commitment to the church, and that they entered their specific community because of its reputation for fidelity to the church. They’re more likely to wear habits, more likely to say that devotions such as Eucharistic adoration and the Liturgy of the Hours are “very important,” less eager to do ministry in non-Catholic or non-confessional settings, and more positive in their attitudes about authority.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
The corollary is that religious orders which foster a more traditional ethos tend to have better luck attracting younger members. One sign of which way the winds are blowing: Just one percent of women’s communities belonging to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, known for having a more liberal outlook, currently have more than 10 new members in initial formation, whereas a robust 28 percent of communities belonging to the Conference of Major Superiors of Women, known for being more conservative, have 10 or more members in the early stages of membership.
To put all this into a sound-bite, the next generation of religious will be more ethnically diverse and more traditional.
* * *
That’s the data from the CARA study, which is straight-forward and essentially unassailable. The more subjective question, of course, is how these findings ought to be interpreted.
There’s what one might call the “ideological” interpretation in some conservative quarters, which amounts to a chest-thumping “we’re winning and you’re losing” response. (A brief and sarcastic statement released on Tuesday by the Catholic League, excoriating unnamed liberal “diversity dons” presumably flummoxed by the results, illustrates the psychology.) Some liberals will undoubtedly see the study in the same way, although they’re less likely to issue press releases or write blogs about it.
This ideological reading would see these results as a referendum on the progressive reform agenda of the Vatican II generation, concluding that young religious are voting with their feet against it.
A “generational” interpretation, on the other hand, would see these results in terms of differences in historical milieu. The Vatican II generation grew up within a strong Catholic culture and to some extent reacted against it, seeing it as overly stifling and controlling. The defining cultural crucible for millennials, however, has been a rootless secular world. They’re eager to establish a strong sense of Catholic identity, not to reform or redefine it. In essence, they’re reacting against the world, not the church.
Seen in that light, the commitment to orthodoxy and to traditional modes of life one sees among young religious today is less about the ideological contest of left versus right, and more about differences in generational experience.
Here’s yet a third explanation, this one arising out of the sociology of religion: the competitive edge of “high-tension” groups.
Both in the United States and around the world, those religious movements which have grown most dramatically over the last half-century are those with the clearest boundaries between themselves and the prevailing culture. In their 1987 book A Theory of Religion, Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge called this “high-tension religion.” Low-tension groups, according to Stark and Bainbridge, are usually dissolved into the “cauldron of secularism.”
This might seem a counter-intuitive result, because in the short run stricter groups may alienate some members. But over time, this attrition works to resolve what sociologists and economists call the “free rider” problem. High-tension groups screen out members with low levels of commitment, enhancing the participation levels of those who remain. This, in turn, drives more effective recruiting and retention.
Economist Laurence Iannaccone made this argument back in 1994, in an influential essay titled “Why Strict Churches Are Strong.” According to Iannaccone, strict churches (or, by extension, strict religious orders) attract members because, in the mercenary language of economics, they offer a better product. Here’s how Icannaccone described that product: “A church full of passionate members; a community of people deeply involved in one another’s lives and more willing than most to come to one another’s aid; a peer group of knowledgeable souls who speak the same language (or languages), are moved by the same texts, and cherish the same dreams.”
Significantly, “high-tension” and “conservative” are not coterminous. It’s entirely possible to foster a high-tension ethic within a church, or a religious order, that’s not premised on ideological conservatism. Within Catholicism, new movements such as Sant’Egidio or L’Arche illustrate the point; they have many of the characteristics of “high-tension” groups without falling on the ideological right. It’s simply a fact of life that in post-Vatican II Catholicism, many progressive groups and religious orders also adopted a more “low-tension” way of relating to the outside world.
Of course, Iannaccone acknowledged a point of diminishing returns. Too much strictness becomes self-defeating, making it virtually impossible for anyone other than a zealot to hang on. Still, his point was that both economic theory and empirical research suggest that “high-tension” groups enjoy a structural advantage in a competitive religious marketplace.
* * *
The point I’m trying to make is this: There are plenty of ways to understand this data beyond a victory for one side or the other in the church’s internal culture wars. These results deserve to be studied carefully and dispassionately, without leaping to conclusions about which political or theological agenda, if any, they support.
The one seemingly inescapable conclusion is that the Catholic future, inside religious life and out, promises accelerating diversity in terms of ethnicity, life experience, and worldviews. How the church copes with that diversity looms as a defining challenge … and my bet is that the future belongs to those forces that best resist the lure of a “zero-sum” logic always wanting to think in terms of winners and losers.
The full text of the study can be found on the Web site of the National Religious Vocations Conference at: www.nrvc.net.
* * *
Related stories:
New vocations in U.S. ethnically, culturally diverse
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.
Quite interesting. Thank you
Quite interesting. Thank you Mr. Allen for a lucid and provocative column. I find this paragraph key:
_____
A “generational” interpretation, on the other hand, would see these results in terms of differences in historical milieu. The Vatican II generation grew up within a strong Catholic culture and to some extent reacted against it, seeing it as overly stifling and controlling. The defining cultural crucible for millennials, however, has been a rootless secular world. They’re eager to establish a strong sense of Catholic identity, not to reform or redefine it. In essence, they’re reacting against the world, not the church.
I would add that this ‘generational’ interpretation could also include The Women’s Movement. So much has been accomplished (and much more is needed!) with the opportunities for women. Millennials have only lived with these ‘opportunities’ and the growing of the opportunities. What happens when they see women being asked to ‘hide their gifts’ in the church?
______
I hear that there are numbers of young women who enter more conservative groups but find the conservative treatment of women stifling. I see that more liberal groups (if we choose to use the words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’) receive fewer numbers. No matter what year we were born, no mater what ‘church’ time – pre or post or during Vatican Council – a woman will want to grow spiritually, emotionally, physically, and intellectually. There is something about just being human in all of this and religious life, if it is anything at all, must be about continuing the growth of the person. My read on what the hierarchy is doing with their investigations of religious congregations in the US is trying to eliminate or at least curb this kind of growth. That is sad. That is destructive. And dare I say, scares me, as I wonder what it is about a woman’s growing to her true stature in God that is threatening to the church or needs to be curbed by the church?
Warm thanks to both John
Warm thanks to both John Allen and JH for this very helpful and calm assessment. We are all in your debt.
JH, you make some very good
JH, you make some very good and interesting points. You get to the heart of the millenials-old problem:
"And dare I say, scares me, as I wonder what it is about a woman’s growing to her true stature in God that is threatening to the church or needs to be curbed by the church?"
That is the rub that women will apparently always face in this church.
AnnieO: That statement of JH
AnnieO: That statement of JH hit me "smack in the eye" too. You know, someone in another post made a seemingly ridiculous suggestion that women religious stand up and leave and begin a new wing of the church based on their inclusive, more bottom up less hierarchical approach. Your last sentence scares me in a sense but maybe if they were there and invited me (as a male)....
(Are you "Dennis" Dennis?)
(Are you "Dennis" Dennis?) Anyhow, I'm not necessarily for or against women leaving the church. I sure don't want all the good religious women to leave the church, but I sure would also sadly understand why they would want to. But they aren't going to do that--as a group they are real troopers!
Women just have to keep pushing both from the inside and the outside. I'm just not sure that that struggle actually has a real resolution. It is simply male to try to exclude women in order to feel comfortable as men, and it is so female to nurture the same men who need to exclude women. We are just the more, dare I say it, catholic gender, (meaning universal). So to shape this church for the benefit of women is forever complicated. And women seem to lose something along the way. So I think the women who develop their spirituality outside the church's spiritual trajectories create more room for women inside to have support to push the church to more openness. I'm not sure I'm making much sense outside my own head right now, but that's what I'm thinking. If you are not "Dennis" Dennis, then you probably won't stick with this anyhow...
Thank you JH for a great post
Thank you JH for a great post read and especially for- "as I wonder what it is about a woman’s growing to her true stature in God that is threatening to the church or needs to be curbed by the church?"
The data is facinating but
The data is facinating but here's the rub: how will these younger, more conservative clerics related to the people of God, particularly those in their own age groups? Although I have not conducted any scientific research, my experience is that younger people in general, including those who are church goers, are very skeptical of authority and less likely than their parents to accept practices or beliefs just because they are told to do so. If the trend of an increasingly conservative clergy and a authority-resistant young laity continues, the younger folks in the U.S. will just speak with their feet and leave the church a la Western Europe. Future studies will then confirm that the majority of clery and laity have become more conservative. The problem will be that most of the young people will have headed out of the church doors years before because they don't feel nurished by or engaged with their parish and leaders.
My point is not to advocate for or against the trend you discuss. Rather,it is to identify another potential problem -- in accordance with the law of unintended consequences-- before one side or the other gloats too quickly.
The kind of people entering
The kind of people entering the traditional religious orders are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative-personality types. The conservative-personality is essentially a fearful one; it is a personality which trusts neither itself nor the surrounding world. And because it does not trust itself, it seeks strong authority figures to tell it what to do and how to live. That is why, religiously, such personalities seek out and join "strong churches" and more strict and traditional religious orders.
Politically, the conservative-personality pines for the man on a white horse.
Peace be with you. You are
Peace be with you. You are right, these young people are seeking authority, and I thiink Jesus Christ is that very strong authority figure they are seeking. Christ told us specifically not to trust the surrounding world, not to be conformed to this age. He gave us very real reasons to be fearful of it and of losing our salvation.
The faith established by Jesus Christ is not of this world and is in fact in direct opposition to the world's values. Many well-meaning progressives today have unconsciously created their own interpretation of Catholicism that is completely robbed of the supernatural and is totally focused on this passing world and is rapidly adopting worldly values. Things like social justice and the environment are very good things, but they are not our primary focus as Christians. Our focus is on our salvation and eternal life, growing in virtue and holiness, and union with God. True apostolic work is more focused on leading people to eternal life, and if in that process you can improve their life in this world, even better. But it seems like progressives focus mostly on social work in the here and now, and undermine the fact that we are trying to save our souls and that the path is narrow. Jesus wants us to keep our eyes focused on the things above and not the things here below. This is why devotions like the Rosary have been so important in helping us toward this end. We often forget our minds are fallen and we need help in keeping them focused on the right road. This is why Jesus established His Church to guide us. We should indeed work for justice, but real justice will only reign in the life to come. Our primary focus in this life is to make sure we get to heaven! Blessings to all!
How simplistic! Trust is
How simplistic! Trust is suddenly a vice and distrust a virtue. Worse, Jesus the Christ's Good News is that we, the children of God, should be distrusful of His and His world and seek shelter and protection in the institutional Church bult by single men who are bent on abusing them. Right. Good Lord, what will they cum up with next! There is so much ignorance and evil out there in some Church quarters!
Thanks for the gentleness of
Thanks for the gentleness of your comment.
I agree with some of what you have said, but there are also some problems here. The most significant is your claim that our primary focus should be our salvation and getting into heaven. The gospels indicate that Jesus Christ taught something quite different, that our primary task is to serve God and to work for the Kingdom of God. (See especially Matthew and Luke on this. Mark and John say similar things, but in a less obvious way.) In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus teaches us that the difference between those who get into heaven and those who do not has nothing at all to do with praying the rosary. It has everything to do seeking out and helping people in the world who are in trouble, those who are hungry, sick, and in prison. In giving up our selves, we will indeed find life (Mark 8:34-38). If, however, we believe our primary task is to work for our own salvation, then our lives will be spent in self-service, not service of God, and then we stand in danger of losing our eternal life. You are right that Scripture teaches us to be wary of ourselves, that we are fallen and do not always see things properly. I would submit that to see the task of our lives to be our salvation would be just as fallen as to see the tasks of our lives in building an earthly eutopia. Indeed, Jesus tells us in Matthew 25:31-46 that it is much better to spend one's life working for earthly justice for its own sake, without thought of one's own salvation, than it is to engage in religious observance solely for one's own benefit (see Matthew 23, which was written to the people of his day who spent their time doing religious things in order to please God, but neglected justice, and did not please God at all). It is clear that both justice and prayer are necessary to a full Christian life. But if a person somehow could not manage both, Jesus teaches us that justice is the most important.
P.S. The admonition not to be conformed to the spirit of this age is from Paul (not Jesus), found in Rom 12:2. Surely Jesus and Paul agree on this, but I wish most Catholics knew their Bible better. What follows that admonition is a recommendation that we all use the gifts God has given us to the best of our ability, that we recognize that we each have different gifts, and that we not judge each other harshly. May God grant us all peace and wisdom.
Yours is quite the treatise
Yours is quite the treatise of hatred against those you have condemned, progressives, and yet you do not understand. Look at your words. You are concerned about being saved, yet you are condemning others?
"progressives today have unconsciously created their own interpretation of Catholicism that is completely robbed of the supernatural and is totally focused on this passing world and is rapidly adopting worldly values"
Seems you got this notion from the world and of the world and in the world. It is certainly not inspired from Jesus Christ, but from the world of gossipers, self-deceived and liars who are in the world and of the world.
"But it seems like progressives focus mostly on social work in the here and now, and undermine the fact that we are trying to save our souls and that the path is narrow."
How on earth are you "trying to save our souls?" Please enlighten me as to how you are "trying to save our souls?" As if you had the power to save anybody's soul, even your own!! You have no power to save anyone's soul. Jesus Christ saves souls!! To Him is the Glory, the Power!! This is the supernatural thing you are missing and robbing yourself from.
Dear Anonymous of Aug 14 and
Dear Anonymous of Aug 14 and Kelli,
To borrow your language, Kelli, thank you BOTH for the gentleness of your words and your intentions.
Kelli, I love this statement at the end of your post: "It is clear that both justice and prayer are necessary to a full Christian life." It seems that that Anonymous could support that simple and true summary of what s/he said.
You go on to say, "But if a person somehow could not manage both, Jesus teaches us that justice is the most important". You do seem to know the Bible so much better than I...is there some Scripture that specifically says that or is that your reading of Scripture?
It is certainly what I carried away from the Vietnam-era Catholic Church of my childhood.
But I have since come to believe that I carried away only half the message: that Jesus does NOT separate these twinned responses to God (prayer and love of neighbor) and that Jesus does NOT equate prayer with an observance of "the Law" which, in blinding strictness, can distract us from the essential need for social ministry and justice here on earth.
Can you help me better understand, Kelli, where that second statement comes from?
To both of you - Anon of Aug 14 and Kelli, thank you for the calm and peaceful dialogue. Sincerely, Jean
Jean
well put
well put
I think we have to remember
I think we have to remember that the millenials tend to be team- and group-oriented young people. In my own work with them, they are pretty content to go along with what's happening--which seems to be the point of another thread on here about accepting the church as it is--and pretty unwilling to step out of the group identity. I think that it is a mistake to assume that they "behave" as they talk, however. They seem to have pretty clear separation between individual behavior and stated beliefs, and much willingness to do one thing and say they believe something else. I think it is not obvious to them because they are a willing part of it, but more obvious to those who grew up pointing out the discrepancies between group/institutional beliefs and assumptions and individual behavior.
In other words, I think mostly young people are likely to do what they see as acceptable among their peers, and those who join more traditional orders may be just doing what is more acceptable.
Annie O - Do you sincerely
Annie O -
Do you sincerely believe that ANY person of ANY age in 2009 who enters ANY form of religious life is doing what is "acceptable among their peers"?
One may not like the path another takes but it is not fair or honest to say that ANY young person entering any form of US Catholic religious life at this time is seeking to accepted by her/his generational peers.
My hope is that we can agree not to speak of these young men and women in the pejorative and disrespectfull sense intended in many of these responses to the CARA study.
Jean (discerning with LCWR congregations)
Hmmmmm, well, a little
Hmmmmm, well, a little acceptable....among church peers anyhow. For women, probably not too often, unless their peers are the very traditional ones. But I am just conversing; I'm not on the fight over anything. It is fair AND honest to talk to each other. I have no axe to grind when it comes to religious life or young people, whom I am in close daily contact with.
I'm not sure if you think that I may not "like the path another takes" when it comes to entering and discerning religious community life, but that could not be further from the truth, since I once did that myself. I love that young people struggle with these different paths as once myself and my friends did, since, in fact, that was the case when I was young.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting that I am speaking of young men and women in any pejorative or disrespectful sense, since, if you are, allow me to correct that perception. Anyone familiar with my posts would not say that, but to the opposite: I respect religious women more than any group in the church. In fact, I have to remind myself of what initials such as LCWR even refer to because I don't see the religious orders in any real divide, even if others do, the Vatican does, or the orders even do.
Methinks that I am just touching your nerves in ways not intended, perhaps because you feel so much on a different path than your peers. I was once that too, although not in my own closer circle of friends. If you read my post with a gentler eye, you will see only a conversation. I hope and pray you all the best in your discernment.
Annie - Thanks for helping
Annie - Thanks for helping me understand you better. (I myself am 46 years old, with graduate education and long accustomed, through upbringing and adult life choices, to making choices inconsistent with those of my peers. That said, in MY peer groups in life and here on NCR, I **am** making the far more acceptable choice by discerning with less "traditional" orders).
I reread your posts and continue to hear what I experience as a critical tone. Even among "their [Catholic] church peers", a decision to enter any for religious life is a statistically and culturally and developmentally unique choice that places these young people far, far outside the norm. Consider the actual numbers of young men and women entering even those orders with the highest numbers of new entrants. I sincerely doubt those numbers would even be statistically significant when evaluated as a life choice among all young people on a local or state level. They would fall under "other".
Annie, I sincerely do not believe that there is any intellectually honest way, given the numbers, in which these young people entering religious life can be considered followers or led by peer pressure/example/acceptance. I think it far more likely than men and women MY age might be questioned on this score.
Thanks for helping me understand you better. Jean
"a decision to enter any for
"a decision to enter any for religious life is a statistically and culturally and developmentally unique choice that places these young people far, far outside the norm. Consider the actual numbers of young men and women entering even those orders with the highest numbers of new entrants. I sincerely doubt those numbers would even be statistically significant when evaluated as a life choice among all young people on a local or state level. They would fall under "other"."
Well, I agree, as I said more generally to someone when I first entered this discussion with someone on another thread. Having heard bloggies for several years talking about the massive number of entries into traditional orders, I did the unfathomable thing of suggesting that was inaccurate, by any estimation.
I'm going to leave alone your issue regarding "intellectual honesty" since I don't get it relative to this conversation. My original comment was suggesting that given the tendency to reflect the culture of one's age group, that reflection for a younger age group would be that of the 'JPII generation', which would be toward more traditional orders. IF someone were interested in "religious life," they would more likely get more support in that direction from those peers, in other words. This makes more sense to me than the declaration that more young people entering traditional orders proves that those orders have become somehow anointed as God's real orders, or that there is something troubled about their young personalities.
You say you come from a different age group and you disagree with my comments about a younger age group, and say that it is an unusual choice at any age. You're right.
Annie - Thank you again for
Annie - Thank you again for responding and helping me understand your thinking. I do understand you better now and accept that you intended no criticism of the choices young people are making.
I don't have enough contact with young Catholics discerning religious life to know whether their non-discerning peers would offer them more support them in joining one kind of order as opposed to another. I wonder if there is some information out there that indicates one way or another. I do think I recall that the CARA study indicated that most of the respondents said they did NOT get a lot of support from family members and friends for their choice to become religious.
It would be good to see a specific question about this issue of peer support you raise: are any significant number of these young discerners/entrants, in fact, supported by their Catholic and same-age friends? I would perhaps want to ask: Are your generational peers supportive?" "If yes, would you describe them as more or less "traditional" than you? More or less "progressive" than you? If no,............same questions.
Another question for me would be what Catholic backgrounds are "producing" discerners and entrants? I think it was in the VISION VOCATION study that I saw that something like 75% of discerners/enquirers were educated in Catholic schools and had CCD as kids. But I don't remember anything in either survey that captured the "personality" of the particular Catholic communities from which these discerners come. Are the Catholic schools and churches and youth groups and families that are producing today's young discerners "peopled" staffed by more or less traditional people?
I guess, Annie, I just don't think these young people have much support of any kind for the very unusual choice of religious life, and (if I am remembering accurately) the CARA survey supports that.
Maybe that gets at the nut of why your statements seemed critical to me. There is a suggestion that these kids are influenced by their peers - rather than by the movement of the Holy Spirit - in this choice and I just don't accept that and I see evidence that suggests the contrary.
Do I think that any of this means, as you said, that there is any validity to the all-too-frequent explicit and implicit "declaration that more young people entering traditional orders proves that those orders have become somehow anointed as God's real orders". Nor do I think any of this lends any validity to the suggestion "that there is something troubled about their young personalities".
I think each of these young men and women are responding to their own unique and private dialogue with God and doing their best to follow the movements of the Holy Spirit within their souls. And I think all of the orders, consecrated to love and serve God in the person of Jesus Christ, are "God's real orders", with which it seems you might agree, Annie O.
Thank you again for helping me to understand you and further my own thinking.
Jean
So, according to your logic
So, according to your logic (and that of many NCR readers and LCWR groups), we should just drop the truth and go along with gay "marriage," femaile "ordination," contraception, abortion and anything else because it is acceptable and it is what the group thinks?
I'm always fascinated by this
I'm always fascinated by this interesting metaphor of "dropping the truth." Sounds like Little Red Riding Hood dropping her basket in the woods.
There was a time when
There was a time when Catholicism was very attractive to those who wanted structure, rules, answers and "showtime."
It looks as if that time is back for those youngsters entering religious and ordained life.
We'll see how their staying power is over time, particularly the women.
While I agree that a certain
While I agree that a certain part of what is happening today in religious communities is a generational reaction, I also look at what happened in the aftermath of Vatican II as a “top-down” imposition upon the laity who were not calling for it. Thus the voting by the feet began after Vatican II in every area of Catholic life.
I also agree that this is not a zero sum game. Restoring beauty to the liturgy, fostering traditional practices, wearing the habit, building beautiful churches is a win-win for everyone, even non-Catholics. Mediocrity and banality in our liturgy and churches, conversely, is a lose-lose for everyone as it does not respect or foster the full development of the person.
Dear Brennan: I must take
Dear Brennan: I must take issue with your conclusion. Great art emerges from the fostering of opportunity generally and the exposure of opportunity which leaves the residual greatness that endures for centuries. The periodic art that is good lasts for its age and marks it. But to stifle the broad roots of elan or to "pick winners" is not the route to great art nor is it the development of art appreciation.
"Restoring beauty to the liturgy, fostering traditional practices, wearing the habit, building beautiful churches is a win-win for everyone, even non-Catholics". These are not win-win for anyone other than right wing fundamentalists. That "beauty" that was the "old" liturgy is safe only in the museums and galleries. Its art value is seen in how long and well it lasted as "contemporary". It has lost its "contemporeity", it is passe.
Restoring the "habit" is to restore the dogmatic and daily exclusivity of self-rightious hierarchy. There is nothing "beautiful" about reams and reams of black cloth and hijab like headresses. "Beautiful churches"? I have roamed quite a bit of Europe and North America. I love old churches, but clutters of gold, gilded statues and grotesque shrines, relics, even skulls and fingers? They all represent a spectrum rooted in dominance, clerical institutional riches and excess as well as superstition.
Nevertheless, I will not give up my Gregorian Chant cds.
I so resent the inference
I so resent the inference that the novus ordo liturgy is not beautiful. I guess it's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My eye sees the parish assembly coming together to praise God joined together in COMMUNITY. It may not contain all the bells, whistles and pageantry that the TLM does, but it also does not have people praying their own INDIVIDUAL prayers and devotions during a liturgy that is meant to be prayed as a COMMUNAL devotion to God our creator through the sacrifice of both Christ and ourselves on the altar in the Spirit.
Responses to JH and Anonymous
Responses to JH and Anonymous above:
JH, I think there is much to be said for the spiritual growth of individuals within religious orders of all kinds. One thing that should be central to our understanding of vocations (be they to the priesthood, the diaconate, or the male or female religious orders) is that we are called by God and by the Church, whose representatives in religious orders or in dioceses must duly determine if we are indeed being called by God to the vocation we believe we have as individual Catholics. Vocations are always about a person, Jesus Christ, calling us through the Church He founded, and us growing deeper in love for Him and for His people. A vocation is not a call to seek power, but ultimately a call to serve God in the way He wishes us to serve Him most. One brilliant and wise Apostle once wrote something we must keep in mind, whatever our personal vocation may be (and this of course includes both the single life and marriage, as well as the more traditionally-named vocations to the religious life): "He must increase, and I must decrease." (John 3:30) Any person who does not understand this message and take it to heart will end up being frustrated in living out his or her actual vocation.
Anonymous, I've lived in Spain, Mexico and Guatemala for some lengths of time, and now I live and work with many Hispanic Americans (mostly Mexican-Americans here in Texas), and I can argue exactly the opposite of what you claim about how Hispanics look at the religious life and at religious, in general. There is no "Latino-American" way of looking at faith and at the faithful who serve and love God, as there are as many opinions as there are individual Catholics. Heck, most non-Catholics also have their own opinions about Catholic priests, religious, and the laity! No, it breaks down to how we individually live our vocations, the most important of which is the basis of all Christian vocations: love God, worship Him, and love and serve others before ourselves. There are cynical Hispanic Catholics (you sound deeply cynical, and your extremely disrespectful comment written in Spanish at the end of your post more than demonstrates your attitude about Catholic laity and religious), and there are humble and simple Hispanic Catholics, just as there are among every other ethnic group. The Church, of course, is universal, and we should never be so full of pride as to assume that every other member of our "Catholic tribe" feels the same way we do about the Church and its members.
For those who don't read Spanish, Anonymous felt the need to cast aspersions on anyone who takes their Catholic faith to heart by calling us all "Sick Clowns". With friends like these, the Church needs no enemies.
Bravo Kevin. Very lovingly
Bravo Kevin. Very lovingly and respecfully said.
Dear John, after reading this
Dear John, after reading this column I had these reactions: 1)Another survey! Surveys can only convey what they receive. While what is received in a survey such as the one you describe probably is true, on average. Probably, also, it may not be true in every location. 2)My overall reaction though is that you realized that all the psychological/sociological research you scanned didn't really help.I felt toward the end that, in effect, you threw in the towel (rightly I thought)when you stated, "the point I'm trying to make...." 3)High tension/low tension, who cares? The millenials with whom I associate with(as well as their parents)wouldn't give any of this any credence. Like all of us who've gone before their goal is simply to make the world a better place. Regardless of Vatican II or its backlash they KNOW they have been baptized into the Way of Jesus; the Priesthood of the Faithful. It simply doesn't matter how they make this visible during their lifetimes: discipleship doesn't delineate among married or single laity, ordained clergy, consecrated religious (male or female). Baptism confers discipleship; life honors it; death transforms it. Discipleship is what's important; not HOW one lives it out. My conclusion? Let the results of surveys go to the people who commissioned them for whatever purposes/goals they had in mind. It makes no matter to the rest of us.
This is an interesting study
This is an interesting study and an equally interesting commentary by John Allen. I am left wondering what such a study would discover about newer religious in Australia. My sense is that both liberals and conservatives galvanise themselves into corners because of anger at, or fear of, those from what they see as the opposing side. I agree with John when he indicates that "...the future belongs to those forces that best resist the lure of a 'zero-sum' logic always wanting to think in terms of winners and losers".
In my own discerning movement towards a place within religious life, I searched and tested the religious order I was considering for their authenticity to charism and Gospel life, their fidelity to fraternity and prayer, and their commitment to those on the margins of society. While I found them wanting, I also found them to be searching and travelling towards a deeper sense of commitment to Gospel, charism, fraternity, and those at the margins. While I appreciate the hankering for habit, institution and order within religious life in the 21st century as a reaction to dominant secularism and the shallowness of consumerism, it is not the peripherals that "do it" for me in respect of religious life; it is Gospel, charism, fraternity and a commitment to those at the margins of society. This is my religious manifestation. Thanks John for the article and thanks also to those who worked on the research.
I didn't leave a comment at
I didn't leave a comment at first because I thought it didn't much matter to me if the conservative young people want to enter into conservative groups but then I had second thoughts. One of those thoughts is the same as JH - the women's movement made strides that have changed the world but much more needs to be done. It made enough however that it may make traditional women's roles (nuns in habits) seem romantic and enticing. Another thought is that people who are joining these conservative groups because they have habits and the formal, midieval structure are not joining necessarily for Jesus' sake but for their own. They may very well want to serve Jesus but I have heard one person say on this very site that she chose a convent that wears habits because she likes the habit! What a reason to choose a group to follow. Time will tell whether the old ways will really win out. As Paul C. said, when you only count the ones who are left in the pews it gives a skewed result. Many of us feel the church has abandoned Jesus and us long before we finally abandoned her and we are no longer in the places to be heard on surveys. I know some of the people here will say good riddance to me and the church is better off with fewer but more obedient people in it. Thank God, Jesus listened to the outcast - I feel him with me whether conservatives like it or not and I feel him with all the people whether they wear habits, become nuns or just stay as non-religious doing Jesus' work.
Yes, earthenvessel, "Thank
Yes, earthenvessel, "Thank God Jesus listened to the outcast" and that He still does. Some posters here treat one group of sisters as outcasts when they dissent and *other* posters here treat *another* group of sisters as outcasts when *they* dissent.
Again, I am with you when you say, "Thank God, Jesus listened to the outcast." All outcasts. Even when the outcasts begin cast each other out.
Jean (a discerner with LCWR congregations)
Interesting! I would however
Interesting! I would however like to make a comment. Social trends are not independent of the institutional contexts that shape them. Given the restorationist policies of the institutional Church these past three decades, it seems to me that it has basically delivered what it wanted. The Church failed to engage with modernity, and therefore gave no witness to younger generations how to engage with it. Today, conservative relgious communities are apparently providing a haven - in the benign sense of the word - for those fearful or wanting a sense of security that is not apparently being provided in the modern world.
Now its fine in a more moderate sense to want stability and indeed security, but what is not fine is to skew religious life in a way that dampens risk. Faith afterall is not about certainty - it's about believing in something that is beyond oneself, a not yet reached attainment that carries with it uncertainty. Religious life in its most profound sense is insecure.
I think there is a need to draw a big breath and take time to reflect on the long-term. In the long run - the Church has to face all sorts of questions, including that related to women, someday - not to will cast it to the margins - into the desert that will force a letting go. And either way, we will discern what it means to be Catholic in the modern world, and what forms that might take.
"These results deserve to be
"These results deserve to be studied carefully and dispassionately, without leaping to conclusions about which political or theological agenda, if any, they support."
Exactly the point I made when commenting on another article (same topic) by Mr. Briggs. Statistics are just numbers, that in many cases can be 'forced' to say whatever is desired, depending on the agenda of the entity assembling and interpreting the data. In this case, there are human variables that have no identified research control... and it would involve significant complexity to do so. Because of its innate limitations this study tends to be more anecdotal in value.
.
Three such variables of particular interest would be: chronological age (idealism vs. life experience), personality/temperament type (nature - genetics), and childhood formative environment (nurture - family/culture). Various combinations of these three things can produce very different results, even among siblings... sometimes even improbable results you might least expect. Human behavioral studies are just plain tricky... especially when looking for a specific either/or conclusion.
.
Formation for vocations, regardless of venue and its characteristics, is in significant part for the purpose of the candidate getting better acquainted with themselves — What a person might fervently believe they want and are called to as a vocation, may be something they absolutely could not tolerate as a life-long commitment when it becomes daily life. The tedium of reality and experience tend to dampen the romanticism of expectations. Sometimes what we idealistically desire or wish we were, may be incompatible with who we actually are as a unique individual.
.
Who stays or goes in a vocation setting is more about individual self-discovery over time than it is about a particular choice made at the onset of discernment. It would take a much longer study over decades to be able to identify a statistically significant trend in one direction or the other that actually means anything, if then.
Ailleen, I have read many of
Ailleen, I have read many of your wise and astute responses here in NCR for a while now and this is yet another one. What you have said here stands out, at least for me on a personal level. "Sometimes what we idealistically desire or wish we were, may be incompatible with who we actually are as a unique individual." As I am an older woman now this resonates as truth for me. Sometimes we do not discover who we truly are until we discover by experience who we are not, or were not intended to be. As an example, in my youth I discovered through political affiliations and personal relationships that I should have studied the situation before moving into such relationships. But youth is energized to move, and quickly. However, I gained from the experience, the truth of what I needed to find out about myself and the world and my relationship in the world to others and to God.
.
"Who stays or goes in a vocation setting is more about individual self-discovery over time than it is about a particular choice made at the onset of discernment. " So true, and I believe my statement above clarifies what you are saying.
Spiritual beings are always growing and are not static in their ways of seeing or believing, but are ever maturing in grace from God. The only thing that is fixed in belief should be our belief in love itself and learning the deeper meaning of love. That always implies love for God, love for self increasingly centered in Christ, and love for others, whether they believe as we do or not.
I agree it will take time and a "much longer study over decades to identify a statistically significant trend in one direction or the other that actually means anything, if then"
As the trend has been a shift from the left to the right in the social and religious spheres over the last forty years, I believe these trends are not static and cannot remain fixed. I believe that more conservative or authoritarian groups emerge in the world of religion and in the secular world at the same time and that can mirror the tension of the times in response to certain perceived threats. Some responses are based in fear rather than on faith or reason or love.
Furthermore, I see the shifts from right to left or left to right politically, doctrinally, religiously, as like a pendulum swinging in time in history. Some are centered now in Christ, rather than being carried one way or another on that pendulum in time and trend.
The threats in the world in which religions are all affected, and during VII, are distinctly different in nature to current perceived threats. Those of the baby-boomer times grew up with a nuclear threat that was more obvious to see. Now, it is not so obvious, but still a grave threat. VII was a response of WWII which took place in the very heart of Christian countries. We should learn from that experience, but trends do not tell.
Butterfly, I do agree with
Butterfly, I do agree with you on this. Let us hope that all pendulum swings are centered in Christ. The culture of death is a threat that is often not seen as a threat, but it is destructive. In my opinion, this is the best you have written.
This survey got me thinking.
This survey got me thinking. On the one hand, I receive solicitations from a number of religious orders for women, headlining "We have a different kind of vocation problem." The pictures with the brochures include numerous young women in religious habits. Then I think of the retreat I made this summer at the Jesuit retreat house in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The vast majority of retreatants (about 50) were elderly nuns, all dressed in secular clothing, one or two wearing a cross. On occasion, there were prayers at Mass that some new postulants would enter their order, lest it die out. Then I think also of a get-together I had a few years ago with fellow former lay missionaries at a convent in La Crosse, Wisconsin, where there were literally hundreds of elderly women, who I found out were retired nuns. Not one, wearing a habit. And I happened to pass by a hefty book case with spiritual books, and noticed that almost every one of the books was contemporary, often feminist-oriented -- certainly nothing from the traditional Catholic spirituality of Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine of Sienna, et al. Then, I think back to the sixties, and all the hubbub about Pope Paul VI Encyclical on birth control, and I remember all the embarrassment of Catholics, who had interpreted Vatican II as a new effort for the Church to "keep up with the times." Obviously, restrictions on contraception were very passe, along with fish on Friday, the Latin Mass, devotions like the Rosary, etc. So many Catholics were embarrased about these "Catholic" connections. They wanted to be like everyone else. And finally I think about Jesus' words about the last judgment regarding those who were ashamed of him, rather than proud of him and his Church.
Minerva's owl: What you have
Minerva's owl: What you have described is the reality of today's religious communities with many elderly sisters and fewer younger members. With or without wearing crosses, I believe these women are committed to their vocation. When on retreat, many people relax - wearing casual clothes, etc. I do not consider wearing a cross or not wearing a cross an issue to focus on.
If you receive info from the communities with younger members, consider attending their retreats.
As far as books, I have studied Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross as well as writings by Edwina Gately, Fr. John Dear, Sr. Joan Chittister and other contemporary authors.
I believe Jesus will be more merciful on people than we human beings about the last judgment.
The future is defined by
The future is defined by dialogue. What gifts do right to life and social justice people have for each other. What gift do they give the followers of Mother Faustina and Tiellard de Chardin and what gifts do they receive from them.What wisdom can a joyful celibate share with co-habitating hetero and homo sexuals.What is the difference between abstaining from sex and the joyful serenity of celibacy.What would the saints say about the environment?How do lay people, taking their rightful place in leadership of parish communities, help religious define their calling in terms that are not power and control? What gifts do Latinos and other Carribian Catholics bring to anglos and visa versa. The future has so many questions and is so exciting. I am a Vatican 2 baby boomer. I am truly grateful to be alive today.
Dear Father (or Brother), I
Dear Father (or Brother), I hope you are in a position to faciilitate such healing and Gd-centered dialogues. I know I would like to participate. Jean
Back to the CATACOMBS, eh,
Back to the CATACOMBS, eh, Mr. Allen?
"The Vatican II generation grew up within a strong Catholic culture and to some extent reacted against it, seeing it as overly stifling and controlling. The defining cultural crucible for millennials, however, has been a rootless secular world. They’re eager to establish a strong sense of Catholic identity, not to reform or redefine it. In essence, they’re reacting against the world, not the church."
Thanks for yet one more ivory-towered, paradigmatic simplification to explain what's going on in the real world. If only life were as neatly organized as these little academic models...
While this newfound "COLD WAR" GHETTO mentality of religious life -complete with costumes, control and compression- may be the wave of the future for the Catholic Church, we shall see in another CARA study 50 years or so from now just how many of these "high tension" kiddies currently kicking soccer balls around in full novice habits and sneakers on Youtube manage to survive til their Silver, Golden and Diamond Jubilees of religious profession as their foresisters of today have done in the "low tension" LCWR communities of wise and holy grandmothers whom the Vatican apparently finds so threatening.
Perhaps it will turn out to be a cyclical pattern after all, with the "Millenials" restoring a Tridentine/Vatican I church for the next hundred years, which will in turn, be reacted against at Vatican III and so on as the increasingly schizophrenic ecclesiatical pendulum keeps swinging back and forth?
John, I appreciate your final
John, I appreciate your final paragraphs: "The point I’m trying to make is this: There are plenty of ways to understand this data beyond a victory for one side or the other in the church’s internal culture wars. These results deserve to be studied carefully and dispassionately, without leaping to conclusions about which political or theological agenda, if any, they support.
The one seemingly inescapable conclusion is that the Catholic future, inside religious life and out, promises accelerating diversity in terms of ethnicity, life experience, and worldviews. How the church copes with that diversity looms as a defining challenge … and my bet is that the future belongs to those forces that best resist the lure of a “zero-sum” logic always wanting to think in terms of winners and losers".
I am hopeful that leaders throughout the Catholic community and in every context will begin to choose to be "forces that resist the lure of a 'zero sum' logic [that make us] always want to think in terms of winners and losers".
Thank you for being, through this article and your final statements, one of those Catholic leaders.
Jean
Wearing traditional habits is
Wearing traditional habits is NOT a win win for ANYONE! It is a regressive step back to another time which no longer exists in this century. Conservative thinkers see the world through a very narrow lens and therefore they exclude rather than include others who may think differently. Christ did not live a life based on EXCLUSION of others who may think differently. He embraced and loved EVERYONE and he saw the world through a wide lens. The Liturgy of the Vatican II reforms IS BEAUTIFUL. It does not need to be "restored" and I find "restoration thinking" to be nothing more than reactionary thinking or thinking on the far right, which lives in perpetual fear of new or different ideas. I do not think these "traditional orders" will survive for long nor do I think the recruits will stay. They soon see their ideals of living in a habit and strict rules do not fulfill their original attractions to such fond things. It's quite silly and immature to foster such notions. I agree that most younger people just wish to make the world a better place. Hunger, shelter, healthcare, stewardship of the Earth, and loving one another are more important than trying to live in another century that is passed. The imperial Roman model of the Latin Rite church is in a final state of decay. No amount of wishful thinking for the "good old days" will revive it. Vatican II happened. Get over it. Move on. Embrace what it really means to follow Christ, to live it in word and deed by loving others.
"No amount of wishful
"No amount of wishful thinking for the "good old days" will revive it." Chris Smith your whole post was, I think, right on target. "The imperial Roman model of the Latin Rite church is in a final state of decay." Yes.
Sad in a way because so much of it was/is beautiful. If the whole change/transition think had not become so ideological but "confraternal" rather than confrontational, the Spirit would have been so much better served.
For the sake of his access to information John Allen skates a broad line. I really wonder what he would say to his shrink or after a few scotch.
Chris Smith said: "Wearing
Chris Smith said:
"Wearing traditional habits is NOT a win win for ANYONE! It is a regressive step back to another time which no longer exists in this century. Conservative thinkers see the world through a very narrow lens and therefore they exclude rather than include others who may think differently."
My question then is: What do we do with the conservatives in religious life, in the clergy and in the pews? Do we invite them to look elsewhere? Do we attempt to change their out look through re-education? Or do we relocate them to the margins of the church so they can avoid harming themselves and others?
"I agree that most younger
"I agree that most younger people just wish to make the world a better place. Hunger, shelter, healthcare, stewardship of the Earth, and loving one another are more important than trying to live in another century that is passed."
I am a millennial Catholic and, speaking for myself, it's sentiments like this that account for the dismissal state of the so-called "liberal" religious orders. If a young person is going to commit their whole self & life for some purpose, it ought to be for something definitive, concrete and truly counter-cultural. The vague, bland, liberal sentimentalities expressed by Chris Smith are none of those things and resemble the mission statements of many of the floundering liberal religious orders. Even worse, they are exactly the sort of things unthinkingly lauded by voices for the dominant bourgeoise, upper-middle class, banal liberalism found in the opinion section of the New York Times or Washington Post. (Newsflash: the counter-culture of the '60s is now just the culture; the opponents of "the Man" and now themselves "the Man.")
"[S]tewardship for the earth" is great and all, but it's not an activity or charism the modern, American 20-something is going to join a religious order (and make all the attendant sacrifices) to pursue. Rather, they will quite sensibly go to law school and join a public interest environmental law firm (or some other secular profession) if saving the environment is their passion.
"The imperial Roman model of the Latin Rite church is in a final state of decay."
I'm not quite certain what this means. Although I find it a somewhat counter-intuitive prognosis of the American Catholic Church, which--as Mr. Allen's article and the survey describes--is experiencing a growth in more traditional (imperial?) religious orders and has a decidedly more conservative hierarchy than in decades past. Whereas it is the liberal (anti-imperial?) religious orders that are on the cusp of extinction.
Doesn't God have anything to
Doesn't God have anything to do with people entering religious life? No where did I see anything about God's role in a person entering religious life mentioned in Mr. Allen's article....But that doesn't surprise me!
It seems to me that Paul C.
It seems to me that Paul C. hit the nail on the head with his question of how the new breed of more narrowly traditional clerics are going to handle the Church (by which I mean, obviously, the real Church, and not just those in positions of authority). If many -- particularly but not just, the young -- vote with their feet and decide to pull out, there are probably those who will applaud the emergence of a smaller (and, in their minds) "purer" Church, but at the same time what had once been Catholic will become merely sectarian, and we will all be the losers.
Another article on this site
Another article on this site that claims that young engaged catholics like the church as is but the narrative is not so cozy. It appears to signal that youth who stay with the church are unlikely to take these traditionalists seriously. So, if there is any truth there and here the church will not be in for an easier time - over time, especially if the "new" clergy try to impose the traditional "identifiers" and/or gloss over the idiocies. This reflection does not take into account the innumerable youth who left, rejected, stayed but are disengaged and those who simply see catholicism and it trappings as irrelevant and to be ignored.
I am sure many of these tratitionalist leaning entrants are sane, intellligent, of good will and revere the past. Some though, and I have heard of and from some, are a definitely over the top and seeking a security that includes either an escape or an authority that they do not merit in their own right (or any other for that matter).
This is why we should stop
This is why we should stop praying for an increase in vocations. These new recruits are facilitating the repeal of all the good done by Vatican II. We need the Church to go back to the desert, to a barren wasteland devoid of clericalism. Then, like John the Baptizer, we can come out of the desert with new forms of community and new forms of priesthood.
Excuse me, Tom. You're
Excuse me, Tom. You're saying that God is recruiting "unfit" people to the clergy, to the detriment of the church, all becuase we have too many people praying for vocations? Demand is outstripping supply? God's hands are tied? Ether you have an extraordinary belief in the power of prayer or a pretty dim view of the Deity.
I'd imagine that people enter religious life for their own reasons. Some are reasons you'd approve of. Some are reasons you don't. The church really isn't in position to be picky - and we're going to have to take what we get. Meanwhile, there are a lot of ways to serve and those who do not choose the collar or wimple still do what they can.
That's a very strange notion
That's a very strange notion of "God the Recruiter". Through the ages he's not always been on top of things-Popes with children, even Popes who kidnap kids.
This comment made me smile.
This comment made me smile.
There may be another reason
There may be another reason for the increase in vocations to the more traditional communities - God's call? If religious are not teaching the Truths of the Faith they are not following the mandate given by Jesus to "go teach all nations". Those who were not doing that did not have the Holy Spirit confirming their message. A possibility? - Blessings - Rene
Let's face it: Jon Sobrino
Let's face it: Jon Sobrino and the bland Central American jesuits lose.
BLAND CENTRAL AMERICAN
BLAND CENTRAL AMERICAN JESUITS LOSE?
"Let's face it: Jon Sobrino and the bland Central American jesuits lose."
Yes, and if you bothered to read Teresa Whitfield's PAYING THE PRICE: Ignacio Ellacuria and the Murdered Jesuits of El Salvador (Philadelphia, 1994), you'd know exactly what they lost!
Another possibility is this:
Another possibility is this: Religious life, especially celibacy in a highly eroticized world, is demanding. More 'liberal' groups, who emphasize less an eternal perspective on life and mission, and who give a less distinctive vision of life as a whole, fail to provide enough motive for such a life. They emphasize social mission without spiritual foundation. The obvious question that arises for a young man or woman: Why not just work for an NGO?
Other explanations hold to some degree as well, of course. But this aspect of the matter should not be missed.
So, if the younger generation
So, if the younger generation of religious is more ethnically diverse and traditional than the "Vatican II generation," shouldn't the older sisters (according to their own values) yield to the sensibilities of their younger counterparts out of respect for the minority voice? I mean, the older sisters do derive mostly from the dominant segment of American society.
As usual, John Allen is
As usual, John Allen is snorkeling in sand!
I have some questions: i.e.,
I have some questions: i.e., the age groupings. The CARA Report's older group= the 'Vatican II group' begins with those born in 1944. No account is taken of those born before '43.
First:
Among the most notable 'sisters in secular dress' in my experience are women born before 1943. Among this group are theologians like Sandra Schneiders, social justice activists in many fields, contemplatives, etc. ( There are at least least five such notable women religious in my parish alone. (Admittedly it is a University parish.) It seems to me that the data is skewed if 'older' age groups are not taken into consideration...I know a few in their 80's who are very active in new ministries...
Second:
It also seems to me that persons who are drawn to and persevere in the more authoritarian religious congregations for men and women - or indeed to any 'authoritarian' Christian denomination, may not be 'critical thinkers'.
One could even say that such persons see no reason to take individual responsibility for the overall functioning of their congregation, parishes, denomination etc. In politics, it is said that voters get the government they deserve. The same can be said of Christians: we got the leaders we deserved. In the heyday of the more authoritarian church cultures, there appears to have been also a fair amount of corruption which was covered up: child abuse in its various forms, breaches of celibacy, extravagant expenditures on buildings, simple ignorance of how to handle finances, even questionable financial dealings. And Christian leaders focused a great deal on cover-ups so the reputation of their group would not suffer. Besides that, too many teachers and preachers had at best a poor grasp of basic theology..
One of the major themes of the 60s was that authority cannot be trusted implicitly... not in government, the military, the clergy, the professions. Some of the 'revolts' of the 60s went way over the top.. as excessive as the abuses they revolted against. But if there is one thing we (nearly) leaned in the 60's it was that we can't simply hand over all responsibility to the relevant authorities. Mature adults have to pick up their share of that burden: we have not only the right but the duty of questioning and taking action in the societies in which we live..
Those who are drawn to religious commitment in truly authoritarian groups are, it would seem, simply dodging assuming such adult responsibility. If that is true of the 'Millenarian' vocations, it bodes ill for religious congregations of the future.
A Third point:
The CARA study relates to religious congregations only. But the sub-text- at least to me- is that religious congregations are essential for the Church.
Since Vatican II many more laity have become active and committed 'ministers' of the Gospel message. Perhaps the future of all christian churches lies in their hands.
A few quibbles. "Hispanic"
A few quibbles.
"Hispanic" and "white" are rather inexact labels.
What do we mean by these descriptions?
Is a Hispanic just someone speaks Spanish or has a Spanish surname? I am of Irish, German and American Indian ancestry; I speak Spanish and have lived in US communities where Spanish is as common as English, my surname is from Ireland. In my central Mexican community we have blue-eyed, blonde people whose only language is Spanish. Are we Hispanics, or are we "white".
I rather like seeing nuns in habits and priests in clericals. This tells me that they are people who are committed to God and service to His people. Of course a priest is a priest, even when in track clothing running a marathon, and a nun is no less a nun in jeans and t-shirt doing something where a formal habit would simply not be practical.
I rejoice in the news that the "traditional" religious orders are again growing. I pray the new "conservative" seminarians will not become "praise leaders" at "clown Masses".
Religious Sisters: a living
Religious Sisters: a living past, a new birth at present, and a growing future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDo2RDK2rek
It's interesting that Mr.
It's interesting that Mr. Allen has ommited the retention statistics. In that zero sum game, both progressive and more traditional orders are losing half their postulants before formal profession.
I wish there was a study dealing with those who have left. I wonder if there would be common threads amongst them. I have a hunch such a study might find that the women's movement has indeed had an impact on how millenial women view themselves relative to authority, notions of personal freedom and how those effect their spiritual lives.
This isn't just a Catholic phenomenon. I have spoken with many young women from traditional families in many religious denominations and spiritualties. They are asking the same questions about how they can intergrate their concepts of themselves as women in today's world with the expectations of spiritual traditions whose cosmology never conceived of their kind of understanding of what it means to be a woman. They express a great longing for spiritual connectedness with in the context of great cognitive dissonance.
I assure them they are not alone.
Thanks Thomas Muldoon. Those
Thanks Thomas Muldoon. Those of us that really see walking with God prefer the desert because it is naturally beautiful and we see each other. If I try to say more I'll do it wrong, but I would like to go back to the beginning without rules made by men, (even be they priests), for all the wrong reasons.
The young people entering
The young people entering vocations are joining these orders because they are the most obedient and faithful to the Church. Why is this labeled as "right wing conservative"? St Francis was reverently obedient to even the most debaucherous priests and bishops of his time. If he was alive in our day and age what would progressives think of his uncompromising fidelity to the Pope and Magisterium? Are saints like Therese of Liseux and Edith Stein also right wing idealogues? These young people are striving to follow the way of the saints and their focus is primarily on reaching heaven. The modern world and dissenting Catholics don't seem all that concerned about such things and so have nothing to offer them. I'm not trying to sound harsh, but it's the reality.
Modern society sees obedience as weak and foolish and dissent as intelligent and hip. It's obvious dissenters in the Church have adopted this worldly outlook which is contrary to the teaching of Christ. How is dissent toward the Church and her teachings compatible with holiness and salvation, when Jesus said "Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me"?
Thomas Muldoon has put the
Thomas Muldoon has put the focus exactly where it should be. I commend him for his comments in this thread. I am one of the many Catholics who believe the Church WILL RETURN TO THE DESERT and bear new fruit in the new forms of priesthood and what it means to be followers of Christ. Vatican II did open new windows and doors in order for this to happen and no amount of restorationist propaganda by the right wing reactionary bishops, cardinals and popes is going to stop this wave of reform and rebirth. Imperial Roman rituals and princely lifestyles of popes, cardinals and bishops will soon be a thing of the past. I meet very few Catholics who support the Imperial Roman model. They all feel it is the opposite of Christ's example and the way he lived out His short ministry on this beautiful Earth. There are usually two words that are most often expressed when describing the hierarchy of the Church: Arrogance and Hypocrisy. Religious Life in the Latin Rite Church will be expressed in new forms whether we pray for an end to vocations or not. The new recruits to old style traditional orders do not stay. It's a new world whether the fundamentalist wing of the Church wants to admit it or not. The old ways will pass and the new ways of being Church will come. The right wingers do not own the messages and teachings of Our Lord. They belong to every human being. Another poster in this thread, Mrs. O'Riordan seems to think "truths of the faith" were delivered as "mandates" given to the hierarchy by Jesus. There was no hierarchy during the years of Jesus. He handed down his love and example of the way we should live our lives to EVERYONE. The Church on Earth became a corrupt and very human institution that got it all very wrong. It became all about POWER and CONTROL and exercised by a small minority of men. Vatican II opened windows and doors to bring in new light and fresh air so we could reform, rebuild and get it right!
Anastasia's - "It also seems
Anastasia's - "It also seems to me that persons who are drawn to and persevere in the more authoritarian religious congregations for men and women - or indeed to any 'authoritarian' Christian denomination, may not be 'critical thinkers'". By that criterion Jesus was not a "critical Thinker" - "I came not to do My own Will but the Will of Him Who sent Me" - It seems to me that obedience is a core value for a religious - look at Padre Pio; he was told to be quiet for years and not a grumble out of him - obedience - it's a sure fire test for authenticity. - Blessings - Rene
Contrary to John Allen's
Contrary to John Allen's assertions, I think the analysis is quite simple:
If there truly are young Catholics out there who subscribe to the worship-style, mission-statement, and beliefs of the LCWR orders, then why do these orders have hardly any vocations and young recruits?
In contrast, why do orders faithful to the Church and the Magisterium, that value traditional devotions, prayers (Rosary, Liturgy of the Hours, etc.), and value traditional convents/communitities, have such an upswing in vocations and growth over the past 10-15 years?
These complex psychological and sociological analyses aluded to by Mr. Allen might make dissenting Catholics and "spirit of Vatican II"-types sleep better at night. But the central fact remains that liberal/progressive orders that are suspicious of the Pope, distrustful of other Church teaching authority, and that dislike traditional practices and devotions are DYING OFF. That's a fact, not my opinion. Meanwhile, loyal and faithful orders are GROWING. Also a fact...not an opinion.
What's the picture going to look like in 20 or 25 years? The trends and surveys seem to clearly support the death of liberal/progressive religious orders.....sorry, but those are the cold, hard, facts....no matter how you try to spin them....young Catholics feel no desire to join progressive religious orders and more of them do feel a desire for traditional orders that value faithfulness to the true teachings of the Church founded by Christ and his Apostles.
If the progressive Catholic way is so good, why is no one under 45 or 50 years of age attracted to it any longer?
"But the central fact remains
"But the central fact remains that liberal/progressive orders that are suspicious of the Pope, distrustful of other Church teaching authority, and that dislike traditional practices and devotions are DYING OFF. That's a fact, not my opinion. Meanwhile, loyal and faithful orders are GROWING. Also a fact...not an opinion."
Justin, you are certainly reading much more into the CARA study than is warranted. Yes, traditional orders are drawing more postulants but they are not retaining them to the tune of 50%. These numbers do not represent any hope of long term survival for traditional orders and they certainly won't save the Church. They only mean their 'death' will be slower, buy they too face death.
We are not talking strictly white anglos in these frequently touted postulant numbers. When non white, non first world women, achieve the same opportunities their counterparts in the West enjoy, these traditional orders will see not just a reversal in their numbers, but a continued exodus from their ranks.
Don't you think they know this? Don't you think Mother Millea, who is heading the investigation of LCWR congregations, hasn't seen this trend in her own CMSWR congregations? Do you think she is stupid? These congregations do no better retaining their postulants than the LCWR. Mother Millea may find out she has much more in common with LCWR congregations than you and other trads want to think.
The real issue isn't orthodoxy, it's opportunities for women which don't involve an almost exclusive choice between marriage and the convent. Forty years ago, this played out in the West. Now it will play out in the South. Don't deceive yourself. The issue isn't orthodoxy, it's opportunity.
Please read Sister Schneider's analysis of the lack of vocations in American congregations. You might learn some truth.
Let's face it: The race was
Let's face it: The race was the Post-Vatican II Religious Orders;' to lose.
And lose it they did.
To put it in perspective, I was a candidate for the Christian Brothers in 1977. If my experience is any indication, the average candidate for said order would have been exposed in aspirant, pre-Novitiate, and Novitiate years to a spiritual director getting naked and requesting a massage, a notorious sexual predator sniffing about, together with a keg of beer in the pre-Novitiate (targeted at 18-year-olds) basement as a sort of "lubricant."
Of the class of 12 that preceded what would have been my Novitiate year, none are left in the order insofar as I can determine. I can't be sure, because the District doesn't really want to talk about it.
Now as those who read what I write know, I'm as left-leaning and progressive as anyone. But there is a limit to self-indulgence and tolerance of exploitive and mal-adjusted brethren.
If the various main-line orders who embraced progressivism in the past several decades had managed to figure out where the boundaries were, they'd probably be thriving today. But they sank into a pit of their own self-indulgence and now find themselves going the way of the dinosaurs.
The only thing that is left are the orders which make the Legionaries look liberal.
Post new comment