The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThoughts on post-tribal Catholicism
by John L Allen Jr on Apr. 15, 2011
Tensions surrounding Catholic identity are very much in the air these days, and when they erupt they’re always a prescription for heartburn. People who regard themselves as authentically Catholic rarely enjoy being told they’re not, or that they’re only selectively so. Likewise, people who believe the faith they treasure is being misrepresented, or distorted, or eviscerated from within, typically get their Irish up.
A key question facing the church, therefore, is how to manage those tensions constructively. I offered some thoughts on that subject on Wednesday, at a conference in Chicago sponsored by DePaul’s Center for World Catholicism and Intercultural Theology and titled “The Discourse of Catholicity.”
My bottom line was that Catholicism needs a grass-roots movement to rebuild zones of friendship in the church.
I’m not talking about formal programs of dialogue, and I certainly don’t mean debating societies. What the church needs instead are spaces in which relationships among Catholics of differing outlooks can develop naturally over time. The plain fact of the matter is that such spaces have been badly attenuated by the ideological fragmentation of both the church and the wider world.
To be clear, friendship won’t magically make hard choices go away. Catholicism has to stand for something, and somebody has to decide what that is. There will be times when certain versions of Catholic identity have to be ruled out of bounds, and there will also be times when certain defenders of orthodoxy have to be reminded that it’s not their job to determine who’s in and who’s out. (Recent events at the University of Dallas illustrate the latter point, where Bishop Kevin Farrell recorded a web video responding to concern about a new undergraduate degree in pastoral ministry. Critics objected that the program is soft on Catholic identity, to which Farrell replied: “Let me remind the Catholic people of this diocese that … I’m the one who has to stand before God and say whether this is truly Catholic. That is my responsibility, and I do not take it lightly.”)
My experience is that when such moments arise, they can lead to either creative tension or destructive division. Which way things break often hinges not just on the issues involved, but also the quality of the underlying relationships among the parties.
I prefaced the call for zones of friendship with three observations, outlined three challenges to implementing it, and closed with three examples which suggest there’s hope.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Observations
First, whether anyone likes it or not, pressure related to Catholic identity is here to stay. This is not only because a fragmented, post-modern world always makes identity contentious, but because one key trend in today’s church is precisely the rise of “evangelical Catholicism.” It’s premised on recovering a strong sense of Catholic identity (including traditional markers of Catholic thought, speech and practice, such as Eucharistic adoration and Marian devotion) and using that identity as a lever to transform culture – beginning with the culture of the church. This evangelical wave comes from the top down, in the sense that policy-makers are understandably concerned to defend Catholic identity vis-à-vis secularism. Yet it also comes from the bottom up, in the form of strong evangelical energy among younger priests, religious, theology students and lay activists.
Second, there’s ferment today not only over how to define Catholic identity, but also who gets to decide. In Western culture there’s a widespread suspiciousness of any claim to institutional authority, and in Catholicism, that instinct has been turbo-charged by the sexual abuse crisis. As a result, virtually any exercise of hierarchical authority today elicits resistance. Thoughtful bishops know that all too well, just as they know the bishops themselves bear some responsibility for bringing about this state of affairs. Yet given how fundamental apostolic succession is to the physiognomy of the church, many bishops believe they have a sacred duty not to allow their authority to unravel. As a result, there’s an almost Newtonian equal-and-opposite dynamic: the more authority is challenged in some quarters, the more some bishops feel compelled to assert and to defend it.
Third, those tensions are unfolding in the United States in the context of a church that’s already badly divided. The conventional term for that division is “polarization,” as if everyone’s clustered into left and right. In reality, the sociological landscape is more akin to “tribalization.” We have pro-life Catholics, peace-and-justice Catholics, liturgical traditionalist Catholics, neo-con Catholics, church reform Catholics, feminist Catholics, and on and on, with each tribe touting its own heroes, attending its own meetings, and reading its own journals and blogs. Such diversity is healthy in principle, but destructive in practice if these tribes come to see one another as the enemy, and in many cases that’s precisely the situation. Compounding the problem is that these tribes have spent so much time moving down separate paths that they often have completely different senses of what the issues facing the church actually are, so on those rare occasions when they do rub shoulders, they often lack a common set of points of reference to sustain a conversation.
Challenges
The following are highly generalized statements, and in each case one could easily spot any number of compelling counter-examples. Nonetheless, I think they’re broadly accurate at a descriptive level about where things stand.
First, building friendships that transcend ideological divisions in the United States today is an effort that has to swim against a powerful cultural tide. Journalist Bill Bishop has coined the term “the Big Sort” to refer to a decades-long trend among Americans to retreat into like-minded enclaves, both physical and virtual. More and more, Americans are choosing to live, work, socialize and even worship only with people who think like themselves. It’s a basic rule of sociology that homogenous communities radicalize while heterogeneous groups moderate, so this “Big Sort” goes a long way towards explaining the increasingly toxic character of our civic life. The problem is not merely that Americans disagree, but that we’re becoming strangers to one another.
Second, the normal pillars of Catholic life often no longer naturally bring Catholics of differing perspectives together. Many parishes, for instance, have become virtual gated communities. Walk into any diocese in America and find a Catholic in the know, and he or she can tell you in five minutes where the “Vatican II” parishes are, the neo-con parishes, the traditionalist parishes, and so on. The same point could be made about Catholic colleges and universities, Catholic media, and other institutions, all of which tend to have clear ideological alignments. Catholics aspire to be evangelizers of culture, but in many ways we have been thoroughly evangelized by culture. Smuggling the divisions and animosities of secular political life into the church is a classic case in point.
Third, Catholic creativity on this and many other matters is often stifled by an overly “purple” popular ecclesiology, which holds that the bishops are both the cause of, and the solution to, all our problems. Not only is that assumption disempowering, it’s not true. Church history teaches that great new impulses such as the mendicant orders, the teaching communities of the 19th century, or the new lay movements weren’t born because someone in power said, “Let it be so.” The same point applies to addressing today’s tensions around Catholic identity. The bishops aren’t the only reason we have those tensions, and they’re unlikely to ease as long as we sit around waiting for the bishops to fix them.
Signs of Hope
The following are three examples of what a “zone of friendship” in the church can look like. This is hardly an exhaustive list, and these may not even be the best instances. Nonetheless, they at least illustrate that it’s possible.
First, the Focolare movement, founded in wartime Italy by a lay woman named Chiara Lubich, is rooted in a profound spirituality of unity. Based on that foundation, Focolare has built lasting friendships over the years with other Christians, followers of other religions, and all people of good will. Their success is shaped not only by the group’s spirituality, but also its internal culture -- patient, open, always disposed to understand before passing judgment. Those qualities have been acquired largely through building friendships outside the church, but they also represent a powerful resource ad intra.
Second, the Salt and Light network in Canada is a rare media outlet that’s both unmistakably Catholic and yet open to varying expressions of that identity. It was born out of the experience of World Youth Day in Toronto in 2002, and is led by Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, who not only has vision but also business moxie. The network has the support of the Canadian bishops, but it’s not an institutional initiative. In terms of programming, there’s a little something for everyone. For instance, Salt and Light produces high-quality features on Catholic saints and other luminaries, including heroes for both progressives and traditionalists, yet taking an approach which cuts deeper than ideological readings. The staff, too, reflects a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences, so that the positive tone on-air reflects real friendships in-house.
Third, the “Catholic Voices” project in the United Kingdom was launched in the run-up to Benedict XVI’s visit last year, giving a cadre of young Catholics a crash course in both communications techniques and issues facing the church, and then offering them as interview subjects to media outlets from around the world. The co-founders were the spokesperson for Opus Dei in the U.K. and a former editor of The Tablet, so they come from different Catholic backgrounds. Yet they’re great friends, and that spirit permeated the project. In the end, Catholic Voices projected a rational, self-confident, attractive face for Catholicism while the pope was in town, disarming a lot of anti-papal and anti-Catholic prejudice. The idea was so successful that today a “Catholic Voices Academy” is in the works, and like-minded Catholics in other parts of the world are looking to franchise the brand.
The point is not merely that Focolare, Salt and Light and Catholic Voices are all places where Catholics of different experiences have formed friendships. It’s also that this cross-pollination produced a sort of “hybrid vigor,” allowing these outfits to accomplish aims that would likely exceed the resources of any one tribe acting on its own. Moreover, nobody in authority launched these projects, but nobody got in their way either.
Fundamentally, what these examples illustrate is that post-tribal Catholicism is more than a pipe dream. If you build it, they will come.
John you hit the nail on the
John you hit the nail on the head. What a great article! Martin Marty's - building communities of trust - certainly addresses the problems of polarization and gives us ideas about building communities of friendship. In my own diocese we watched an ultraconservative bishop of the Opus Dei - dismantle a thriving lay ministry program, destroy ministry after ministry and we watched young enthusiastic conservative Catholics come in - take positions for which they had no preparation and fail - because no one wanted them to succeed. The bishops are not the only ones responsible for this mess. We are all responsible.
The bishops who believe they have a sacred duty to restore their sense of authority are missing the boat. Their authority has been destroyed by their own hubris and failure to see the Faithful as human beings.
Perhaps the most telling of stories was the one of the Phoenix diocese where the bishop - determined to show his authority on this issue - excommunicated a Sister, took away the Catholic credentials of a hospital and never addressed the human dilemma that was impossible becomes the brush that paints all bishops.. I heard him described here as the Barney Fife of bishops. He dresses better than Andy and he carries one bullet in an empty gun. He is empty when he does such things. He showed no wisdom - non - and so a story that hits all the airwaves to feed the anti-Catholic sentiments. Good and faithful Catholics question their own faith because they see what he did was immoral and wrong. Perhaps Bishops should start talking first - with the faithful who dissent a bit. And the Faithful - perhaps we must forgive a bit - forgive men who simply have no worldview other than clerical (not the same thing as Catholic by the way). Lunch has always been my favorite means of making amends. Might I suggest it to all of us who are sure our progressive peace and justice way of being Catholic is the only true way. Might I suggest lunch for those who worry more about the ritual and the niceties and perfection of that ritual than about what ritual creates within us. Might I suggest lunch for those who proclaim their pro-life stance even as they hate their president, hate enough so that their very faces take on the hatred when his name is mentioned. It is our anger and righteousness that keeps us apart and I am no exception. Think I'll go make a few lunch dates with old friends with whom I disagree.
How come you don't have the
How come you don't have the courage to use your real name? I don't have time to read comments from anonymous posters.
You will, then, ignore a
You will, then, ignore a substantial number of the more idiosyncratic statements made in this blogsite.
Obviously you did read the
Obviously you did read the response and the only comment you had was to criticise.
Not everyone has the luxury
Not everyone has the luxury of a secure job. Many are required to remain under pseudonyms in order to contribute to blog postings.
FALL OF ROMAN HOLY EMPIRE.
FALL OF ROMAN HOLY EMPIRE. John, thanks for your change of pace and positive comments. The Church is still saddled with a stucture created basically by the Roman Emperor in the fourth century, then modified to manage a kingdom in Central Italy against interference from other European monarchies, all of which disappeared by World War I. Pius XI remarkably cut a deal with Mussolini that gave the papacy for the first time in over 1,500 years freedom from foreign powers and complete control of bishop appointments. Coupled with modern communications, this papacy is now the most powerful in history. Unfortunately, absolute monarchies are unsustainable today, even if the hierarchy hasn't heard that yet. The numerous lawsuits against the Vatican will in time force the Vatican to abide by the rule of law. Meanwhile, many Catholics have moved on and found ways to worship that avoid the embarassing efforts of the Vatican to try to retain control. As we are learning daily from North Africa and the Middle East, the genie is out of the bottle and you cannot any longer treat people as dumb sheep. Being single clerics, the Vatican made a major mistake. It failed to protect children from rape and that broke a fundamental taboo. The hierarchy still doesn't get it, but they will when they run out of funds to pay their lawyers who will be the first to jump from the sinking papal ship. The Roman Holy Empire is sinking fast in the swamp of clerical child abuse and Catholics are learning to get along without the blasphemous titles, rings, collars, capes, crowns and mansions the hierarchy claim as their divine right. The Church wiil survive to be sure, but it will do so without the "royal priesthood" you painfully have had to endure for so long. You may still get the opportunity to report on "the bad old days", but for someone who wrote in 2000 about our "totalitarian" Church, you will enjoy writing about this new Catholicism much more in the future. Keep up your efforts at trying to squeeze some tidbits from a hierarchy obsessed with secrecy. It must be tough work some days.
"FALL OF ROMAN HOLY EMPIRE.
"FALL OF ROMAN HOLY EMPIRE. John, thanks for your change of pace and positive comments. The Church is still saddled with a stucture created basically by the Roman Emperor.." how about going back to the Garden of Eden?
--------------------------------------------------------------
The original fallacy of Scholastic Theology/ Philosophy underlying cultural violence, presumes the male (Adam) as primary (non-corruptible, superior) in the divine order of the creation-event, and the female (Eve) as “secondary,” i.e., male-dependent (corruptible, inferior.) How about that as a basis for building a world-church theology/ecclesiology? Literal credence in the rib-origin of women sets the stage for radical division and violence.
Sorry, Jerry... Jesus Christ,
Sorry, Jerry... Jesus Christ, not the Roman Empire, founded the Church on Peter - which explains why the Church is still here and Rome has fallen. You are right, the Catholic Church is a monarchy - but the King is Jesus Christ. And no, it will not fall... even with the terrible liberal bishops who have just about given away the store - allowing homosexual priests to molest children leading many dioceses into bankrupcy. The "rule of law" is not going to straighten out the Church any more than it has the society which supports this kind of immoral behavior. We need a reformation and it is happening from both side - from holy, faithful laity to our holy father.
Hope springs eternal, John.
Hope springs eternal, John. When I read some of these comments on FB and the web from the extreme ends of the church, I truly wonder where we are going. Unfortunately, some of the most pernicious comments I've seen come from those who see no good in anything done since pre-VCII. I hold strong to a comment made years ago by Benedict Groshel stating that if the church could survive the first 12 apostles and their antics, it can survive almost anything we can dish out.
Blessed Holy Week.... at least we can all agree on the reality of the cross..... I hope ;-}
Maria
As long as "Catholic identity
As long as "Catholic identity is here to stay", "big tent" Catholicism will be quite hard to attain - too many problems of power, drift, credibility etc.
The Church is hardly completely polarized, but emphasis on "distinctive catholicsm" is a wedge issue.
The best way to defend
The best way to defend Catholic identity vis-à-vis secularism is to further align Catholicism with broader Christianity, not to move further away. A return to traditional markers such as Eucharistic adoration and Marian devotion is simply taking what appears to be an easy albeit not valid way out. To me these two examples represent significant deviations from the essence of Christianity.
I agree tribes have spent so much time moving down separate paths that they often have completely different senses of what the issues facing the church actually are, so on those rare occasions when they do rub shoulders, they often lack a common set of points of reference to sustain a conversation.
It’s time to recognize that there is essentially an unrecognized schism in place. Let’s recognize that fact and, if corporate unity is absolutely necessary, then learn to live with two strains of Catholicism. There will be one that sees value in a stronger, more distinctive Catholicism that is manifested in external practices, a more Latin-based liturgy, and hierarchical structure. The other will see value in the development of more scriptural-based devotions, more diversity in liturgical actions and a more participative collegial less hierarchical structure that give more place at the table to women, divorced and LGBT Catholics.
There will be variations within each basis strain, but they will essentially be separate but equal rites of Latin (as opposed to Roman) Catholicism. We already have a long history of Eastern Rites and now the new Ordinariate as justification for this structural accommodation. Without this we’ll end up with the continual “my way or the highway” Roman Catholicism that continues to manifest itself in the tribalism that John describes above.
Jim McCrea: I agree with much
Jim McCrea: I agree with much of what you say. There are 2 basic points of view namely: those in favor of the reforms of Vatican Council II and those who want to go back to the pre-Vatican Coucil II Latin church. There is a 3rd group who just want to go to church and get the sacraments and don't want to have anything to do with the arguing between the other 2 groups.
Unfortunately the hierarchy, tightly controlled by the Vatican, have taken sides by taking the position that nothing changed at Vatican Council II. Rome's claim that the Council was "just a continuation of the past,"is an astounding lie that belies their true aim which is to undo all the reforms by re-interpreting "their truth."
What has exasperated Pope Benedict the most is that at the very moment he is ready to launch his "program to resurrect the medieval church identity," the hierarchy's cover-up scandal has exploded worldwide. You correctly point out the schism that exists between those that support the reforms of the Council and those that want to return to medievalism.
The more important schism however is the one you did not mention. The unified action of the hierarchy to keep scandals secret, causing more children to be sodomized, has created a much wider and deeper schism between the laity and the hierarchy. The majority of catholics cannot trust the bishops or the pope when it comes to telling the truth. Such institutional corruption around the power to keep secrets has to date been unreformable. As a result the entire hierarchy is still completely free to protect pedophiles in every country in the world.
More and more we see the
More and more we see the wisdom of the Reformers of the 16th century. Best we dump the relic worship, sitting before the God in a golden bread box, and the childish pietistical mummery so central to Catholic devotions. Instead, a stripped down faith with heavy concentration on establishing in every Catholic parish a learning center with a library and with a more didactic approach to worship. A Word or scripture-based piety where decent, intelligent and thought-provoking homiles are standard must take the place of pious trinkets and "holy hours".
Yes, liturgy is the Church's life, but so is the establishment of a charter of Catholic Ethics for a world of chaos and a complete revolution is needed in the way Catholics are taught their faith. With an emphasis upon what is truly important in their lives.
In this endeavor,priests and bishops would be less and less useful to the life of Church. They need to be replaced by genuine presbyters of Word and Sacrament exercising a ministry with genuine shepherds exercising episcopal oversight in the hands of men and women from all walks of life. This is far more valuable in meeting the needs of a laity in many instances far more advanced and better educated than the primitive priestly cast we have had to tolerate for centuried enslaved to rituals a child can perform and spreading superstition, blasphemy, and idolatry.
that which is most truly
that which is most truly distinctive of Catholicism is the Spanish spoken by the landless campesinos in Latin America.
This is Catholicism, pure and simple
Distinctly
Renewal in the Church has
Renewal in the Church has always come "from below" -- from charismatic individuals with a fresh vision of what the Church needs and what Christian discipleship requires. If we are lucky the hierarchy recognizes the fresh vision. Often, however, it does not -- or does so only after a long time and much resistance. Looking for renewal from the hierarchy is mistaken. Its role is preservation of the faith, not its renewal.
You are right. It is
You are right. It is especially true today that there is intense hierarchial opposition to anything the bishops do not control. Even John Allen's citation of Dallas Bishop Farrell's remark to his traditionalist sector at the University of Dallas emphasizes that he alone will choose what is good and bad for Catholicism in Dallas. That means opposing every group/person from the left and occasionally challenging something from the right as when the UD group criticized his decision. Ditto all across America.
Lay people who really wanted to help the church like Voice of the Faithful just got continuously put down, sometimes viciously.
If there is anything blossoming out there to make the church more inclusive, pastoral, tolerant or big umbrella type, I just don't see it. If something good is coming, I think it will be too late for millions of Catholics. The inheritors of the church will be the ulta-right traditionalists and they are betting on it (They support the smaller church theory of Pope Benedict, which is very anti-Gospel.)
As the individual who did a
As the individual who did a great deal of said criticism at UD, I can say that our objections were not so much with the Orthodoxy of the program itself (cf the curriculum) but rather the professors currently involved in the School of Ministry. The School of ministry has, on numerous occasions invited questionable speakers, published scandalous works and generally operated under shady circumstances which the Bishop has not commented upon even once.
We who did criticize are fully within our rights as Catholics. The Bishop will be obeyed by us, but he did not ask us to stop speaking. Rather he asked us to have faith in him, and we will. Hopefully he will straighten out the SoM and we will not have to worry as much anymore.
Oh, a very self-righteous
Oh, a very self-righteous Catholic you are. Are there many more like you at the University of Dallas?
I'm amazed that you can take
I'm amazed that you can take issue with what he has said. He has put forward his concern to the Bishop and said that he will respect the Bishop's opinion. You clearly think he is wrong - I do not see how that makes him self-righteous and you not so?
Calling someone else
Calling someone else self-righteous sounds extremely self-righteous. And tacking 'you are' at then end there adds that extra little bit of condescension.
Too bad the hypocrisy takes some of the fun out of the irony.
Let's see, this bloke had some concerns, he raised them with his bishop, now he's submitting to the bishop and hoping things turn out for the best.
Really, what is your problem with this?
Oh, that's right. You disagree with his opinion. So you call him names.
Christ wanted us to be child-like, not childish.
Thousands, which is UD's good
Thousands, which is UD's good fortune.
Aw, come on out and just
Aw, come on out and just admit you embrace orthotoxy.
okay, so, like, I admit it;
okay, so, like, I admit it; my anglo-saxon is a bit rusty, but when you write so superciliously: "The Bishop will be obeyed by us . . ." does this mean the Bishop will obey you?
The passive voice is so elusive to me now . . .
Renewal has NOT always come
Renewal has NOT always come from below, in fact, very frequently renewal has started from the top. Case in point: Vatican II. Put into motion by John XXIII.
Good point! However, part of
Good point! However, part of what John XXIII did was to free up a lot of grassroots work that had been going on since at least the end of WW II, mostly in Europe. People like Yves Congar and M-D Chenu, who had been silenced, forbidden to teach or publish, but who nonetheless had continued to do theological or scriptural work. On our side of the Atlantic, John Courtney Murray stands out. And there were many others, some under a cloud and some not; people like Karl Rahner, Romano Guardini, and a number of bishops. John XXIII gave them permission to reach a broader audience.
Sadly, today we seem to be at the beginning of the repression cycle, rather than the end -- more like Pius X than John XXIII. But no doubt the Spirit is still at work out there, even if we can't see it. Among the hierarchs, though, there seem to be very few bright lights.
As a newly baptized Catholic
As a newly baptized Catholic at the age of 66, after a life -time of agnosticism, I truly enjoy your articles. I have much to learn but sense the tensions in our very middle class mostly Italian-American parish in Monterey, Ca. Thank you!
What about EWTN John, the
What about EWTN John, the largest Catholic media outlet in the world? EWTN is truly Catholic. No Catholic should have problems with them - they are a great unifier.
Everything about EWTN is
Everything about EWTN is structured and designed to, unwittingly, keep people away from the church. The way they say the Mass is old fashioned, though pious. The speakers and apologists are dogmatic and boring. Nearly all that it does is aimed at the 50-90 year old Catholics. The church is losing people under 24 in droves. Where is the material that appeals to the teen and young adults. I try to watch EWTN from time to time, but after 15 minutes I'm off to other places. It represents the old church, not the modern church. Any Priest that is an effective pastor and manager of a large chruch will tell you that EWTN has no relationship to the reality of Catholic's everyday life. I'm in my 70's, but I want something more modern and up-to-date.
I love EWTN for certain
I love EWTN for certain things and for it's tremendous outreach to non-Catholic clergy and laity. This is it's strongest appeal, but it buries it's head in the sand when it comes to the greatest scandal since the Reformation. I find this is true with all conservative, supposedly "orthodox", Catholic websites, as well.
A certain site makes a point of having dead fish wrapped in copies of the NCR. Which is fine, to each his or her own; freedom of expression is in the best American tradition and must be upheld. But this site and others need to wake up and smell the coffee brewing on the back burner. Even Catholics between 50 and 90 aren't necessarily senile or enraptured with Vatican II, but they do read and watch the evening news. To expect silence and unquestioning obedience from them as a mark of support for this pope is no tribute to him at all, or to the "magisterium". To think it is doesn't cut it with folks in this age group or any other age group for that matter.
This is interesting, and
This is interesting, and demonstrates clearly how truly great the divide is, how truly different are perceptions. ROB believes that EWTN could be a "great unifier." I know many who believe that EWTN is among those who are most responsible for creating the extreme polarization that exists today in the American church.
When perceptions are so dramatically different, what hope is there for overcoming all that divides Catholics in the early 21st century?
Gee, the next thing you know
Gee, the next thing you know some people will want to promote sainthood for Mother Anglica. Santo Subito!!!
That woman has done more to bifurcate US Catholicism than anyone I can think of.
EWTN a "unifier?" No way!
I think it's "sancta subito."
I think it's "sancta subito." In most uses and cases, Latin is gender specific.
And "bifurcate" suggests or infers two-sided. EWTN has splintered our already fragile and diverse and contentious Catholic family. There is no clean break but no com-union either. It is rubric over reality. It is splitting hairs, splintering our family. And though it may be well-intentioned, it tends to ignore or deny our real world situation.
We make our intercessions and plead, "Lord, hear our prayer." If the Lord is the Lord, (and the Lord is Lord), before we could even cry out, the Lord "created," "willed," or just made sure that there was air, water, "bread... which earth has given and human hands have made... wine... fruit of the vine and work of human hands," and "see, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food. (Gen. 1:29-30) Good God!!!
We have and have had many good and well-intentioned sisters and brothers whom we hold in our hearts and minds. We hold and keep them there not because they were holy or "Great." We remember them lovingly because they help us humbly admit our sinfulness, honestly acknowledge our goodness, and sincerely take up our cross... and help our sisters and brothers with theirs.
When anyone asks God, "Who is your favorite?", God honestly says, "You are." God is God. I am not the only Son of God. I am only a child of God. That is enough for God; it is enough for the only Son of God, and it is what the Holy Spirit offers and confirms. I am God's favorite. And you are God's favorite. And so are all of our sistes and brothers and Mother Angelica at EWTN.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.
EWTN? Heaven help us all,
EWTN? Heaven help us all, with the gun totin' Benny Groeschel telling the Irish how to vote in European referenda, the steely glint behind the PR smile of Mitch Pacwa, the infernally smug Raymond Arroyo, the would be youth broadcasters of 'Life on the Rock', and the delightfully but dangerously dotty Mother Angelica. Yes, that's just what Catholicism needs :-)
EWTN is like a time capsule
EWTN is like a time capsule taking one back to the Catholicism of yesteryear--long before Vatican II and closer to the Spanish Inquisition. It is unfortunate it has become a forum for the so-called "orthodox", for neo-gnostics and arch conservatives with prelatical reactionaries as frequent guests, e.g. cardinal Burke, and others who want to present the Church as a great bulwark against modernism, liberalism, "that NCR crowd", and critics of "He Who Must Be Obeyed" in Rome.
EWTN is like a time capsule
EWTN is like a time capsule taking one back to the Catholicism of yesteryear--long before Vatican II and closer to the Spanish Inquisition. It is unfortunate it has become a forum for the so-called "orthodox", for neo-gnostics and arch conservatives with prelatical reactionaries as frequent guests, e.g. cardinal Burke, and others who want to present the Church as a great bulwark against modernism, liberalism, "that NCR crowd", and critics of "He Who Must Be Obeyed" in Rome.
I have my disagreements with
I have my disagreements with the approach Mother Angelica takes, or is taken by others in her name. However, she really is a holy woman and, undoubtedly saintly in her fashion. I have no doubt she will someday be canonized for building up the Kingdom with what is now the largest religious TV network in the world, and all from scratch too. She's a remarkable woman and she would have made a great lady bishop. No doubt a far better one than the crop we've got in the USCCB today.
Let us pray for Mother Angelica and for the day when we will see many lady bishops.
I have my disagreements with
I have my disagreements with the approach Mother Angelica takes, or is taken by others in her name. However, she really is a holy woman and, undoubtedly saintly in her fashion. I have no doubt she will someday be canonized for building up the Kingdom with what is now the largest religious TV network in the world, and all from scratch too. She's a remarkable woman and she would have made a great lady bishop. No doubt a far better one than the crop we've got in the USCCB today.
Let us pray for Mother Angelica and for the day when we will see many lady bishops.
I have my disagreements with
I have my disagreements with the approach Mother Angelica takes, or is taken by others in her name. However, she really is a holy woman and, undoubtedly saintly in her fashion. I have no doubt she will someday be canonized for building up the Kingdom with what is now the largest religious TV network in the world, and all from scratch too. She's a remarkable woman and she would have made a great lady bishop. No doubt a far better one than the crop we've got in the USCCB today.
Let us pray for Mother Angelica and for the day when we will see many lady bishops.
I have my disagreements with
I have my disagreements with the approach Mother Angelica takes, or is taken by others in her name. However, she really is a holy woman and, undoubtedly saintly in her fashion. I have no doubt she will someday be canonized for building up the Kingdom with what is now the largest religious TV network in the world, and all from scratch too. She's a remarkable woman and she would have made a great lady bishop. No doubt a far better one than the crop we've got in the USCCB today.
Let us pray for Mother Angelica and for the day when we will see many lady bishops.
Rob, Maybe I'm wrong, but, I
Rob, Maybe I'm wrong, but, I don't see EWTN as a great unifier; rather as just the opposite. But, if you can explain how you see them as such, I am willing to listen and consider your reasons.
EWTN is a symptom of the
EWTN is a symptom of the problem Allen is referring to. They are radically right wing and utterly inflammatory. Mother Angelica's presumption to scold Cardinal Mahoney on her interpretation of eucharistic theology is a case in point.
Even my 90 year old mother who watches EWTN is aware of how absurd some of that stuff is. Obedience is not conscience....
And now with one of their
And now with one of their stars, Fr. Corapi, under investigation, the same fractures we have seen in the larger church community now find their way to EWTN. And Corapi's response? He attacked the bishop's policy for the handling of such matters and claimed that the "victims" of such allegations are denied their rights. Sound familiar? Yep - that's orthodoxy for you. Oh - and Corapi is vehemently anti-Vatican II, so it can't be blamed on the evils of that Council.
EWTN a unifier? Why not
EWTN a unifier? Why not Cardinal Bernadin's attempt to foster friendships and unifying movement: COMMON GROUND? It's out there. The very concept is what seems to be touted. Why is it not acknowledged? As to the gist of this article and talk I find it too confining - the problem of church is not confined to the U.S.A. or even to the West and North; it's universal. Although I'm from the area I'm decidedly glad I wasn't invited nor present at this conference; my bodily juices would have been in great turmoil. The presentation painted too broad and too shallow a picture of what's happening in living ecclesiology, its problems and how they can be solved. For instance, in my own family everything you mention occurs and more. However, there is no change nor will there be in any of our lifetimes. That makes none of us less good in God's eyes, no matter who or what we believe him/her to be.....
Good Sir. The attempt to
Good Sir. The attempt to charicature "evangelical Catholicism", (or "Taliban Catholicism", as the culture of death now slanders The Faithful) as if it's some overly-zealous, grass-roots Catholic "Tea-Party", that hasn't quite mastered the proper decorum to achieve all the good they desire is, with all respect, laughable. The "Kumbaya" touchy-feely effeminates have had their chance to show us their "spirit". NEW ADVENT, NEW OXFORD REVIEW, CATHOLIC EXCHANGE,LIFESITE NEWS, and REAL CATHOLIC TV exist primarily to correct the "spirit" the modernists have been haunting The Faithful in America with the past 50 years. We need warriors to wake-up from their slumber and use all lay resources available to take back OUR FATHER'S HOUSE! The hour is late, souls are being lost, while some, still, seem more concerned with proper etiquette at some quaint, anachronistic tea... PAX CHRISTI!
John Allen, When you read a
John Allen,
When you read a post like this, where do you see hope for creating any kind of unity in the face of this kind of polarizing language?
Joseph serves as the Poster
Joseph serves as the Poster Child for one sign of the "I'm Right" problem. Also, his children will tell him (if he has any) that CAPITALIZING IS YELLING and generally, yellers aren't worth listening to.
Joseph: you'll love this
Joseph: you'll love this place, too: http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=ae2bb31d-7f06-4091-a...
Good Sir. "Use all available
Good Sir. "Use all available resources?" If you are talking about the money the laity have earned and donated, I would point out that the bishops are too busy squandering it in defending the indefensible, namely defending their obedient decisions to keep secret every scandal in every diocese because that is what the Vatican wants them to do. This "traditional" universal policy of secrecy is being defended obtensively to "protect the hierarchy's imagined authority."
The shame is that Rome doesn't seem to recognize that their corrupt secrecy has already undermined their authority to such a degree that their "remnant of the faithful" will very much smaller than they realize. The bishops are not allowed to show any real "public" shame. They continue to defend their secrecy (see Philadelphia). Their remnant "defending and making excuses for the bishops only show their "blind ignorance." The bishops still have "full authority to keep all scandals secret. " Nothing has changed regaring the hierarchy's abuse of power scandal. It is the "newly exposed" tradition of the ruling elite. "Long live the exalted tradition of the CHURCH."
This is so timely and
This is so timely and interesting!
I would like to learn more about Focolare (sp?)
However, I do not belong to Evangelical-Catholics. I believe the Republican party's take over of the abortion issue is a scam.
I have been an Associate member of a Congregational Church for 30 years, and a member of my parish for about 40 years. I love the mainline Protestant churches because they are totally involved in peace and justice. Mine is now raising money to provide a shelter for the homeless. My parish has one of the best-funded St. Vincent de Paul Societies in Seattle. Seattle, the most unchurched city in the nation = I believe it still is.
Also, our hotline for abuse caes is one of the best, if not the best, for fairness and transparency. I wwould like to see NCR do an article on us!
Thank you for your years of reporting, John Allen. I have been reading MCR since 1964.
John-- I have respectfully to
John--
I have respectfully to disagree with your discussion of an "overly 'purple' popular ecclesiology." This problem seems to be one that you yourself have a very hard time seeing, no doubt because you spend a great deal of time talking to the bishops. We cannot use nineteenth century models to discuss contemporary ecclesiology because, in the wake of Vatican I, the Church hierarchy has increasingly assumed "infallible" authority over larger and larger segments of Catholic life. Creeping infallibilism is the normative stance of most bishops in the Church, to say the least, and most priests--young or old--carry with them a similarly defective understanding of the nature of the Church hierarchy. Even "liberal" priests talk about the "Church's work with the laity" all too often, and in this is an implicit belief that the laity are not the "real" Church.
I have met probably only three priests in the last ten years who do not, to some extent (and often unconsciously), believe and act out that the hierarchy is the Church. Coupled with creeping infallibilism, we now have an actively taught ecclesiology that encourages all sorts of activity among laypeople but that also firmly rejects that the laity have any meaningful voice in the work of the Church. The lesson has been taught to most laity as well--and don't even get me started on the deacons that we've been ordaining over the last twenty years. . . .
I do not see ANY way out of this mess, other than a reform among and within the hierarchy and the training of priests and deacons. This is not a pre- vs. post-Vatican II issue, nor is it a "conservative" vs. "liberal" issue; it is a pre- vs. post-Vatican I issue that has been festering for decades. And sadly, the only way to change the hierarchy is from within the hierarchy itself; Vatican I made sure of that.
I think that John is on to
I think that John is on to something. Cardinal eorge's latest book has keen insight aiding this notion of non-ideological friendships as the Cardinal wrestles with the concept of autonomy that has been altered in the world and Church.
Cardinal George says in his
Cardinal George says in his book that the laity place too much stress on the bishops in their understanding of the Church, yet in his own oversight of his diocese, he has created a culture where the bishops control virtually everything. The Archdiocese of Chicago is the true test of Cardinal George's vision of the Church, and it is clearly a diocese where the buck starts, stops, and is spent by the bishop.
Cardinal George is authentically unable to see how truly partisan and ideological are his own positions; this blindness to his own ideological bias shows how truly limited his vision of the Church is.
BISHOP OLMSTED of Phoenix
BISHOP OLMSTED of Phoenix AZ
has supported his Parish Pastors in destroying all ZONES OF FRIENDSHIP.
Friendship group leaders have been removed and replaced with traditionalist
Deacons or the pastor's "Dogma Police" to report anyone critical of any
church clergy, policy or teachings. When no replacement, or substitute
(un-friendly) Pastor appointed leader could be found, the ZONE OF FRIENDSHIP
group has had to RENT facilities to meet because use of church facilities
have been denied.
Sorry John Allen... but Bishop Olmsted has ALL buildings, property,
church staff ALL LOCKED UP to ZONES OF FRIENDSHIP. I sometimes wonder if
he personally knows or has experienced friendship.
HEALING PRAYERS for people of God are offered by the "friendship zones"
meeting OFF RCC property. VERY SAD :( BUT... also it gives us a chance to
experience the faith lived by the early Christians in Scripture. ALLELUIA !!
Sounds to me like a
Sounds to me like a wonderful, non dualistic, both/and way of coming together. Very hopeful.......let us pray to be open to the Spirit of unity!
Pretty good article on the
Pretty good article on the issues and possible solutions of the church, however making a derogatory remark about the Irish is inappropriate.
How come the "Catholic common
How come the "Catholic common ground movement" didn't make your list, John? Why aren't "the spokesperson for Opus Dei" and the "former editor of the Tablet" named (as are Lubich and Rosica? Real people have positions on issues. There has always been "tribalism." What we now have is the internet which has given people a voice.
Oh, we so deeply need
Oh, we so deeply need conversations like this! Thanks--and give us more, plese! WE cannot truly be light to the world while we're sniping at each other. (Whice does NOT mean we all have to agree--but we all are still a part of that great Body of Christ.....)
I enjoyed this article and am
I enjoyed this article and am taking the time to let it digest, but there is one thing that keeps coming back up in my mind, and is a main point in discussions with others:
"Catholicism has to stand for something, and somebody has to decide what that is."
That 'somebody' has to be the teaching authority of the Catholic Church because its authority and doctrinal teaching are from God, not man. If you believe that it can be determined by a group outside the teaching authority or left up to each of us, then Catholicism does not stand for something because it can mean anything.
From someone who has been in
From someone who has been in a position of authority, I knew that the best exercize of that authority was to listen to everyone, thinking about what was said, then making every effort to incorporate as many of those thoughts as possible in my final decision. Occasionally I would have to say I couldn't do something because it was illegal, but I also explained why. The hierarchy occasionally listens to laymen, but never to women, religious, lay or otherwise. As a result, one-half of God's creation is left out of decision making. Foolish God to have created such inferior beings!
Dennise: it has to be more
Dennise: it has to be more than "Father Knows Best" or it will be the sham that it continues to be.
The loss of the ordained priesthood necessitates a greater incorporation of lay voices. It necessitates a greater incorporation of the largest percentage of active Catholics - women - or it will remain a sham.
This is a kairos moment that will have to be forced upon the "circle the wagons" ecclesiastical mentaility (found in many lay people as well) that is doing continued damange to the fabric of the People of God.
John Allen writes of the
John Allen writes of the unexpectedly successful and optimistic (I think those adjectives are justified) papal visit to the UK last year. More recently, however, Clifford Longley, the Tablet's former editor, has been dismayed because there has been no follow-up. In particular, he speaks of the failure of any "Catholic voice" to emerge in Britain, save that heard from the episcopacy. The laity, in short, are not stepping up to the plate.
As an American, I can't offer any intelligent view of whether Longley is right or wrong, though I've always been impressed by his analyses. However, I did wonder as I read him, whether it might not be the UK episcopacy that, consciously or unconsciously, wishes to keep the "Catholic voice" in its own hands (excuse the mixed metaphor), and has done little or nothing to foster such a voice beyond its own circles. My own impression, however, is that the episcopacy of the US is behaving in precisely this way, and would be extremely upset, not to say condemnatory, were such a lay voice to emerge on a national level, rather than being restricted to small groups around Commonweal, NCR, First Things, and a handful of Catholic universities and colleges. The centuries-old fear of the intellect and intellectuals, always prominent among the Church's ordained leaders, seems very much alive today, and a source of abject terror to those who think that such a Catholic voice might well be heard to express opinions other than 150% orthodox in the minds of those leaders.
Nicholas: so long as the
Nicholas: so long as the clergy has veto power over lay initiatives, don't expect any serious lay activity.
Evolutionary Christianity is
Evolutionary Christianity is not mentioned above. Are you unaware of its existence?
What's that?
What's that?
Wow, John Allen, you've cut
Wow, John Allen, you've cut right to the core of Catholic culture & thought in the US today (particularly evident in the blogosphere these last few weeks). I pray that folks respond thoughtfully and not defensively to your suggestions. (I see myself in some of your 'group-think' descriptions, and it makes me wince!)
“Catholicism needs a
“Catholicism needs a grass-roots movement to rebuild zones of friendship in the church,” says the man. I couldn’t agree more.
Given that parish is the ordinary experience of church for most American Catholics who are in any significant sense connected to church, parish is the privileged context within which to develop these zones.
That being said, let me suggest that the development of parish-based small church communities (small Christian communities, small faith communities, etc.) offer a special opportunity to develop these zones of friendship. These are much more than fellowships of good feeling, of course. Grounded in hearing the Lord’s gospel and hearing the gospel’s Lord, these communities are bringing parishioners from a range of experiences and perspectives together in the same small community.
Not merely an anecdotal observation, this assertion is also borne out in the research done on the “the catholic experience of small Christian communities” (see book by that name by Bernard J. Lee, S.M., Paulist Press). Lee’s research indicates that what he names General Small Communities (i.e., parish connected small communities) have within them in fairly balanced numbers members from across the spectrum from conservative to liberal on matters both religious and political.
When gathered in the small community, as is often the case, it is first of all faith, Christ, around whom they gather. When that happens change, conversion can happen for all. Parish-based mall church communities offers not just the possibility of building zones of friendship, they offer us a chance to animate vital parish life and mission in the 21st century.
I think this article is spot
I think this article is spot on.
It rings true in so many ways. Unfortunately, I see little hope for unity in the church. The divisions are larger and the polarization thicker. As humans I don't think there will be any solution besides the continuing exodus and/or perhaps a new Reformation. However, what is impossible for human is possible for God. Perhaps God will raise up a movement or a person who will be able to unite the people of God once again.
Since this talk was in Chicago, Fr. Andrew Greeley came to mind. His assumption that people still identify being Catholic, despite the divisions and differences, because "they like being Catholic," was another source of unity. His voice and analysis are surely missed during these divisive times.
"they like being Catholic,"
"they like being Catholic," Unfortunately that promotes pious agnosticism.
Jim, I think you are being a
Jim, I think you are being a bit hard here. But I also do think that there is something I call "Cultural Catholic" and I think that may be a more appropriate way of describing these people "who like being Catholic".
Catholicism is a cultural and, for many, leaving the church is leaving a culture; something that may be impossible to do, as that cultural may be woven into their very natures. So, for these there may be a problem with a basic belief in a God or there may be a problem with the structure of the hierarchy or with a teaching of The Church. I just would be careful about lumping them all together because I don't think it is accurate.
Unfortunately, JD, I think
Unfortunately, JD, I think "cultural Catholicism" deteriorates rather quickly into "trbal Catholicism." If Catholicisim isn't, first and foremost, a way of relating to God and God's creation (including people, God's most creative act) then all of the cultural trappings and feel-good portions are detractions from what Catholicism is all about:
"
God does the choosing and you find out about the rest gradually from your folks: How you have landed in a turbulent and global household with the galaxy's most eccentric rules; that the lights are never to be put out and the stranger never to be turned away; that the meals are to be served whenever there is hunger; that the groceries must be generously depleted and generously replenished with everything everyone has; that those who fret and grouse and cheat and lie and steal and kill must be relentlessly sought out and brought back to life; that those who break the rules and those who abandon the house must be pursued to the remotest frontiers of their souls and forgiven; that those who pass judgment on the violators of house rules, like those who take their author for granted, are doomed. And that those who inhabit the household must always remember that what is outside is ending."
Michael Garvey, Finding Fault, 1990.
Post new comment