The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionRodé: Religious orders are in modern 'crisis'
Feb. 04, 2010
Cardinal Franc Rode celebrates Mass at the Jesuits' Church of the Gesu in Rome Jan. 7, 2008.
VATICAN CITY -- A top Vatican official said religious orders today are in a "crisis" caused in part by the adoption of a secularist mentality and the abandonment of traditional practices.
Cardinal Franc Rodé, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, said the problems go deeper than the drastic drop in the numbers of religious men and women.
"The crisis experienced by certain religious communities, especially in Western Europe and North America, reflects the more profound crisis of European and American society. All this has dried up the sources that for centuries have nourished consecrated and missionary life in the church," Rodé said in a talk delivered Feb. 3 in Naples, Italy.
"The secularized culture has penetrated into the minds and hearts of some consecrated persons and some communities, where it is seen as an opening to modernity and a way of approaching the contemporary world," he said.
Rodé said the decline in the numbers of men and women religious became precipitous after the Second Vatican Council, which he described as a period "rich in experimentation but poor in robust and convincing mission."
Faced with an aging membership and fewer vocations, many religious orders have turned to "foreign vocations" in places like Africa, India and the Philippines, the cardinal said. He said the orders need to remember that quality of vocations is more important than quantity.
"It is easy, in situations of crisis, to turn to deceptive and damaging shortcuts, or attempt to lower the criteria and parameters for admission to consecrated life and the course of initial and permanent formation," he said.
In any case, he said, "big numbers are not indispensable" for religious orders to prove their validity. It's more important today, he said, that religious orders "overcome the egocentrism in which institutes are often closed, and open themselves to joint projects with other institutes, local churches and lay faithful."
Rodé, a 75-year-old Slovenian, is overseeing a Vatican-ordered apostolic visitation of institutes for women religious in the United States to find out why the numbers of their members have decreased during the past 40 years and to look at the quality of life in the communities.
He spoke Feb. 3 to a conference on religious life sponsored by the Archdiocese of Naples. The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published the main portions of his text.
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
Rodé said it was undoubtedly more difficult today for all religious orders to find young people who are willing to break away from the superficial contemporary culture and show a capacity for commitment and sacrifice. Unless this is dealt with in formation programs, he said, religious orders will produce members who lack dedication and are likely to drift away.
The challenge, however, should not be seen strictly in negative terms, he said. The present moment, he said, can help religious orders better define themselves as "alternatives to the dominant culture, which is a culture of death, of violence and of abuse," and make it clear that their mission is to joyfully witness life and hope, in the example of Christ.
Rode told Vatican Radio Feb. 2 that his office was working on two documents: a joint document with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments on the importance of prayer in the life of religious; and a document highlighting the importance of religious brothers in the church. (See: Vatican preparing documents on prayer, brothers.)
Thank you, NCR, for reporting
Thank you, NCR, for reporting this story straight: Rode said this, Rode said that, Rode's role is this. this provides a wonderful opportunity, i think, for respectful and considered engagement with his thinking and an opportunity to acknowledge common ground with him in those areas where his thinking is in line with Women Religious (vocations, numbers, etc).
i welcome a more analytical/editorial piece, if it is coming, while I continue to thank you for reporting this story straight first so that readers have the opportunity to hear it and engage with it less reactively than most of us are inclined when we first encounter news in a context of opinion and analysis. Jean Brookbank
My thought in reading much of
My thought in reading much of his commentary was that he could have said much the same, straightly speaking, about the priesthood, its decline, the efforts to cope with the decline. Perhaps his "visitations" could also benefit the priesthood, beginning with the highest levels of hierarchy first, of course. The fish rots from the head down, after all.
anon - what you say may well
anon - what you say may well be true and perhaps a visitation would benefit the priesthood. jean brookbank
They have already completed
They have already completed that - the visitation of seminaries where the new priests are formed.
Oh, I thoroughly concur with
Oh, I thoroughly concur with your comments about the priesthood seeming to be off limits for investigation but women religious are fair game. It's ridiculous.
A bit too much, to expect
A bit too much, to expect Rode to say the same thing about the state of the priesthood in the church. He is prefect of the Vatican dicastery on Institutes of Consecrated Life, not the dicastery on Priests (somebody else is in charge of that). So you are barking up the wrong tree.
I do not think the cardinal is disparaging religious life among Asians, Africans and Filipinos, although I can understand how his comments could have given rise to such an interpretation.
The fact is, the Cardinal is right on some cardinal points: religious life is dying in Europe and North America. It is well and alive in other parts of the world. The question to pose then is: why? One may disagree with the Cardinal's evaluation of the reasons for the decline of religious life in some parts of the world, but one cannot dispute the statement of the problem itself.
I have to agree with your
I have to agree with your reluctance to criticize where it is not warranted, which only serves to polarize.
Rome, however, cannot begin to ponder why religious life is dying in Europe and Northa America without first taking a critical look at itself. The papal office has been reserved for centuries to Western Europeans. Can you imagine Christ allowing himself to be called Holy Father or Your Holiness, or Paul, who had no shortage of ego, tolerating titles like Eminence or Excellency? What would Jesus say to Peter if he took to riding around Jerusalem in a chauffeur driven Mercedes Benz chariot? I'm sorry, but the "Vicar of Christ" and his entourage cannot live in an affluence that only the very richest of the World can afford and wonder why their church is having trouble recruiting men and women to religious life. And the Cardinal cannot adorn himself with rich robes and long trains and credibly serve to "investigate" women religious in part because they chose to eschew centuries old garb to allow themselves to be more closely identified with the part of the body of Christ they are called to serve.
If Rome wants to attract more Christians to religious life, it might want to consider having its leaders adopt a lifestyle more like Mother Teresa, or Christ. Before the Cardinal can meaningfully review and analyze his questionnaire, or think of asking our women religious to account for themselves, he first needs to account for himself.
Right on!!! You are sooooo
Right on!!! You are sooooo right. I, too, cannot imagine Jesus allowing himself such "kingly" approach to his church.
I agree with you
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Frank. People are not fools. Power-hungry ideologues are common enough, and while the greedy are eager to follow them, people of the spirit are not. The emphasis on increasing vocations to a clergy which, as Merton once put it, "is of the world but not in it" is inauthentic and counterproductive. That is not to say there aren't genuine priests out there, but I notice they aren't the ones leaning heavily on "year of the priest" recruitment efforts while continuing to denigrate their sisters in Christ.
The "visitations" BEGAN with
The "visitations" BEGAN with investigation of "priesthood." The crisis began with the completion of Vatican II. At least in the United States, seminaries deteriorated into an orgy of sexual revolution, particularly with respect to homosexuality. Beginning about 1990 the Vatican began a world wide visitation of seminaries. We are just beginning to see the benefits.
The Church is ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC. That means that there can only be one set of dogma. Seminaries had run amok and were, for the most part, remedied. Now it is time for similar action with respect to ALL religious institution, hence the visitations to religious orders.
Pat
Sounds more like the old
Sounds more like the old Communist Party.
The height of clericalism as
The height of clericalism as exhibited by this man and his ilk is that religious vocations ipso facto reside in vowed membership in groups that the Vatican wants to control, decide how they should dress, live and pray, pay and obey.
With the outburst of LAY activities and LAY vocations in this church today, a new way of vocations has kept this church alive and functioning. One does not have to be a lackey of clerics to realize and live out a vocation from God.
Oops, I guess that is heresy. So be it.
It's not heresy. Lay people
It's not heresy. Lay people are very much the Church, and, as in the early Church (before 300 A.D.) lay people ran and were in charge of all temporal ministries. It was only after Constantine decreed the Church legal that the clerics began their "reign" as kings adopting royal dress, etc., etc. and insisting that they were in charge of everything! How very, very stupid of them. Without us---the laity--there would be no church. Don't forget, we pay for the clerics pomposity!!! Aren't you tired of doing so? I am!
Caught in their own trap: In
Caught in their own trap: In its arrogance the Roman Catholic Church is an embarrassment to God, and in its ignorance it is a scandal to the people; by its own machinations it is trapped in the past. Pope John XXIII, of blessed memory, and the Second Vatican Council sensed the dead end the Church was coming to, given the misdirection of the First Vatican Council. I am a Roman Catholic of the Vatican II persuasion.
Here’s the problem. The Church claims institutional infallibility. Pope Pius IX pushed the First Vatican Council to declare his infallibility. The same pope issued blanket anathemas on all things “Modern”, but especially on evolution. The Second Vatican Council to the contrary, averred to the fact of general public acceptance of evolution and of the need for the Church to come to a new “analysis and synthesis—a matter as important as can be.” [Constitution IV, Gaudium et spes, Introduction, No 5]
At this time, old-time Vatican I stalwarts, in the Vatican and outside, following the recidivism of Pope John Paul II toward Vatican I ecclesiology, are in open battle with Vatican II ecclesiology. In the meantime, the engines of evolution move forward while the Roman Catholic Church is dead in its tracks. The Vatican is becoming like other European gothic cathedrals, an edifice without people.
The world is faced with eco-social crises far bigger than petty pride, ignorance and Catholicism trapped in its own machinations; and by the way, denominational Christianity isn’t any better off; while denominations are factionalized in pet theological ideologies, they are all tainted in common by imperialism’s dominion theology which they inherited from the Church of Rome. What history proves is that, whether plebs or pope, people make mistakes, institutions make mistakes.
Dominion theology and “evolution theology” are immiscible oil and water. Water is elemental to life; oil is a derivative of life. In the order of nature, life evolves from within; “faith supposes reason as grace supposes nature.” Anointing is naturally resourced in water; by nature all people are in equal standing before God, equally fallible.
The global people need to get beyond the old traps of ignorance and arrogance, get with the flow of evolution, and become friends of nature and contributors to the wellbeing of all people, all life. Churches! Get your act together. The future isn’t in returning to the past! It’s time to move forward, acknowledge nature’s patterns and honor God’s Plan, and enable the people in their responsibility to nature, to God.
The Cardinal is obviously
The Cardinal is obviously past his retirement. The handwriting is on the wall in huge letters. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. We're on the express train to the past.
...he said, "big numbers are
...he said, "big numbers are not indispensable" for religious orders to prove their validity. It's more important today, he said, that religious orders "overcome the egocentrism in which institutes are often closed, and open themselves to joint projects with other institutes, local churches and lay faithful."
I have worked with many nuns and sisters since the end of Vatican II and watched them in their transformation to better serve the communities in which they find themselves. They have been for the most part admirable women and continue to be so.
The Cardinal is putting the blame in the wrong level of Church life. If the men at the top would have given the support and inspiration needed to the different congregations of religious women, the life and work would have been much easier and they would have prospered. Instead, they have been subject to critical investigations and suspicions of their good faith.
Now, the ecclesiastics are trying to turn the clock back to a life style fitting for the Middle Ages. It won't work, and it is the women in the Church who will pay the price. God bless them.
Did you that comment at
Did you that comment at cliches 'r us?
The reasons given by Rode for
The reasons given by Rode for the drop in numbers of Religious Orders is not because of abandonment of tradition or adoption of secular thinking. It is because the renewal of Religious institutions as mandated by the Second Vatican Council, brought about a new understanding of their purposes and ministries in the modern world. The more profound crisis is really about the dishonesty and lack of transparency of the Roman Catholic hierarchy from the top (Bishop of Rome) to the bottom (the bishops all over the world). No one but the right wing reactionary elements are buying into their lies and misrepresentations of facts and this issue is an example if their dishonesty.
Well, if religious
Well, if religious institutions really were following the mandates of the Second Vatican Council, they would be thriving today. There is nothing dishonest about Cardinal Rode or the presentation of the facts about religious life. The facts are this: those institutions who aren't faithful to the Church are dying. Those who are will continue to grow. End of story.
I think the only institution
I think the only institution that is dying is the church...but fear not death gives way to new life so there is hope! Start of story.
ACtually the Church is not
ACtually the Church is not Dying but ALIVE THOSE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC religious orders are live and thriving with new Vocations like the Fraternity of St. PEter, Dominicans of Sisters of Mary, NAshville Dominicans and others are alive and groiwing!
YUP. The present clerical
YUP. The present clerical Roman Catholic structure MUST die---the sooner the better. I pray for their demise daily!
The real problem is the
The real problem is the church "hierarchy" it has a very sick heart that is in need of life support. That support will only come when the Vatican publicly repents of hiding priests from criminal prosecution due to sexual abuse these past 50 yrs. or so.
Then the Holy Spirit will dwell in the hearts of its leaders. So be it.
Really? As far as I know
Really? As far as I know (and I am a Religious) we are and have always been faithful. People like you are the problem in today's Roman Catholic Church.
It is because the renewal of
It is because the renewal of Religious institutions as mandated by the Second Vatican Council
Thousands of religious have abandoned their vows over the past forty years. New vocations have declined dramatically. Am I to take your statement as meaning you see death as a sign of life?
Perhaps we need a new world
Perhaps we need a new world war (an armageddon, perhaps?) to increase church vocations --- just like after World War II?
Amen! "....which is a
Amen!
"....which is a culture of death, of violence and of abuse." This isn't my experience of neighborhood and community. Of course we have big issues in the world that need collective wisdom and action. Why can't church leaders lead this effort by encouraging honest dialogue vs a denial that anything other than what they know to be true is the absolute truth. Stop blaming others and be truthful.
Until we all name the issues that divide us we will have no hope for unity.
This was my reaction exactly.
This was my reaction exactly. I hope this message reaches those in the church who are so disrespectful to the vast majority of people who try to lead a good life.
Right on! You are sooo
Right on! You are sooo right. But the Church still has too many lay people who believe the clerics nonsense. That's the problem, because they continue to fund the crap! They are as much to blame for these ills as the abusive Bishops and priests.
Rodé's "Final Solution". I
Rodé's "Final Solution". I guess African or Asian priests or religious do not fit his "purist" model for the religious life. The new Inquisition marches on!
I am incensed by his
I am incensed by his implication that vocations from Africa, India and Phillipines are of less 'quality.' It is obvious that Cardinal Rode is totally unaware of the real work that thousands of religious do worldwide. Here in South Africa the work that they do at every level in the Church is invaluable.
Oh for the windows of the Vatican to be thrown open once again to give the Holy Spirit a chance of entry!
Anne, I sincerely think you -
Anne, I sincerely think you - and the others, the Religious among them included, who believe Rode's comments were racist - have misunderstood his statements. My guess is that some have done so willfully (talk about an opportunity to inflame negative sentiment against him and the Vatican!) and that others have simply and honestly misunderstood.
I agree with Clint Green's interpretation below. I wrote something similar last night and lost it before I could post it.
1) Religious and priests from other nations do not enter religious or clerical life to provide Religious and Priests for Western Europe and the US, where the numbers of available Religious and Priests are decreasing. I think that is something that we westerners - so used to seeing the world as our oyster - often forget. If our Catholic communities are not contributing to the "supply" of religious and priests, it is likely that we will become the most powerful
"demand-er" out there and we will, effectively, "poach" religious and clerics from Catholic communities in the rest of the world. typical, self-centered western behavior... don't have enough of our resources? go get 'em from Africa, Asia, India, Central and South America and, for the liberals among us, let's call it "global exchange", except that the exchange almost always flows mostly in one direction: ours.
2) Western countries have the power to destroy the world and we are well on way, with the US leading the charge. We need to be evangelizing ourselves and our communities with and into the Gospel message with at least as much vigor as we serve God's people in other nations. I think often of Romero: accompany the poorest and evangelize those who would oppress them by commission and/or omission. How much more powerful does that effort to evangelize the powerful become when the powerful themselves join in the evangelization of their own families, neighbors, countrymen and -women?
There are lots of ways to do that and lay movements and involvement in the Church and its life are essential and one of the gifts of Vatican II.
A continued and vibrant and visible life for Religious communities is another way. Not the only way but it seems pretty great to me that the Holy Spirit has a lot of manifestations - religious life is one - and why not attend to each manifestation in its own right? Rode has been tasked with issues related to Religious Life and that is what he is addressing.
There are any number of reasons why vocations from US and Western European countries are what they are **today**, and we can twist ourselves into knots debating what those reasons are and, at some point and in some contexts, that becomes an academic question. I am all for academic questions but sometimes they can become obstructive. I believe that has happened in this larger dialogue again and again.
And, at the beginning, end and middle of those academic explorations, it remains true that dozens and dozens of beautiful Religious Women's congregations are at risk of disappearing from our community lives and we are at risk of losing their presence and power in our collective lives in the US.
Jean Brookbank
Thank you, Jean for your
Thank you, Jean for your thoughtful comments. But, I don't think I misunderstood the Cardinal. You see, I have lived and served on 4 continents during 34 years of religious community life. I have participated in conferences, workshops and classes about multi-cultural awareness. I have lived and worked for years in small community settings with my 'non-anglo' sisters have listened to some long, hard truths spoken about ethnocentric thinking, ethnocentric theory and ethnocentric THEOLOGY.
Cardinal Rode 'put his cards on the table' by using the phrase "foreign vocations". In this context of 'family', of Universal Church community, the word "foreign" is an ethnocentric word. Ask any of my sisters of color.
S. Maureen
God bless you Sister Maureen
God bless you Sister Maureen and all your Sisters in Christ eveywhere. We are inspired by your truly admirable, inclusive, and unfettered Love. May Jesus our Savior and all that is good and honest and loving hold and protect you and your Sisters forever and ever.
Amen+
Sister Maureen - Thank you
Sister Maureen -
Thank you for your response. I absolutely agree that "foreign" can be used in very "western-centric" ways and often is used in the ways you mention, even in the "foreigners'" own countries and cultures.
With that reminder (thank you, Sister), I think Rode's word choice may have been clumsy and evidence of a fellow from an older generation, but I still don't interpret it as racist.
His focus in the talk was US and Western European congregations. Asia, India, Africa are "foreign" lands. He did not talk about "white congregations" or "non-white vocations". he talked about geography and society.
I interpreted it, the importance of "growing" vocations in every geography and every society so that every geography and every society is "evangelized".
jean
You did not misunderstand
You did not misunderstand Rode's meaning Sister Maureen. You are on target.
I am aghast with his
I am aghast with his unthoughful comments and implications that religious coming from Africa and Asia are of less 'quality' which I beg to disagree. It is as if we are being compared to a large warehouse product where there is quantity but questionable product quality. Does this indicate that religious from these countries are 'children of the lesser God'?
I agree that the comment,
I agree that the comment, (almost un noticed I may add) regarding vocations from Africa and Asia and "quality " was deeply disturbing and horribly racist. Eeeeeeeewww! No surprise that my kind (women) are also seen in this way. Not how Christ sees people. Why don't they see themselves.
Numbers of "men and women
Numbers of "men and women religious" are down precipitously; however, the opportunities for participating in religious education and good works among dedicated, religious laity have exploded since Vatican II. I am a lay person who has catechized in RCIA for 25 years, and I held a day job, too. The Holy Spirit doesn't miss an opportunity.
Exactly! And the Holy Spirit
Exactly! And the Holy Spirit may be allowing these "stiff necked" men and their cronies to celibate themselves out of existence allowing the laity to assume roles in church leadership as St. Paul listed in his letter to the Romans. Thank God for laity like yourself Rochester Native. We need all the help we can get.
Count me in rochester native
Count me in rochester native & dr. dale!
"...to celibate themselves
"...to celibate themselves out of existence..."
Quite apt, Dr. Dale --- and quite hoped for!
"Lord, we beseech thee."
...Out of existence---the
...Out of existence---the sooner the better. It's time to move to a new model---all the baptized are baptized "into the priesthood of Christ." Let us lay folk start practicing that---and get rid of clerical clerics. Let's stop feeding and housing them. Let's make them get real jobs like the rest of us who do both---of course that would mean that they have to get educated. God knows their miserable M.Div. degrees prepare them for nothing. Let's just dump the priesthood as we currently know it and let the Spirit build the new one.
Undoubtedly God agrees with
Undoubtedly God agrees with Franc about the "quality" of Africans, Indians, and Filipinos.
God prefers Slovenians.
Is he actually implying that
Is he actually implying that vocations from Africa, India and the Phillipines
are of a lesser quality? Who is this man? God help our beloved Church.
Of course he's not. What His
Of course he's not. What His Eminence is doing is saying that a religious order that cannot attract vocations among those it ministers to is not a healthy one. A local church, diocese, that cannot attract vocations from among its own parishioners is not a healthy diocese. It is a sign of crisis when sisters and brothers who minister daily to men and women, young and old, cannot inspire at least some of those folks to discern a vocation to that order.
I once taught at a small Catholic school that had been served for decades by the Ursulines. This small school, never more than 100 kids, had produced dozens of vocations to the Ursuline order. The reason? The Ursuline sisters who taught at the school set such a dramatic and impressive example of holiness and integrity that they inspired dozens of young girls to discern a vocation.
This is what Cardinal Rode is saying. He is not commenting on the quality of vocations, he is commenting on the lack of vocations stemming from the examples (or lack thereof) of religious men and women in the West.
By the way, I find it remarkably telling of the point of view of some folks that they automatically jump to the conclusion that the Cardinal is somehow demeaning religious vocations of people of color. Whatever happened to the presumption of charity in our discourse?
Clint claims: "This small
Clint claims: "This small school, never more than 100 kids, had produced dozens of vocations to the Ursuline order. The reason? The Ursuline sisters who taught at the school set such a dramatic and impressive example of holiness and integrity that they inspired dozens of young girls to discern a vocation."
And when you picked up their scholastic mantel (for lack of vocations?) what did your own dramatic example inspire?
Is this the same congregation of Ursulines from which our great martyr of the Americas, the Reverend Sister Dorothy Kazel, came?
Holy Salvadoran Martyrs, ora pro nobis
I appreciate your
I appreciate your not-so-subtle ad hominem attack in this response, dear Brother Charles. It simply reinforces comments that I have made previously. But, to your point, I honestly don't know what I inspired...though I hope and pray it was a good example that I gave. I certainly did the best I could to teach my students about the faith in an authentic manner. In the end, of course, that is all that I can say...I tried my best to pass on to my students the beauty and majesty of the Catholic Faith.
I have never heard of Sr. Dorothy, so I had to do some research on her congregation. No, it is not the same.
Forgive me my dear Clint but
Forgive me my dear Clint but searching my heart and my words I find no ad hominem, but if you perceive one, I can only beg your most compassionate and merciful forgiveness. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to understand how you do not locate the reverend Sister Dorothy Kazel, Martyr of the Americas, within the Ursuline community. Might I suggest if it is not inconvenient to you, a visit to
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ursulines
where you may notice the special reference to Sister Dorothy under the heading See Also near the bottom of this wonderful page of the whole History of the Ursulines. Her specific information may be located at
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Dorothy_Kazel
The Ursulines' website at www.ursulinesisters.org also has a pdf of an old newsletter dedicating mention to their Sister Dorothy Kazel.
So I am quite astonished at this, as so many of, your statement, with no ad hominem implied, and I urge you most charitably to investigate thoroughly the hagiography of this great American saint, as your lectio divina within this soon-coming blessed Lenten Season. May we all find within it it true repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation and loving peace, leading us all as one unto the ultimate Resurrection!
Sorry, I must have
Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your comments. Yes, I did indeed find Sister, who was part of the Cleveland motherhouse/local congregation. Our sisters at that school I mentioned were from Kentucky.
Again, I thank you for your suggestion regarding my lectio divina. You'll understand if I stick with the classics, though, I am sure.
"This small school, never
"This small school, never more than 100 kids, had produced dozens of vocations to the Ursuline order. The reason? The Ursuline sisters who taught at the school set such a dramatic and impressive example of holiness and integrity that they inspired dozens of young girls to discern a vocation."
Sure. And if you talked to girls who went to these Usruline schools you discovered that the nuns preached vocations from day one; so much so that some parents thought their kids were brain-washed that they had vocations.
It would be interesting to know how many of these vocations actually lasted.
Clint, you and Rode are
Clint, you and Rode are simply attacking the side issue of the real problem--the crisis in the RCC structure, leadership, and clergy as a whole. The real crisis stems from a leadership of greed that allows money launderers to use and run the Vatican Bank, that launders its own clergy accused of the abuse of our children, that has only authoritarian answers to our best theologians and discharges them for beings simply good theologians that can not and must not agree with their mindset of self-righteousness. If ruining the carriers of good theologians wasn't enough, they now have decided to excommunicate individual nuns that have served there dioceses well for years because they project an image that is not misogynistic. Yes, I would say the issues of decay and crisis need to be discussed, but Rode and Mr. (Father or Bishop?) Green will not discuss the central problems. No, they project their own problems and sinfulness into others. This is purely a defensive posturing used by an authoritarian mindset to confuse, not discuss issues.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
That is certainly how I read
That is certainly how I read it too.
Silk-robed Rode is dismayed
Silk-robed Rode is dismayed that religous orders "have turned to 'foreign vocations' in places like Africa, India and the Philippines....He said orders need to remember that quality of vocations is more important than quantity." I have been a Catholic longer than Rode, and have always believed that holy people could come from any part of the world. I am happy to hear of religious groups getting new members from any country. It might be a good idea, however, to double check any from Slovenia.
Rodé said it was undoubtedly
Rodé said it was undoubtedly more difficult today for all religious orders to find young people who are willing to break away from the superficial contemporary culture ...
Faced with an aging membership and fewer vocations, many religious orders have turned to "foreign vocations" in places like Africa, India and the Philippines, the cardinal said. He said the orders need to remember that quality of vocations is more important than quantity.
"It is easy, in situations of crisis, to turn to deceptive and damaging shortcuts, or attempt to lower the criteria and parameters for admission to consecrated life ...
In any case, he said, "big numbers are not indispensable" for religious orders to prove their validity. It's more important today, he said, that religious orders "overcome the egocentrism in which institutes are often closed, and open themselves to joint projects with other institutes, local churches and lay faithful.
______________________________
Rode talks negatively of European and American culture calling it secular and superficial. He then proceeds to reveal how shallow the religious culture that informs him is by audaciously judging vocations as lesser or greater by virtue of national origin. This style of leadership is not only boorish and crude it is dangerous. There is only a tiny step from judging the quality of one's vocation to God by national origin to judging it according to the color of one's skin.
Rode infers African, Philippino, and Indian vocations are of high quantity but not quality ... he infers these vocations are deceptive and damaging.
The superficial secular culture in the US that Rode derides produced the civil rights movement. Such a culture is not superficial. It is exceedingly closer to God's love than is evidenced by Rode.
Dear Anon - It is interesting
Dear Anon -
It is interesting to me that you say that "the superficial, secular culture in the US ...produced the civil rights movement".
I am confident you would discover a great deal of argument on that from many quarters - including from the many, many non-white Americans who relied on their faith and religion when they began to challenge the prevailing culture that locked them out. Civil (secular) laws have changed in the US and among the most powerful forces driving and sustaining Americans as they worked toward change in society have always been faith, religion, church, temple, mosque, prayer.
nothing superficial about societal social justice efforts or the forces that bring justice.
and that, of course, is not at all what Rode or anyone else I can think of refers to when they describe the US and Western culture as "superficial".
a quick visual way to understand the meaning of the word "superficial" when applied to US is to go to any one of the chain bookstores and wander up and down the magazine aisles.
take it in. and then ask yourself if you still think it is meaningful to suggest that Rode, in describing US culture as "superficial", in any way referenced those aspects of life in the US that fueled the civil rights movement.
in fact, the US tradition of vibrant, powerful faith-based social justice actions in the public sphere have been major forces counteracting "secular, superficial" tendencies in our public and national life. even most of the socialist and marxist activists I know are people of strong and deep - and very often Christian, very often Catholic - faith and religion...
This either/or thing that people get busy with in this context (and so much of American discourse) is a drag...and it robs this particualr dialogue of some of the truly extra-ordinary richness of Catholicism.
Deep daily devotion to the Rosary and holy hour and Mass, talk of sacrifice and reconciliation and concern for "souls" does not preclude a commitment to daily and profound acts of mercy and work for social justice.
Nor do deep daily devotion to acts of mercy and work for social justice do not preclude a commitment to daily and profound engagement with the Rosary, holy hour, Mass, talk of sacrifice and reconciliation and concern for "souls".
I, for one, am not willing to let the either/or writers here or anyone else talk me out of my belief that one of the great gifts of Catholic tradition, theology, faith, worship is that we need not be trapped by our human either/or constructions.
and one of those is yours above, anon.
Jean Brookbank
"I, for one, am not willing
"I, for one, am not willing to let the either/or writers here or anyone else talk me out of my belief that one of the great gifts of Catholic tradition, theology, faith, worship is that we need not be trapped by our human either/or constructions."
_________________
Great! It is good you will not let Rode's either/or construction that "... the dominant culture, which is a culture of death, of violence and of abuse,"
talk you out of your belief that one of the great gifts of Catholic tradition, theology, faith, worship is that we need not be trapped by our human either/or constructions. I applaud that as what many here are fighting against.
..
BTW since Rode is an example of the either or statements re secular culture in the article to which we reply. Perhaps you could take your critique to him. Maybe he will learn from you sensing your not at all aginst him. Below are some of Rode's non qualified blanket judgements of modern secular culture. He does not extend a benefit of doubt to American culture as you extend to his judgment thereof.
Below is a reiteration of what he is purported to have said:
_________________
"Rodé said it was undoubtedly more difficult today for all religious orders to find young people who are willing to break away from the superficial contemporary culture and show a capacity for commitment and sacrifice."
..
He says Culture is superficial. He does not say partly superficial or in some ways superficial.
..
"The secularized culture has penetrated into the minds and hearts of some consecrated persons and some communities, where it is seen as an opening to modernity and a way of approaching the contemporary world," he said
..
So?
..
The present moment, he said, can help religious orders better define themselves as "alternatives to the dominant culture, which is a culture of death, of violence and of abuse," and make it clear that their mission is to joyfully witness life and hope, in the example of Christ"
..
The above referenced qote qualfies as an either or blanket judgment that traps: "Either" religious" and joyful alternative "or" part of the culture of death violence and abuse.
PS. You as well as every one you agree/disagree with are absolutely entitled to their beliefs.
...
re Civil Rights MVT:
No doubt there were people in socio/political and sacred culture that supported and or withdrew support from the Civil rights movement. The Kennedy administration and its successor, the Johnson administration, and many in the House of Representatives, supported the movement. Black churches and ministers were key. Many secular modernists of every hugh and political preference joined movement and marches including moviestars. I would not be surprised that the Spirit of Vatican II lent a certain zetgeist that helped empower Catholic religious to join in. However the movement was not homogenious.
As public schools integrated privite school enrollment increased. A significant enrollment cohort were white students whose parents did not want their children educated with blacks. Catholic schools were in that number and funtioned even if unintended perhaps, as a loophole around school integration.
As a sidebar, it is oft times noted one of the most segregated places and times in America today are in churches on Sunday.
anon - i am running but will
anon - i am running but will read you carefully.
quick note: I am neither for or against Rode or you or anyone else.
i tend not to think in those terms except in voting booths when that construction is built in.
i am not "for" Rode or the Vatican or the RCC or priests or religious men and women. neither am I "against" Rode or the Vatican or the RCC or priests or religious men and women. i see no reason or need or value for thinking in those terms in this or most context.
I did catch your note that Rode says that "Culture is superficial". What does it mean to you when you capitalize the word "culture" in that statement? Was that just a typo or stylistic bent toward capitalizing words like truth, doctor, home, etc?
Or does it mean you believe Rode (in the quotes NCR published here) used the word "culture" ideologically, as in Rode was syaing, soto voce, "there is the RCC and then there is 'Culture', everything else in the universe"?
If you interpreted his use of the word in the latter way, we probably are going to right on disagreeing on everything and get very picayune with each other in those disagreements.... and we probably shoudn't waste each other's time.
and now i am going to run but want you to know i will read you carefully.
jean
ps
I do trust NCR's reporting and their specific quotes even if I sometimes disagree with their analysis but usually only on this particular issue.
Anon- Meeting was cancelled
Anon- Meeting was cancelled so here I am.
You wrote:
"It is good you will not let Rode's either/or construction that "... the dominant culture, which is a culture of death, of violence and of abuse," talk you out of your belief that one of the great gifts of Catholic tradition, theology, faith, worship is that we need not be trapped by our human either/or constructions. I
applaud that as what many here are fighting against."
*****Anon, none of the published Rode statements I have encountered have suggested to me that he is an "either/or" thinker. I will respond below to the ones you note. I do think many of us in the Catholic community are working hard to challenge either/or thinking and statements, in ourselves, in each other, in the Catholic community. (It is worth mentioning, I think, that I believe the opposite of "either/or" thinking is "both/and" thinking and, in specific situations, that may or may not mean we make specific choices "between a specific this or a specific that").
...
You wrote: "Rodé said it was undoubtedly more difficult today for all religious orders to find young people who are willing to break away from the superficial contemporary culture and show a capacity for commitment and sacrifice."
I do not have a concern with that statement because its context was his job and his role, Anon. that bounds the statement as referring to that "commitment and sacrifice" which is religious life. The statement only has authentic meaning in context, just as Sr Laurie Brink's comments about sisters/congregations who may have "moved beyond Jesus" only have authentic meaning in the context of the 25 page paper in which she made that single statement.
..
You wrote (and I already responded to this): "He says Culture is superficial. He does not say partly superficial or in some ways superficial.
..
You wrote: "[Rode] said "the secularized culture has penetrated into the minds and hearts of some consecrated persons and some communities, where it is seen as an opening to modernity and a way of approaching the contemporary world. So?"
Again, context provides authentic meaning and authentic relationship requires that we respon to authentic meaning, not soundbites.
The "so" is that Rode is speaking about a way of life that is guided by the Gospels, by the Triune God. THAT is the "way of approaching the contemporary world" to which religious life is committed.
I am not a philosopher or theologian so I'll have to think about Rode's use of the words "opening to modernity", because "modernity" is an academic concept, easily misused and misinterpreted in everyday conversation. i, for one, am not sure I could use the word properly in any sentence other than the one that says, "I am not sure that I know what the term 'modernity' actually connotes".
..
You wrote: "'The present moment, he said, can help religious orders better define themselves as 'alternatives to the dominant culture, which is a culture of death, of violence and of abuse', and make it clear that their mission is to joyfully witness life and hope, in the example of Christ'.
**Isn't every moment always that moment?
**Isn't religious life is an "alternative to the dominant culture"?
**Isn't the dominant western culture is a culture of death, of violence, of abuse"? think death penalty. think war. think poverty. think hunger. think the-corporation-as-individual. think tv. think military budget. think statistics on child abuse, domestic violence, gun violence. think homophobia. think racism. think nationalism. think haves and have-nots. think consistent ethic of life and where we as cultural group fail on that.
**Isn't it always that moment to make it clear that [the mission of religious men and women] is to joyfully witness life and hope, in example of Christ"?
You wrote: "The above referenced quote qualfies as an either or blanket judgment that traps: "Either" religious" and joyful alternative "or" part of the culture of death violence and abuse."
I am a little confused by your quotation marks there. I don't think his statement is an "either/or". Religious life is an alternative to a/the (depending on whether you believe the dominant culture in the US fits the bill) culture of death violence and abuse. He is speaking to people who have chosen and committed to that particular alternative. he believes it is a joyful alternative, as do most religious I know. He is speaking to people whose commitment to that Gospel alternative implicitly and explicitly that they eschew (to use your words) being "part of [any] culture of death, violence and abuse".
I can almost hear Oscar Romero saying it...
..
You wrote: "re Civil Rights MVT: No doubt there were people in socio/political and sacred culture that supported and or withdrew support from the Civil rights movement. The Kennedy administration and its successor, the Johnson administration, and many in the House of Representatives, supported the movement. Black churches and ministers were key. Many secular modernists of every hugh and political preference joined movement and marches including moviestars. I would not be surprised that the Spirit of Vatican II lent a certain zetgeist that helped empower Catholic religious to join in. However the movement was not homogenious."
We agree! Whew!
..
You wrote: "As public schools integrated privite school enrollment increased. A significant enrollment cohort were white students whose parents did not want their children educated with blacks. Catholic schools were in that number and funtioned even if unintended perhaps, as a loophole around school integration".
I will have to do some reading about that. What pops into my mind is the statement from a friend in New Orleans, a black woman PhD, full professor, poet, overtly Roman Catholic woman. We were faciliating a parish event together when she noted that, in her experience, a significant number of black PhDs in the United States were educated by Catholic schools. She is my age - mid40s. The student populations at most of the Catholic schools I am aware of reflect the racial and socioeconomic make-up of the neighborhoods from which they draw. Sounds like your information/experience is very diffrent; I'll have to look into it. Any reading you can point me toward?
***
You wrote: "As a sidebar, it is oft times noted one of the most segregated places and times in America today are in churches on Sunday".
We agree. My home Catholic parish for two years was a black congregation in New Orleans. I am white and there were about six of us...and we were folded in like family.
and then there are beautiful church communities that are deeply integrated, hundreds of Catholic churches among them. check out the Pastoral lettr from the former Archbishop of New Orleans on Racial Equality and the social sin of racism, which the Archbishop acknowledges the Church engaged in.
that segregation in churches of all types in the US...that is something all churches need to work on and it is something that each churchgoer needs to work on...
Nice to talk with you, Anon. Thanks for the dialogue
You said: "nothing
You said:
"nothing superficial about societal social justice efforts or the forces that bring justice.
and that, of course, is not at all what Rode or anyone else I can think of refers to when they describe the US and Western culture as "superficial".
-----------
One can conclude drawing from the text of the article (ie its context) that Rode is referring to all subsets of the dominant culture which happens to contain for example the Civil Rights Movement. When he makes such a sweeping generalization he indicts the dominant culture in its entirety calling it not only superficial, but also, a culture of death, violence, and abuse. Indeed, the dominant overarching culture is comprised of all its subsets "both" positive "and" negative (both/and) of which there are myriad life-giving, non-violent, non-abusive dimensions. The following quite incomplete litany of American cultural, progeny, icons and institutions indicates Rode is in error.
Civil Rights,
Public Television,
Public Education,
The symphony,
The Smithsonian,
American Red Cross,
Fema,
We Are the World Musicians for Haiti.
Doctors without borders
The United Nations,
Sound of Music,
Saving Private Ryan,
ET,
Blindsided,
the ACLU,
Brown vs the Board of Education,
Jonas Salk,
Jimmy Carter,
Ronald Regan,
Sully Sulenberger,
Billy Graham,
Steve Martin,
Barbara Walters,
Mickey Mantel,
Bozo the Clown,
The Flying Wollendas,
my wonderful athiest nextdoor neighor,
Public Library,
911 first responders,
Katrina first responders,
the CDC,
Lady Gaga,
Mark Twain,
Rogers and Hammerstein,
Dr. Elaine Pagels
Jim Henson
The Muppets,
Ellen Degeneres,
Emily Dicknson,
Sojourner Truth,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Lucretia Mott,
Susan B, Anthony,
Michael Moore
Steven Speilberg
TS Elliot,
Henry David Thureau,
Walt Whitman,
Suze Orman,
The Sierra Club
Julia Childs
Smothers Brothers
Dianne Sawyer
John Wayne
Katherine Hepburn
Grapes of Wrath
Will Rogers,
Tinker Bell,
Mickey Mouse
Disneyland
Bill Gates,
Barbara Streisand,
The art of Fredrick Remington,
Abe Lincoln
Rosa Parks,
Lewis and Clarke,
Opra Winfrey,
Georgia O'keefe
Dr. Phil,
Rachel Ray,
John James Audubon,
Ansel Adams
SuperBowl,
The French Quarter,
Carolyn Myss,
Jean Houston,
Betty Freidan,
fully dressed hot roast beef poorboys,
hot boudain,
hog head cheese,
Jimmy Buffet
Cheezeburgers
American Astronauts,
Abraham Lincoln,
Zaideco,
Dancing with the Stars,
America's Funiest Videos,
The Smithsonian,
Yellowstone,
Yosemite,
Grand Canyon National Park,
___________
you said:
"a quick visual way to understand the meaning of the word "superficial" when applied to US is to go to any one of the chain bookstores and wander up and down the magazine aisles.
take it in. and then ask yourself if you still think it is meaningful to suggest that Rode, in describing US culture as "superficial", in any way referenced those aspects of life in the US that fueled the civil rights movement."
______________
I went to Barns and Noble magazine aisle with notebook in hand. By and large It does not represent superficiality. The following is a breakdown of the Periodical section of that store:
----------
Two sections of "Healthy Living"
One section of Women's Interests
two sections Current Events
two sections "Mens Interests
one section of Customer Favorites
two sections of Food and Wine
one section of Home and Garden
one section of House and Home
one section of Crafts and Hobby
One section of New Arrivals
one section of Games and Humor
one section of Computers
one section Sports
two sections Transportation
one section Lifestyles
one section Science and Nature
one section Music
one section History
one section Art and Literary
one section of Magazines Americans Love
The vast majority of magazines in each section were more informatonal than not, more indepth, and less superficial than not.
Some women's magazines were concerned to a greater degree with makeup and fashion, however most were not.
The men's section and some of the sports section, while mostly not superficial, were the greatest offenders. Magazines like Penthouse and Playboy were in their section along with suggestive poses of females on front covers or inside some sports magazines.
Dear Anon - thank you for
Dear Anon -
thank you for taking the time. that was a great list. You are right that all you note are part of the larger context in which Rode's speaks.
you seem firm in your belief that Rode is attacking "Culture". it seems that you may believe that, for Rode, that "Culture" (your language, not his) is anything that does not bear - literally or figuratively - the Vatican "Imprimatur". And, if that is the case, I certainly understand why you respond so powerfully to his talk and comments.
i mean, a guy who sits in judgment of po' boys? toss him over the edge, right? i'm serious. toss him over the edge.
i happen not think Rode was referencing "Culture" or the vast majority of your listed faves. I feel comfortable with my assertion that Rode's comments are bounded by his role in the Catholic Church and community and by the focus of his talk. i am fairly certain that Rode did not mean to cast aspersions - or any judgment - on Tinker Bell or the Flying Wollendas or Abe Lincoln.
the magazines:
sounds like we "read" them in entirely different ways. big, big bucks monthly on once-upon-a-time trees soaked in prints, dyes, chemicals; most glutted with advertising (explicit and hidden in "story" and photog and reviews and interviews); some vast portion of a vast majority of the magazines implicitly about consuming. even the health magazines, anon - even the health magazines. "healthy living" - food, lifestyle, green living, alternative medicine, exercise, including yoga, hygiene products and natural fiber clothing and "healthy" shoes, etc. - is a HUGELY profitable consumer industry and, actually, not so well disguised as such anymore. your list, while perhaps comprehensive categorically, does not capture the relative size and placement of those categories nor the differences in quantities per order or frequency with new issues are published (once a week for "People"; 2 or 4 times a year for many of the literary and political journals...).
sounds like we have very different worldviews, anon, and very very different ways of "reading", at least when it comes to Rode and "culture" and "the visuals" in the bookstore magazine section.
thanks again, cher, for your time.
jean brookbank
ps
The Super Bowl?!
yes.
superficial.
a sport so profitable that it is the biggest television advertising day of the year?
even though it a sport that resuults in permanent and such profound disability that Congress is involved in its safety?
even though Congress is involved in trying to positively impact its track record of traumatic brain injury and other life-altering injuries?
a sport so financially profitable that, along with other professional franchises, it has seduced local governments around the country to use eminent domain, urban blight laws, "owners-cum-commissions and private/public partnerships" and thousands and thousands of acres and structures of private property?
yes, superficial.
even though the Saints won and it was an incredible day for all of us who love New Orleans (and it sounds like you sure do, cher. as do i and i was thrilled for the Saints and New Orleans).
i still think our American cultural relationship with football is superficial.
Everything you say is partly
Everything you say is partly true. However, it does not add up to the whole truth. The latter can easily fall into an untruth by omission. The logic of the article in question is bounded by the text of the article itself and no further. To go beyond that bound suggests grasping to make a case that untimately fails the test. On balance the description of American culture as a culture of violence, death, and abuse is so deeply skewed as to be an untruth via many avenues.
Rode adheres to the fallacy of "pars pro toto" as well as the fallacy of black and white thinking which is tantamount to either or thinking to which you suggest is faulty. Making an exception to your position in Rode's favor implies bias( you are entitled to have your "faves" however such bias does not make your position accurate.).
Rode sets up the trap: American culture is divided into two choices: 1. Sacred or 2. secular. North American secular culture = a superficial culture of death, violence and abuse. Sacred culture = "a joyful alternative." The faithful Catholic believer can simply choose between joy or death and violence. Such a choice ignores negatives extant in sacred life as well as positives extant in American secular life. Rode's comment shows great lack of balance.
RE the NFL: I dare say the very very Catholic owner of the N.O. Saints who has given millions of his hopefully not "superfical abusive, violent and deathly" millions to the RCC would be suprised at your catholic take on the NFL and the NFL Charities. Perhaps the Priests that have received many of those millions, and attended many football games, bishops and nuns as well, as a matter of integrity, should give back that tainted Sainted money. BTW pizza is for some a fattening heart attack in a pan. There is a very rich Catholic donor/ owner of that superfluous cultural product as well. Is his Catholic money tainted too or when given to the RCC it is then somehow is magically laundered and becomes clean?
anon, who i think is not the
anon, who i think is not the same anon - i have printed out your response and will think it through. you raise interesting questions about either/or thinking and whether i am either blind to it or more tolerant of it when it is Rode whose speech and thought might be characterized that way (and is characterized that way by you and others).
i am not prone to pro-Vatican thinking or feeling but i am very conscious of my impatience with the significant "pro-sisters" thinking and feeling. i am discerning seriously with an order that may well be ripe for an unfriendly "visit" AND it remains true that I am completely turned off by most of what i read by sisters and laity about the visitation. the tone of SELF-righteous anger (as distinct from righteous anger); the cheerleading; the anti-priest sentiment: none of it compels me or attracts me. most of the published papers and responses by sisters and "good sister/bad priest/worse Vatican" laity have been the most consistent turn-offs in my persistent leaning toward religious life.
thus, it is certainly possible that i am using either/or thinking at this point. i'll think about it. thank you for the question.
you wrote: "Rode sets up the trap: American culture is divided into two choices: 1. Sacred or 2. secular. North American secular culture = a superficial culture of death, violence and abuse. Sacred culture = "a joyful alternative." The faithful Catholic believer can simply choose between joy or death and violence. Such a choice ignores negatives extant in sacred life as well as positives extant in American secular life. Rode's comment shows great lack of balance".
now THAT i can think about with you. will get back to you.
ps
cool that the Saints' coach is Catholic and gives to the Church. cool that the Domino's Pizza owner is a major anti-abortion/anti-Roe v. Wade donor and apparently Catholic.
has someone said the Church should not accept football or pizza money? you puzzle me on this one.
The owner of the NO Saints
The owner of the NO Saints franchise is a deeply Catholic man of the old school variety who deeply loves the catholic church. I would venture he has no idea such RC religious discussions take place about the NFL which includes its charities. If Catholics do in fact believe donated money is derived from unseemly enterprises then perhaps it is incumbent on them, as a matter of integrity turn it down and use it as a teaching moment.
anon - i think you are right
anon -
i think you are right that the saints coach probably does not know about this conversation. i think he probably does not care either . his charitable contributions are not an issue for me nor should they be.
"unseemly enterprise" in reference to football suggests to me some clues is about your reaction to "secular culture" and "superficial". it seems we may use and understand the words so differently that, despite both our efforts, we may have failed to speak meaningfully to each other about some of this.
for the dialogue and the questions. still thinking. signing off, jean
the domino's owner's
the domino's owner's donations are "cool" with me because freedom of speech is freedom of speech, not because i support most of the christian right behavior and speech about the issue of abortion. there is an energy in most of it that, i believe, is as repelling to me as the strident quality of most of the visitation debate. a religious sister said to me this week that "the truth is coming at us from every direction and we are never excused from **our own very specific and individual responsibility** to engage with it, learn from it, grow with it" and start all over again. jean
Jean as smart as you are you
Jean as smart as you are you gloss over a few things ie making lite of a seriously flawed statement. Again Rode' makes a sweeping generalization that fits black and white either or thinking. It does not matter to whom he may have been speaking or if his speaking is "... bounded by his role in the Catholic Church and community and by the focus of his talk." The latter does not change the innacurate meaning of his statement re the dominant culture of death, violence and abuse. It does however deepen the gravity of his irresponsibility as a public religious figure on the world stage making such an assertion. As a matter of fact when representatives of other countries refer to America as The Great Satan and Rode refers to the dominant American culture as a culture of death, violence and abuse it is easy to see the similarity and difficult to parse the difference.
________________
Re the quote below You said culture is my language not his
"you seem firm in your belief that Rode is attacking "Culture". it seems that you may believe that, for Rode, that "Culture" (your language, not his)...
______
please note the word "culture" 2nd to last para. of the above referenced article
___________
"... The present moment, he said, can help religious orders better define themselves as "alternatives to the dominent---- culture,----
which is a --- culture --- of death, of violence and of abuse,"
_________
Rode's language not mine.
anon - the use of the word
anon -
the use of the word culture i said belongs to you is your "Culture", with the C in caps. in my mind, "Culture" and "a culture" or "the culture" are different beasts. if that distinction does not exist for you, then i misread and no need to continue on that point, i think.
anon, you apparently do not think that the dominant American culture in the year 2010 is a culture in which the reigning and dominant forces are "death, violence and abuse".
i do. i do think the US and its dominant culture has long been a consistent and prominent source and agent of death, violence and abuse within its own borders and outside them. i do think our dominant culture is accountable for significant evil in the world. and thus we are accountable.
the long list you composed provides many, many beautiful, hopeful, inspiring examples of the counterculture, secular and sacred, in action.
i am deeply grateful for the reminder.
i also believe that the world - God's creation - will become safer as people around the world begin to tell the truth about the dominant American culture.
the world is in desperate need of the West's evangelizatiion. women religious
have been a significant factor in that evangelization.
why would we not want to cultivate that gift of the Holy Spirit for the future? is the mission of any one of the dwindling congregations accomplished? no. we need them. the world needs them.
***
i will think through your statement that Rode's language constructs an equation in which "secular = so bad there is no good in it" and "sacred = perfect". i did not hear it but i will think about it.
thanks for the dialogue.
jean
just want to clarify that
just want to clarify that what i meant was that the rest of the world is desperately in need of is the day when the dominant American culture/society is evangelized by/into the Gospel message and a consistent ethic of life. jean
"to joyfully witness life and
"to joyfully witness life and hope, in the example of Christ." by being filled with awe when this paragon displays himself with his 30-foot train?
Post new comment