AmericanPapist Comments
I think young people are always engaged in whatever they pursue. It's one of the characteristics of youth. But, as for their dominance in the Church, "liberal" or "conservative" (whatever those words mean), I would say that by and large, they are absent.
In our parish, and in every parish I have seen, youth are conspicuous by their being somewhere other than in church.
I would say that the self-congratulatory attitude of some young people is annoying to us older Catholics. That was true when I was young. We annoyed our elders. I think that's a natural progression. It is not any kind of "proof" that one side is correct and the other side is wrong. In the final analysis (or, "at the end of the day"), the Church is losing vast numbers of active members. Young, middle aged and old. IMHO.
I think that the term "Catholic Right" is not only a misnomer, but a disastrous thought construct. Orthodoxy and "the Right" are not synonyms. To say that orthodoxy is to the Church what "the Right" is to politics is to give the Right too much credit and orthodoxy too little. The right end of the political spectrum fails to be orthodox just as surely as the left does, the only difference is how. Being politically conservative is no substitute for orthodoxy, neither is being religiously conservative, not even being traditional can get you there (just take a look at the SSPX, heavy on the tradition, light on the orthodoxy).
I see great hope in the New Orthodoxy. We're seeing a generation who has been starved by the revisionism that followed (though was not caused by) Vatican II. They are seeking orthodoxy, seeking their tradition, but not leaving behind the lessons of Vatican II that their progenitors so misapplied. But there is a real danger for this generation, and that is "conservatism." It's fine to be politically or religiously conservative, but there is already a movement to supplant the meaning of orthodoxy with conservatism. Catholic Christianity is radical, ours is a Church in constant need of reform (not revolution, but reform of hearts and even disciplines and institutions in the Church that stray from the faith) .. this is not a faith that can be defined by conservatism or so limit itself by being "the right."
Interesting article. I'm not one to wail about "biased" reporting as much as some others. TIME is a general interest news magazine, not a theological journal. By its nature, it is going to be fairly superficial.
A deeper discussion on this same topic can be found in the symposium Commonweal magazine sponsored a number of years ago in Chicago. Cardinal George, a deeply intellectual man though rarely considered to be a liberal, entitled his address "Liberal Catholicism, An Exhausted Project." I have to say I was heartened that many of my fellow liberal Catholics took his remarks seriously. They considered, pondered, critiqued and adjusted his thesis. I was also heartened by Cardinal George when, following his remarks, some conservative Catholics waved around the title of his address (though not the substance). The Cardinal quickly correcting them declaring that while liberal Catholicism has exhausted what it had to give to the church, conservative Catholicism never had anything to offer in the first place.
There is a good case to be made that liberal Catholicism has achieved its goals of enabling people to hear the Mass in their own languages and has brought the Church to embrace the principle of religious freedom; reject anti-Semitism; and to permit Catholic scholars to grapple with modernity. These are very important advances and I believe are now irreversible.
I think one of the failures of the secular press is that they do not distinguish between liberal Catholicism and radical movements (Steinfels once wrote a fine article setting the boundaries between the two). Call to Action and Commonweal are hardly soul-mates. And Father Greeley is a true [i]sui generis[/i] (see, I can use a little Latin!).
The democratization of church structures is a point to ponder. But even more central to the liberal Catholic vision is the democratization of sanctity. Liberal Catholics have been working on this long and hard and in the face of much opposition. Liberals in the 1920's proposed the theology of the 'Mystical Body of Christ' in contrast to the conservative theology of the Church as a perfect, ordered society. They overcame strong criticism but advanced their cause in the 1940's with the encyclical letter of Pius XII. Pope John Paul's theology of the 'universal call to holiness' built on this. Movements of lay spirituality such as Foloclare, the Community of Sant'Egidio, and the many small, intentional communities being formed by young people in our urban neighborhoods are further examples. I have known many young people, who like me, regularly pray the Divine Office. What a tremendous contribution liberal Catholics have made here. When I was a young girl, conservative Catholics would have looked at a layperson with a Breviary no differently than if he or she had put on a cassock and roman collar! Liberal Catholics have an honorable history of involvement in social justice efforts for racial minorities, th
(the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say)
Liberal Catholics have an honorable history of involvement in social justice efforts for racial minorities, the poor and the forgotten. Increasingly liberal Catholics are returning to their roots (i.e. the Kolping Movement) and asking challenging questions about the lack of PASTORAL CARE for the poor, workers, immigrants and the socially marginalized.
This last point may well be the top of the agenda for a new liberal Catholicism led by our young people. It will have a struggle to get the attention of the secular media. It is neither sexy nor confrontational. Its opposition is by neglect rather than rhetorical battle. But my own inner city parish has attracted an increasing number of young Catholics who want to worship in a diverse community, live and pray with the less fortunate members of society, and share their joys and woes. They rejoice is a legitimate pluralism of devotional and liturgical styles. They do not have a militant anti-clericalism but do not accept a passive role for the lay faithful. In my mind, there are many hopeful signs.
It is all about who is getting the vocations. See many liberal vocation these days? The liberals failed to keep dominating the hierarchy. Now "conservative" and traditional priests are the majority of new ordinations. New religious vocations are from traditional communities with habits and a charism. New bishops know the truth. I know dioceses are having a hard time finding lay persons to fill positions as pastoral ministers and DREs. Very few lay people are getting MDivs or MAs in pastoral ministry. Who wants to work for peanuts anyway?
It is the vocations stupid!
I think the AmericanPapist's post and commentary was quite good. But I am generally uncomfortable and disheartened by all this discussion of "the left" and "the right" in Catholicism, of some supposed "New Orthodoxy" or an implied "Older Orthodoxy". To my mind there is one thing, which is the Truth. There is simply Christ and his Church- this is the only Orthodoxy. And the Pope and the Bishops, the priesthood, the Sacraments, the Saints- all of these have forever been a part of the Catholic Church, which is Orthodoxy.
I really do not see why a Catholic should have to choose between a proper liturgy, between the unequivocal doctrine of the faith and a ministry of service. Some seem to suggest that it is incompatible to pray in Adoration of the Eucharist and still go out and do good works of service, or to hear a Latin Mass and be obedient to the will of the Pope and the hierachy of the Church and still possess a true freedom to life one's life in Christ and devotion. These are hardly contradictions and I fail to see why they should belong to different strands of liberal or traditionalist Orthodoxy. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought these essentially work together to reinforce us in the faith. It would seem to me that if every Catholic, including those supposed "liberal" Catholics truly embraced the words and challenges that Pope Benedict spoke to Americans several weeks ago, American Caholicism would be the healthier for it in all facets.
And if we are going to use some Latin, we might as well look at the verb "conservare" which means "to protect". If we are to use "conservative" to mean protecting and defending all that has been passed down to us in the depository of the Catholic faith, then you may call me a conservative. But I simply prefer to be called Catholic.
Yes, liberal Catholicism has imposed the vernacular on nearly every OF Mass. Why is this so good? Our iconostasis (Latin) in the OF Latin rite is all but gone. Many bishops forbid the OF Mass in Latin. I disagree with those bishops.
I will have none of it and will continue to attend the EF Mass in all its glory.
"See many liberal vocation these days?"
Yes, I do. The last three newly ordained young preists sent to my parish represented the best of the liberal Catholic tradition -- pastoral, collaborative, community building, committed to social justice. And of every newly ordained priests I've known, even those who came out of seminary with maybe in my mind a bit too conservativism, none of them had anything that was not "cured" of by a few years in an inner city parish.
Now, some will spend their whole ministry out in the upscale suburbs and for those, I cannot speak of.
Then I look at the other vocations. Fine men in the diaconate, often able to minister to particular cultural communities who otherwise would not have proper pastoral care. I know Religious from the Third World bringing their particular perspectives, educating Americans on social injustice in their native lands, and truly witnessing to the 'catholicity' of the Church. Other religous whose charism it is to be one with the poor and social marginalized. And young people living out the vocation of the laity as never before, praying the Daily Office, living in group houses forming community, studying the Bible together -- either in self-initiated groups or with the volunteer programs the Jesuits, Capuchins and other orders sponsor.
Yes, I see great hope with our young people and a furthering the renewal that liberal Catholics like myself were involved in back in our day.
Katherine, I am curious why you imply that being "pastoral, collaborative,
community building and committed to social justice" means these priests are "liberal". I am liberal and pastoral therefore all pastoral persons are liberal? Why would you label them as progeny of liberalism, and on what basis would you claim these vocations as a credit to 'liberalism'?
Is it poor form to actually speak of what liberal Catholics seek and care about rather than the straw men some others set up?
So these liberal priests do not go after the problem of abortion and contraception, unchastity and improving family life in these inner city parishes? That is the number one social justice issue. The above destroyed the inner city. If the priests are not addressing the root problems in society, their efforts then remain window-dressing. People can be given food and other handouts easily enough.
One of my husband's students from Africa married an American black woman. He told my husband that his wife's relatives behaved like animals (his words);for example shooting each other and other equally reprehensible acts committed on each other. He could not comprehend how they could behave that way.
Katherine wrote this same crap at the Closed Cafeteria blog. Just ignore it. Katherine is more interested in organizing labor unions than preventing abortions.
The dissenters and destroyers of the church are graying and going away - bye bye and take Cardinal McCarrick with you.
"not disagreeing with the bishops" does not mean "agreeing with the bishops," it means they don't speak up when they think the Bishops are wrong.
Actually worldwide the clergy and laity in the Catholic Church are progressive. Places like Brazil and India and so many more. Catholics in the USA only represent 6% of the Church and their disproportionate influence is slowly deminishing.
Dave,
The Church is slowly returning to tradition on the liturgical and moral issues. If you mean by progressive - socialist - I'd agree. But its not progressive its socialist/Marxist. Guess what sparky that breeds apathy in succeeding generations of Catholics. But then again liberal/progressive Catholics only view the world through materialist lenses - they don't care about evangelization and conversion. They are a blight on the faith.
I just read the story about the young man from Spain who was a martyr of the Spanish Civil War-his last words spoke volumes!
I, too, want nothing more to do with this world-a world that hates God and wants nothing to do with Him! I want to go to heaven!
The main difference between you and him is that he fought during one of the worst, cruellest wars of history up to that point, and you only say it as a polemic.
Zeke,
On a worldwide basis I would argue the liturgy is becoming more progressive and comtemporary. The Charasmatic Renewal is HUGE in Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America and it has definetly affected the liturgy in those countries. And lets face it those are the regions with the most vibrant Catholic communities. Yes, the Latin Mass is back, but you are much more likely to see a liturgy with hand clapping and dancing around the world then the Latin Mass.
Dave,
That is why Pope Benedict XVI loosened the use of the traditional rite. The "progressive liturgies" are a disgrace and need to be stamped out. I'm not naive and don't think this post- Vatican II silliness will disappear overnight but I do think our Pope is planting the seeds for renewal. The communities need to be catechized correctly and they haven't been. That is the great shame of the previous generations of Church leaders. Dave what you and Katherine call progressive is the degradation of the faith. Progressives are overly materialistic and a blight on the faith. The battle will continue.
Zeke,
I believe Pope Benedict is a man of high integrity and honesty. I accept his stated reasons for the use of the Extraordinary Form and his declaration of the Ordinary Form will continue to be the Ordinary Form. I don't believe is is promoting something other than what he says he is.
Following the ability to say Mass in the language of the faithful, the most profound change has been the reformed Lectionary. A 3 year cycle of fuller and longer readings including a reading from the OT. Formerly is was a 1 year cycle of 2 brief readings.
John Paul II "swept away liberal bishops", huh? I'll remember that the next time I read about Cardinal Mahony, or Bishop Todd Brown, or Archbishop Niederauer. Or the next time I see the USCCB fail to come up with a coherent policy w.r.t Canon 915. Or how Bishop Mukins in the Netherlands wanted everyone to call God "Allah".
Yep, it's a good thing John Paul II wasn't around when those guys were being ordained Bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal.
Katherine,
I believe the Pope also stated that he hoped the traditional rite would influence the ordinary form. I predict a hybrid of some form will emerge. The Holy Father is supportive of the use of the vernacular but also the priest facing east (ad orientem). I suspect other liturgical abuses will disappear as well, see the following article:
http://thecatholicspirit.com/mai...&
ArticleID=1943
The liturgical abuses by liberal Catholics has been criminal and it needs to stop. It's starts by properly catechizing priests, and they in turn can properly catechize the laity. The older laity seem to be the most arrogant and resistant to Church authority. I think the reintroduction of the traditional rite will yield fruit that we can not envision at the current time. It is an exciting time to witness the renewal of the Church, awakening from half a century of hippy dippy slumber. All good things will flow from a renewal of the liturgy.
Zeke,
I never said that I support progressive liturgies. I was just stating the fact that traditional somber liturgies are just not happening in the areas where the Church is experiencing its biggest growth in terms of infant baptisms, adult conversions and baptisms, and vocations to the priesthood and religious life. With regard to progressive liturgies I do think it is sad how in the United States and elsewhere that many beautiful churches have been stripped of their artwork for the cause of "progress". On the other hand, I am inspired by the families in Uganda who walk three hours to attend a liturgy which you would describe as degradation due to dancing in the aisles, hand clapping, etc... Clearly this in inculturation that the Vatican has encouraged. One cannot lump the entire progressive movement in the worldwide Church under one banner. I would argue one needs to look at the motive of the people. Is it done to "reform the Church" or is done out of a geniune expression of their love for the Lord Jesus Christ.
"The Holy Father is supportive of the use of the vernacular but also the priest facing east (ad orientem). I suspect other liturgical abuses will disappear as well..."
If you think Mass in the language of the people or the priest facing the altar and congregation rather than the apse is an "abuse" in the mind of the Holy Father, I think you are mistaken.
Dave - Excellent point - the motives of people like those in Uganda should be taken into account. Yes they are indeed inspirational. They are not deliberately seeking to subvert orthodoxy like many progressives in the west are i.e. call to action & voice of the faithful. I do think the Vatican needs to better catechize its Priests and laity on liturgical issues.
Katherine, my post was not meant to imply that the Holy Father thinks the vernacular or the priest facing the congregations were abuses. I should have phrased it differently. I do think the Holy father has a deep appreciation for the traditional rite and wants it to exert an influence on the ordinary rite.
In my experience younger priests coming out of the seminary will be very different from their predecessors. That does not mean they embrace a "conservative" or "liberal" political platform but orthodoxy. They respect the Magesterium, embrace the concept of the seamless garment, will stand up to wayward Catholics like the governor of Kansas who embrace the culture of death.Being shepherds as opposed to social workers they will be better able to stand up to the problems of the modern world.
All Catholics need to look at the Episcopalian church to see where religious liberalism leads. In my view liberal Christians are liberals before they are Christian. Hence they embrace their messiah - a minister of the culture of death - Barrack Obama.
"I should have phrased it differently"
Yes, and this is the origin of so much conflict and ill will in the Church. Rather than respect for other Christians, we are casual in our writings and speech. Certainly I am looking for priests who embrace the concept of the seamless garment and are true shepherds.
AP, had exactly th sae reaction whn I read the TIME piece. It was OK as far as it went, but it completely missed the point that the youth are the ones pushing the Church in a more traditional direction. My teenage sons can't stand that kumbaya stuff, and I think they're pretty typical of their generation. The young don't want to ignore the bishops. They want the bishops to stand strong for Catholic truth and values. And they definitely prefer more traditional liturgy and hymnody.
I think the real problem is that Vatican II and the 1960's did such a good job of leveling the Church that those few young people who are still milling about the Church (like yours truly) didn't know what to think growing up. Vatican II wasn't our fight. We don't remember the nasty nuns, the mumbled Masses in Latin, the people who didn't read "enough Scripture" and instead flocked to St. Jude novenas, etc. In many places, the Revolution won, or at least was partially implemented, and we don't really remember what came before it.
So the last thing young people want to do is use the Church as an instrument of personal rebellion and to "fight the power", as the liberal nuns in sensible shoes seem to want to. They'll just stay home. Those who remain will look for answers, and the main reason that they won't defy the bishops is because, in terms of a religious ethos, there's nobody home up there. You can't defy something you don't know. The few young devout Catholics are not going to fight tradition because they are too busy learning it.
I can't speak for all "Hispanic" Catholics, but from my own experience in our community, any greater sense of tradition among us is skin deep. The only reason you are wearing that scapular is because your "abuelita" gave it to you so you will be protected as you go about your day. There is no deep theology behind it, and certainly no sense of lock-step ultramontanism or loyalty to the Pope and the hierarchy. If anything, most Anglos don't take into consideration that many Mexicans are just as anti-clerical as they are Catholic. Indeed, when my ancestors took up arms against the Masonic government in the 1920's to defend the Church, it was the hierarchy who sold them out, leaving them unarmed and at the mercy of the same government. My main point is that obedience to the hierarchy in Latin American Catholicism is not as valued of a virtue as it is for modern Anglo conservative Catholics. If anything, there has always been a healthy sense of distance from the clergy that has always fostered a culture of folk religion. Who knows how this will metamorphize in postmodern Anglo America.
Commenting by HaloScan
