That is an 4 in my estimate also. It seems to me to be an accurate assessment with none of the buzzwords and excuse making you usually find.
I can't believe it's really written by a progressive. There are just too many little quirks that make it seem like some flavor of trad pretending to present self-criticism by a progressive. Then again, it may just be the paucity of self-criticism by progressives that drives me to this conclusion.
Seems to make a lot of sense to me, too.
That NCR website, though!
Merry Christmas (and hooray for Ft Benning)!
Dale,
My "zero" rating was largely based on his unsupportable premise that priests of the new generation are "conservative."
They are not, and if this Dominican actually spoke to them, he'd find a wide variety of legitimate political and theological viewpoints. What they are is faithful, notwithstanding silly cant about rubricism, ahistoricism, and environmentalism.
One more thing ...
I'd probably give his post a "2" if I were to review it again, since it gets better with in the second two-thirds.
And you're not missing anything, Dale, but as a cradle Catholic, perhaps my perspective is more jaundiced. What were men like this anonymous (note that) Dominican doing as the Church of my youth flirted with suicide? Unless you lived through it, it's probably difficult to imagine how bad things got twenty to thirty years ago.
I agree with Rich on the Secret Dominican's assessment of young clergy as rubricists. I think that is a relative term or judgment, considering that the previous generation of clergy wouldn't know a rubric from a Rubic's cube. Anyone paying even the slightest attention to the rubrics would be a "rubricist," considering the point of view of the generation which questioned authority. I think the Secret Dominican would be in agreement that the current generation of clergy now seek to authorize questions rather than question authority.
But on the whole, I thought the Secret Dominican had great insights, especially as he generally if vaguely accepted responsibility for the sad state of affairs his generation has wrought. I think the only specific critique [or confession] he omitted was the secularizing relativism that his generation [e.g., Curran, McCormick, McBrien, Chittister, etc.] promoted ad nauseam.
It is a good critique, but with Rich Leonardi I find the critique of young priests a bit much. He seems to think they don't care about ecumenism, justice, etc. They do, but they certainly don't think about them in the debased way of their elder brothers and sisters.
With Fr. Stanley, I think the "rubricism" complaint rather weird. As he says, attention to rubrics at all is different from your average 50-60 something priest. As a layperson I would love more rubricism so I could follow the liturgy and not the "creativity" of budding sexagenarian priest-poets.
Two points, I think, I find objectionable.
First, the Secret Dominican claims that the current generation is won over by a sort of ahistoricism in the apologetics that appeals to the young. I think most of the people attracted to the Church and to traditional or conservative forms of Catholic thought are driven by the spritual and historical depth of tradition. It's in the relativistic interpretation of Vatican II (that is, relative to contemporary culture) that we get the "progressive view," one that is anything but historical.
Second, as David Deavel pointed out above, the idea that somehow ecumenism and social justice aren't important to conservative religious is spurious. The progressive response to social justice is to make the government responsible for our obligations. Do conservatives truly neglect these things, or do they simply take more direct responsibility? My sense is that the latter is true.
Otherwise, the author at least lays blame where it belongs. For that, I find some hope.
So let me get this straight--this anonymous Dominican is responsible for Rich having a dysfunctional family?
A n-D/Local Man:
I don't let my comment boxes become battlefields for feuds waged against other bloggers. In other words: Not in my back yard.
Everybody else:
This is good stuff. If I can boil down my reaction, I was impressed by the forthrightness of it and the lack of passive voice "mistakes were made" crappola that I usually see when something like an acknowledgement of "reform" imperfections is offered.
For example: There was a particularly egregious Gabe Huck offering in the Reporter which used the "mistakes" boilerplate, but then burnished the reformers' halo by chalking it up to youthful exuberance and enthusiasm. "Us crazy kids..." At that point, I realized there was no point in ever reading the man again.
Would give Allen's evaluation a solid 5. Nice that he gave props to the Catholic bloggers for keeping Terri Schiavo alive, literally- moreso than the local bishops of NCCB. Wanted more in growing mass communication, particularly with The Worldwide Leader in Catholic Television. With the passing of the Curran/McBrien generation of Official Catholic Rebels- Deo Gratias- an intellectual vacuum has taken place. Or perhaps there are no more available dissidents for the MSM to make into stars. Meaning that those theologians taking their places- rigorous yet loyal to the Magisterium- may be pleasantly busy. Best observation- the humongous growth of the Church in Asia, Africa and Latin America. I strongly believe that one son of the Third World is preparing for a future Papacy, whether he knows or not. In short, the best is yet to come. But Allen might not be happy when it arrives.
That's 5 out of 10, however. With no mention of the increasing silliness and triviality of The World. As in the classic picture of a month ago, the 21st Century's version of The Yalta Conference- Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton, bundled up in a luxury SUV during a night of partying. The Church's answer must be, loud and strong- they deserve better. We deserve better. The other 300 million people on earth deserve better.
I'll address this bit briefly:
So let me get this straight--this anonymous Dominican is responsible for Rich having a dysfunctional family?
The point is that many families, especially poor Italian-American ones, depended on the structure of the local church to provide them support. When that was torn out from underneath them, the consequences were fairly predictable and more devastating than is usually revealed by discussions of statistics and liturgical silliness. Hence, my quip about this anonymous "progressive" Dominican needing more time at the Wailing Wall.
Dale, if you think this follow-up is a distraction, feel free to remove it.
Rich:
Not any distraction at all. I'll be linking to your response later.
One more point: Theocoid is right that the claim of "ahistoric apologetics" is somewhat bogus, if it means anything at all. Most of the young seminarians and priests I know are very interested in the history of the Church and her theology. What they claim, though, is that truth, even if discovered under historical circumstances, transcends those circumstances.
I don't know about Rich's family but I know about mine. NCReporter & the worldview (as opposed to the Catholic view it claims) is, in a very direct way, responsible for much of the dysfunction in my family (which was neither poor or Italian). That is why I find it very disingenuous now for the people (in & out of the hierarchy) who have promoted this newspaper & its worldview for 30 yrs to point fingers at the Scandals etc which they, in a very real way, nutured.
As far as articles such as the one by Secret Dominican, all I can figure is that NCR can read the demographic tea leaves & figures it better inch its way back from the edge or be defunct when the old hippies die.
May God be good to him solely for this line about feminism: "The backbone of the revolution has osteoporosis."
Steven Colbert, eat your heart out.
Generally, I very much liked what Secret Dominican had to say. He is obviously uncomfortable with the -- for lack of a better term -- neo-conservative Catholics (and I am not using this term "neo-conservative" pejoratively but descriptively) but he seems to be trying hard to give them the benefit of the doubt and to blame himself and his generation for being unable to influence them.
"I can't believe it's really written by a progressive. There are just too many little quirks that make it seem like some flavor of trad pretending to present self-criticism by a progressive."
While self-critique by progressives does seem all too rare, I cannot see this Secret Dominican as a crypto-trad progressive-poseur. In my experience, those who are truly Traditionalist-with-a-capital-T (as distinguished from the traditionally-oriented neo-conservatives) are all too often far too shrill in their own rhetoric to sustain such a balanced and thoughtful self-analysis.
I agree with Mia's assessment. She points out the very clear limitation of the nom-de-plume, something that I have studiously avoided. There is something about anonymity that prevents the reader from embracing fully or comfortable whatever ideas are being proposed by the anonymous one. As a pastor who has received his share of anonymous notes over the years, I know my own tendency to be dismissive of the anonymous critique, which lacks accountability and avoids dialogue.
The dialogue is important, or at least it should be for the progressive worth his/her salt. The dialogue is essential to the Hegelian dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. To engage in dialogue, for the progressive, is to desire to be part of the solution and not just part of the problem. There are plenty of people on the planet who are willing to point out problems. It is the rarer individual who is willing to own the problem and, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, be "in the arena" and take on the problem.
This critique by the Secret Dominican, however, strikes a tone that admits of some accountability; somewhat measured or circumscribed, but it is there. And that is why many identify this as being helpful. It really is one of the more engaging critiques I've read from that generation within the Church. This Secret Dominican is someone with whom I would be happy to sit down and discuss the Church's future.
I really liked it overall-- we should all be so free of excuses in our nightly examinations of conscience.
That said, I'm bothered, as others are, by the supposed opposition between orthodoxy and supporting the social teachings of the church. I suspect that Anonymous feels the orthodox should be out picketing, politicking, and generally making noise about the poor, rather than simply feeding and housing them, a la the Missionaries of Charity or the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal...
Totally off topic but relevant for new year- might be seeing vultures flying around the U. of M. football offices. Following USC's serious beatdown of Wolverines in second half of Rose Bowl. Meaning- if Minnesota can limp into a dotcom bowl and blow a 31-point lead to Texas Tech- in the game that really mattered on that campus, not Knight's 880th basketball win- then dispatch Glen Mason on New Year's Eve, Lloyd Carr can't be sitting pretty. The proof is there, Wolverine fans. He can't beat Jim Tressel. He can't win in Pasadena. He doesn't travel well outside his little cocoon of easy targets- Michigan State, Indiana, etc. Now what?
Michigan has several problems: the weaknesses of the zone-blocking running scheme; the inability to recruit top notch safety/corner talent to deal with the elite receivers in the game; and lack of coaching adjustments. It is clear to me that Tressel and Carroll will always have Lloyd's number. So if they keep getting the talent they are getting, Michigan is always going to be battling uphill against those two.
Lloyd Carr will stay on for a few more years, until Jim Harbaugh is ready to fly in from the West Coast as the next incarnation of Fritz Crisler. I can't imagine that there are lots of qualified people licking their chops to take on the head coaching job in Ann Arbor. You have to admit that Carr makes Tressel and Carroll look like geniuses.
Oh, and Charlie Weis- don't make plans to return to Jersey and coach the Giants any time soon. Enough for you to do in South Bend.
And Nick Saban- just go away. Liar.
Well, I give it 4 stars just on an emotional level - and I grade on a curve.
3 stars in substance, because - as others have suggested - he doesn't quite get young priests and religious right. But he's clearly several steps along in his 12 Step Program, whereas most of what you read in (say) NCR isn't ready for even Step 1. Maybe if there were more boomer mea culpas I could afford to be harsher. But there haven't been.
Commenting by HaloScan
