Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
I suspect the Benedict-on-Jesus debate will continue, as it should. But I’d like to propose a brief interlude for a bit of entertainment–and because it doesn’t seem right to go a whole day without citing or bashing The New York Times. I was certain the item I have in mind would be up on this blog at dawn, so maybe I’m overreacting, or once again angling for Bill Donohue’s job. But David Brooks’ column today, “The Catholic Boom” [http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/opinion/25brooks.html?hp Subscription required, I believe] seems like a big slow pitch someone should swing at.
Brooks writes in praise of the “quasi-religious,” hailing Catholics in particular as evidence of those who have cast aside their benighted beliefs to Protestantize and thereby profit not only themselves, but also the nation:
“How have they done it?” Brooks writes…
“Well, they started from their traditional Catholic cultural base. That meant, in the 1950s and early ’60s, a strong emphasis on neighborhood cohesion and family, and a strong preference for obedience and solidarity over autonomy and rebellion.
Then over the decades, the authority of the church weakened and young Catholics assimilated. Catholic values began to converge with Protestant values. Catholic adults were more likely to use contraceptives and fertility rates plummeted. They raised their children to value autonomy more and obedience less.
The process created a crisis for the church, as it struggled to maintain authority over its American flock. But the shift was an economic boon to Catholics themselves. They found themselves in a quasi-religious sweet spot.”
And that is a good thing, Brooks, says, a very good thing, because Catholicism and capitalism apparently cannot co-exist. His column has all manner of unexamined assumptions. But the oddest is the (apparent) thesis that Catholics are the new Calvinists because they have dissed Rome. Viva Weber? I was going to take the high road and view Brooks’ column as an improvement on Samuel Huntington’s recent blast against all those Catholic Mexicans in “Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity.” But I’m not so sure. I just can’t see “Catholic” and “Gospel of Wealth” in the same sentence. Also, I can’t resist the view from the low road.
Hello David (and all),
I studied this editorial earlier today. Frankly I had a hard time believing that David Brooks wrote this. He has always struck me as someone who thinks before speaking or writing. Then again, we all have our off days.
I agree with your analysis, but I would like to add that Mr. Brooks makes an elementary blunder which I have seen a number of times in the past in periodicals such as “First Things” (and which is why I now seldom read these periodicals). The blunder is to rely upon the false principle: If X happened soon before Y, then X caused Y. Mr. Brooks claims that
“Catholic values began to converge with Protestant values. Catholic adults were more likely to use contraceptives and fertility rates plummeted. They raised their children to value autonomy more and obedience less.”
He then concludes that these shifts he claims took placed caused the emergence of a new class of people in America, which he calls quasi-religious Catholics and which he claims are economically more prosperous than American Catholics in times past. I suspect you would agree with my opinion that each of Mr. Brooks’ factual claims I am noting here is controversial and unsubstantiated. But even if Mr. Brooks is right about every one of these factual claims, it simply does not follow that the cited shifts in values caused the creation of this new class of Americans. If this new class really exists, it might have emerged for many other reasons Mr. Brooks doesn’t acknowledge, including perhaps some interesting changes in higher education in this country.
Brooks seems to be writing most of this tongue in cheek. We know some of it is true. But how? Certainly when it comes to economic gain.
One thing for sure is Catholics are no longer Democrats. The reason is without doubt, money. Not abortion, values, family, religion. In fact Catholics were more religious and family oriented years ago.
Money is an interesting phenomenon. You will learn most about someone when you follow the money trail. Just as a new conservative is a liberal who was mugged yesterday, a new Republican is a Catholic who is counting his money.
A new Catholic contemptuous of the poor is checking his real estate. A friend policeman told me that all the cops are Republican. Wouldn’t you be if you could retire on a $150,000 a year pension?
I don’t know if anybody is noticing but Mexican Americans seem to be rising upwardly mobile faster than other immigrant groups. They might be changing their names pretty soon.
What will they be like in thirty years?
Just a somewhat rambling tangent on the “Catholics are the new Calvinists” comment.
Brooks seems to be talking about lukewarm Catholics who don’t really think much about their faith and are not troubled by any down-sides of the free market economy nor aware that the Church’s social justice teachings might require them to operate their business lives in a different way.
I see what I would see “Catholics who are Calvinist in spirit” in a somewhat different light.
Some years ago, I was having lunch with a Christian Reformed friend. She observed that Calvinists emphasize a personal relationship with Christ rather than the “corporal” one Catholics espouse.
The difference is that Calvinists focus on right belief in Christ and right personal behavior–sexual chastity, not working on Sundays, abstaining from drinking and playing cards (in some sects), etc.
A corporal relationship with Christ is more other-looking, my Calvinist friend said. Catholics focus more on being Christ to others–which is fine in itself, but something some Calvinists view suspiciously because it could fool you into thinking that you can “work off” your sins by doing good works.
There is also a notion among some Calvinists that God smiles on his elect, and showers them with blessings, including money. If so, then perhaps there is less concern for the needy and struggling–because they need to get right with God. Sinners in the hands of an angry God and all that.
So the charitable thing to do is show them the way to right belief, by all means, but not necessarily to fork over money. Which, my Calvinist friend said, sometimes creates a sense of smugness and lack of generosity among people in her own congregation.
Obviously, I’m not talking theology here, as much as I am practical, observeable differences between two sects of Christianity as observed by me and my Calvinist friend. And Calvinists cover a lot of people–everyone from liberal Presbyterians to the Amish.
Nontheless, I think there are Catholics you might fairly call “Calvinists in spirit,” but not for the reasons Brooks suggests.
“Catholic Calvinists” do not reject Rome, rather they are preoccupied with their personal piety and whether their beliefs and personal actions square with Church teaching–and they are quick to point out where the personal piety and beliefs of other Catholics are not good enough.
For instance, it’s not enough for “Calvinist Catholics” to have never had an abortion–they will apply Church teaching so scrupulously that pro-choice politicians and, in some cases, those who vote for them, outside the pale.
I think you’re all taking David Brooks far too seriously. He’s always been shallow and careerist, and his only real talent is thinking up catchy phrases like “Bobo.”
That said, I think that Brooks’s sociological analysis is pretty accurate, and that his theological instincts are sound — Catholicism and capitalism do grate against each other.
It’s also worth noting that, as obscurantist and superstitious they could be, the generation of Catholics who were “obedient” and “submissive” also produced great rebels like Dorothy Day. Brooks might want to recall that the greatest rebels have always been traditionalists at heart. Funny also how so many of the “autonomous” and “rebellious” folks lauded by Brooks are such suckers for advertising culture and official pronouncements.
I finally got around to reading The Brooks column. I would like to think that he has done better. This piece is really bad.