Charles Chaput and Increase Mather
Yesterday was Memorial Day, so some reflection on the state of the nation is in order. I offer for your review and comment the speech of Archbishop Charles Chaput to the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars last fall. It is not, in my view, a jeremiad, but the closely related form of biblical speech, a lamentation. While Chaput’s doctrinal commitments are always in line with Church teaching, his rhetorical style and sensibilities, in my view, are distinctly American–and in particular, deeply indebted to the American Puritans.
In this speech, as he has in other speeches in the past, Chaput invokes the Puritan founders of this nation–in particular, John Winthrop’s “Modell of Christan Charity.” We have, in his view, declined in our religious commitments, our commitment to the common good since that time. Many people would say the same thing. It is sad, but not surprising–it’s been nearly 500 years.
What is surprising, however, is the degree to which the idea of moral (and with it political) decline animated the spirit of religious leaders much closer in time to Winthrop’s “Modell.” The second generation of Puritan divines, distressed at the comparative lack of religious dedication in their peers, devoted a significant part of their sermonizing to castigating those who were falling away and lamenting the loss. For the Puritans, the loss of faith in God meant the loss in success in the country. For this “new Israel,” the twin blessings of fidelity to God and material prosperity were deeply intertwined.
Moreover, how many are there, that were born under the covenant as they grew up to years of discretion, doe not endeavor to prepare themselves to take hold on the Lords Covenant, but are such that if they should be put upon renewing their Covenant, they would but profane the holy Covenant. Some of them are grossly ignorant, others are of a scandalous conversation. Drunkards, Swearers, Sabbath breakers, disobedient to Parents, Lascivious, Theeves, Lyars. Such whilst they so continue be put upon mocking God, by they will be his Covenant Servants?
–Increase Mather, Renewal of Covenant the great Duty incumbent upon decaying or distressed Churches (Boston: J.F., 1677).
In his magisterial writings on the Puritans, Perry Miller calls into question whether the decline was as sharp and steep as the sermonizers made it out to be. He also points out, and I think this is important, that what they see as decline may simply be difference. The hazy line between medieval thought and modernity can be drawn around the time of the second generation; Winthrop’s “Modell” embodied a medieval, corporatist view of society, whereas by the end of Increase Mather’s long life, that world was gone.
So here are my questions/comments
1. Are Chaput and others constructing their own myth of modern Catholic decline–with the late forties and fifties being the “Winthrop” generation and he and they being the equivalent of Increase Mather and his cohort? Does that myth reflect reality? Ought one to consider the defects of Catholic intellectual life and culture at that time as well as its benefits (I think about John Tracy Ellis and his article ab9ut Catholic intellectual life)? The Puritans, as it happened, were wrong about both the political and religious decline of the nation. Scholars of American religious history have shown, for example the great infusion of faith in the country came long after they were dead, in the form of immigrants and revivals. The early Puritans wouldn’t have much liked the later religiosity–but it was religiosity nonetheless.
2. Are we, like the second generation Puritans, at the end of age, and the beginning of another one? I think the invention of the computer and the internet is about as big a revolution as the invention of the printing press, myself.
3. The American Puritan notion of decline was connected with New England’s particular “chosenness” by God, and the intertwining of material blessings and spiritual fidelity. While we deeply love our country, it seems to me that Catholics as such cannot endorse the Puritan view of American exceptionalism in an unqualified way. The word “Catholic” means universal.
4. Is there anything specifically “Catholic” about the myth of decline –or the myth of progress, for that matter? Nations may rise, nations may fall. Individuals may progress or devolve. But do we have any reason in our theological anthropology to think that human nature is getting better or worse as a whole over time?
Good post and even better questions.
I’m a skeptic on the notion that generations possess broad comparative qualities of moral goodness. Given changing leadership, I suspect it’s more a matter of inspiration in various qualities. The Great Generation indeed made great sacrifices, but they and their leader (FDR) had issues. Say what you want about the 60′s, but relatively fewer youth were involved with lynching American blacks.
To illustrate, the Rites of Christian Initiation suggest that the rituals of Lent provide a time “… to uncover, then heal all that is weak, defective, or sinful in the hearts of the elect; to bring out, then strengthen all that is upright, strong, and good.”
It seems that it is an easier task to produce a laundry list of sins, and lament that someone’s parents or grandparents did it better. Coming from a rather dysfunctional family, my own take is that Archbishop Chaput sounds more like my whiny elders than the insightful leader the present-day situation demands.
The difficult task–something less suited to the speaker circuit–is to collaborate with others on an accurate diagnosis: to indeed uncover the weaknesses of the age, but also to bring out and strengthen the good.
My questions in turn: does the archbishop practice what he preaches? Does he take those “small” steps? Or has he become a product of the age? A Fulton Sheen wannabe attending to speaking engagements with his name headlining the affair?
I’ll concede that I’m not familiar with the Denver archdiocese, except from afar. I know there’s an initiative to strengthen marriages there. But that episode about the child of lesbian parents: it seems illustrative that Archbishop Chaput’s modus operandi is to erase all of “what’s gone strange.” Good luck with that.
People in power have always had the pseudo-privilege of insulation. They don’t have to see, hear, or interact with anyone they don’t want to. The real work of the Gospel is not to be found in the small things a bishop does: a talk here, an edict there. How church communities address the very real issues in their midst: that is where the real fulcrum happens.
To give the prelate a nod, yes: history does inform us. A critical approach to history? Absolutely. But sometimes, it’s even smaller and simpler. Shaking a person’s hand, affirming the good one sees in their life, and inviting them to come to church with you. People like Archbishop Chaput sometimes give the impression they are entitled to it all: respect, regard, and a full set of pews. But a false sense of entitlement has held back American Catholicism for the better part of the last four decades. My suggestion is to read Ad Gentes, and look for ways to apply it locally–much better than a hand-wringing Puritan.
Todd, I believe that you have responded to the article with great perception. I certainly agree with all that Cathleen and you have written.
It seems to me that there is a great discrepancy between what the Church officially states:
(encyclicals, Vatican II documents, pastoral letters, etc.), and the actual practices of the Church. Archbishop Chaput is perhaps a (and I liked your term a ” Fulton Sheen” wanna be), but he doesn’t possess the “Sheen Shine” — the charisma.
More than that, as I visit other Catholic websites, in other English-speaking nations, I see that trying to re-evangelize the nation (Canada, Australia, Ireland) are also major concerns. People in these nations are looking for much the same thing as Americans are—and they are NOT finding it in their arch/bishops and cardinals. The real issues in church communities are not even permitted to be discussed—never mind attempting to solve the problems. The laity are being reduced more and more into becoming ‘passive observers’ and nothing more.
The majority of the young people are not coming to church and their parents and grandparents are also absenting themselves as well. Personal concern, personal interaction by the chief pastor of each diocese is sadly lacking.
And yes, as you stated, “people in power have always the pseudo-privilege of insulation.”
The actual practice of the Church SHOULD BE—WELCOMING, MEETING people, really LISTENING to what they are saying, WORKING with them to come to a realization of what needs to be done and RESPONDING POSITIVELY, and QUICKLY to any changes indicated by the people.
As you stated so well, hand-wringing and moaning about the ‘sins of the times’ is as easy as pie. It takes dedication, personal effort, hard work and real humility (on the Archbishop’s part) to bring the Gospel message to the people in the 21st Century.
Prof. Kaveny – will add to the excellent comments of Todd. Understand your interesting parallel or comparison of two periods on both American and Catholic history but here is where I think the comparison breaks down:
- Chaput has aggressivley spoken out – both in published books and in the speaking tours. But he seems to reinforce the “reform of the reform” desires of many in Rome/curia. Question that is more interesting to me than comparison to the Puritans – how does Chaput and his behavior equate to the great US bishops of the 19th century? Do you really think that England, Gibbons, Carroll and Chaput would have agreed? In fact, Rome eventually called US Catholicism “Americanism”; condemned it, and tried to dismantle that direction of the US church. Chaput seems to play a Roman mouthpiece
- one thing that seems incongruous about Chaput – he is native American and yet aligns himself not with the minority opinion, not with the marginalized, but basically conforms his catholic talk along the lines of a Republican. This appears to be the antithesis of the Puritans and the society they lived in?
- Todd asks a question about his diocese – look at his auxiliary bishop, his comments (about as conservative as one can get without declaring oneself a member of the SSPX; he dismantled the seminary; re-established per his ideology)
- in fact, if he is like the Puritans in anything it is that his “ideology” probably can be compared to Puritanism as an ideology.
- unlike the Puritans, doubt that Chaput will leave much a legacy except for those who have been alienated by his aggressive use of personal power.
What Todd said.
Chaput laments how politics is driven by lobbying, polling and money, but the Bishops sure are willing to get their hands dirty when it comes to civil rights for gays or health care.
For me, it was downhill from the part about how back in the good ol’ days “gay” meant “happy.”
His version of history is a shiny-happy fantasy that plays into some dangerous hands. He notes the profound anti-Catholic sentiment in America’s Reformation-inspired founding and development. What he doesn’t get is that feeling persists just as strongly in contemporary evangelical fundamentalism. They share his view of the past, decry our current lack of moral grounding and long for a public sphere more reflective of religious values. The difference is that when they get their god-informed government, it’s not gonna have a lot of room for those Papists. Bogeyman fantasies of sharia law scare me far less than the reality of Rick Warren.
Some excellent coments here.
I’d just add that:
throughout this blog and others, the selectivity of quotes and perspectives is extremely interesting, given the positions of those who offer them.
The notion of decline sorely needs better definition (say as opposed to shift from traditional morality.)
Talking about America and the voice of the Church, it struck me how important a unitive voice was needed in the very polarized world of American politics (with worse to come as the 2012 election cycle gears up and continues unrestrained, Citizens United allowing even more diviseness.)
I note the Fordham Center wil have not one bu ttwo conferences on faithful citizenship in the fall this year.
What voices will we be hearing then from the spectrum of American Catholica?
“My questions in turn: does the archbishop practice what he preaches? Does he take those “small” steps? Or has he become a product of the age? A Fulton Sheen wannabe attending to speaking engagements with his name headlining the affair?”
“Archbishop Chaput is perhaps a (and I liked your term a ” Fulton Sheen” wanna be), but he doesn’t possess the “Sheen Shine” — the charisma.”
“one thing that seems incongruous about Chaput – he is native American and yet aligns himself not with the minority opinion, not with the marginalized, but basically conforms his catholic talk along the lines of a Republican.”
“For me, it was downhill from the part about how back in the good ol’ days “gay” meant “happy.”
His version of history is a shiny-happy fantasy that plays into some dangerous hands.”
Must EVERYTHING devolve into an invidious attack on the integrity and good faith of the Bishop? Chaput is a deep thinker, albeit one whose insights I don’t always agree with. I like that’s he’s willing to challenge the prevailing wisdom. The comment about him not towing “the minority” line (whatever that is) is the worse kind of identity politics. He lays out an interesting paradigm, made more interesting with Prof. Kaveny’s comments/questions. I’m skeptical that human nature as a whole “progresses”, but then again I’m a conservative. I think that politically we’ve certainly reached a critical stage where we’re re-analyzing our ability to socially engineer institutions on a large scale, whether those institutions be our economy/financial sector, health care, the Church, the public school system, “Big Law” etc. I’m hopeful it marks the end of an age in a sense and a return to a more sober, more modest view of things with de-volved power and authority, a more communitarian way.
I’m working through David Brooks’ new book, The Social Animal, and I’m interested to lay Chaput’s comments alongside some of the insights in the book. I know he’s a huge fan of David Cameron and the “Red Tory” movement in Britain, perhaps that would be another interesting frame of reference.
Note – Jeff, admit that when I taught history I used a model that viewed it as the progress of freedoms – not linear but in a very jagged line that at times went backward).
Here is a rather long presentation by Richard Gaillardetz that lays out some of the thoughts you have articulated but with a different approach and emphasis – with permission of the Elephants in the Living Room that had Richard present:
The State of the Church, 2011:
Reflections on the State of American Catholicism Today
Cathy,
Do we get continuing education credits for answering your questions? There is no escaping the demands of your questions which certainly make more sense than Chaput’s speech. Even Deal Hudson had to correct him when he called all who followed the Enlightenment irreligious. Chaput is right about the materialism in American society and he blames both parties which is a change. His admirers did not take his lead as many commented that all the ills of society stem from the democratic party. His quotations to back up his point from Murray were solid. But that does not fit with the fact that Murray liked to drive around in a Rolls Royce.
Chaput’s blaming the decline of Israel after Joshua on the fact that they were not taught is not correct. What is true is that lack of crisis tends to make people forget God. That is the reason Ireland was so religious and is not so much now. Yes we need preaching but to bank morality on instruction is shallow. And the printed word is the basis of our morality while technology has corrupted us. What did the world do before Gutenberg? And “American democracy needs an intelligent, reasoning citizenry; persons with free will and the maturity to use it.” That’s right we need Athens, not the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand, did Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Aol. develop outside the US. What is he talking about.
I guess Chaput is allowed to roam all over the place because he is an authority figure. He is sorely in need of an editor who will at least ask him: ” What points are you trying to make?
Then there is this by Chaput: ” Christian faith in the Risen Jesus converted an empire. It changed the course of history and gave meaning to an entire civilization.”
Christian faith did not convert an empire. Constantine needed a religion to foster his empire. The officializing of Christianity distorted the the faith which Vatican II attempted to restore. Augustine should have stayed out of politics. So should Chaput.
He could start by getting a better editor.
“Must EVERYTHING devolve into an invidious attack on the integrity and good faith of the Bishop?” Jeff, saying I found the bishop’s remarks to be a fantasy of the past and to dangerously align with fundamentalist evangelicalism that despises Catholicism is hardly questioning his integrity or good faith. Must you tone-troll every single thread?
.
1. Is Chaput constructing a myth? Depends on how you define “myth”. I don’t think you’ll disagree with his list of problems. Nothing mythical about those.
2. Are we entering on a new age? Isn’t that generally a given, in both religious and secular communities? The question here seems to be how big and how bad.
3. I think he’s talking about Catholic exceptionalism, not American exceptionalism – calling on Catholics to reject an excessively materialistic and individualistic culture and return to their spiritual and social roots.
4. Is there anything specifically Catholic about the notion of a nation’s declining? Perhaps more biblical than specifically Catholic.
Here are a couple of interesting links from the article:
http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/library/Murray/1940A.htm
http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx
Jeff,
When I read the archbishop’s piece, I did honestly try to sift through it for something of value. My intent was not to slander the man, but to ask questions. I don’t see being an author and speaker as being incompatible with the charism of the bishop. Then again, it is not part of the episcopal office either. I see Archbishop Chaput’s name in the media in a lot of places outside of Denver, and I wonder what the point is.
I brought up his home diocese because I wonder if he has a practical solution to offer that has worked for him and for his people. Or is Denver plagued with lagging church attendance, parochial infighting, and other failings of the age? If Denver is pretty much the same as Boston, there wouldn’t necessarily be a problem with that. But the archbishop presents himself as a man with the answers. Do those answers work? I’m not trying to malign the man; I really want to know. Because if Denver pretty much looks like everywhere else in America, then I think we can all ask, “Where’s the beef?”
Lastly, I don’t think the Church will be any better off if we look around in 20, 30 years, declare the Benedict experiment a failure, and start opening up the windows and doors again. Conservative retrenchment strikes me as faddish in the way the worst of the excesses of the 60′s and 70′s might be.
The Church is in crisis, and we need boldness to get us turned back to God. We also need a more complete accounting of the gifts of believers. For conservatives like Chaput to dominate today’s Catholic scene is like a builder trying to put up a house with hammer and nails but no wood. The point is not that the archbishop is or isn’t a thinker. I’ve corresponded with the man and I find him thoughtful. In the end, he gets impatient when you don’t convert to his worldview. We need more than this one voice.
Here is some information that answers Prof. Kaveny’s questions differently:
a) Chaput was a prominent player if the recent Bishop Morris event in Australia – see link: http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/morale-falters-australian-church
Question: “….developing their own myth of Catholic decline….” Chaput and Pell are colleagues who think and act the same. Yet, any survey results in the US or Australia indicate that, despite the preaching and decisions of the Pells/Chaputs of this world, engaged catholics continue to decline:
“Its most worrying element has been the steady desertion of the pews. In 1976, over half of all professed Catholics in Australia attended Mass regularly: By 2006 (the last time a count was taken) that figure was below 14 percent and still falling.
Even this figure, however, is somewhat misleading because over one-third of regular Mass attendees are now first-generation migrants, principally from Vietnam, the Philippines and India. There is every probability that their children, raised in different circumstances, will quickly discontinue the practice like most everyone else.
“We’re dying really in some ways,” lamented a priest from Western Australia in the study I recently completed into Australian parish clergy. “There’s a lot of disconnection between people’s lives and the church today which was not like that before, not strong anyway. Here in my local community I’m almost irrelevant — that’s how I feel. It’s just as though me and the church are irrelevant.”
The Manhattan Declaration has a foundation that rejects many of the directions of Vatican II – it posits that societies and cultures are “cultures of death”. This approach is adverserial and has not worked.
In Australia, Rome forced the bishops in 1998 to sign a Statement of Conclusions which echoes the Manhattan Declaration. The results has been:
“Nothing that the Vatican has required, compliant bishops have delivered, or conservative laypeople have applauded, however, has reversed the dramatic decline in the ranks of religious orders or diocesan priests. In 2010 there was only half the number of religious priests, brothers and sisters in Australia than there were in the mid-1970s.
But the most surprising responses from priests were on matters concerning the current management of the church in Australia. Only slightly more than a third of respondents thought the bishops were doing a good job of this, almost two-thirds thought the bishops were too conservative, and respondents were equally divided as to whether they had, or had not, been nurtured by their bishop.
Almost three-quarters of priests felt that the Vatican too often failed to understand the nature of the church in Australia and majorities felt that Vatican exercised far too much control of the church here and issued directives that restricted the role it could play.”
Todd has been very careful in his statements and very balanced. Would suggest that a survey of the Denver archdiocese would reveal some of the same results as you find in Australia. Many of my priest friends repeatedly say the same thing about personalities such as Chaput, Burke, George that they must work and deal with – “they are very pleasant and nice one on one but then their decisions and directives are very unilateral and do not allow for much input”.
Am reminded that some bishops like to quote Paul’s letter on the body of Christ but basically align it such that they are the head of the body or the family and we are the children. This image strongly limps……these bishops would benefit from grandparents who have had to move from parenting children to parenting both adult children and grandchildren. As a grandparent, you realize that what is required by your adult children is 80% listening and 20% responding when asked. This model would benefit some bishops who treat PIPs as less than adult in their faith.
Notable about Increase Mather is that he restored the ban on Catholics after another official of Massachusetts had lifted it. Mather fought against the campaign against witches while diplomatically avoiding alienating his judge friends. Shows you can’t judge people too readily.
He was the 7th president of Harvard.
Strike this sentence from the above post. “Notable about Increase Mather is that he restored the ban on Catholics after another official of Massachusetts had lifted it”
I do not find convincing either the hypothesis that human history represents a monotonic decline from a past Golden Age or the hypothesis that human history represents monotonic progress toward some future Golden Age. But it is impossible to read these two compositions back-to-back without seeing the enormous disparity in moral stature between the authors. (Hint: the one who quotes the Bible was a truly great man; the one who quotes all his audience’s favorite authors is an unctuous sycophant.)
No doubt the dangers of a seventeenth-century trans-Atlantic voyage, a hostile climate and the smallpox virus had a lot to do with the Governor Winthrop’s exemplary devoutness. And the world is a much better place for having eliminated those dangers. But clearly mankind has lost something worthwhile as well.
I am somewhat offended by the suggestion that our Puritan forefathers were desirous of fostering religiosity. The Puritans were not religiose; they were pious. Piety is a Gift of the Holy Spirit.
If you don’t like Chaput, try Murray:
http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/library/Murray/1940A.htm
If you don’t like Murray, just talk among yourselves until the bell rings.
David,
Most of us assess Chaput on his words. There is a vast difference between him and Murray. For others the bell has already rung.
Felapton wrote that -
“Hint: the one who quotes the Bible was a truly great man; the one who quotes all his audience’s favorite authors is an unctuous sycophant”.
If Felapton means that John Winthrop was “truly a great man” perhaps he isn’t aware that Winthrop used Native American slaves (see Francis Bremer’s “John Winthrop”: America’s Forgotten Founder”). He also supported the African-American slave trade in the Massachusetts Bay Colony:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/18/new_englands_scarlet_s_for_slavery/
Of course, Winthrop banished Roger Williams and Ann Hutchinson – so much for Religious freedom.
I’ll take Charles Chaput any day.
Interesting questions. I’m not smart enough to offer any answers to 1 or 3, but I appreciate the thoughts of others.
In looking at #2, I am reminded (and warned not to answer) by Peter Steinfels’ recent essay re George Weigel, which warns about the artificiality–and the malleability, sometimes to suit one’s own agenda–of historical constructs.
I would agree that we’ve entered a new age of communication–and one that is fraught with as many up- and downsides as the Gutenberg press–but how it will change the Church remains to be seen. Trends never seem to take straight lines. The “war to end all wars” just led to bigger wars.
As for #4, I don’t know if this qualifies as “theological anthropology,” but it’s interesting to recall that St. Thomas More, in “Utopia,” disallowed forcing conversions, and considered himself an enlightened humanist–and so he was for his time. He also believed it was necessary to burn up six heretics while he was chancellor. We don’t do that anymore. Does that mean we’re getting “better”? Or does it just mean that we no longer view religious ideas as life-and-death matters? I don’t know.
Jean, as usual, you get to the heart of the matter.
I Too ( gasp) am not a great fan of Thomas More. The loyalty to the pope over the marriage versus the heretic- burning did not balance the same way for me as for many others.
Your last point is key. If he really thought that heretics would lead masses of gullible people into a situation where a vengeful God would subject them to eternal torment– well, More is understandable– he is a prototype of Keifer Sutherland in 24.
But I don’t believe God is looking for any reason torture us.
(Tangent: Cathleen/Jean, have you read Hilary Mantel’s novel “Wolf Hall”? Great read and interesting treatment of More.)
Hi Dr. Gibbbons,
I am aware of John Winthrop’s record with regard of slave-holding. However, I suspect if slave-holding were as economically viable a practice today as it was in the seventeenth century, most members of the Catholic clergy a well as most dotCommonweal denizens would have them.
The contempt of one’s fellow human beings that formed the foundation of slavery: “I am fundamentally superior to this other person. I am so much smarter and more educated than he is. I am merely fulfilling God’s will by relieving him of his personal autonomy, which he is simply not capable of exercising responsibly” is alive and well in the twenty-first century, among liberals and pseudo-traditionalists both.
What changed? Owning slaves became prohibitively expensive. Wage-slaves are cheap. Machines are even cheaper.
I couldn’t open the link to read the speech. I would say, however, that I find appeals to “the good old days” to be infuriating. Certainly, one can appreciate that the good old days were much better for some than others — one man’s prosperity and sense of order and decorum is too often another man’s (or woman’s) oppressive burden. This doesn’t negate the good inherent in the order of that time, but as with most other places and times, the good will always be incomplete and disproportionately appealing to those whose own place would have been secure within that particular order.
I also find that I am increasingly unpersuaded by appeals that are based on what one has lost. If Chaput wants to reach anyone under 50 he will have to consider that their social roots (to paraphrase David Smith) include divorce, mixed marriage, economic instability, and other negative developments — in addition to female achievement and an expanding arc of civil rights, not to mention things that many of us find appealing but that the archbishop most defnitely does not. There are a lot of things I don’t like about the modern world, but I would venture that they are mostly different things from what Chaput doesn’t like. In so many ways, this appeal to the past is a way of not having to confront the present (and thus offend those who, as in any other age, are disproportionately benefiting in the current order of things).
According to the Gallup poll discussed on http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/blog.cfm?blog_id=2
the issues on which the official position of the Catholic church differs most sharply from society at large are: divorce (69% think it’s morally acceptable versus 23% morally wrong), the death penalty (65% versus 28%), gambling (64 versus 31) and stem cell research (62 versus 30).
Of those subjects, Chaput’s article and the Manhattan declaration that he talks about ignore the death penalty and gambling. Given the insistence on life issues, I find the absence of the death penalty from discussion a glaring omission.
As to Chaput’s stress on consumerism and materialism, it is so far out that the Gallup poll did not even poll people about that!
Pleas against consumerism and materialism are often made in a vacuum, as if having stuff was itself sinful. This is highly problematic on a number of fronts, but it also fails to get at what makes consumerism or materialism potentially inimical to a person’s interests: it takes up space — money, time, effort, imagination — that might be devoted to other things, whether it’s reading or volunteer work or your spouse and children. There are ways to make this point that might allow for re-examination of priorities, but it is also the case that there are very many people who feel that the time spent making money is not optional, and that “devices” and “toys” are a minimal return on a mandatory investment of time and energy that they cannot possibly change and still have anything at all, including necessities. Many people who work for a living feel this way. Does Abp. Chaput have any idea of what this is like? Hearing cites to 17th century authorities makes me doubtful. The 17th century wasn’t “simpler,” because existence has never been simple, but the vicissitudes of living almost always came from different directions: death of self or loved ones, for instance, rather than unemployment or divorce.
Cathleen, I don’t know if I’m a fan of More or not. I find him something of a cipher.
Mary, I have not read “Wolf Hall,” though we do have Richard Marius’ bio.
Appropos of nothing, you can read “Thomas More,” a strange Elizabethan play in honor of More that Shakespeare may (or may not) have had a hand in over at gutenberg.org.
I wonder if Keifer Sutherland would be interested in the part!?
Claire, that snippet in America is very interesting. There are more people who think pornography is wrong than there are those who think doctor assisted suicide and abortion are. There are WAY more people who are opposed to porn than the death penalty.
So, pretty much any kind of killing is less morally objectionable than pornography.
Arts and Letters Daily recommends an interview with Larry Flint. It’s an eye-opener to me. I had no idea such awful stuff is mainstream and that there is a much closer relationship between porn and death in many sick people’s minds than I would have expected. Read it and shudder. I used to be a big First Amendment advocate, almost an absolutist of sorts. This made me wonder if there’s some way porn could be prohibited more easily.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/larry-flynt-freedom-fighter-pornographer-monster-2289592.html
Semper idem.
The genius of American political life and corporate arrangement was precisely in its pessimistic view of human nature. The separation of powers, the intuition that that government which governs least, governs best is a correct one. Of course that needs to be interpreted correctly as it appears that there is a strong libertarian impulse at play in US politics.
As for culture, I think the Archbishop would be better served by taking to task our own Catholic community. If our community is not producing saints, we cannot blame others or a permissive or secular culture for that. If the Church has good news to proclaim then lets hear it!!! The message needs to be delivered better.
Pope John Paul II once said the Church does not impose anything it proposes. Well at its best it proposes and the only moral force it has now is its example to the world. It is also adaptable and does not require the support of the state to thrive. It grew in the first 300 years and was tolerated within the Roman empire even when it was not the official religion in pre-Constanian days.
Yesterday was the feast of the visitation and Mary’s Magnificat which is a positive hymn of God’s saving work. Our condition is surely no worse than it was at that time.