Conversation with Archbishop Dolan
He suggests that the problem with 20 and 30 somethings not participating in the Church is somehow connected with a lack of certainty.
I’m really not sure what he’s saying here. It could be at least two things:
1. These Catholics decide to leave the Church structure because they haven’t been told, with certainty, by a seamless Catholic world, that leaving it means certain death–spiritually, etc. The consequences of leaving aren’t made clear to them. This strikes me as old school fire-and-brimstone. Good luck with that–it seems to me to depend upon a seamless Catholic world to back up the fire-and-brimstone.
2. These Catholics are leaving because the Church has failed to offer them certainty–it has only offered them a question mark. People don’t give their lives for a question mark. But is this, in fact, why people are leaving? Because the Church isn’t certain or definite enough in its pronouncements? My own sense, as a professor, is that this isn’t the case. Students are happy to find out the nuance in the tradition, the possibility for argument and discussion. The different levels of Church teaching, the way the Church’s position has evolved over time, are seen to be to the credit of the Church, not to its detriment. Their problem is precisely the opposite of what the Archbishop identifies–the argument that you face in the classroom is that the Church is repeating mindlessly moral norms from another century, and is loath to take into account new circumstances. They’re not going to raise their kids Catholic because they think of it as a destructive form of fundamentalism-not because it’s too wishy-washy.
Now it may be that the subset of people who now feel called to join the priesthood are attracted by the certainty –and that the greater the certainty, the greater the recruits. In which case, we have another set of problems — the clash in sensibilities between clergy and laypeople.
3. Finally, where, exactly, is the question mark? It seems to me that a good basis for dedicating one’s life to God is a belief in God –not a belief that anyone, including the Church, can put God in a box. All the great thinkers of the Church, in the end, were great because they lived into the question mark–God is a mystery, the Church (as Vatican II tells us) is a mystery. In fact, the first Chapter of Lumen Gentium is entitled “The Mystery of the Church.” (A dogmatic constitution of a council–about as high up in magisterial teaching as you can get, for those who like certainty about their mystery.)
In a post-modern, pluralistic society, it seems to me that what we need isn’t more dogmatic certainty–(there’s a lot of dogmatic certainty in the culture, in fact–Bill O’Reilley’s talking points) but a more deliberate, less trendy way of living into the mystery of God.
Another possible reason for young adults’ leaving could be derived from the teachings of St. Thomas: generally speaking, as a group, they are often unchaste. Unchastity weakens the mind, and loosens the young person’s hold on divine revealed truths. (ST II.IIae 152 art. 3 and 4).
Umm. . . . Okay. . . .
I think the effort made by some to try to “talk” to “postmoderns” actually hurts their case. It seems inauthentic. It does seem trendy. Contrast, for example, Pope Benedict who just talks to them, but not condescendingly or trendily. He reaches them.
I’m using the term post modern to refer to an era, not to a particular person’s belief system.
I did a double-take after reading this post. I thought, for a moment, I was on the website for The Onion.
Questioning the question mark. Classic tongue-in-cheek.
Cathy:
I don’t think you have represented Abp. Dolan’s remarks fairly. When I clicked on your link to the WSJ interview with Abp. Dolan, I expected to find the word “certainty” in his remarks. I didn’t find it. I found instead that to “wavering” he contrasted “a clear and confident message.” He said that he wishes to see a “‘recovery’ in confidence,” for people to see being a Catholic as “an adventure in fidelity.” He was talking about the whole Church, about “people”; he wasn’t saying that the “the Church isn’t certain or definite enough in its pronouncements,” your sentence in which “the Church” seems to be the hierarchy,
He doesn’t say anything about certainty, much less “dogmatic certainty,” the phrase you use in your last paragraph. And there also is nothing in these remarks that justifies the opposition you describe when you write: “Their [young people’s] problem is precisely the opposite of what the Archbishop identifies–the argument that you face in the classroom is that the Church is repeating mindlessly moral norms from another century, and is loath to take into account new circumstances.” As for the question-mark, this is a fuller statement of what the Archbishop said: “A young person will not give his or her life for a question mark. A young person will give his or her life for an exclamation point.” I think this statement is true in itself. I see it also in my students, graduate and undergraduate, where it is often those most confident in their faith who are most enthusiastic about pursuing all the questions that arise about a God who is Mystery and whose works and ways are Mysterious.
I once had a lector at Mass who, quite unconsciously, had fallen into the habit of ending each sentence on an up-note, making it sound as if every sentence were a question. This included, as she read, the sentence, “God is love.” I really don’t think that this sentence should be made to sound as if it is a question-mark. If anything, it should have an exclamation-point after it, which also will provoke questions, not least of all the problem of evil which, after all, is only a problem because we believe that God is love. This season especially is a good time for recalling it: What is an “Alleluia” but one long exclamation-point!
I don’t see what the Archbishop said as any different from the remark of St. Paul: “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for battle?”
If Dolan feels that certainty (or confidence, as Fr. Komonchak notes above) is an issue (and a turn-off), perhaps he’s responding to the popularity of fundie-gelical denominations which provide that certainty and demand correctness of belief as the price of admission to their Heavenly Carnivale (perfect bodies, perfect sex, as many Tim Horton donuts as you can eat, swimming pools, movie stars–ask my sister-in-law for details!).
As to whether lack of certainty turns off young people, who tend to be skeptics and questioners of authority on general principle, I don’t know.
My son, now in confirmation, asked me yesterday whether it was OK to stay Catholic if you thought the Church offered good rules to live by, but you could only manage to hope that the stuff about virgin birth, eternal life and the “magic” part of it was true, and only felt that certainty occasionally.
I told him to discuss it with the priest, though I don’t hold out much hope that the guy will quit smoking and making plans to visit the casino with his geezer buddies long enough to give the kid any kind of answer that will satisfy him.
Certainly, he’s never bothered to come to any of the confirmation classes where he could hear these types of questions. And if priests like this are the ones who are informing bishops’ perceptions of the young faithful, the Church is in a heap-o-trouble.
Joe, I didn’t put the word “certainty” in quotes. But in my view, the quest for certainty permeates the second half of the piece. The word “love” and “God” and Christ do not appear at all in the interview. The word “muscle” does. The word “Church” does. JPII and B16 are there– no theologians, no mystics, no saints –no lay people. And he’s contrasting the post-V2 church, unfavorably, with the pre-V2 church. That context affects my reading.
Here, is the passage, in toto:
“I asked him what he thinks has gone wrong. For starters, he says, the Catholic Church for too long took for granted the Catholic culture, “when it was presumed that you would go to Sunday Mass, that you would marry a Catholic and be married in the Catholic Church, when it was presumed that you would always remain in the faith, with tons of priests and nuns and Catholic schools to serve you.”
Those days are gone, and now he says its time to “recover the evangelizing muscle that characterized the early church.” This means putting an end to the “wavering” that has too often characterized the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council and a return to a clear and confident message.
“Very often even the word Catholic even the word church has had a question mark behind it,” he says. “Does it know where it’s going? Does it know what its teaching? Is it going to be around? There was a big question mark. A young person will not give his or her life for a question mark. A young person will give his or her life for an exclamation point.”
This “recovery” in confidence, he says, began under John Paul II and continues under Pope Benedict XVI. In his new role, Archbishop Dolan intends to keep it going. Being a Catholic is an “adventure in fidelity,” he insists. The Catholic Church, he says, has “a very compelling moral message. She calls us to what is most noble in our human makeup, dares us to become saints, challenges us to heroic virtue.”
Here are the things that caught my eye.
1. Evangelizing “muscle” — To “muscle” someone means to pressure them. How can you pressure someone with the Good News?
2. Evangelizing “muscle” what does it mean–well, he says it means “putting an end to the wavering” that has characterized the Church since the time of Vatican II? What does he think count as “wavering”? I think there’s been a lot of exploration going on since the Council–various attempts, more or less successful, to have the church grapple with what it means to be living in a post-Constantinian world. What do the documents of V2 mean? How should they be implemented? What does he mean by “putting an end” to it? So we’re “muscling” something to “put an end” to something -and that something is “wavering.”
3.”Very often even the word Catholic even the word church has had a question mark behind it,” he says. “Does it know where it’s going? Does it know what its teaching? Is it going to be around?” What kind of clarity does he want? V2 emphasized the contingency in our knowledge of these things. The Church is a mystery, it knows it’s a pilgrim Church, it doesn’t know the full shape of the journey. The teaching is developing—because the context is developing. I fear a real backing away from V2 here, because the Council itself admitted that the Church didn’t have all the answers about a whole range of problems facing modernity. He talks about a “return” to a “clear and confident message.” What, exactly, are we “returning” to?
3. I think that in talking about the Church–he clearly means centrally the magisterial message. “An adventure in fidelity”–fidelity to what? Clearly, Church teaching. To the message. No explicit invocation of Christ. What is an adventure in fidelity, by the way?
4. The moral message, he says, is “compelling”–but that is the problem. To the disaffected members of the younger generation that I’ve met, it’s not. What do we do about that? Kathy’s right–to some degree it’s about the time in life. But it’s broader than that. I think there has to be a reinvigoration of a via negativa–that honors what we don’t know about God as well as what we do. On some ethical questions, especially those involving science, “wavering” may be the right answer until we know more about the facts. Environmental ethics, for example.
5. Question mark/Exclamation point –his contrast, not yours nor mine. The contrast in punctuation conveys a contrast between doubt/questioning verses emphatic certainty. You want to move beyond that that dichotomy. But I see no evidence that he does.
I don’t think moving to the exclamation point is going to help evangelize, in this context. People give their lives for exclamation points –sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly. NYC is forever wounded because a bunch of people flew planes into the World Trade Center because of the exclamation point. Consequently, it’s the exclamation point that scares off people, not only draws them. Working at ND the past few weeks, I drive past a lot of Catholics with exclamation points protesting Obama. Randall Terry was just arrested for wheeling a baby carriage with bloody babies on campus. Alan Keyes was just arrested, castigating the students (who are in exam period) for not joining the protest.
I myself don’t think exclamation points are the way to go. I don’t think they convert anyone who isn’t already on the same page.
.
Should be “lack of certainty/confidence is a turn-off.”
I should also note that my kid has received essentially no instruction in Catholic dogma outside of what he gets at home. He often lumps “Church teaching” in with the clap-trap he hears from fundie-gelicals he knows at school, and we have had to explain MANY times that Catholics do not see the same tensions between science and Scripture that some Protestants do, that counting the age of the earth from the ages of the individuals in the Bible is just bad science that Catholics would reject, etc. etc.
Honestly, when I quit being a practicing Catholic, I agreed to let the kid be raised in the Church. I had no idea I’d have to do the job myself, a fact I find humorously ironic and utterly maddening, depending what day it is.
OK, all one anecdotal experience and rant, for whatever those insights are worth, which ain’t much.
By the way, here’s the internet grammar dictionary’s definition of an exclamation point!
A punctuation mark (!) used after an abrupt and emphatic statement or after a command: “‘Help!’ he cried, as his boat floated toward the edge of Niagara Falls.”
“Abrupt, emphatic statement or a command” –if this is a general characterization of our strategy for attracting people, who will we attract?
Cathy:
I believe you have interpreted the remarks made in a brief interview (not in a univesity-classroom, nor in a pulpit, nor ex cathedra–context counts) at every point in the worst possible light. And I wonder why.
“He is risen!” requires an exclamation-point! So does “Alleluia!” and “God is love!” Put a question-mark after each of these, and see how they sound.
Do you honestly think that by the word “muscle” Archbishop Dolan was thinking of pressuring people into becoming Catholics? Do you really think that he doesn’t think that the Christian life is a living relationship with Christ? Etc., etc., etc.
Jean Raber makes wonderful points. We have failed miserably in communicatin the richness and the depth of the Christian message, of inviting people into the world it discloses, and I have done my best in classroom and in pulpit to do a better job of it. But what I am aiming at is confident and even enthusiastic faith, an exclamation-point and not a question-mark. The Church would never have reached our generation and elicited our faith except for such lives, lived and proclaimed.
“What was from the beginning–what we have heard–what we have seen with our own eyes–which we looked upon–what our hands have touched–the word of life. For the life was manifested; and we have seen and are bearing witness and declare to you the life eternal which was with the Father, and have appeared to us. What we have seen and heard we declare to you so that you may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things to you so that our joy may be full” (1 John 1:1-4)
Is it possible for Dolan to criticize the Church without adding to the appearance of “wavering”? The Church is sometimes good (pre-V2, since JP2) and sometimes not so much (under J23 and P6?). For other people, good and not so much are reversed. It all looks like wavering.
This is the strength of Tradition, what we have been given that is unwavering. But Tradition has to include V2 as well as pre and post. It has to include all the Popes of the past 50 years, not a selection. It has to recognize the commitment of liturgical reformers to the worship of the Trinity, as well as the commitment to older forms of worship. Tradition is continuity, not rupture, continuity even with the Popes one may not appreciate so much.
So perhaps we need to recognize that we waver, and criticize, and are uninspiring, in order to recognize the Lord who alone is unwavering.
“Honestly, when I quit being a practicing Catholic, I agreed to let the kid be raised in the Church. I had no idea I’d have to do the job myself, a fact I find humorously ironic and utterly maddening, depending what day it is.”
I mean nothing but the utmost respect and charity, Jean, but what you are finding alternately “humorously ironic” and “maddening” may have the salutary effect of moving you back into the “practicing Catholic” column. You’re a teacher, so you no doubt appreciate the old adage that a person doesn’t real know something until he or she can teach it to others. Perhaps there’s a hidden force at work here–dare I say the Holy Spirit–in your becoming the primary (sole?) source of catechesis for your son. :)
Joe, why no mention of Christ in the interview? Why use the word “muscle” at all? I think by the word “muscle” he was thinking of pressuring people who are Catholic to fall into line –as he sees it (the twenty year old raised Catholic types). Richard John Neuhaus once famously called for a more “muscular” Christianity. So I wonder if Dolan means what Neuhaus meant.
I agree the exclamation point can be used in the positive way you describe. But I think it’s more likely use, in the context of the culture wars, is negative indictment–in line with the definition. Take a look at the Catholic blogosphere. Do you see, overall, a lot of good news? Or a lot of railing against bad Catholics? .
The context of the post was evangelization. The people I know who have left the Church leave because they think it’s bigoted, and cruel in its ethics. They also think the sex abuse crisis completely undercuts any claim of the church to moral authority. A broadly humanistic ethic seems truer to them. But then, I don’t know anyone who’s left to join an evangelical megachurch. I wonder how many college-educated Catholics do that.
My own context, which certainly does affect how I read this, has been the last few weeks at Notre Dame. I don’t think that don’t think the protesters–the plane, the trucks driving around with graphic pictures aborted fetus pictures on them, the bloodied baby carriages, are converting anyone to anything. I think they’re making people keep a distance–from the life issues and from the Church.
But they are, indisputably, exclamation points.
I think the via negativa is richer the deeper we go into the revelation, taking revelation as a given and moving into it.
I was trying to explain to a group of kids I teach why I was shying away from one of their questions. Ordinarily any question is okay, but when a kid (age 9) asked about divine/ human knowledge in Jesus, I said that I couldn’t say much because this is a question that is very hard not to answer wrong. They didn’t like that explanation at all. So I told them about the alpha-privative adverbs of Calcedon: when the Church was trying to say how the two natures are in one Person, the best we could say was how they are NOT together. Not like this, not like this, not like this, not like this. Actually, my word “together” already says something wrong.
The inherently attractive thing about this kind of mystery is that there is a positive truth that is real and good, but beyond all our explanations just now. We can even taste it. Skepticism, I think, is missing this element: the hidden good.
Cathy: I still think you are over-interpreting, perhaps because of your fraught situation at ND. But I noticed a similar reaction to the interview that Abp. Wuerl gave. People seem to be unable to believe that a different episcopal voice may be being heard, and so they have to rush to say, “Well, they’re the exception!” or, as I think you have done in your interpretation of Dolan’s interview, to assimilate them to the others with whom you so strongly disagree. Consider at least the possibility that he might be different! Maybe things are more complicated!
Cathy, do you think you and Joe could agree that the Church would be doing better as a whole if it spoke with more confidence and exclamation points in its message instead of the hesitancy and question marks that currently afflict it? That moving forward with a love that is vigorous, energetic, and muscular will certainly be more attractive than one which is hesitant, apologetic, and acquiescing? That we have an amazing tradition, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and a culture which is in desperate need of its critique?
Now, if we can agree on that much…then why not see the Archbishop’s comments in that light rather than in the vein of Terry, Keys and Neuhaus? Perhaps understandably in light of the recent assault on Notre Dame, I do think you are interpreting him in a negative light when you didn’t have to.
Joe, I certainly hope you’re right. Charlie, it would all depend upon what the difference is. On basic issues of faith, yes. Jesus is Risen! On what to do with the remote application of the principles of natural law, I think we need to follow Aquinas in recognizing that the practical reason with respect to the remote application of the principles of natural law will be more uncertain than the deliverances of speculative reason.
So it’s gotten to the point that exclamation points and the word “muscle” are out of line? Do I have that right? I can’t think of a better example of how unmanly (even unmotherly) the faith has become in some quarters!
What do you mean by a “manly” or a “motherly” faith?
Cathy:
I just noticed your comment: “By the way, here’s the internet grammar dictionary’s definition of an exclamation point!” A punctuation mark (!) used after an abrupt and emphatic statement or after a command:”
Clearly, you need another grammar dictionary. As two sisters, my brother and I were making our way through the small streets of medieval Orvieto, one after the other cried out, as we caught a glimpse of the magnificent cathedral: Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! (Even phlegmatic Joe!) Q.E.D.
Well, I think a manly faith is pretty self-evident. Since unmotherly may not actually be a word, let me give you examples of what I’d consider an unmotherly faith:
Let it be done unto me according to thy word, so long as you ask nicely, don’t out and out command anything, and grant me right of first refusal.
They have no wine, but I’m not saying that like you should do something or anything. I mean, heaven forbid I come across remotely as your mother, or any type of authority figure. I’m really saying, they have no wine in the sense that, I hope you’re not thirsty, ok son?
Do whatever He tells you (I don’t even have to fill this one in, do I?)
Happy Mother’s Day! (please excuse my exclamation point, I got carried away)
Prof. Kaveny – excellent post and appreciate the analysis and insights from others esp. Fr. K.
Allow me to pick up on one of your points – you contrast Dolan’s comments with the typical ND student and wonder if his approach or his conclusions really get at current youth.
In the corporate world for the past 5+ years, we have also had the challenge of hiring, training, and retaining “youth” – we call this high school to late 20s the “millenials”.
My point is that the church, college, and corporations face a like challenge with this generation:
a) most technologically savvy generation in history;
b) easily distracted – demand multi-tasking; multiple ways of communicating/learning;
c) advantage/disadvantages of their curiosity, short attention span, efficiencies – can support goals but can also degrade focus, concentration, commitment;
d) can be weak in areas of inter-communication skills, writing, etc.
e) they want “freedom” ….in the context of freedom from and freedom to. Want rules, structures, etc. and will commit to ideals, goals, passions. In fact, as the generation that received unconditional parental support all the way to their first interviews after college for a job, give them a check list and they are happy;
f) they do not do well with ambiguity; they are risk averse; they do not analyze well and do not like open ended questions.
Excellent resource – The Trophy Kids Grow Up – by Ron Alsop of the WSJ.
So, some of Dolan’s comments seem to resonate with Alsop’s research; yet, his term “adventure in fidelty” could turn off this generation because it relies upon a faith reception that involves conviction, reasoning, faith, etc.
Yet, at the end of Alsop’s book – he has two chapters on the best and brightest of this generation – at college graduation, they are looking to “make a difference”; to contribute to society; not sure they want to start a corporate career. So, thousands are volunteering for programs such as Teach for America, Jesuit Volunteer Corps (& other like associations) – and even corporations such as IBM, Fed Ex, Ernst & Young, Boston Consulting, McKinsey Consulting are hiring these graduates and immediately letting them spend their first two years in one of these social programs.
That passion and willingness to make a difference is what Dolan needs to tap into – I would suggest that the typical student he interfaced with in Rome at the NA College is nothing like the typical millenial in NY City. The best teachers (as Jean has stated) inspire via their example, passion and not via compulsion, rules, etc.
Anyway, just a thought.
Best book for the Dolan’s of this world:
Bill, this is extremely helpful! It also, incidentally, helps explain some additional challenges in teaching in law school, which is about teaching people to deal logically with ambiguity and to analyze well!
We have to tell first years, “Well, it’s not as if there’s a secret BOOK OF LAW that you’re buying that will give you the answers. . .you’re paying us (and others will pay you down the line) to analyze!
(Okay, I use exclamation points too!)
Can’t the sociologists just *ask* those who have left the Church what their reasons were? Granted, finding the subjects might not be easy. And “left the Church” is ambiguous, and so is “Church” for that matter. But surely even a half- decent study would advance our nderstamding.
“Consider at least the possibility that he might be different! Maybe things are more complicated!” Fr. Komonchak’s comment is a generous one. Give the fellow the benefit of the doubt. Still, Dolan’s assumption that things began to improve when JPII and Benedict began to speak with more “confidence” might give one pause. A great deal depends on what it is one says with confidence. Unfortunately, to date, there have been no interviews that I have seen that have probed beyond the surface of what the Archbishop says on any given topic.
How about a long televised chat with a panel of experts in theology, church history, ethics? Or even a couple of sit-downs with the sort of interviewers who seem able to be able to get an interviewee to reveal more than superficial things. Billl Moyers? Charlie Rose did a great interview with the late Cardinal O’ Connor.
Ann, there was a recent Pew study closely related to this question, and I think it was discussed here.
(I’m on my phone, or I’d provide the link)
Mark Proska –
Re: the manly Church
Need I remind you that the Church is the *Bride* of Christ? That ancient metaphor should, I think, form our primary image of the the nature of the Church. (“Nature” = essence as operative.) Beware your “manly” faith. It gave us such things as the Crusades.
Prof. Kaveny – some additional, random thoughts:
a) if Alsop is correct, then it appears that the same level of intensity and commitment that parents have had as “helicoptor parents” in terms of education, sports, arts, group activities and the constant 120% positive, reinforcing congratulations did not, at least for most, translate to the church. Not sure why?
b) this is a counter-intuitive thought but, given Alsop’s analysis, millenials will require “hands on” church involvement – whether that take the form of multiple varieties of educational formats; service projects that they can make a difference at; small communities that reinforce and give them positive feedback; a different approach to sacramental preparation e.g. confirmation, matrimony, reconciliation. It means that in the midst of retrenchment; decreasing priests; parish closures or mergers; school closures or mergers….that the way to engage millenials will be the exact opposite – more small group interface; more small parish groups to study and reflect on scripture, ecclesiology, church tradition, sacraments, etc.
This, in one sense, provides a different way to interpret Dolan’s interview and comments – but, is that where he is heading? Yes, you need to provide a check list but how you do that with central, core faith questions – well, that is where you will either engage or lose the millenials.
Will agree with others – Dolan faces a steep challenge as do his pastors, school presidents, and all pastoral & teaching professionals.
Bill DeHaas: You write: “That passion and willingness to make a difference is what Dolan needs to tap into – I would suggest that the typical student he interfaced with in Rome at the NA College is nothing like the typical millenial in NY City.”
I would suggest that Abp. Dolan knows this. I think Cathy and you are making a mountain out of a molehill (to coin a metaphor). You should read the homilies he’s given since he arrived in NY.
The Church that is the virginal Bride is also the Church that is our Mother. (Augustine has wonderful texts that show how these two metaphors apply to the congregation in front of him, not to some “CHURCH” located somewhere off in the empyrean.
Are there any male metaphors for the Church? The story is told that Cardinal Madeiros was asked two or three decades ago what he thought of the ordination of women. He is said to have responded: “Oh, I wouldn’t be in favor of ordaining women. I’m afraid the Church would lose her male image.”
Susan Gannon: My “generous” interpretation of Abp. Dolan’s remarks in part reflects the great sense of hope and euphoria that his arrival in the archdiocese has evoked, especially among priests. We don’t appreciate having cold water thrown on it, at least not without cause.
Hello All,
First I’d like to thank Cathy for posting this very interesting interview and for the fine comments I’ve read so far.
I’ll try to follow Fr. Komonchak’s fine advice and interpret Archbishop Dolan’s closing remark here charitably.
“This “recovery” in confidence, he says, began under John Paul II and continues under Pope Benedict XVI. In his new role, Archbishop Dolan intends to keep it going. Being a Catholic is an “adventure in fidelity,” he insists. The Catholic Church, he says, has “a very compelling moral message. She calls us to what is most noble in our human makeup, dares us to become saints, challenges us to heroic virtue.”"
Others here have already noted that Dolan does not say explicitly what those in recovery are more confident about. I’ll try an educated guess: The recovery (assuming there really is one) is a recovery of confidence that the Roman Catholic Church is the best, and perhaps even the only, Christian church. I’ve wondered if one reason for John Paul II’s extraordinary popularity was that under his pontificate many Catholics went back to thinking they are privileged, belonging to the one church that is really true and the church that gives its faithful members the best chance of ultimate reward from God. I don’t know if I am right, but my impression is that John Paul II’s pontificate paralleled Ronald Reagan’s presidency. I think Reagan was so popular in part because he made it “cool” again to think that America is the best country. One could argue that Benedict XVI has taken this thinking a step further since in some of his statements he declares that Protestants should be thought of as belonging to ecclesiastical communities, not churches. I’ve also noticed that in some of the more traditionalist Catholic media Protestant churches are always referred to as “Protestant groups”, and I think I’m on safe ground in saying that the people using the term “Protestant groups” think the Roman Catholic Church is the only church worthy of the name.
Hello again All,
Quoting myself (ha! ha!)
“I think I’m on safe ground in saying that the people using the term “Protestant groups” think the Roman Catholic Church is the only church worthy of the name.”
I should have said earlier that I do not assume that this is what Archbishop Dolan thinks. Indeed given what he says one could conclude that he thinks Roman Catholicism is special because it calls us to try to live especially virtuous lives. I’m only speculating on what he might have meant a recovery of confidence among Roman Catholics in general.
Anecdotal reasons given by my 18 years old daughter over the last couple of years to explain her disengagement from the church.
- “One thing that really bothers me: how can it be that my father (who is an atheist) won’t be with me in heaven after his death? How about my beloved cat?”
- “The music is terrible. If only there was god music, I would go to Mass”
- “The Catholic Church does not recognize the equality of men and women. When women are given equal rights, when they are allowed to become priests, maybe I will come back to the Catholic church”.
- (After we started going to a different parish with better music) “The homily is so boring. I would be happy to go if only the homily was interesting.”
- “Every religion claims to have the truth. It doesn’t make sense that Catholics would have a higher claim than people from different cultures and religions. Catholicism is intolerant”
- (After hearing about some sexual-abuse case) “The whole Catholic church is corrupt anyway.”
- Various rants against the church’s intolerance on maters having to do with sexuality.
- (As her science education and reasoning skills are progressing) “There is not a shred of evidence that God exists.”
- “x, who is the most attractive boy in my class, is the only one besides me who doesn’t believe in God. He reasons so well! Listening to him, I felt that we were kin spirits.”
My read is that she is just rebelling right now and is ready to use any excuse she can get her hand on at this point. But I do not see any of her complaints addressed in Archbishop Dolan’s response.
good music, of course, not god music! matters. Sorry for the typos.
A couple of thoughts:
I’m usually unhappy when folks talk about people whove left the Church and then tell what’s wrong with them -as though we (and I mean all of us, but particulaly hierarchy) havea lot to shre in the blame.
How nice if someone would repeat the famous Pogo phrase.
I’d like to see some epirical ecidence that xhastity problems play a big role in defection/
I don’t think the Archbishop was pushing “certainty”,; throughout my adult life I’v eheard from those on the catholic right about all the dangers of “confusuion” for us poor folks in the pews.
I’ll leave it tpo each to decide if the Archbishop is tapping into a bit of that.
I;ve seen the pride some havetaken in their “muscular” Church (whatever “muscular” means) and I think it too often is more analogous to jingoism in the political sphere -see how good I(we) am (are.
On the other hand, ther was Thomas Reese’s neat op-edin the Wasgington Post this week calling on our Bishops to losten more.
Having said that, I thought the interview here was about maintaining catholic schools (just as the Jounal North piece with Gary Stern last Sunday focused mainly on the immigrant community,)
I thought, on balance, the Archbishop came across rather positively.
Still, before any more cheers or jeers, it’s very early and how he’ll do is a question mark.
In the Stern interview, he said he wasn’t bring any baggage from BXVI, but I’m skeptical about that. As a history man, his analysis here of “wavering” Church and the uptioc since JPII sounded more adulatory than objective to me.
So I’m skeptical, yes. but I also think he brings far better pastoral sense than his predecessor and some real insights into the problems the Church in NYis facing,
How well he meets that challenge -a challenge that will require, I think, lots of colaboration, is what needs to be judged.
I am mystified as to what is meant by the “wavering” of the Church after Vatican II and the “recovery” in confidence that began with John Paul II. Isn’t this basically a criticism of Vatican II itself and the pontificate of Paul VI? Could someone explain this to me?
While I suppose it’s trivial, it seems to me that the concept of being “pro-choice” is taken by many Catholics to be in the same league — in terms of making jokes — as the Holocaust. And yet the title of the article is Proudly Pro-Choice on Education. And we have this from the article, “[T]hough he told me, with a roaring laugh, that he is ‘pro-choice when it comes to Mets or Yankees.’” It struck me as odd.
Well, David, those are my concerns. And I’d like to point out to Joe that I started the post by saying I was uncertain about his approach to evangelization–not that I was sure that he thought these things, but that I saw reason to be concerned about some of the imagery.
I think the “pro-choice” jokes are a finesse communications move, intentional or not, downgrading the term from a plausibly earnest political position to a catchall phrase. Though I wouldn’t know to whom the term would be sacrosanct anyway.
Fr. K – sorry if my comments were unclear. Please re-read….in no way was I negative toward Dolan’s comments. Rather, was trying to compare a certain youth group that both Dolan and myself and Prof. Kaveny have to work, interface, listen to every day.
I was trying to share some insights from Alsop and from my own corporate experience. I have no ready answer to the PEW survey information….do wonder if it is as clear as any survey wants to be.
I was trying to say that Dolan and the archdiocese has its work cut out for them and it will be challenging….some of his phrases I actually liked; some seemed unclear or not explained well.
Based on shared common friends with Dolan, they have stated that he is a wonderful speaker, very passionate to be a priest/bishop but he is orthodox, not necessarily very creative (exception – Milwaukee school voucher program), and is loyal to Rome (this part of the message directed to me because they see me as a liberal Vatican II catholic who is usually disappointed with much of what passes for pastoral work by our bishops)
Though I wouldn’t know to whom the term would be sacrosanct anyway.
I am not saying the term “pro-choice” is sacrosanct. I am saying it is so closely associated with the raging abortion debate that it strikes an odd note when coming from an archbishop opting not to pick between the Mets and the Yankees, and the headline (Proudly Pro-Choice on Education) is obviously word play that depends on the abortion controversy for it’s impact. I just found it odd.
It made me think of a sermon I heard as a kid (probably the only one I remember) in which the priest was emphasizing the evil and vile nature of sin and said that calling a perfume My Sin (by Lanvin — heavily advertised on television back then, but still around) was like calling it My Cancer.
But I don’t think a deep analysis of that will yield anything of importance. I am still curious as to what the implied criticisms of Vatican II and Paul VI were supposed to mean.
Bill: your phrase “very passionate to be a priest/bishop” caught my attention. What’s the difference? Are some people called to be priests but would not be good bishops, others called to be bishops but would not be good priests?
Good discussion and how we as Church can attract, show the flag and evangelize the younger one, this is, IMHO the key question. I think that what’s needed is most often shaped by our own place and glasses., My guess is A/B Dolan looks though the glasses of “how to attract priest vocations. Cathy, Fr Joe and other profs. look at students and maybe limited to Catholic college students. Jean et al are looking toward their children and I’m fixed on grand kids..
Don’t progessives and traditionalists agree on the key question? and one would think/hope/pray common ground could be reached and the bickering would stop.
The word ‘recovery’ has been used above and the best success in ‘recovery’ [AA et al] that has always been acknowledged is the ‘telling of the story’… both Gospel and personal. Maybe we should look to who have been the best evangelizers and copy. Bishop Sheen batted 350!
In terms of certainty, I think Catholics have an elaborate and complex intellectual certainty, and other Christian groups (such as Evangelicals) have have a simple certainty more dependent on intuitive belief than rational, intellectual conviction. Catholics believe something is right because there’s natural law argument, and Augustine said this, and Aquinas said that, and various councils said that, and it has been attested to by the Magisterium, which is infallible because yada yada yada. Whereas Evangelicals believe something is right because God said so in the Bible and they know it’s true because they have a personal relationship with Jesus and he confirms it.
I think it’s a lot easier, when you start out with the Catholic viewpoint, to become disillusioned about it than when you start out with the Evangelical viewpoint. (At least for someone like me it was.) One can only envy the very earliest Christians who could believe in Jesus himself without such concepts as the hypostatic union or even the Trinity being invented yet.
Religious faith seems to me to be first and foremost a matter of the heart (or of gut feelings) rather than a whole set of intellectual propositions. And when you don’t depend on all of those intellectual propositions, you don’t begin to wonder if they make sense or not, so your internal feelings are less vulnerable to attack.
Cathy:
What are the moral norms you think are mindlessly repeated? What are the “new circumstances” that should be taken into account?
I’m not sure muscle connotes “pressure” as much as it does strength, endurance, and reliability, a particularly apt framework given that we are called to carry a cross every day of our lives. And what happens when a muscle is not strengthened or built up? It atrophies and is useless. The person is weak and easily injured or toppled over or cannot help those in danger. We build up the muscles of our body to be strong, and we build up the muscle of the Church to bring others into the fold, to assist them in need, and generally to meet the demands of the faith.
It seems to me that, in his interview, the Archbishop has only encouraged Catholics to be confident, clear, and enthusiastic about the faith in all its manifestations. Obviously, this has to be lived out with love and charity, but charity and love are not inconsistent with moral rigor and strong witness.
I agree that the Randal Terrys of the world convert no one but the already converted. However, from eight years of Jesuit education, I know that emphasis on social justice, pluralism, tolerance and vague notions of love and spirituality — a desire NOT to seem to confident about Catholicism — have, not surprisingly, done very little to grow appreciation for Catholicism, let alone Christ. How does a “via negativa” model of evangelization address this? In a culture which radically doubts not only God but objective moral truth (and any truth, actually), why wouldn’t this be a time for the Church to strengthen its evangelization? Who would want to be a part of an organization or institution that is not confident and passionate about its teachings and its messages?
We don’t need Bill O’Reilleys, which is to say we don’t need irrational uncertainty. We don’t need mindless judgments. But we do need Catholics — priests, intellectuals, moms and dads — who affirm the importance of the Eucharist, Confession, the teaching authority of the Church, the importance of Mass, etc. In my experience, it is the lack of this emphasis — this muscle — that has led so, SO many members of my generation to think Catholicism really isn’t that big a deal, that it really doesn’t present a compelling and true message. In the opposite vein, it’s precisely this emphasis — which I saw as a student at Notre Dame — that keeps people invested in the Church and in the Faith.
I too would like to know more about the Archbishop’s views on the “wavering” Church that preceded the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. How far back would he go with this characterization? John XXIII?
I listened to an interview that Archbishop Dolan gave at a forum at Marquette University Law School last summer. He was asked about CDF’s clarifying note on Dominus Jesus that had just been issued. Did this mean, the interviewer asked, that the Catholic Church is the only true Church. Archbishop Dolan replied yes and that after all that was nothing new since we Catholics say every week:”We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” Well, the Nicene Creed in English is a text that we have had in common with Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and other Christian Churches since the early 1970s. They also say these same words every Sunday (This will change a bit with the new text that is coming since the re-founded ICEL is not allowed to join in ecumenical cooperation in the preparation of liturgical texts.) In any case, it sounded a bit triumphalistic to me, but probably I am part of the wavering Church.
“The best teachers (as Jean has stated) inspire via their example, passion and not via compulsion, rules, etc.”
I didn’t say this, and, though I agree with the spirit of the statement, I must disabuse anyone who thinks this is how I am teaching my kid.
Much as I wish I were a good Catholic example and had a passion for the Church’s teachings on everything–i.e., wish I were someone completely different than who I am–I fall far short of this mark. I answer questions. I note differences between Catholicism and various brands of Protestantism. I correct ignorance. The deal with Raber is that I do not discuss Catholic teaching with which I disagree or on which I waver so as not to confuse the boy.
Moreover, my my kid IS under compulsion to attend confirmation training, and he understands that he will continue to attend Mass and partake in Catholic indoctrination (such as it is in our parish), until such time as he can articulate to Raber and me specifically where he parts company with its teaching.
What I see in my limited purview here in the rural Midwest are Catholics who are remarkably incurious and apathetic–an utter lack of either exclamation points or question marks. Unless Archbishop’s touted Catholic talent for education suddenly reveals itself in my neck of the woods, the kid will have left the Church by the time he’s 18.
It will, I think, have little to do with Alsop’s observations about the Millenials and more to do with the aridity of Catholicism the kid has been exposed to.
Hello David (and All),
“I am mystified as to what is meant by the “wavering” of the Church after Vatican II and the “recovery” in confidence that began with John Paul II. Isn’t this basically a criticism of Vatican II itself and the pontificate of Paul VI? Could someone explain this to me?”
I admit I had the same thought. But since Archbishop Dolan said nothing explicitly Paul VI and nothing critical about Vatican II in his quoted statements in this article, I’ll assume he didn’t imply a criticism of either or both.
Also, I’ve had a bit more time to think about it and maybe it would be helpful to try to answer the question, “Who are the people who are recovering in confidence?”. Again, Archbishop Dolan does not say explicitly. But I think a plausible answer to the question would be those Catholics who follow Church teaching to the letter on some of the “hot button” issues, including especially issues regarding human sexuality. John Paul II was especially supportive of these Catholics, and I think he gave nothing higher priority during his pontificate than his attempt to restore more obedience to Church teaching in these areas.
Jeez, and all this because of a brief interview! Give the guy a break!
And a question: In this thread certainty seems to be a bad thing, and even confidence, too. (One might be tempted to say that some people are certain that certainty is bad.) Are they bad things? Is any of us without certainties? Utterly without confidence?
I was writing when Matt Emerson’s very fine comments appeared. My problem is how do we get there. I think various outreaches –Theology on Tap, lunch with the bishop, other diocesan and parish youth activities for young people tend, for the most part, to attract those already committed, or at least those in the inquiring stage. But how do we reach the many young people (and I have the opportunity to speak with quite a few) who were “raised” Catholic but just don’t see the point? These are very often young people who lead very good, caring lives. Whatever the method is, I fear that we are not finding it. The whole approach, it seems to me, needs a mighty re-conceiving.
The decline of Catholic schools is a tragedy, but without state aid as in UK, Canada, elsewhere I think the tragedy will only deepen.
Apropos Abp Dolan’s appeal for “muscular” evangelization to counterbalance the apparent wavering of younger Catholics:
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. Sir Francis Bacon
Rather than say that I know what I believe, I think it is closer to the truth to say that I know the framework within which I believe, and doubt, and wonder. —- Christian faith must not be seen as a series of propositions to which one assents. When membership in the church is reduced to this level, it cannot provide us with a community within which people may be transformed. Faith has to do with a relationship with someone, not something. It is not a party line. Seeing who this person is, as clearly as we can, is the reason for dogma.
John Garvey, “Doubt and the Community of Believers”, Commonweal, 2/23/2007
The Catholic narrative understands the life of faith as a journey, a struggle, an adventure, in which there are setbacks and reversals, but in which the Leader of our party is always working to get us back on the right road. There are times when we seem to make no progress at all, and others when we come across stunning vistas that awe us and bring us to tears. We work out our salvation in fear and trembling, but also in joy and excitement.
To disparage the faith of our youth because it did not yield a “peak” experience is like disparaging the road to Yosemite Valley because it is not Yosemite itself. In this life, at least, we cannot live in Yosemite all the time. For that, we must wait for the end of the journey.
Peter Nixon, posted in his “Sursum Corda” blogsite, Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Authority has simply been abused too long in the Catholic Church, and for many people it just becomes utterly stupid and untolerable to have to put up with the kind of jackassing around that is imposed in God’s name. It is an insult to God himself and in the end it can only discredit all idea of authority and obedience. There comes a point where they simply forfeit the right to be listened to.
Thomas Merton in a letter to W. H. Ferry dated 1-19-67, as quoted in a letter to the Editor in 10/2/98 NCR.
John:
Thanks for your message. I’m not sure how we get there. I think it’s a gigantic problem that has, as I noted above, deeper roots anchored in a radical doubt about all metaphysical knowledge. It seems to me that the deeper problem is not really the Catholic Church’s teachings per se, or how they are delivered, but the radical philosophical skepticism. Here’s what I mean:
In most of my conversations with people — agnostics or atheists — about faith, their argument against Catholicism, or against God, or against organized religion, is largely incoherent. I don’t mean that it’s not sincere or that intelligent points aren’t made. Not at all. Rather, I mean that there is no single line of attack, no single point of emphasis, no one basic realm of concern where one can meet the other to discuss within a certain parameter of discussion. Instead, it’s as if all the arguments against Christianity and organized religion have dropped to the earth on pieces of confetti, each of which have been collected by those who dispute its truth, to be dispensed at random. (Think MacIntyre’s metaphor at the opening of “After Virtue.”)
Thus, in recent conversations about Catholicism, I’ve listened to people go on and on about the Catholic Church’s ban on contraception or its unwillingness to ordain women, followed quickly by doubts about the basic claims of Christianity or the existence of God. It’s obviously difficult to know how to respond. Once you’ve made some headway into defending some difficult aspect of Church teaching, you’re quickly thrown back into the basic arguments for the existence of God. If there is no God, I’ve wondered, what’s the point of debating whether the Church is interpreting His commands correctly? A buddy of mine got really mad recently about the allegedly “conservative” turn of parish in my hometown, saying it was betraying Vatican II. But not long after, he told me he never goes to Mass any more and doesn’t care what religion people are.
The message, at least with respect to those I know who’ve abandoned Catholicism, seems to be this: it doesn’t matter how it’s not true, as long as, at the end of the day, it’s not true. In other words, I sense a desire to reach a conclusion at all costs, regardless of how it’s arrived at. So, whether it’s because the Pope refuses to ordain women or whether God doesn’t exist in the first place, the conclusion is the same: Catholicism, Christianity, all of organized religion–it cannot be true. Somehow, someway, it fails. It has to. It must.
What’s the answer? I don’t know. In my personal experience, the people who remain practicing Catholics through their twenties (and not just as the result of having kids) are people who’ve grown up with a devout family that reinforces the teachings from a young age. As for me, I met some great Jesuit priests (I know: I criticized Jesuit universities above, but I have benefited from some Jesuits beyond measure) who showed me that Catholicism was deeply intellectual and rigorous, and who showed me I didn’t have to close my mind when I opened the Bible.
I was also a philosophy major, and I actually attribute a lot of the staying power of my belief in Catholicism to my intro to philosophy class — taught by an atheist who was a devout Platonist, and who believed, therefore, in objective good and evil. It was that groundwork that got the circuits in my brain wired to appreciate the claims of faith. (Which, I think, is why the classic model of Jesuit formation calls for philosophy studies prior to theology — philosophy does something to prepare one for the truths of faith.)
Is this thread about dissecting Abp Dolan’s thoughts or about young adults not participating in the Church?
I agree with Fr Komonchak that the tail end of an interview (that was mostly focused on the fture of Catholic schools) is hardly the best place to understand Abp Dolan’s opinions in depth.
As to why young adults are leaving: I wish I knew the answer to that! But rather than tackle that big, difficult question, I know ways that I know, with certainty and confidence, will help the Church: better music, better homilies, and dealing better with the sexual abuse crisis. Isn’t that already enough of an agenda?
John, I wonder why any reform of Catholic liturgy would have to be subject to an ecumenical review process. What would be the point?
Matt: very interesting. It’s almost as if you had been listening to my conversations with my daughter! But, you know, she is not a universal sceptic: on the contrary, she has a fanatical belief in Science. There is no mystery, she claims: everything either is or will son be understood by science. Spiritual experiences can be explained by psychology. She replace religious faith by limitless faith in science.
Jimmy Mac: You cite, I believe, Peter Nixon: “The Catholic narrative understands the life of faith as a journey, a struggle, an adventure, in which there are setbacks and reversals, but in which the Leader of our party is always working to get us back on the right road.”
Is it certain that faith is a journey? Is it certain that our Leader is always getting us back on the right road? Why such confidence?
A private correspondent tells me about two recent manuscript discoveries that are pertinent to the theme of this thread, both were found in the Codex Wanderiensis found in a cupbard in Schloss Glockenspiel, Germany. The first is a manuscript that calls into question the famous section of the Exultet, the triumphant hymn to the Easter candle sung at the beginning of the Easter Vigil, where the deacon sings “Haec est nox”. It turns out that these should be translated: “This may be the night when first you saved our fathers… This may be the night when the pillar of fire destroyed the darkness of sin… This is the night when some think Jesus Christ broke the chains of death and may have risen triumphant from the grave.”
The other is a new manuscript of the First Epistle of St. John, in which, it turns out, the key sentence should read: “What we thought we saw and heard we’d like to share with you, so you can have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is, perhaps, with God and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing to you so that our wavering may be complete.”
Thank you, Kathy. I could have been clearer. Let me try again (briefly!). In the early 1970s the English-speaking Conferences of Catholic Bishops approved the participation of their commission, ICEL, in the newly-established ecumenical agency, The International Consultation on Common Texts( ICET) (later changed to The English Language Liturgical Consultation [ELLC], in part to avoid the confusion between the acronyms ICEL and ICET). Out of these discussions came Prayers We Have In Common. These Include the Gloria, Nicene Creed, Sanctus/Benedictus as well as the Benedictus, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, Te Deum. The Catholic Bishops’ Conferences voted to approve these texts for the Mass and Divine Office, and the Holy See gave its agreement (confirmatio seu recognitio) to the eleven conferences’ separate canonical decisions to approve these texts as shared with other Christian Churches. In the revision of the Missal texts now under way by the re-establised ICEL (2003), some of these shared texts are being revised but without consultation with the other Christian Churches. This, because the Insturction Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) fortbids ecumenical conversation to those preparing liturgical translations for use in the Catholic liturgy. But please understand that there never was a requirement that Catholic texts had to go to other Churches for their approval. While a small number of texts were prepared for possible common use, the bishops’conferences and Rome were the deciders. And they decided in favor of the Creed, Gloria, Magnificat, etc texts that we have now in common. But Rome’s 2002 ends that possibility.
One of the great achievements of these ecumenical liturgical discussions, with Roman Catolic participation, is the Lectionary for Mass. Many Christian Churches in the English-speaking world adopted, with some variations, the system of the Roman Ordo Lectionum Missae (1969) for their Sunday readings. Not so brief!
Not so clear perhaps.
Rome’s 2002 DECISION (Liturgiam Authenticam)
Sorry,to take up all this space. It should have been Rome’s 2001 (not 2002) decision (the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship).
Thanks, John, I understand.
I had never heard this story before, and it sheds a lot of light. Thank you.
I worked in ecumenism for several years, and came away from it with a deep conviction that ecumenism as it has been practiced since the Council has put way too much stress on the publication of shared statements. We have real disagreements–is there any harm in saying so? Similarly, we believe differently and pray differently, so aren’t differences in our prayers acceptable?
Andrew Greeley is on record comparing the Confident (pre Vatican II) to the Confused (post VII) Church and states that he prefers the confused church. Unless we want Justinian, Charlemagne, Constantine and the other emperors and kings running the church again, chopping heads when you disagree, perhaps we should understand confusion as the price of our faith and work out our salvation with humility, fear and trembling. Not with the certaintly and muscle of tyrants.
Claire, I think the thread is about both. It started as a thread about what Apb. Dolan said about evangelization –which is why I didn’t feel the need to go back and read each homily. Joe K. thought I was reading Dolan unfairly, so it morphed into a thread on Dolan. I still don’t think, in the context of that interview, he was talking about basic truths of the faith–he’s talking about moral issues. I would have been less concerned if he’d mentioned Christ–once.
(BTW: an interview in the Wall Street Journal is a public statement toward believers and nonbelievers alike in a way a homily published in the diocesan paper isn’t. The Journal, like the Times, is a major national paper–and Dolan is smart enough to know that what he says there will rightly be scrutinized by more than his own priests. )
Matt, as always, extremely thoughtful and interesting reflections.
What you prompted me to wonder is this.
In life, as opposed to philosophy classes, do we believe or not believe any complicated framework for approaching life based on a discursive argument? Many people don’t lose their faith because of one argument –or even many intellectual arguments. It’s like a slow leak in a helium balloon. It just runs out. It’s a decision –or recognition–that’s cumulative. Somehow,this matrix for organizing life is not life-giving.
So when we try to get them to answer our arguments, we put them in a position where they need to justify something. But . . . . really, do they? To whom? If someone asked me why I’m not a member of any particular group within Catholicism. . . I could give a couple of reasons. . . They could reply. . .and their replies tend to be more elaborate and well argued than my reasons (I think of conversations I’ve had with people over the years from Opus Dei. .or Communio and Liberation ) But in the end, the answer is, that way of organizing life doesn’t resonate with me. I can come up with objections. . . critiques. . . but they are second order. The basic problem is an existential one. .. a lack of fit.
I wonder if that’s the same thing, on a larger scale, with people who move away from Catholicism.
“I think, is why the classic model of Jesuit formation calls for philosophy studies prior to theology — philosophy does something to prepare one for the truths of faith.)”
Matt, the Apostles would have never made it in your paramater. Many Jesuits and their followers have lost their faith despite philosophical training. Further, it is quite a reach for you to generalize that all those who support ordination of women and contraception are non practicing Catholics. Clearly, there is little science in your observation. It makes one wonder that the lens you use may be quite narrow.
We have degrees and we may wax eloquent but the real story of faith may be beyond us. Jesus seems to think so: “”I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.”
What attracts us to a particular group within Catholicism? I think the attraction is the same as the turn/conversion to the basic Way. It is more than doctrine or philosophy.It is seeing in someone that this person has found the Way and wanting what is seen in the other for yourself. Seeing grace in the other and as St Thomas A would say, moving toward it. In the recovery movement the ‘hearing of the story’ prompts the listener to say to him/her self I want what that person has… one sees in the other that spiritual recovery is possible and is moved to reach out by saying i want that [grace/ sobriety] in my life. Working with recovering people I’m so strruck by their encounter with grace. It no accident that the recovery begins with a ‘bottom’, an emptying of the soul. Another simularity with religious recovering and sobriety recovering is the tendency for the ‘convert’ to be a ‘stickler’ for the ‘rules’ and recovering is a life long journey.. Maybe evangelization will happen when more good people [saints] show themselves.
Not sure whether this helps the conversation, but I analyzed the O’Grady’s story the way I might for my students, and here’s what I found FWIW at this late date.
Of the 1,714 words in O’Grady’s op-ed piece, about 850 are direct quotes, and 850 are O’Grady’s narrative. That’s a pretty high quote content, and on the face of it, it looks like O’Grady allows Dolan tell his own story.
Most of the full (complete sentence) quotes occur in the main section of the story (about 70 percent of the whole) in which Dolan discusses the shape of Catholic education and its past/present survival strategies.
Just 8 percent of O’Grady’s own narrative contains what I’d call “loaded” modifiers or attribution (the writer’s words that tend to lead readers to a particular conclusion or assessment), which seems about right for an op-ed piece.
But those modifiers and attributions contribute to an emerging media stereotype of Dolan as a kind of Pat O’Brien Fighting Irish character—characters who tend to be two-fisted doers but somewhat glib thinkers.
Some examples of O’Grady’s loaded modifiers:
–warm and gregarious personality
–beaming — and may I say prominently Irish — face
–joyful shepherd
–outspoken opponent
–sitting up in his chair and leaning forward.
–emphasizing each word slowly
–told me, with a roaring laugh
The final section of the story (“What has gone wrong?” about 15 percent of the whole) is especially problematic. It continues to rely on Dolan’s quotes—but many of these are only partial quotes, just words or phrases—without probing into what Dolan actually means. (Cathleen identified the problem phrases earlier in the thread that beg for more explanation: “wavering,” “evangelizing muscle that characterized the early church” and “adventure in fidelity.”)
The question remains whether Dolan could have offered more concrete insights about these problem phrases.
Those who have followed his career and his statements can speak to that idea better than I can. What happens in New York seems awfully far away to those of us out here in Michigan’s Dairy Land, though Lord knows we could use some of his enthusiasm Out Here.
Why do people leave? This is a really hard question, not least because I doubt if it has a real answer. Some random thoughts:
There is a presumption that runs like a thread through these comments that church is the default, and people need “reasons” to justify their decision not to belong or participate. (Matt Emerson’s post is the most striking in this regard.) No one owes you a reason for why they don’t go to church. I think church owes them a reason as to why they should belong and participate. If we started the conversation this way, it might, at the very least, be a lot less offputting as a basis for approaching those we think might benefit from church.
Like all things that have at one time or another been taken as a given those who continue to take them as a given are usually rendered incoherent when they are challenged to explain or justify those things — whether it’s a debutante coming out party or playing a sport or going to college.
I am convinced that a big problem with this generation of church leadership is that not only did their own families have an unquestioning (unwavering if you will) commitment to church, so did their social milieu: it wasn’t between church and no church, but which church.
The ground is shifting and the requirement for churches to justify their existence is growing every day, and the Catholic Church, in particular, seems ill-equipped to deal with it because its organizing principles, for better or worse, are authoritarian, and it seems to have adopted an even deeper bunker mentality during the course of my lifetime, one which accuses anyone with an original thought of “really” being a Protestant.
And yes, people do like certainty, but then, when their need for certainty lessens they end up rejecting the whole premise. I was struck by this when I read a review of Paul Lobdell’s book, which, if you have time (for the review or the book) it is quite worthwhile: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/books/review/Oppenheimer-t.html
And here, I think one thing the megachurches have figured out is that focusing on the minutiae (like the immaculate conception) turns people off. On the other thing, broad, formulaic constructs (God is great, God is good, God is awesome!) eventually wear thin (this was Lobdell’s experience).
Another take on this subject (extremely irreverent and unnecessarily piquant language): http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/05/07/god-talk-stanley-fish-blog-nytimescom/
A nice post from Barbara!
Is this thread about the Archbishop or why young Catholics leave?
It’s been (and probably should be ) both.
I can’t see how anyone thinks that our spiritual journey is a struggle, fraught from time to time with uncertanrty ( a certainty I have.)
I have certainty as a beleiver in the goodness, love and mercy of God mediated through a Church that is often enough weak.
At this point in time, the Archbishop faces major challenges -I’m certain of that.
I’m far from certain that his reading of the ‘wavering” church and “muscular Christianity” will will meet those challenges well.
I agree that we should “give him a break,” let’s see how he does.
But a healthy skepticism doesn’t sound so awful to me either.
Barbara: Thanks for your reflections. I wasn’t saying people “need” reasons to justify their unbelief. The plain fact is that people have been willing to give them. I will often ask a simple question, such as, “Are you going to Mass these days?” and in reply, people frequently unload their grievances with the Church, followed not long by their doubts about religious claims in general. What they consider the absurdities of Catholicism are, to them, the most proximate evidence of the absurdity of the entire enterprise.
Having said that, it seems to me that it’s not unreasonable to expect people to give some explanation or reason for their belief or unbelief, even if it’s only a lack of “existential fit,” as Cathy put it. I understand an existential impasse well. Plenty of times I’ve felt, often in a pew, “No way. All this cannot be true.” But it’s also true that a scheme or a framework that just doesn’t seem to fit can be altered or influenced by background theories, prejudices, misunderstood facts, etc.–all things that can be drawn out in discussion or in the classroom. Oftentimes I’ve found that people are terribly confused or often just plain wrong about basic Church teachings and basic philosophical principles–and yet their convictions are built upon this incorrect framework.
Cathy, I’m not sure I can generalize about how people do or do not adopt a framework for life. It’s probably a mix of emotive, affective, and intellectual reasons, mixed with instinct and something ineffable. As for me, I am probably most influenced by discourse and discursiveness. I only began to take Christianity seriously — and thereby Catholicism — when a theology class my senior year in high school revealed to me just how deeply intellectual and well considered Catholic teaching was.
When I took medieval philosophy my junior year at Saint Louis Univ, we spent considerable time drawing out the distinction between essence and existence and the importance of that distinction in Christian thought. This was nothing short of revolutionary for me, and even today, six years hence, I think of that concept — and others — and note that it’s been extremely helpful for me in articulating to skeptics the plausibility of an uncaused cause, a creator. At this point, of course, we are not even close to the Incarnation, but the journey, if only fleetingly, has begun. It is remarkable how a viewpoint can shift with the willingness to consider new ideas.
I can think of numerous other examples. I remember researching my senior thesis on abortion and law and coming across a dusty 1991 volume of The Thomist in the underground annexes of Pius XII library, wherein I read an article on pro-life jurisprudence that completely reconfigured how I understood my own preconceived (and erroneous) notions of law and theology.
The point of all this is to say that I think people are prone to dismiss something without really appreciating why or investigating whether their reasons for doing so are consistent or valid. I think a lot of Catholics have left the faith or find it unconvincing because they have never been introduced to, or considered, the deeper elements that sustain it.
Nice analysis, Barbara and wholeheartedly agree with Bob’s summary.
Barbara – just finished Wm. Lobdell’s book, “Losing My Religion”……not sure it exactly applies to the original post and Archbishop Dolan’s interview. Lobdell was attending RCIA at the same time he was reporting (investigating) the sexual abuse cases on the West Coast.
Basically, in order to make sense of the sexual abuse, church manipulations, and his own faith journey – he had to let go of belief and refocus his personal direction to find a type of balance in his life. He basically lost faith in the institutional church and then his faith followed.
As he quotes Mark Twain: “If a man doesn’t believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does today, because now we can’t burn him.”
I’ve begun a new thread with a comment I made on one of Matt Emerson’s points.
Of the many fine comments in this discussion, I’d like to go back to Jean’s original comment, and Claire’s (very believable) recap of her teen-age daughter’s reasons for drifting.
I’ve mentioned once or twice that I’m involved in baptism preparation for the parents of infants. The baptism of infants is not universal; there are a number of Protestant congregations that don’t baptize until the child has reached the age of reason and decides for himself that he wants to follow Christ, with all that entails.
Yet in the Catholic church, we continue the tradition of baptizing infants who have not yet reached the age of reason, and usually have literally no idea what they’re being initiated into. And so, when we baptize an infant, there is the expectation, and indeed the explicit agreement, on the part of the parents that they will rear their children in the Catholic faith.
Something is happening, or not happening, between the time of baptism, and the time the child gets to be the age of Claire’s daughter (or younger; my fourteen year old might give Claire’s daughter a run for her money in giving reasons).
I read Archbishop Dolan’s comments as a search for a way to add corn starch to the ever-thinning gruel of the Catholic culture. By “Catholic culture” I don’t mean primarily the popular and public culture of news, books, Internet and films; I mean the everyday, grassroots culture as it is experienced around the breakfast table, at school, at family gatherings, and in the parish.
It is undeniable that the Catholic culture is a lot “thinner” for children growing up now than it would have been for my boomer generation. It might not be a wholly Catholic family (nor a whole family at all) gathering around the breakfast table; the school most likely isn’t a Catholic school; the family gatherings, if they’re like mine, are anything but a snapshot of the ideal Catholic marriages and families; and the odds are that the parish is probably given a miss on any given Sunday.
Catholicism is much more than a series of intellectual propositions (even the ones that we’ve grown accustomed to deconstructing for the last couple of generations). It is a way of life. And the social props and supports for that way of life seem to be atrophying alarmingly.
FWIW – my son makes his First Communion on Sunday. A traditional and joyful milestone. He doesn’t really know much about what it’s all about, and I’m not too worried about that, because I don’t think I did, either, when I was in 2nd grade, and after all, it’s an initiation – a beginning, not the final test. But initiation presupposes that there will be continual growth and formation in the coming years. And that’s the part that frightens me. I had the benefit of a lot of years in Catholic schools after my first communion – an education to reinforce and extend, and also a continuous swim in the Catholic culture. My son doesn’t have that to look forward to. If my wife and I can’t figure out how to do it on our own, with some minimal help from the parish’s religious ed, he might be sunk. And that’s not a happy thought.
A manly Jesus for the manly church …..
http://x44.xanga.com/c71f5141c3135239166834/b189165248.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HoDij8Z2tHY/SgnVHckKjnI/AAAAAAAAChI/VEOJl0u05MY/s1600-h/nan300x534.jpg