Born-Again Catholic
A short piece went up on the NY Times website last night in which the author describes her journey from a repressive Catholic upbringing, which seems to have ended in a falling away from the Church, to a rediscovery of her faith in the form of a progressive ”Catholic under protest.” I found myself sympathetic to much of the ”under protest” faith she describes, but I also winced at a few passages that seemed a bit to much like consumer religion:
I liked parishes that were racially and socio-economically diverse, houses of worship that were beautiful, the presence of women priests when I was lucky enough to encounter it. I had zero tolerance for folk masses, anti-abortion diatribes, ecclesiastical greed, rote reciters of scripture and congregants who refused to sing. (After all, as St. Augustine said, “singing is twice praying.”) When people in the pews were unkind to my generally well-mannered children, I crossed their church off my list. I preferred my homilists witty, lyrical and learned.
Passages like this seem to conflict with her “reform from within” attitude, as commended to her by one former nun:
One of the speakers was a former Catholic nun who left her order many years ago and is currently an Interfaith minister. She spoke of her work as a person of the cloth, her life as a lesbian, her 25 years with her beloved. The honorific “Reverend” precedes her name. She wears a Roman collar. That night, her address was filled with surprises, but only one aspect of her speech shocked me: her fervent recommendation that progressive Catholics remain in the Church — so as to be in a position to create change. She still worships in a Roman Catholic Church.
What is most concerning is that the church she loves does not seem to be the church that is:
I love the radical Catholic Church. I love that there are Roman Catholic bishops sticking their necks out to ordain women. That Catholic doctrine places mighty emphasis on the role of conscience in worship and creates fertile ground for conscientious dissent. I support dramatic change as energetically as I can. I withhold my cash from the bishops and hand my diocesan appeal tender to the Woman’s Ordination Conference and to SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). I devote much time and talent to working in the Gay Ministry at my church. I recognize it is my obligation as a conscious, conscientious Catholic to discern — to know that the church no more belongs to the Vatican than it does to me. The power of the Church may rest with the College of Cardinals, but its glory rests with people like me.
Once I accepted that being Roman Catholic did not require that I be a papist — once I understood that it was possible to be simultaneously outraged by and in love with the Church — I saw the obstacles to being a practicing Catholic in a new way.
I worry that this kind of “Catholic under protest” is not one who really wants to embrace a flawed Church and seek to lovingly reform it as the Spirit guides the hearts of ALL the faithful, but rather, she seems to want to support para-church movements that are doing everything but breaking with the church. This, it seems, is not the most productive strategy for reform. Mostly, I worry that she is just not being honest about where the church is and the level of commitment to the larger Catholic community that is required to change it.
Tags: born-again, progressive Catholic
What is troubling is that the author of the NY Times piece seeks to control the Catholic church to suit her own biases. By creating the perfect church, it becomes her perfect church, and by definition is biased toward her reforms. Where is the discussion of faith and discernment toward those changes which would be directed by the Holy Spirit? These would be the changes that the faithful have been calling out for, led by the discernment of the Holy Spirit, in concert with the body of Christ (us). What would happen if we each could create our own ideal church? It would be a monument to ourselves and the word universal would no longer apply.
Did God create the Church? Or do the laity or the clergy? Who is supposed to be the decider(s)?
What is the Church for?
I was so hoping that this author was going to talk about something similar to my own journey. However, such is not to be – I guess that responsibility is really lying within!
Anyway, I think that she sadly misses the mark of her big opportunity – and that is experiencing the change within. For me, the Catholic Church and its “repressiveness” from my childhood to it’s “acceptance” and “tolerance” today is much more a reflection of my own growth, maturity and shift in understanding.
The more I grow, the more I change, the more I deepen my spiritual connection the more “God” and “The Church” seem to change. Of course, God is unchanging and yet still able to reflect the changes in me. It is similar with The Church although I can’t quite equate God and the RCC. But The Church is big enough and old enough to absorb the reflections and projections of my thoughts, feelings and understandings — and survive.
That is one of the great beauties, to me, of being Catholic. Even though I was many years outside the fold in protest of its ways, it never really turned its back on me. Neither did God. So when I was able to come back, and indeed desperately wanted to come back, I could.
Focusing on the “other” who really needs to change for my life to be “good” strikes me as a fairly immature standpoint. Rather like a child. I’m happy to be a full-fledged adult, and struggle with the necessity that *I* must often do the changing if I want *my* life to be good.
Great piece, Eric, thanks.
I’m more worried by the name of that Times blog.
The power of the Church may rest with the College of Cardinals, but its glory rests with people like me.
All one billion of them… this person does not seem to have the patience for change at the scale and rate appropriate for this huge body. Often, even when you think you’re right, it’s still better to go along with the rest of the people, for the sake of preserving unity.
There are too many prophets out there.
On the one hand, I am in substantial agreement with Eric.
On the other hand, the author of the piece is probably more engaged spiritually than a lot of more “orthodox” Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday (or occasionally on Sunday) and aren’t “Catholics under protest.” It’s better to think than not to think, and she’s thinking.
“It’s better to think than not to think, and she’s thinking.”
Yes, but, if at some point one’s thinking leads one to certain conclusions central to the definition of the religion (in my case, conclusions regarding the divinity of Jesus), then I think one should also conclude that it is best to continue one’s thinking outside of the Church, rather than inside it. I think this holds even more so when certain conclusions are turned into actions (e.g. the ordination of women) that are contrary to the Church of which one is a part.
One may be a witness to Christian faith by belonging to another tradition (and, yes, I still think one can be a witness to Christian faith and not find it necessary to affirm the divinity of Jesus, but that is a MUCH longer discussion). Catholicism is no more an example of universal Christianity than any other denomination. In fact, when Catholics tend to make this claim, they seem strangely unaware of what it implies regarding the status of non-Catholic Christians. Simply because individuals around the globe can Catholic does not make it universal; it merely makes it global.
Grant: Regarding the blog title, it does seem rather Potsieish.
Let me clarify the above claim. If one’s thinking leads one to conclusions contrary to some central elements of the definition of the religion as proclaimed and taught by one Church, then one should also conclude that it is best to continue one’s thinking outside of that Church.
You won’t find it anywhere. But the first duty of the Catholic Missionary by Vatican direction is to set up the hierarchy. This means that above all the clergy is to control the life of the parish community. That controlled thinking is what most of us grow up with and is the reason some get very angry with people like Michelle. She has made an adjustment, likely because of her circumstances, may see things many of us do not since we have superficial knowledge of the church outside the official parish. On the other hand there are more than enough Catholics who think like her who attend services every Sunday.
Each person makes a particular assessment, forms a somewhat permanent judgment and keeps opinions to oneself. Perhaps “for the sake of preserving unity” or not to make a fuss.
It was always interesting to realize on visiting Sunday in the seminary that the families of seminarians had quite a different view of the church.
In the pursuit of order it was never in the interest of the hierarchy to deal with what the people really believe.
I agree with Joe Pettit. I also tend to agree with John Donne’s thinking on the “universal” nature of the Catholic Church, which, for many years made it difficult for him to declare open allegiance to any alternative: by definition, its failure to engage “the universe” made it less than universal, and by my way of thinking, still does. Having thought about it in this light made it much easier to fall away.
If one’s thinking leads one to conclusions contrary to some central elements of the definition of the religion as proclaimed and taught by one Church, then one should also conclude that it is best to continue one’s thinking outside of that Church.
I reserve the right to take this back or deny I ever said it, but . . . .
What if all the other churches have even fewer central elements the person agrees with? The author of the piece seems to believe all religions are in some way valid. (“It is through practice that I have come to believe that if there is indeed a God presiding over the End of Days, the particulars, the language and myth, various sects employ as means for understanding and revering God will wash away moot in the flood of some unified, unifying light.”) Most of us here were taught that the Catholic Church is the “one true church,” so we feel that if we don’t agree with the “one true church,” there must be some other “one true church” that we should belong to instead.
As I have said before, Christianity (and in particular Catholicism) portrays a God whose grandest plans seem never to work out. The first two humans God creates don’t live up to his expectations, and taint not only the human race but all of creation. God eventually reaches the point where he decides to wipe out all of creation and stops short of that only by saving Noah and the animals in the Ark. He designates a Chosen People who go astray at every turn. He sends his Son to his Chosen People, and they reject Him, so the Gentiles have to form the “one true Church” which has now split into something like 38,000 different denominations.
Maybe it doesn’t make sense to look for the “one true church” or even the church that is most nearly correct.
As one of my old bosses used to say, “I’m just thinking out loud.”
What a bunch of self-serving, selfish nonsense. It’s better to think than not to think, and she’s thinking?? Thinking what? Thinking about what makes her feel good?
Just think about the statement – “progressive Catholics remain in the Church — so as to be in a position to create change.” Doesn’t anyone else find this attitude profoundly arrogant? What if I said I will become a member of SNAP so I can convince them to support the bishops and stop their campaign?
What about her “conscientious” withholding of money from the Church in order to support other organizations? This is an example of a developed conscienence? This is thinking? Try giving to the Church and the organizations you support. Sacrifice a few lattes rather than freeloading.
Excuse my vitriol, but this type of attitude and some of the comments here get my blood boiling. The “orthodox” are not a bunch of unthinking, spiritually backrupt automotons. I don’t need this woman’s help.
What a bunch of self-serving, selfish nonsense. It’s better to think than not to think, and she’s thinking?? Thinking what? Thinking about what makes her feel good?
Sean,
Isn’t that more than a little uncharitable?
And how do you tell whether or not someone “orthodox” is thinking about what makes them feel good? What better feeling than to KNOW you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong? To KNOW that women can’t be priests. To KNOW that Christians who are not Catholics don’t even belong to “real” churches? Is it always possible to tell the difference between deep faith and arrogant smugness?
1)I found the article kind of curious and not worth a lot of the heat here -just another of the many folk across the spectrum who call themselves Catholic in…
2)A Church that continues to evolve and also devovle.
It’s pretty clear that it’s a Church deeply divided and little movement towards the center exists.
3) On Pentecost our Sermon was we were the real deal, the”one true Church” because we had the four marks of the Church.
Of course, those four marks come from the Church itself so the reasoning seemed a bit circular to me.
So how we shall evolve (implode?) as a Church is less than clear, the smaller “muscular” one fro mthe top or the splintered bottom up Church that doesn’t fit that mold.
I doubt we’ll solve it here -even with 200 plus posts
David
And how do you tell whether or not someone “orthodox” is thinking about what makes them feel good? I don’t presume to. You were the one who said – “On the other hand, the author of the piece is probably more engaged spiritually than a lot of more “orthodox” Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday (or occasionally on Sunday) and aren’t “Catholics under protest.” It’s better to think than not to think, and she’s thinking.” In other words, I didn’t make a blanket comment about a whole group (e.g. more “orthodox” Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday), I made one about this woman, who’s attitude (based on her writng) is immature, selfish, and consumeristic.
Do I know whether someone’s, anyone’s, beliefs are based on faith, discernment, and conscience, or innertia and smugness? No I don’t, but I also don’t assume that anyone who, for example, accepts the Church’s teaching on female priests, hasn’t thought about it.
You ask, “What better feeling than to KNOW you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong?” I answer, that’s actually something much more likely to result in not feeling good. If one really believes what the Church teaches, unless they are consumed by schadenfreude, wants everyone to believe it not so they agree but because it is true.
“Vigororous minds will not suffer compulsion. To exercise compulsion is typical of tyrants; to suffer it; typical of asses!”
Agree with many posts – lots of heat over something very minor.
Mr. Hannaway – one point…..at least this catholic is trying to find the truth in a loving way; is honest and direct. Withholding her money – gee, what a catastrophe. Now, let’s consider the numerous ultramontane, conservative blowback communities who have set up parallel institutions in the name of the church (of course, loyalty), siphon off millions of dollars as they build their own self-serving institutions and then call themselves the “true catholics”
I think I would rather have this woman than the Legionnaire of Christ/Regnum Christi; Opus Dei; Ave Marie institution; etc.
Our author’s peculiar view – the Church’s glory “rests with people like me” – reminds one not of the gospels but of Emerson, or her fellow Brooklynite poet, Walt Whitman:
“I celebrate myself, and sing myself”
Song of Myself
Here is some other catholic viewpoints: http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=30665
Interesting points from a Marist brother:
“One of the best reflections I have ever heard on Marcellin Champagnat, the Founder of the Marist Brothers in 1817 France, spoke of him as a man who was gifted for living, working and imagining in the in-between times’ — a man of profound hope. The Church of this early part of the third millennium is certainly a Church of the in-between times and like Champagnat we are invited to be men of profound hope, men who can live, work and imagine in the in-between times.’
In previous millennia the Catholic Church has understood itself best by seeing itself apart from the world, expressing the holy by separation and distance from the ways of the world. Missionary activity was understood as bringing truth to the infidel and there was a great gap between this life and the after-life.
In our millennia we are invited to return once more to the wisdom of incarnation, not only as a miracle of love of an amazing God, but also as the process that best describes how we are to become the universal Church the Reign of God. Living in the in-between times there is always the danger of splitting up into our own little groups, of giving in to fear or impatience and building our own little kingdoms with their own boundaries and divisions.
And yet this God who invites us to live and be Church is a God of inclusion, a God of all pervading love, a God of fraternal presence. So the Church of the third millennium is to be a Church of inclusion, of fraternal presence in the world. Not a Church of boundaries, borders, breaking apart. ‘either-or’ living. Rather a Church of reconciliation, Eucharist, ‘both-and’ living.
In the third millennium with the growth of a global sense of life presence and a greater appreciation of our part in the web of created life, it has become an urgent task for humanity to discover the possibility of unity in diversity. This is not limited to humans but includes a union of all that is created. We are invited to understand, celebrate and live the ‘communio’ that is at the heart of all creation.”
I agree with Patrick Molloy, and others who pointed out how self-centered this woman appears to be. There isn’t a grain of humility here that I could detect. I think this is what plays in secular media which accepts and applauds absolute self-centeredness as the right and proper attitude of human beings in their religious quest. There is nothing here to upset the narcissist or relativist, in fact, much to rejoice them.
As for thinking, I prefer quality thinking. I also prefer habits of charity. Anybody who dismisses a church because somebody didn’t look too favorably on her children is no model of charity, no matter how many good causes she is happy to contribute to. Crusading for causes, however good, is also a way of stroking one’s vanity. Putting up with your neighbor is an act of humility and can be a great deal tougher and more telling.
Anybody who dismisses a church because somebody didn’t look too favorably on her children is no model of charity, no matter how many good causes she is happy to contribute to.
The author said, “When people in the pews were unkind to my generally well-mannered children, I crossed their church off my list.” If parents have the luxury of choosing among parishes, why in the world should be be “charitable” and stick with a parish where the other parishioners are unkind to children?
I used to be appalled at the way people treated children (generally their own) at Mass, pushing them and shoving them as if they were unruly pets. The final straw for my younger sister and her husband that caused them to leave not merely their parish, but the Catholic Church (for the Methodist Church) was the uncharitable way my developmentally disabled niece was treated in Church.
If people are going to mistreat children in church, in my opinion it would be better for them to stay home.
Putting up with your neighbor is an act of humility and can be a great deal tougher and more telling.
There is a difference between putting up with the way your neighbor treats you and the way your neighbor treats your children.
Maybe the person who was “unkind” felt badly about it later. Maybe that person is a really decent person who was having a terrible, terrible day. But this lady will never know. Maybe that person was irritible because of being sick, or grieving, or God knows what else. If you knew their story, you might cut that person a break, you might even confront them (in a kind way) about how they come across. Charity is hard. Children are pretty good at it, actually, it’s adults who find it hard. Yes, parents are protective of their children, as ought to be. I’m not advocating meanness or child abuse! But the whole description sounded a lot like no real notion of community. Rather like choosing a restaurant.
One thing I noted: there isn’t a single reference in this piece to Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ.
But the whole description sounded a lot like no real notion of community.
Rita,
It’s been a very long time since I belonged to a parish, and I can only speak from my own experience, but I don’t remember any notion at all of community in the two parishes in which I grew up.
The welcome in a parish is where the evangelisitic tires meet the road. So few parishes have trained greeters. I mean trained… And I do not mean bulletin hand outers either. Greeters who can greet oldtime parishioners by name and people who who can spot a newbie and make contact as WWJD’. Somebody has to explain to our leaders that the guilty feeling of mandatory obligation for Sunday Mass expired 3 decades ago.
Not one of 50 parishes, in my experience, has such greeters and whose fault is that? The Church loves mandates, so why not mandate greeters??
Well, David, lots of people, of whom I am one, can counterpose their experience of community in the parishes in which they grew up. The small parish in which I’ll be living come the end of the summer is one example, where community is displayed not only at the eucharist but in the care of the sick, the bereaved, shut-ins, etc.
So after we’ve swapped anecdotes, where are we?
Patrick Malloy –
Fine analogy, the Whitman one. What an insufferable egoist he was. This lady seems about ready to crown herself a saint. No, I wouldn’t prefer the Opus Dei sort. They and she seems birds of a feathe- “Trust my judgment! I am the glorious onel!’
Rita –
I too wondered about that “meanness” to her “generally well-behaved” children. Were they noisy and somebody told them to shush? I’ve noticed that a goodly number of young parents these days think it their duty/right alone to correct their children in public. H,mm. She may be one of them.
Actually I sympathize with a lot she says. But I”m glad she’s not on my parish council.
Ann–
Have you read John Allen’s book on Opus Dei? He was generally “against” until he did his research for the book. Don’t believe everything you hear in the MSM about Opus Dei.
Trading anecdotes; where does it get you? Well, the fact is, Eric posted this story which is an anecdote. You can question her experience; you can show concern that she is not the “ideal” catholic (whatever that is); she may not specifically mention or use the word – “CHRIST” – but she is sharing her journey of faith. By the way, I can name numerous folks who use “Christ” in every other sentence e.g. Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, EWTN…..but the hyprocrisy is so deep I am drowning.
If you study James Fowler’s Stages of Faith, this woman’s story is a good example of someone who is struggling towards a mature, adult faith….not stuck in an undeveloped – “pray, pay, and obey” stage. We might want to see her develop more; appreciate her church community and tradition, but who knows what will happen in the future. At least, we might have more hope with her than with those who do not struggle, do not question, and blindly accept.
I find some reactions and comments to be “cheap” shots. Would agree with others who have not had such an easy time with current leadership in the church….do you ostracize them; do you judge them; do you point out where they have wandered from the orthodox path?
Would probably agree with Ms. Olivier – respect her faith expression – may not agree with all of her points and probably would not want her on the parish council but her thoughts and feelings make you stop and think. Sometimes, the only thing we can do is “Listen!”
Another story that resonates with more of us than those unique parishes that function well:
“One of the greatest difficulties associated with the current shortage of ordained celibate men is that the priest has devolved from pastor to functionary: come in, say Mass, perform a few baptisms, rearrange a schedule to preside at a funeral or two, and on to the next parish. It might seem wonderful to be able to make assignments based on “job qualifications” and traveling distance; however, where does the personality and character of the men being assigned fit into the picture?
Right now, we are in midst of the annual “June changeover,” and our church is hoping to get a real pastor this time — someone who (1) has some inkling of how to interact with children in the parish school; (2) is not the usual 40-something case of delayed adolescence; (3) truly values the parish elderly who, without fanfare, manage all the parish outreach to the poor and marginalized; (4) understands that the Liturgy is worship, not a stage on which he is to prance about dramatically and act as if he is in a mystical trance; (5) knows how to deliver a sound, theologically-based homily without the magical superstitious claptrap of the old devotionalisms.
Yes, we continue to hope, but given the guys out there, we doubt that even one of the above desirable traits will be found in the next one assigned. But the human element, the personality and individual character traits are so much more important.”
Different story than the one Eric has posted but it expresses some of the same frustration with the institutional church.
(BTW – Mark, have read Allen’s book twice and re-read a number of chapters. My sense is that Allen tried to be as even-handed as possible – yes, there are some good things that happen; but, read it again. His conclusion is not all that positive – yes, he saw an organization that the PC defines differently and negatively but not sure that even Allen would say that it is positive.)
My question was a serious one: what can we do besides trade anecdotes. I don’t universalize from single examples, and I don’t think others should either. Where should the discussion go to be more fruitful, something more than another hashing of the same carcass.
As for “those unique parishes that function well”: Does “unique” here mean “rare”? I think there are more of them than one might guess from this blog. And they’re alive at all levels: committed Christians among both laity and clergy.
I brought up the absence of Christ from the woman’s story because, as someone noted above, she made rather vague statements about “the infinite creative force beyond space and time which moves and is moved by love,” And I looked for some reference to the specifically Christian belief that God involved himself in space and time in Jesus Christ. But I didn’t see one. I’d like to think it should enter into discussions about whether to be part of the Church–any Church–or not.
So after we’ve swapped anecdotes, where are we?
My question was a serious one: what can we do besides trade anecdotes. I don’t universalize from single examples, and I don’t think others should either.
Fr. Komonchak,
This is what I said, “It’s been a very long time since I belonged to a parish, and I can only speak from my own experience, but I don’t remember any notion at all of community in the two parishes in which I grew up.” Now, if I had said the following, you’d have a very good case against me: “There is no sense of community in Catholic parishes, and I know that from personal experience because I belonged to two parishes growing up.” So I plead not guilty to universalizing from single examples.
Rita E. Ferrone, very harsh in her criticism (I thought) had ended her message, “But the whole description sounded a lot like no real notion of community.” My point was that, based on my own experiences, some parishes have no real sense of community. The two parishes I belonged to, at least as I perceived them, were rather like banks. It was in no way important for anyone to know anyone else. What passed for social events were actually fundraisers. I don’t recall a sense of communal worship, and in fact when the “sign of peace” was introduced and you were expected to turn and greet your neighbor, my older sister was so upset by the whole thing that she cried.
So my point was that if the woman felt her children were unwelcome in some of the parishes she visited, it’s possible she was right. I don’t think she was obligated to stick around and get to know the people she perceived as unkind to her children to figure out whether they were just having a bad day. I agree it was “rather like choosing a restaurant,” and I am not holding the woman up as a good example. But she has been criticized so harshly here that at least part of me wants to defend her.
Speaking of Opus Dei, Fr. James Martin SJ wrote an article for America magazine about them a few years ago – Opus Dei In the United States – which was much less positive than Allen’s.
Mr. Nickol: Point taken, thanks. I thought you meant your comment to have wider significance.
Agree, David Nickol. Appears that the approach of not generalizing or universalizing from one anecdote cuts both ways. Yes, the parish you describe is rare depending upon the region of the US, the diocese, and the bishop. You have also taken an example and are guilty of the same universalizing.
Reality – some catholics are fighting to just keep their parish open; so points about style, community, etc. sort of fade in significance. Others have for years just wanted a priest on a weekend. Would suggest that your experience is very limited. CUA studies indicate that more than 30% of all US parishes are priestless.
Mr. DeHaas: I don’t know anyone whose experience is not “very limited.” I didn’t generalize (the phrase I used was “lots of people”), but supplied an anecdote in respnse to an anecdote. I am aware of the studies and of the numbers of priestless parishes. Among them, I suspect, are many that are, nonetheless, vibrant communities, and many that aren’t. In this thread, points about community were made central to the discussion, and so were not insignificant. I don’t think it’s all gloom and doom, and that there probably is much to learn from the vibrant communities.
Agree completely with your comments. I was making comments in relationship to others who seemed very negative towards this woman and her experience. As you well know, there are plenty of studies that indicate catholics – divorced, single, homosexual, blended families, etc. – that have not experienced the church via individual parishes as welcoming.
There have been some excellent initiatives in certain dioceses to welcome back catholics.
I have a few last points:
-As I said, the article struck me as curious, but I also beleive there are all sorts of different stories of folks trying to struggle, genuinely, to live a life of faith. Why the Times deemed it worthy is hardly clear to me.
-While some may flip it off as’narcissitic,” many of the posts here strike me as havin gresonance with Henry Higgins saaying “Why can’t a woman be like ME?”
-Last Friday, Dr. Jim Davidson gave his socioloigical generaliuzations about americam Catholics at the annual Msgr. Murnion lecture- the CNS synsopis shows broad swaths with different mentalities much divided in a common faith. Within those, probably loads of experiences and perspectives.
Moving forward will, I think, happen best at the parish level, but there will be tension still betyween conflicting views that need to be both heard and balanced off – the latter is the trick that I wonder wil happen well.
I am writing as someone whose experience is very, very, very limited. But it seems to me that a sense of community is not a sine qua non for a Catholic parish, since Catholic religious practice is very heavily centered around the Mass and the Sacraments and Catholics do not pick their own priests. I don’t believe if a group of Catholics were dissatisfied with their church and their parish they could start their own.
I have the impression, though, that many church-going Protestants look upon their churches and their parishes as not merely places to worship but also to socialize and to help each other out when someone is in need.
I am not saying there are no Catholic parishes, or few Catholic parishes, that have a real sense of community, and I don’t know how many Catholic parishes lack a sense of community. But it does seem to me that it is easier for a Catholic parish to exist without a sense of community, because the parishioners don’t hire the priest, don’t need to think highly of him for the Mass and the sacraments to be valid, and are required to attend whether they want to or not (although apparently in this day and age a lot fewer people take the requirements seriously).
By the way, I did think Fr. Komonchak’s observance that Jesus was not mentioned in the woman’s article was the most telling observation in the thread. I am embarrassed not to have noticed the omission.
If you find a non-vibrant parish that does not have a sense of community, the problem more likely lies with the parishioners than the clergy.
David Nickol,
If I may….Are you Catholic? Do you practice in some way or another? I always assumed most everyone here was Catholic, believed in Jesus Christ, and practiced the faith at least sometimes or in some way.
It is beginning to seem that some of the most frequent commenters ( Joe Petit, Barbara, if I read her comment correctly) on this blog aren’t practicing Catholics. Nothing wrong with that, but it surprises me, and makes me wonder why some commenters spend so much time on this blog. Are these commenters trying to deconvert us? Why the fascination with this blog and with things Catholic?
I do not mean this to say in any way that I don’t welcome your comments because I do.
As usual, I have appreciated David Nichol’s comments and am grateful to him for the points he raises. I would add that speaking from one’s own experience does exhibit humility. I respect this. And I heard it both in the story of David’s sister and in his own experience of growing up in parishes where no community was evident to him. It is tragic, and true, that with all our Eucharistic theology and devotion, there are many Catholic parishes that miss the point of the Eucharist. It is to make us one: not merely in a metaphysical sense but yes, as a living, breathing, flawed and gifted community in which the Spirit dwells and Christ is present.
When this lived sense of community is lacking, the Eucharist becomes a private devotion. And indeed, personal tastes and preoccupations loom larger than they should. I’ve struggled with this question a lot, not only as a matter of description, but in the sense of how does a parish get better at this? How do we move from consumerism to Christian community?
Fr. Komonchak’s experience may have something to teach us, as well. I think we do need to look at places where it “works” and learn from them, as well as to look at experiences where it had not worked and ask why. Not to diminish anyone’s credibility, but to find something in the experience of another that can lead to insight.
David Proska –
No, I haven’t read Allen’s book on Opus Dei. But I do accept his description of some of the groups as sincere, charitable, etc., etc. However, I knew a highly intelligent, apparently well-meaning man who had been trained in Opus Dei in Spain itself, and it seems to have scarred him for life. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his stories of power-grabbing, even sadistic clergy imposing their uncritical wills on initially idealistic members. This wouldn’t be so awful if the organization weren’t so committed to secrecy. God alone knows what really happens with them. I suspect it varies from place to place.
Sometimes I wonder if the emphasis put on the parish/community is becoming a sort of idolization of the group. ISTM the life of faith is a both/and life — community and private prayer and action.
I think it’s tragic that more parishes don’t teach contemplative prayer. I have the Fr. Keating tapes on Centering Prayer which I played for my parish. 40-60 people showed up regularly, and mine is not a huge parish. Contemplative prayer is something which cannot be shared — though its effects can be, and I simply can’t believe that the Lord doesn’t intend it to be part of His Church, at least for many, many people. True, living a totally contemplative life is for the very few. But so far the Church has been too stingy in sharing it with the laity, though that is improving, Mother Angelica to the contrary not withstanding.
The Church Christ founded is a community which the early Christians drew many towards by their loving sharing grounded in the breaking of the bread.
The new CARA report on the front page starts with our Church in turmoiland cites a Catholic education institurte(which it would be nice to know more of) asworking toward (headline:Parish Renewal Key To Catholic Future.”
One of the glues of comunity is empathy, to listen acceptingly to the stories of other (not that one needs to agree) with the openness that all can learn and move forward.
So the story(ies) here may be more valuable than we think if we stop to listen.
If you read the comments to this story, besides a number of entreaties for her to become Episcopalian (!), there are predictable NYT-type diatribes against any and all religion as the source of evil and as the refuge of infants. Thus, assuming this writer lives among these type of folks, it cannot be easy for her to be a practicing Catholic, and even less easy to write about it in the NYT.
Are these kinds of spiritual searches to be rejected because they are intertwined with common cultural beliefs like a religious unitarianism and attitudes of consumer choice about churches? Well, should we kick out all the flag-waving Republican-voting militarists and the folks who choose their church based on the availability of Latin??? It’s just a guess, but I’m thinking this author is attracted by the church’s beauty, and probably some sort of transcendent or religious beauty. Is that God? Sure – it’d be no different than people being attracted to Catholicism because of Dorothy Day’s works (the good, true, and beautiful are convertible). Is it the beauty of Christ? Well, the jury is out on that.
I agree that if “Catholic under protest” means a whole bunch of activist, near-schism rallies, it’s very destructive. But I would guess that for younger Catholics (like her), where it would be just as easy (or easier) for her to leave, the “under protest” means something more like “I’m Catholic DESPITE all that” – but then the positive reasons for her being Catholic lie elsewhere. In beauty? Probably. Can she come to express that beauty in less amorphic, more Christ-centered ways? That would be great.
Just a brief clarification: the article made me think of Robert Barron’s wonderful comment in The Strangest Way, where he talks about the importance of beauty and saying that no one was ever drawn into baseball by being catechized on the infield fly rule or by debates about whether the designated hitter is a good rule or not. Rather, he says, people are drawn to the beauty of the game. I worry sometimes that, even if I agree with Catholic teaching about women’s ordination and the centrality of Christ as the definitive revelation of God, trying to LEAD with this issues, in difficult cultural environments, is not very wise. I’m not saying they should change. I’m just saying that maybe leading with spiritual beauty and with love among the brethren would be a good idea.
“When this lived sense of community is lacking, the Eucharist becomes a private devotion. And indeed, personal tastes and preoccupations loom larger than they should. I’ve struggled with this question a lot, not only as a matter of description, but in the sense of how does a parish get better at this? How do we move from consumerism to Christian community? ”
It seems there is a line of thought in the church today that one way for parishes to get better at this is by exalting the Eucharist more. Hence the suggestions of receiving only on the tongue, only receiving under one species, putting the tabernacle in the center of the sanctuary, and so on.
The American suburban way seems to be to have enormous parish staffs – fifteen or more – organizing and directing every imaginable activity for their enormous memberships (10,000+ registered parishioners).
Also, I would think that all of us have glanced enviously over at the evangelical mega-churches that seem to thrive on community and activity, attract young adults and Spanish speakers, and seem to feed the needs of parents with children.
Are these commenters trying to deconvert us?
JC,
I am sure no offense was meant, and certainly none is taken, but have I ever given the impression that I am trying to get anybody here to abandon Catholicism?
I was born and raised Catholic and went to Catholic school through 12th grade, but currently I don’t think anyone would call me a “practicing” Catholic. Catholicism is really the only religion I am interested in. (Although I do hope to know more about Buddhism some day.) The only three religious publications I subscribe to are America, Commonweal, and the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. The only two blogs I write on are Commonweal and Vox Nova.
When I argue a point, I usually try to stay within Catholic thought (as I understand it) even if I don’t agree with it, since I am not here trying to convince Catholics that the fundamentals of the faith are incorrect. When I do dissent outright (which is less often than people who find me annoying think!) on something like Humanae Vitae, I try to quote a dissenting Catholic. I am currently engaged in a discussion on the Real Presence over on Vox Nova where I am defending the orthodox view presented by one of the official contributors from someone who wants to say receiving communion is literally eating the physical flesh and drinking the physical blood of Jesus, disguised as bread and wine so as not to be too disturbing. Someone else is theorizing that the flesh of Jesus that we perceive as bread is actually muscle from the heart of Jesus (the evidence being Eucharistic miracles), and that Jesus in some way feels what is happening to him when he is present following transubstantiation. I am sure there are some there who believe, because I am not a practicing Catholic, that when I argue against these positions I am attacking the doctrine of the Real Presence.
I write under my own name, using my primary e-mail address. I know some people have valid reasons for remaining anonymous, so this is not a criticism of you (necessarily), but on Vox Nova (not here) I have been the subject of some really nasty personal attacks by people who use only initials and throw-away e-mail addresses. So I won’t demand to know your real name, but now you know more about me (vis a vis Catholicism) than I know about you, so I will ask to know a little about your history and current status as a Catholic.
JC: I think that Catholics and former Catholics make for some of the best thinking Christian types that I have ever encountered. Thus, I find the conversation here very enjoyable. Moreover, if someone is ever going to correct my heretical thinking in a convincing way, I will bet big bucks that it will be a Catholic. Thus, I wait.
I didn’t think JC’s post should have been graced with an answer.
I want to ask Jim P. what “exalting the Eucharist” means and how, Communion under one species, on the tongue and a central tabernacle(place of reservation) enhances the meaning of the great celevratory meal of the savin gevents that initiate the new covenant and bind us (if you’ll p[ardon the expression in the discussion here) into the community of the Church?
Hi, Bob, I’m not a proponent of any of those things, so you won’t get a very passionate apologia from me, but I think the underlying idea is that somehow we’ve desacralized the Eucharist and these are ways to resacralize it.
Dear David Nickol,
Thank you for gracing me with your response. Yes, you do make your arguments within a Catholic context, which is why I always assumed you were practicing the faith in some way or another. (Maybe you say the Rosary, or you pray to the saints, or something?) No, you have never expressed a desire that any of us abandon Catholicism, and perhaps I should have asked my question omitting the line you quote. However, that line was an attempt to express my sentiment that you and many of the other commenters here are not only critical (a good thing) of the Church, but you are downright negative. I find the comments here (not the posts) to be quite often spiritually draining– “doom and gloom,” as Fr. K. put it above. For those of us trying to live the faith, the comboxes are often a dark place to be.
Could there be a connection between this negativity and the fact that some of our most frequent commenters are not attempting to live this faith with us? I don’t know. Certainly this negativity is also found among practicing Catholics.
As for what I know about you, all you say is that you were raised Catholic and you imply that you do not practice. And, you tell me what magazines and blogs you write on. Well, my name is Joe. My email address is real, and I check it. I’m a cradle Catholic and I practice. I subscribe to Commonweal, First Things, and Magnificat. I comment here and at Amy Welborn, though not often. When I signed up for this account, I only used it to access online articles, and never even read the blog, let alone planned to comment, and so I just picked my initials. I have no good reason for being anonymous that I can think of.
All this being said said, I have found your comments in the past helpful, and you have personally made me adjust my previous attitudes/ideas about certain points of Catholic teaching. I did not ask this question abour your practice as a way to say that your comments don’t matter because you are not practicing. Instead, I just was shocked that anyone could spend so much time thinking/writing about Catholic things and not participate in the life of the church in any other way. You haven’t said whether you believe in Jesus or God, but I hope that your interests and your magazine subscriptions(!) will someday lead you to faith and church someplace.
It’s been my impression that most posters here are from Northeast, upper Midwest, and Louisiana, where Catholicism has been traditionally strong. Could there be regional differences when it comes to defining community?
For comparative purposes, an article on US mega-churches from Forbes (of all places):
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/26/americas-biggest-megachurches-business-megachurches.html?partner=popstories
They’re evangelical & huge: different from even the largest Catholic parishes.
“Spread across five campuses, Second Baptist has about 24,000 people attending one or another of its programs each week. The church has fitness centers, bookstores, information desks, a café, a K-12 school and free automotive repair service for single mothers. The annual budget: $53 million.”
Strong presence in West, South, and Southwest – and growing.
“Churches across America–like shopping malls, houses, corporations, hospitals, schools and just about everything else–have erupted in size in the last few decades. The number of megachurches in the U.S. has leaped to more than 1,300 today–from just 50 in 1970.”
Different makeup in class, age, and marital-status:
“Only 6% of megachurch attendees who participated in one of Thumma’s surveys said they were at their first church. They appear to be being pulled from other congregations or brought back into practicing their faith after falling off the wagon. Two-thirds of megachurch attendees have been going for five years or less, he found.
A third of megachurch attendants are single compared with 10% at a typical church, and the average age is 40 compared with 53. Twenty-six percent of families at megachurches earn more than $100,000 a year, compared with 15% at typical churches, which tend to have slightly better regular attendance rates.”
I have found over the now-years, that by far, those whom I would venture (if pressed to do so) to characterize as the most “negative” contributors to this blog tend to be those who do share the common denominator of self-confessing church-belongin-going Catholics. I look for David Nickol’s posts; I find his contributions to be extremely thorough, well-reasoned, and with a distinct lack of strident and judgmental tones. His posts are about the least negative of anyone who posts here. It seems to me that this condemnation of “style” as “negative” is a tactic to shutdown or slowdown unwanted opinions, conversation and participation. Nothing to do with the reality or the truth or truthfulness of what a person is saying, instead, a complaint about “negative”. I agree with Bob Nunz, J.C., you were undeserving of a response from Mr Nickol.
Also, since Commonweal is a journal for Religion, Politics and Culture, I imagine this blog is here as a mirror for the magazine. Therefore, for anyone to introduce accusations that because a blog participant doesn’t belong to a Catholic church, their purposes for posting here are suspect all further suggests that accuser is perhaps abiding and posting from a largely emotive sphere.