Future “Commonweal Catholics”?
The current issue of Commonweal has a conversation between editors past and present. In an initial discussion of how the magazine could attract more young Catholics, Peter Steinfels offered a typology of U.S. Catholics today:
I think there are basically four categories of Catholics middle-aged and younger. One consists of fundamentalist Catholics who want something, whether it’s the pope or particular texts or certain forms of ritual, that can be relied upon to provide their identity. For them, these things are not to be challenged; they’re to be taken literally. It may not be Scripture; it may be papal documents or other things. Then there is a neoconservative group that is much more questioning and intellectually adventurous, but whose identity is very much defined over against the secular liberal culture. And then there is a very large liberal group that has a Christian and Catholic commitment, but they are not willing to isolate themselves. They think that the secular liberal world-partly because of its Christian roots-has got a lot of good things in it. They want to be engaged with the culture and in conversation with it, not just in battle with it. They are not going to form their Catholic identity over against the secular culture. The fourth group is a more radical and political group that forms an identity largely around very personal, radical social-justice commitments.
I think that the third group is probably the Commonweal group of the future, merging into the fourth group.
I am grateful that there are four groups within Peter’s typology, and not the two who commonly appear, even in the work of sociologists (you know, us vs. them, good guys vs. bad guys, Cowboys vs. Indians). What do you think of Peter’s analysis? I was struck that the only designation of numerical strength was in his description of the third cohort as “very large”. I wonder how large it actually is and whether it is larger than the second group. Are there any natural affinities among the groups: e.g., between the first and the fourth in terms of fundamental religious commitment? between the second and the third in terms of intellectual adventurousness?
I’ve long wondered what the demographics of Commonweal subscribers is? For that matter, what the demographics of regular contributors to this blog is?
on November 11th, 2009 at 4:33 am
As a non-American, post Vatican II Catholic my view may not be apropos, but I find all of these cateogries totally irrelevant to both my faith and my position with respect to it.
Based on the categories provided, I’m not a “fundamentalist” Catholic, nor am I a “neo-conservative” Catholic. I’m not part of the “large liberal group” of Catholics, and I’m certainly not part of “a more radical and political group that forms an identity largely around very personal, radical social-justice commitments” Catholic.
I’m just Catholic – not a particularly good one, but Catholic first and foremost.
I’m sad that being a youngster growing up in the wake of VII and attending Catholic schools throughout, that I was held hostage to the personal problems of my religious and other teachers going through their own particular and personal faith crises and letting those crises leach into what they taught (or didn’t) to those coming up.
I’m sad that I was part of a generation that had to solely rely upon my own family to provide me with the basics of the faith and to be part of a Catholic school system that couldn’t muster up the courage to present the intellectual and historical bases for that faith.
I’m sad that I had to grope for all of this in adulthood, willy-nilly, with hits and misses along the way.
I’m sad that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater in the whole VII process.
If you want to be relevant to younger people then just be honest with them.
Don’t twist the faith into a construct of your own making based upon your own life experience in the 1960s and 1970s.
Believe me, this is a big turn-off.
Give us post Vatican II Catholics the relevent part of the Catechism from which you are basing your contention, with the contributions of one or more learned theologians stating their perspectives – and you’ve got it made.
You will have a free for all discussion, hopefully (but not always guaranteed) discussion, based on these foundations.
This would be a positive move, IMHO.
on November 11th, 2009 at 7:10 am
These seem to me to be caricatures rather than real typologies.
Where, for example, do the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal and the Missionaries of Charity fit in? I can hardly think of a more radical commitment to social justice. Indeed I would argue that the most radical commitments to social justice in the Church today are coming from the very types of people being labled as unthinking Vatican robots.
on November 11th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Sean-
I would disagree with your analysis of Peter’s categories and think it is very unfair to call them caricatures. Obvioulsy, separating American Catholics into four groups is an imprecise science–by its vry nature it has to be. And in Peter’s description of the first group, I do not believe it to be mocking in tone at all. I also know Peter personally and know he would never dismiss someone as a “unthinking Vatican robot.” I think if you read his writings carefully Peter strains himself mightily to try to understand where someone’s faith and beliefs are coming from even if he might not agree with them.
As to how large the second category is, that’s a very tough call. I can say this. Right now I am teaching a senior religion class in a Catholic high school where all the students are Catholic. If I were to divide the students by these categories, I would say by far the largest number would fall in the third (maybe 12 out of 20 kids). About 2 or 3 of them are in the 4th category and I wouldn’t be surprised if these kids no longer define themselves as Catholic by the time they are in their twenties. And the second group? I think it is still pretty small. Kids may become political neo-cons but not have much interest in the religious equivalent of it
on November 11th, 2009 at 8:08 am
33. White male. Father of 2 girls (4 and 2). Married to 1, once. Public school 1-12. Undergrad Catholic school – Franciscan tradition. Master’s in Public Administration Degree Catholic College. New Englander my whole life, college years in New York State. Semester in London England, traveled Germany, Ireland and England, Quebec and Touristy Carribean. Currently a federal civil servant. Self identified Republican in the lopsided state I reside – if I lived in Texas or outside North East – a Democrat for sure. Household income $100,000 – $110,000. Wife Part-time dental hygienist. I was sort of recruited by Fransicans during undergraduate years – but decided I wanted a family. Strongly influenced by and today by a babyboom Friar. Recently experience a very smart well spoken JPII Paris priest. Former parish council member. Subscriber to This Rock AND Commonweal – greatful to both in my journey. CCD 8th grade teacher.
Does this help? Or lead to only more confusion?
on November 11th, 2009 at 8:14 am
My son is going through Confirmation. He’s informed me that he’s not sure he wants to be a Catholic, but believes the Church can help him be a good person. He has also been extremely turned off by Protestant churches I’ve let him attend with friends.
He doesn’t want answers so much as engagement. The priest is unwilling to provide this; he has never attended any Confirmation sessions. Sadly, our deacon has developed health problems and can no longer participate. The volunteer running Confirmation is doing very little to impart any of the history or basics of the faith. Seems to be more a service club than anything else.
Like Catherine above, his catechesis comes from his parents. One of whom is no longer a practicing Catholic, but takes seriously her commitment to raise a better Catholic than she is able to be. Tuition at a Catholic school is far more than we can pay, and the only high school is 40 miles away.
While Commonweal is way over his head at this point (except for the movie reviews and cartoons–the bishops in the “boys only” treehouse was a recent fave–I think he will find it (and other Catholic publications) a vital part of his engagement with other Catholics.
on November 11th, 2009 at 9:08 am
“I’m sad that being a youngster growing up in the wake of VII… I was held hostage to the personal problems of my religious and other teachers going through their own particular and personal faith crises and letting those crises leach into what they taught (or didn’t) to those coming up.”
As an early-30s cradle Catholic I absolutely resonate with this statement. I heard nothing about the saints or sacramentals or the rich history of the Church in my PSR classes growing up. Lots of Scripture (which was good) and lots of arts and crafts (which didn’t help a lot). I didn’t even realize my ignorance until it was revealed to me by some very wise and kind professors at my Catholic college. Even then I had to learn to pray the Rosary on my own.
Bottom line: I feel like I was denied a lot of what previous generations take for granted in the Church. That’s what I hunger for: the WHOLE faith, not just whatever seems “relevant” at the time.
on November 11th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Since neoconservatives, in Irving Kristol’s phrase, are often liberals who have been mugged by reality, I would guess that there’s significant net movement from category 3 to category 2 as a cohort ages — Commonweal’s target audience among the young might not be a stable one.
It would be interesting to learn how loyal younger subscribers to this and other magazines are.
on November 11th, 2009 at 9:50 am
“Don’t twist the faith into a construct of your own making based upon your own life experience in the 1960s and 1970s.”
Catherine, there were many in the renewal who did throw out the baby with the bathwater. But that in no way discounts the power of the renewal. The Vatican II renewal had a very sound theological renewal. For a very sound theology of renewal you might consider “On Being a Christian” by Hans Kung combines a solid commitment to Jesus with a theology which puts the reform in context.
There are always imperfect and sometimes bad examples, whether conservative or liberal. Nevertheless, that does not take away from the fact that Vatican II brough a very sound paradigm change to the church.
on November 11th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Anthony
I don’t think I am being unfair. Peter has set up these categories and compared and contrasts them. So when category two is “much more questioning and intellectually adventurous,” much more than who? Catergory one obviously who are not intelectually adventerous.
My experience is much the same as AthanasiusX. I think most people in their 40’s and below had this experience. Whether in category one or two, most of these people arrived at a more orthodox position in spite of that experience.
In my opinion, the intelectual adventure is discovering and understanding centuries of wisdom and beauty – not just “engaging the culture.”
on November 11th, 2009 at 10:16 am
The first group is probably the second largest, As Unagidon’s recent note demonstrates, these categories are imprecise, and fluid, with individuals acting one way today (say, on abortion) and another tomorrow (on the death penalty). John Allen’s descriptions of future catholicism, or of the cardinals voting for the Pope, are similar to these.
There are theologic motivations behind the groupings. Someone who sees God as far off identifies with the 1st group, while someone who encounters God in the people they meet will identify with 3 or 4. The latter want to know how people have grappled with their faith and come to where they are. The first group can’t abide that mediation of faith, and wants “just the facts”, as if Catholicism abides somewhere distant with their God, and can be described without passion or subjectivity.
The more specific a definition gets, the more likely it is that someone will feel left out. And the secure someone is in their identity, the more likely it is that God will burst into their life from a surprising direction and force a rethinking of faith.
on November 11th, 2009 at 10:30 am
It’s important to remember that this excerpt has a context (which, alas, is available online to subscribers only). Naturally, I recommend reading the entire article to get the fullest sense of what was said, but if it helps, here’s what immediately precedes the “four categories” bit:
The main question, it seems to me, is: should we be looking at changing the magazine in some way to serve potential future readers and subscribers? Or — if younger people who would benefit from reading Commonweal more or less as it exists now are out there somewhere — should we focus more on finding out how to reach them?
on November 11th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Demographics and background; 44 years old, married a bit late, and have one child (boy; 3 years old). We were super happy when our boy came along – it took awhile just when we were thinking that kids were not our destiny, God gave us our boy. However since we married so late and very soon were a bit long in the tooth for more kids, we use NFP and trust in God.
I am grateful to have received a decent Catholic education. Our small SD town did not have a Catholic school, but my mom was a good Catholic, and fairly deep thinker; she read Chesteron and Henri Rops and we did too. She taught forth grade CCD for about 20 years, she preferred the Baltimore Catechism and she help the local priest incorporate it into the local CCD program. We routinely watched Bishop Sheen on TV and I am still amazed when I hear a recording of his.
My dad was in WW2 and Mom was a teen during the war. Mom was well acquainted and well versed in the role of Catholic nuns and priests during the war. She went on a bicycle tour of Rome, France and Spain the summer before their wedding in ’54. She was deeply Catholic and tried her best to pass that along to us – seven – kids.
When the nuns would visit for summer-time school (a two-week affair) we always had them and the priest to dinner once a year. On the other hand, Dad was born and raised Lutheran and was not a church-goer. He converted in the mid-late 1990’s and prior to us kids leaving the house, he normally would attend mass only on Christmas. And so Mom dutifully gathered all seven of us and haul us to mass every single Sunday and holy day. Even when we were on vacation (camping) she would inquire where the local Catholic church was and the mass schedule. We camped mainly in the south and west and it was always interesting to attend mass in other towns and states – especially Colorado and Texas which had so many Mexicans and sometimes used Spanish at mass. We would always tour the building a bit after mass and in the car, would discuss what the priest said and would also comment on the form as well.
Sometimes when we travel to Chile to visit my wife’s family, my wife advises me that because neo-catecumenado groups are popular the “the mass will be different”. I always tell her that if it is Catholic, I am OK. To me it is a great comfort to be Catholic. I know that even as far away as Chile or even China, I will agree with what the priest says. And if I do not agree, then I will change my mind, trim my sails accordingly. For me it is simple: If priest is in communion with Rome, I will be in communion with priest – period
I am regularly dismayed at the poor catechisis my contemporaries received. Two of my brothers- in-law for example, admit that they have no basis or reason for being Catholic other than that their folks were Catholic and that they married Catholic girls. They always go to mass with wife and kids but each admits they often do not really know that the priest is talking about. Both say their memories of CCD class consist mainly of a good neighbour policy, and the flowers and butterflies and banners they would make to decorate the sacristy.
It seems to me that pre-Vatican 2 folks know their faith much better than post-Vatican 2 folks, and from what I have read, mass attendance has withered since Vatican 2. It seems like Catholics are not as “Catholic” as they once were.
However I think CCD programs are improving now, and that Pope Benedict will see to it that that trend continues. He also seems to want to tame some of the wild swings in form of mass by re-introducing some Latin and some traditional rituals and language; less like a circus or theatre, more formal. While of course the Pope certainly does Not need my approval, nonetheless I like Benedict’s approach and am very hopeful for and look forward to the future.
on November 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am
“The main question, it seems to me, is: should we be looking at changing the magazine in some way to serve potential future readers and subscribers? Or — if younger people who would benefit from reading Commonweal more or less as it exists now are out there somewhere — should we focus more on finding out how to reach them?”
What do your demographics look like now? And what do the demographics of magazine consumption look like generally? Does this target audience even subscribe to magazines? Do they buy them at the newstand or the bookstore, etc.?
on November 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am
This is very interesting, but on a practical level, I’m not sure I see much distinction between the first 2 groups.
I would see 3 broad groups:
(1) Those who have aligned themselves with the mindset of the American right: heavily influenced by Calvinism, individualism, and American exceptionalism; prone to an us-versus-them duality (whether at home or abroad); likely to appeal to inerrant teaching, with litmus tests of a small number of core issues; suspicious of communitarian and the role of government; supportive of US military adventures; vehemently opposed to the secular left.
(2) Those who have aligned themselves with the mindset of the (not necessarily American) left: heavily influenced by liberal Protestantism; places a premium on social justice issues; likely to play down sexual morals; more likely to define one’s own personal interpretation of moral issues.
(3) The middle ground: Catholics who try to think as Catholics in a holistic sense, and are suspicious of the individualist ethos in both economic and personal matters, but who at the same time engage the culture. Unfortunately, this is the smallest group!
Personally, I think (1) is more harmful than (2), which is why I think the direction taken by Neuhaus was a terrible mistake.
on November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 am
“how the magazine could attract more young Catholics”
As an undergraduate (but surely at least 21 :-)), I once almost got slugged by the guy on the next barstool, who was about ten years older than me, because he was a Vietnam vet and I remarked, in all innocence, that I studied the Vietnam war in history class. Apparently, it really galled him that Vietnam was being treated as a subject of academic study rather than as a real, lived experience. But what could I say – it was before my time, and all I knew about it was what I read in the textbook.
I think it’s as difficult for Boomers as it is for any aging generation to really understand that what is living memory for them means little or nothing to the generation coming up behind them. Thus – for example – Vatican II may have taken place at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council for all of the relevance it has in the life of an Xer or Yer. Their experience of the church is entirely of the JPII and BXVI years. All of the hopes, excitement and upheaval of the ’60’s – nothing.
If they went to Catholic school at all, a religious sister would have been an occasional oddity rather than an everyday classroom experience. That there used to be a lot more nuns but most of them left or died is as meaningful a fact to them as that there were once countries in Europe with names like Neustria.
on November 11th, 2009 at 11:24 am
They are not going to form their Catholic identity over against the secular culture.
That’s an interesting contrast with the quite recent post by Unagidon about his struggles to maintain a Catholic identity.
on November 11th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I am 73, and a member of group 1, deftly caricatured by Steinfels so that he can then preen his preferred groups (3 & 4) to appear as oh, so hip and attractive. Unfortunately the caricaturing is rather obvious to those of us in category 1; Steinfels cannot even imagine the mindset of us, the Great Unwashed.
What’s my background?: Only Catholic high school, from which I dropped out before graduating. Joined the Air Force for eight years and eventually had an epiphany of sorts (thank you James Joyce) and came back to the the Church. Went to college and earned a Bachelor’s degree in electronics engineering (secular college) and an MBA from a Lutheran University. My Catholic education was Sunday School (we were too poor to afford a Catholic school until I got to the 10th grade. I read widely, and managed to wade through a couple of Aquinas’ books.
My wife and I raised six kids, all of whom dropped out of the Faith. That’s life. With some reservations, I love Pope Benedict and agree with Ken that things seem to be going in the right (wink) direction. I’ve noticed that the liturgy at our parish has also been reintroducing some Latin, and we now have Communion bells again, which I always found angelic and lovely, helping me to focus on the Consecration. So, for me, things are looking up, and attendance has been slowly increasing.
on November 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Given that the categories are admittedly fluid, I wonder whether there is another criterion that can be used for classifying the switches from one category to another. And I’m wondering whether the basis for such a criterion might be whether or not the person went to college or not.
Given that kids whose parents didn’t go to college often have their values shaken up badly by “the college experience”, and given the influence of the colleges on the college-educated journalists and pundits, this influence might account for the fact both Catholics who change their beliefs change them because they have gone to college, The influence of the atheist/agnostic science teachers and of logic teachers of any persuasion would also account for those who drift away from the Church or leave it entirely.
I haven’t expressed this clearyly, and I’m not sure in my own mind just what is entailed by the exposure to critical thinking in college, but I’m quite sure that kids whose parents had only high school at most have been had their values shaken by attendeing colege, especially the secular ones. And I also think that the influence of “scientism” has had a very great influence on the culture generally. I think the Pope has it wrong — it’s not relativism that is the big problem (except in anthropology maybe), but scientism.
As a philosophy teacher in a school where many of the kids were the first to go college — or even high school — I know that the introduction to critical thinking can be devastating to some of them.
Further evidence for this possibility: I’m constantly complaining that dotCommonweal needs some psychologists to provide some authoritative input about psychological matters, but there don’t seem to be any on the list. And, come to think of it, there don’t seem to be any physicists or chemists here either. Are there any doctors or biologists here? If not, then I wonder whether the influencce of the atheists and agnostic science teachers have lead science majors and minors away from the Church. (The most highly respected scientists are mostly self-described atheists, while the less well-known are generally either atheists or agnostics, at least according to a study I read..)
on November 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Bob, there’s no need to feel insulted: if you’re 73, you’re not a member of any of these groups.
on November 11th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
**The main question, it seems to me, is: should we be looking at changing the magazine in some way to serve potential future readers and subscribers? Or — if younger people who would benefit from reading Commonweal more or less as it exists now are out there somewhere — should we focus more on finding out how to reach them?**
————–
You can, of course, pose the questions whichever way you want, it is your magazine/website. But I would suggest that the questions should be about doing what Jesus asked us to do (and this applies to all of us, not merely Commonweal): how can we best fulfill our duty to join in the mission of the Church to be His witness and spread the Good News; and, since it is His Church, not our creation, and we are mere servants, how to best inform others of the Faith and the Church (as they are, not as we would like them to be), a Faith and Church that are based on love and truth, i.e. brain-engaging reason, not blind “fundamentalism,” much less worldly political ideology.
Sadly Catherine Harding, et al., you are not the only ones who were robbed of the precious gift that is your Catholic heritage. We wanted meat, and got fluffy cotton-candy instead.
on November 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
A very interesting discussion. The London “Tablet” recently reported on a survey it took of its readership, and I think it published the results pretty fully. Has “Commonweal” done such a survey lately? I’d be interested in knowing the answers to the very interesting questions that Ann Olivier raises.
on November 11th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
School Sisters of Notre Dame grammar school, Jesuit prep school, Jesuit College, Masters in Church HIstory from Jesuit graduate school. Firmly in groups 1 and 2 after a brief flirtation with group 3 in parts of college and graduate school. What changed me? Fellow students in graduate school and reading books in the library that never made their way to the syllabus. Classes often devolved into hate sessions, with the teachers often leading the way. Targets? Bishops, conservative Catholics, regular church-goers who didn’t find time to protest the School of the Americas, the current pope, the last pope, Paul VI, Pius XII, Pius IX, the list goes on. My definitive break from that set came after reading Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and early Merton.
As for the Steinfels categories, I can see how they might appeal to people who are already Commonweal subscribers. They would generally identify themselves as being in categories 3 and 4 anyway. It’s a bit reminiscent of H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture models, and in a bad way, O’Malley’s four cultures. O’Malley also could barely hide his contempt for cultures 1 and 2. I would improve these categories by suggesting a fifth called “Future Unitarians.” Many of the most radical students I met while in the MA program were current Unitarians and former Catholics.
on November 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
The relevance of the point I was trying to make above is that people often change their religious beliefs/values because they learn to think critically. Most Catholic parents pre-WWII had not attended college, and their beliefs were pretty homogenous. Their college=educated kids *either* 1) learned to think critically and changes some beliefs or even left the Church, or 2) reacted so painfully to being taught to think critically about values they sometimes closed their minds dug into their parents’ conservative, pre-VII beliefs. IBelieve me, folks, I have had children of extremely conservative Southern Baptists totally close their minds against critical thinking in matters of values, and they would *tell* me they did!)
In other words, we need to look at the influence of college education when trying to categorize American Catholics). It might turn out that “conservative Catholic” and “liberal Catholic” are both family resemblance terms, and I think Peter Steinfels categories move in that direction — they overlap and are fluid.
on November 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Thank you Peter for the categories, though not perfect, I think they do shed some light on basic demographic trends and importantly add something to the conversation of where the church is and where it is going (also, where commonweal is and where it is going!).
I am a Canadian Catholic, 28, very recently divorced (bless my ex), a former seminarian, conservative politically and liberal theologically (that is, I am a fan of capitalism, against abortion, unconvinced on gay marriage legality, do not think all religions equal, love Aquinas, can’t stand Augustine, prefer Rahner to Ratzinger). I suppose I fit uncomfortably in the third category.
I also teach at a Catholic high school (I am the product of the Canadian public system and secular universities other than a year at a wonderful seminary near Chicago) and I made a request to the library to order some Catholic magazines for teachers and students. Commonweal, America, First Things were my list but non struck a cord with the students or staff…unfortunately.
If I could offer some suggestions to commonweal, they would be:
Politically be more counter-culture and less American in the narrow sense. Macleans magazine in Canada does a great job being controversial and that sells magazines and draws in readers. Just look at the front pages of some recent editions: The Surprising Liberal Legacy of George Bush, The Case Against Having Kids etc. Maybe some Chestertonian paradoxes on the cover would go a long way. That doesn’t mean abandon your vocation, but bring in some debates, arguments. ‘America’ does a much better job at bringing in different sides it seems. Getting in trouble (Fr. Reese) is good for sales.
Secondly, contain MORE specifically Catholic content. Be it theological, liturgical, historical (oh yes, historical). Be unapologetically Catholic and brag about the Church, even if some conservatives hate lumping Commonweal and Catholic in the same sentence. I am a historian by trade, interested in the Medieval period and I love it when an author makes reference to/about previous events that parallel modern events. I am using A Canticle for Leibowitz (thank you dotcommonwealers for the summer suggestion) to teach the middle ages (sorry Germans, but you are the ‘flame deluge’ to the Roman Empire). Young readers, especially university aged students are ROMANTIC, love icons, knights, good/evil, paradoxes and conspiracy theories. Tilt at windmills, pick fights you can only loose. Don Quixote should be the patron saint of young Catholics.
And for the love of God, keep Fr. Komonchak around. He is amongst the best at subtly stiring the pot.
on November 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“there don’t seem to be any physicists or chemists here.”
There really are.
I am a retired scientist and engineer; I taught at universities and I worked at an auto company. I started reading Commonweal in my high school days (the 1950’s). I went into science, which bothered my New York Jesuit high school teachers. There was an article in the Fordham University journal Thought which asked “Where are our Catholic scientists?”
Doing science posed no difficulty for Catholics. The rules for “doing science” were straightforward. I was a decent “foot soldier” in the ranks of academic scientists and later in industry.
The problem is in the “big picture” items, which are really history and philosophy of science. Science is a part of human culture; there are fashions and fads, solid stuff and thin fluff. Trying to interpret the “why” of large scale trends in science work is actually “metascience”. It is not the day to day work of a scientist. Science popularizations are also full of cultural interpretations, and you have to understand the culture.
When I was a graduate student I had the chance to work with Fr. Stanley Jaki, when he was writing a history of science, and to see how he did historical work. He actually “did science”, experimental cosmic ray physics.
I have never felt that science work would push you out of the Church, but I did learn that “truth rules” in science were different from religion.
on November 11th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Hi Ann Oliver and Joe Kubis,
I’m a chemist (Ph.D. Univ. Wisconsin 1997), so there’s two! I second what Joe said.
As for your proposals about religious identity and science, I’d say: there’s little or no conflict between science and the Catholic religious tradition, whereas there are conflicts with groups who (think they) read the bible literally. The larger conflict I see is over power or authority; the major public scientists you know are aggressive and egotistical people, as well as smart and accomplished, and they want power over public opinion.
I think our culture speaks dismissively of religion; young people who have absorbed that may be attracted to the structure and authority of a scientific worldview. So I don’t see science drawing otherwise religious people away from the church, just benefiting from the existing void. If we scientists were that socially adept and good at recruiting, would we have been such nerdy outsiders in high school? Seriously.
on November 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Peter’s typology provides a good introduction to an important conversation. I wonder about the demographic profile of these four groups. Where are the young? Where are the immigrant Catholics? Where is the growth? How aligned are political and religious sensibilities? (Tentative answer: way too aligned!) Which category are soon-to-be ex-Catholics currently inhabiting? Where is the energy? How do they differ in passing on the faith? What is the fate of those of us who don’t fit in any of the four categories…in fact, feel estranged from all four?
I found Catherine’s comment trenchant but painful to read. The high school religious education classes I taught circa ‘69/’70 were long on collages, Bob Dylan lyrics and skepticism. I wonder about the faith journeys of my students. For those who have shed Catholicism, what was the ‘it’ that they rejected? I suspect that deconstruction of the tradition has created as much anomie as liberation and yet pre-Vatican II Catholicism was surely no longer plausible by the late ‘60s. Is it plausible in the late ‘00s? I know that my adult sons, good men all, couldn’t be less interested in Catholicism.
Most critical to me are the ‘why’ questions. Why do Catholics of the various stripes self-define as they do? Why do they seem to be so disdainful of those who march to a different drummer? Perhaps we overemphasize the cognitive/theological explanations and understate the emotional ones. Shrillness of tone and ridicule have characterized a certain thread of internal Catholic discourse for a long time and aren’t absent now from either side of the ideological spectrum. Venting can feel good but being on the receiving end can hurt mightily. I suspect that the estrangement felt by a progressive Catholic in a conservative parish is very much the same as the estrangement felt by a conservative Catholic in a progressive parish. The feeling of being dismissed, marginalized, even mocked. The rolled eyes, the knowing glances. Who wouldn’t seek out a tribe of one’s own for affirmation?
Thus, the proliferation of red and blue parishes. Martin Marty writes: “In one survey, we read, ‘Overwhelmingly, people said the people they met in church were extremely homogeneous with them politically.’…Members of religious bodies can lean back and enjoy their own kind, protected from the voice of ‘the other’ and, perhaps, from the word of judgment or mercy that they associate with the word of God.” (Martin Marty, Sightings: The Martin Marty Center, August 2, 2004).
The wounds stay fresh for a very long time. There is a certain allure to ideological retrenchment or realignment as a method for settling personal scores. Its premise: Repudiating the views of persons and institutions that have wounded us moves us closer to the truth. But does it?
Perhaps open-mindedness, the willingness to search actively for evidence against one’s favored beliefs, plans, or goals, and to weigh such evidence fairly when available, is the corrective virtue of the hour. In a Commonweal article that has always resonated with me, John Garvey wrote about tradition and modernity in tension:
“Before we can get a sense about the right claims being made by the traditionalist and modernist sides here, it is important to see what is wrong with both of them…To lean too much on a scriptural defense…or upon a continuous church tradition, could lead us to ignore or to downplay those situations in which we have in fact decided, not only as individuals but over time as a community, to ignore passages of scripture or areas of tradition that we do not accept the way our ancestors did.
“At the same time, tradition is an important voice – or better, a harmony of voices, a consensus – that should make us critical of merely contemporary understandings. Its strength is that it is, as Chesterton said, ‘the democracy of the dead.’ To think that the common opinion of people whose perspective is blinkered by the zeitgeist of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is wiser than the agreed wisdom of the previous two thousand years is, maybe, a little arrogant. Still, for many contemporary Christians, when traditional understanding meets the zeitgeist, the zeitgeist wins. It is assumed to be the correct, enlightened view.” …John Garvey, Commonweal, January 16, 2004.
on November 11th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I agree Ann; that colleges and universities tend to test one’s worldview.
The majority of the teaching staff is on the political Left, and they tend to beguile and/or intimidate students into questioning and rejecting their parent’s values and the values traditionally held by our society. In addition to a tear-it-down, tradition is dumb mentality, of course there is a fair amount of agnosticism or outright atheism in most colleges’ staff. All of this works against a student who is trying to hold onto his or her values.
Naturally, some students do exactly as you say Ann; they dig in their heels and refuse to consider what the professor is saying. Many more students simply go along with whatever the old professor with the grey pony tail is going on about, mainly because unlike the prof, they need to get their degrees and get out of college and actually earn a living. And so in addition to those students who have the energy and courage to actively and openly express their fundamental disagreement with the professor, many more students just put up with them in order to pass the class and move on with their lives.
This is part of the disconnect someone referred to earlier. The guy who got punched because the Vietnam-era guy did not like the fact that for the younger fellow, the whole war and all that entailed was nothing more than an interesting thing in a book.
That is life folks, and it is likewise with other things of previous eras. Younger Catholics don’t even know the numbers of nuns are down, and most do not think there is a shortage of priests either. Why? Because for them; it has always been this way. They also do not recall VCR machines and TV sets without remote controls. Very few would recognize a Rubik cube toy.
But to the matter at hand; I would say to reach younger readers, realize (really realize) that younger types do not subscribe to that many periodicals; they prefer e-versions of same.
Also, in discussing things Catholic, remember (really remember) they do not recall Vatican II, and when a Commonweal write knowingly refers to the “dark days” before Vatican II, it means nothing to them. They really do not know what you are talking about and frankly, few are interested. That style of writing really turns younger folks off – big time.
on November 11th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
As Mollie notes, we should read the whole interview which is a nice history trip of the evolution of the church since Vatican Council II. Interesting that Dan Callahan suggested that Commonweal merge with the Christian Century. Something like that might work since we now do acknowledge that so many others are following Jesus outside the RCC. Don’t we? No question if Commonweal is to survive it will be on the net. The only reason I read my printed copy was because this temperamental servor did not let me on. As far as I am concerned this blog has saved Commonweal. It is a great blog since more diverse opinions are shared than anywhere else in Catholic land. That is the true church. There has to be creative use of the blog and the net in general. Used properly it can solve the financial problems.
There are many issues to discuss about the interview but the bloggers went down the usual road of conservative/liberal and why Catholics leave. Up again are the usual complaints of some that the young prefer pre-Vatican II which has no foundation. I mean where did Matthew, Grant and Mollie come from? So give us a break with that dead horse. Peggy noted that the Commonweal editors are decidely younger.
When you break it down it is not so much about what you believe but what you have faith and trust in like the hated Samaritan who helped his enemy on the road. Too many times “beliefs “are pius lies which cause enmity but at the end of the day mean nothing. It is the faith and trust in God and neighbor which is the bottome line.
on November 11th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Focusing on the under 40 crowd, this is what I see happening:
Large numbers of Catholics falling away from the church. Small number that doesn’t tends conservative, with the liberals not being particularly engaged. (I apparently don’t know many category 4s. under 40, though I’m sure they are out there.)
For example, there are 5 children in my family, ranging from 45 to 30. 2 are hostile to catholicism (secular left), but 1 of them puts his kids through sacraments. 1 is not hostile but seems to have very little interest in faith and has not baptised her kids. 1 practices the faith, but is not engaged. 1 practices and is engaged and tends conservative (me).
So, in that sense, I do think that conservatives are most likely to actually read Commonweal in the future. But, I do think some young conservatives will move to the center, as I think is happening to me. And, as someone mentioned, the non-engaged liberal practicing catholic might be a good target, but it’s going to require evangelization first.
My poor parents. They don’t know what happened. They are Depression babies. They are liberal politically, and on church matters. But, they have some natural conservatism considering their pre-Vatican II formation, and their non-baby boomer experience. They get Word Among Us, the little daily reflection book.
on November 11th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I think the quadrants are very good as far as they go. But I wonder if they might be reifying something that we shouldn’t be.
Matthew Boudway pointed out in a recent post:
“If it is true that Christian charity can never be fully incorporated into political theory or practice, it is also true that Christianity changes (or should change) our understanding of justice, which is the preeminent political virtue.
As you say, charity is gratuitous and therefore exceeds justice, which is all about making sure people get what they deserve. But the Western understanding of what human beings deserve, just by virtue of their humanity, has been profoundly influence by Christianity. The Christian idea that all human beings are made in the image of God, and that our ultimate dignity does not depend on qualities we don’t all possess in equal measure (e.g., intelligence, physical health and strength, beauty) — this idea has profound consequences for political philosophy.”
Of course as Christians we whould be actively concerned and involved with improving the level of justice in any society we happen to inhabit. But it is easy for us in these times to get pulled into the massification of politics, where we start seeing our Christian duty as capturing movements and bureaucracies. Justice of course should be the focus of our political activities, because excellent justice is probably the most that a society can ever achieve as a society. But even a godly pursuit of justice can be dehumanizing if we begin to primarily classify ourselves in terms of the categories of justice we have created. We start to think “if we can only capture the bishops, or the Pope, or the Church, or the political party, or the government, then we could institute our superior version of justice and win this moral war against other people’s inferior versions.”
When we start to look at ourselves and the world in terms of things like the quadrants, I would hold that the question always moves towards how to capture the masses. Hidden behind the quadrants is that the categories mask vast human differences (within the categories) of moral development, education, and experience. We start to look for common denominators (and what is the definition of the categories themselves than lists of common denominators). But common denominators, by their nature, become more shallow as they become more common.
If we were writing a blog, a magazine, a diocesan newspaper or something like that, we can appeal to the masses by either being relevant or by entertaining them. We can’t credibly proclaim our relevancy by itself unless we more or less exclusively address the already converted. Successful publishing tries to mix relevance with entertainment. Since we believe that our relevance comes from promoting a particular order of justice, we like to believe that we are holding relevancy constant. The task becomes to entertain the masses to pull them into our system of relevancy. And this, in my opinion, is how the concept of justice becomes consumerized and how people, classifed basically as consumers, become reified in things like the “quadrants”.
How do we break out of this? Perhaps a start would be to see that justice springs from, but is only part of, charity. Justice is charity’s beautiful pale reflection. Charity is the enactment of justice between real physical specific human beings. How can this appeal to readers? You may find this hard to understand, but I think we need less order and more sloppiness; more chaos. Real life is full of paradoxes and the fact is paradoxes can never be fully mediated by justice. They can only be mediated by charity. Paradoxes can be very tragic things, but they are very human things as well. We spend so much time developing systems that try to create order by redefining justice in order to eliminate paradoxes. It’s no wonder that so much of our writing seems abstract, sterile, and irrelevant. Struggling with the irrational and ridiculous paradoxes of life is really what most living is about in my experience. A politics that embraces these paradoxes, especially (of course) the paradoxes of modern secular society, could be something new and fresh.
It could possibly be a true Christian politics based on charity.
on November 11th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“The problem is in the “big picture” items, which are really history and philosophy of science. Science is a part of human culture; there are fashions and fads, solid stuff and thin fluff. Trying to interpret the “why” of large scale trends in science work is actually “metascience”. It is not the day to day work of a scientist. Science popularizations are also full of cultural interpretations, and you have to understand the culture.”
Mr. Kubis –
Thanks for your reply. Lucky you — Jaki! Maybe he helped you see that science and the Church are not natural enemies? There is another retired engineer on the blog, Antonio Mannetti. (Come on, Antonio, tell us what you think too.)
I must confess I wasn’t thinking of engineering when I wrote that post., probably because engineering still relies mainly onNewtonian physics (Newton presents few if any problems to believers), unlike quantum physics and chemistry to some extent. It seems to me that it’s quantum physics and to some extent chemistry (and perhaps I should add brain science and AI) that really pose the big questions these days, the metaquestions. Of course, I suppose that these days materials scientists do get into Heisenberg et al.
HOwever, I think Heisenber is a somewhat different problem — critical thinking/logic led to his conclusions, but it is his anti-reason conclusions that are problematic. At any rate, are these quantum physics issues important in engineering curricula? I mean as presented to they threaten anyone’s faith the way they easily can in a physics department??
on November 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Group 2 is rather strangely drawn. “Neoconservative” implies values having primarily to do with economics–is that what is meant here? And the prevailing culture–is it really secular liberalism?
on November 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“Charity is the enactment of justice between real physical specific human beings. How can this appeal to readers? ”
Just want to interject here that, since I began subscribing, Jo McGowan’s column has been my favorite part of the magazine. Her columns are perfect little gems of how to live a life of love among real human beings – often enough in a context of larger social and political forces.
on November 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
All right. 44, all public school education, worthless CCD education, learnt most of what I know of my faith from Mass. Not a group member although I’d be type 3 if I was forced to choose.
My particularity: not a Commonweal subscriber.
on November 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I’m glad that this thread has attracted several people who haven’t contributed much before. Welcome! All voices welcome.
on November 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Seeing this in context makes me think that there is a little whistling past the graveyard involved.
There is a growth in “conservative young Catholics” BUT they are a minority. A minority of what exactly? Almost everywhere one looks for growth and change and vibrancy in the Church in America it is among these people. The examples are legion.
on November 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Hello All,
This is indeed a most interesting thread. I would like to second Bill M.’s thread. This is in fact the only web log I ever frequent and Commonweal is the only Roman Catholic oriented publication to which I subscribe.
Like Bill M., I much appreciate the diversity of views expressed here and I learn from many here, even though I sometimes disagree with others here (including our esteemed Bill M. on occasion) and others disagree with me. Also, with only a few expectations we treat one another civilly and try to engage seriously.
I haven’t made a systematic study of other Catholic oriented web communities but the other relevant web sites I have visited out of curiosity are blood curdling, to be completely frank. It’s unsettling to find that there are people who hate anything that smacks of liberalism in the Roman Catholic Church to the degree that they openly rejoice in the expectation that the generation of Roman Catholics formed before the 1960s will die off (as if this will “solve” the “problem”). I’m sure there are web communities on the more liberal side whose participants are equally caustic, but I don’t know where to look and I don’t think I need to.
I wonder if we do relatively well as a web community in part because of the fine work of our moderators and in part because we seem to have no formal requirements for membership, since some participants here do not subscribe to Commonweal.
on November 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I echo Joseph Komonchak in finding it refreshing to hear from some other voices on this thread.
I want to pick up on two items that I take from Adam Marischuk (hopefully, not distorting his own view in the process).
The first is that one can be discerning about the inadequacies of contemporary culture without fearing that you will be tagged as “fundamentalist” or “neo-conservative.” My reading of Charles Taylor is that he can acknowledge the contributions of secularity without denying its seriously impoverished language and vision.
Second, one can generously celebrate the “Catholic thing,” its Christ-centered commitment and integral humanism, and be eager to share it joyfully, without fear of being tagged as intolerant or parochial.
Those young people whom I teach, who are attracted by the beauty of the faith, would respond. And, I believe, they will multiply.
on November 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Hello again All,
Since a number of us are sharing personal reflections here I’ll take the liberty of piping in with some of my own.
First, a general comment. I personally cannot think of anyone I know who has ever expressed gratitude for the way they were formally educated in the Roman Catholic faith. Everyone I know who went through some combination of CCD, parochial school or RCIA either complains that it was all “cotton candy” (as Bender so well put it) or “the nuns/priests/CCD teachers/RCIA teachers” from hell. I happen to have had some of both. Partly in reaction in adulthood to some of what I experienced in CCD I left the Roman Catholic Church for a time and reverted two years ago and am in good standing with this church once more.
I’ve wondered if it’s possible to teach the substance of the Roman Catholic faith to anyone who is not yet an adult without causing long term problems. I vividly remember being so enraged at the age tof twelve when I learned that indulgences still existed within the RCC that I immediately ceased blessing myself with holy water when I entered Church and I would not pray the rosary once I “learned” that one gets ten days off from purgatory for blessing oneself with holy water and that one gets 500 days off for praying the Rosary. (I only learned much later that the Church does not in fact teach that.) I nearly exploded when I learned about the legend regarding scapulars and vowed never to touch one. And don’t get me started on how confused and angered I got when I was first taught about the ban on contraception when I was a teenager. About the only thing I can recall my worst CCD teacher getting right was that when he told us about limbo, he admitted Roman Catholics are not required to believe that unbaptized infants and miscarried and aborted humans go there.
As a number of us have stated, we’re in effect on our own when it comes to learning the Roman Catholic faith. I think I can safely say I know more about this faith than do many priests and maybe even a few bishops, but I had to do it through self study. But the long term damage has been done. I do my level best to be a faithful member of the RCC and I obey all the church laws relevant to me (including abstaining from contraception in our marriage) and deny none of the doctrines. But I still have trouble with certain issues, including understanding indulgences – this is a doctrine of the Church so I must accept it, but I admit I still don’t want them (and the Church does not require us to receive them). I guess I still have a long way to go.
My bride, on the other hand, converted as an adult and also taught herself the Roman Catholic faith. She knows more about it than me and loves everything about it that has made me uncomfortable at times, from indulgences to scapulars to the reports of Marian apparitions. She thinks my parents are much more at fault than my CCD teachers for my being so malformed as a youngster, although I think they did their level best. My Dad having been raised in a mission country (Indonesia) and my Mom a convert from Dutch Reformed, they weren’t too keen on indulgences and Marian apparitions, either, though they were nowhere near so hostile as I was as a youngster. I’d love to see what others here think, but I just wonder if my problem is that some of the “hot button” doctrines and practices I have mentioned really are not going to make sense to people who are children or teenagers.
on November 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
My comments are, I hope, at least tangentially relevant to talk avbout Peter Steinfels’ Categories 2 and 3.
Autobiographically, my guess is that i’m several years older than Peggy Steinfels. Unlike her, I was reared in Louisiana, not Chicago. Nonetheless, in the mid 50s,during my college years, I spent a summer in Chicago, where I saw in action a vibrant laity. Catholic Family Movement, Friendship House, serious adult education and labor movement activity lad by lay people. And there were more such groups.Also there were wonderful priest chaplains who both supported these lay people and at the same time did not seek to control them. Apparently all this lay activity had the support of the Chicago Cardinal. And all this was prior to the convocation of Vatican II.
Then came the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, especially paragraphs 30-36 or thereabouts. The laity have a distinctive role in the church, not by delegation from a bishop or pope, but by reason of their baptism.
What’s happened to all this. Cardinal Cody shut down Chicago, these paragraphs on the laity have been scarcely thought about much less implemented with any notable sustained effort in the U. S. What we get instead is a determined clericalism intent on emphasizing its own control.
Some of us who belong in Category 3 will nto forget this part of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Some of us are too old to yell all that long or loudly. But we do not forget.
I realize that what I have said won’t increase commonweal circulation. I do hope that some of the suggestions others make herre will help. But maybe it is of some service to recall that Vatican II can’t be fobbed off as the source of al “excesses.” The reigning excess remains the restorationist clericalism to be seen in people like Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Finn, Archbishop Burke, etc.
on November 11th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
A number of the posts here somehow wind up focusing on the topic of bad CCD education. Having taught 8th grade CCD for about 10 years at one time, I have to say that it just isn’t true that there is such a lack of instruction on basic Catholic teachings. My parish’s program used a widely used textbook by Sadlier, and it went closely through the sacraments and the Creed. Every lesson centered on an essential Catholic teaching. There are also facts and terms on Catholic practices to study.
It is geared to eight-graders, though. It’s not meant to be the end of the line for religious instruction. That’s why there needs to be more emphasis on adult faith formation programs.
The downfall of CCD programs is lack of parental interest, not lack of substance. If parents aren’t interested in their own faith formation, they usually won’t encourage their kids to be interested.
One solution for parents (and a tie-in to the subject at hand): Read a magazine like Commonweal. If parents demonstrate a real interest in their church, their kids are much more likely to do. Every CCD teacher knows that.
on November 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Unagidon, anonymous blogger here. Insurance executive (hence the moniker). Old enough to have been told that I had to memorize the prayers in Latin if I wanted to be an altar boy. Went to mix of good Catholic and bad public schools, Jesuit HS, public University. Major religious influence was having an Irish peasant for a grandmother who gave me her own beautiful but not altogether modern take on things while loading me up with strong cups of tea when I was five and older. Spent some good years as a Communist as a lad, a direct result of my Jesuit education. Traveled a lot. Lived in Cairo for a while where I got to see some real Muslims and talk to them about Islam. Lived in Japan for a couple of years where I got do to the same with some Buddhists. Had the very good fortune to meet some real mystics, including a Catholic one. Since I’m old enough to have a living memory of the pre-Vatican 2 Church I have a good picture of the before and after. My memories of Latin masses and such were good because I was still too young to be tussling with anyone so I didn’t feel any sense of oppression at all. I did find some of the immediate Vatican 2 stuff (guitars and Kumbaya etc.) to be a diminution of what I felt before. However, I have never pretended to be qualified to tell other people how to worship and I could sense an underlying excitement with the new stuff that was definitely a good thing.
I don’t think that I fit into any of the four quadrants. It’s not that I think that I am some kind of fierce independent individualist. It’s that most of my attitude to the Church is tied up with my own personal spiritual history and I am probably a bit more sensitive than most people about how this is. I suppose I have a strange (and if you read my stuff, idiosyncratic) idea of what is and what is not important and I find a lot of the arguing that I see as being about things that don’t seem to me to be very important relative to what I believe should be the main thrust of a Christian life. I am an entirely orthodox Catholic, but I tend to believe that I can really only be hard line with myself.
As I have posted recently, I think that one of our core problems is that we have not adequately accounted for the difference between the life of an individual and the life of an individual in a society. The tension between the two will always be there and, more importantly, should always be there. I reject attempts to forge new systems of justice that don’t take into account human individuality and human propensities to sin. So I reject all of the political positions that I have been exposed to so far. I may sound like a conservative on economic issues, but this is because as a businessman (but former Red) I can see the great great gulf between the economic theory that underlies our great secular religion and what actually happens on the ground in real life.
on November 11th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Peter V.: I express my gratitude to homilists whenever I get a chance. I still remember some homilies from my college days. That’s one way to get an education.
Bob Schwartz: I am sorry that your 6 children all left the church. I hope that that is temporary. My daughter, freshman in college, doesn’t really go to Mass hardly any more. Although she will openly discuss sex and drinks and most other topics with me, church is a taboo topic because she knows I care too much.
Ann: maybe few scientists practice their faith, not so much because science is in contradiction with religion, but because people who care about their faith typically go into professions more amenable to doing good works, so to speak.
on November 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Hello Paul (and All),
Thank you, you have answered my questions. Wish I had been fortunate enough to have studied from Sadilier’s book and had a teacher like you when I was a youngster.
I was the same as most of your students, in that my formal education in the RCC ended when eighth grade ended. In the case of myself and my CCD “peers” there was no more “incentive” to take additional formal instruction although the parish I was in actually offered some high school CCD classes because we received the Sacrament of confirmation at the end of eighth grade. In retrospect I wish I had waited till I was much older to be confirmed, but frankly at that age I was too chicken (and I think some of my peers were as well) to tell the nuns who taught my confirmation class that I felt was not ready and would have liked to wait.
Do you know if a lot of your former students have remained Roman Catholic?
on November 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Hello Claire (and All),
I had a similarly good experience at Loyola Marymount University where I was an undergraduate. I learned a lot more from the homilies I heard at Mass there than I learned from eight years of CCD. To be fair, I was hearing a whole lot of homilies because I would attend a lot of daily liturgies as well as Sunday liturgy, and for me CCD was an hour a week on a weeknight.
on November 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Hello Ken (and All),
(I’m fighting a head cold this Veteran’s Day so I am indulging myself by posting a lot today.)
Per your response to Ann, I’m a college professor and I think it’s my duty to test my students’ worldviews, though I would never try to convert any of them to what I happen to think.
While I agree with you that younger people have no idea what people are talking about when they talk about pre-VII days, I think it’s part of a much more general phenomenon, namely that younger people are ignorant of history, period. I don’t think this is a recent phenomenon in this country, since most of my classmates in college were just as ignorant of history as are the students I now teach, and I’ve taught at six different universities including some of the best universities in the country. I’m sometimes amazed by this. Example: Last spring when I was teaching Hobbes to a class of twenty, I told my people Hobbes was born in 1588 and asked if anyone could remember the major military engagement in Europe that year. After looking at each other with some discomfort, one of them raised his hand and said “Napoleon?”.
So I would not be a bit surprised to learn that most college age Roman Catholics in America today don’t know who Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI were, even though I think these popes have had a far greater influence on the lives of most Roman Catholics than have had the last two popes.
But I certainly can’t blame younger people for knowing so little history when I find that some history professors claim that it’s Eurocentric to depict Cleopatra as a Caucasian, apparently not knowing she was of Greek, not of Egyptian, decent.
I suspect you are right that younger people are more likely to take an interest in an Internet resource rather than a printed publication like the printed version of Commonweal, though I much prefer the print version myself (which probably dates me).
on November 11th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Commonweal has to cover more of the Christian world without losing its Catholic identity. Callahan saw this need it seems and it may be time to shift this into a higher gear. The Pentecostals in South America coupled with the base community movement has brought a revival to the gospel perhaps not seen since the early church. Rome has noticed the power of these movements and has tried to dogmatize them as it has customarily done with all the great movements in the history of the church.
Yet this time the movements may be proven to be resistant than centuries past. Certainly there have been some fundamentalis sprouts from the Pentecostals. But for the most part there may be no greater example of the true Christian way than in South America and the global South in general.
The Jesus movement at the time of Augustus came from an unlikely place. “Can any good come out of Nazareth?” The same might be said of the Global South today.
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1529/60/
on November 11th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Hello Bill (and All),
I have a friend and colleague from Brazil who told me that the effect of liberation theology transformed the Roman Catholic Church in Brazil. Now of course she is only one person but she is from Brazil and I believe what she says. Could this be part of the grass movement in South America to which you refer?
If my Brazilian friend is right, and I think she is, I find it an interesting example of a movement within the Roman Catholic Church that has had a good deal of lasting influence despite it’s being mocked here in the USA and frankly despised by the Vatican.
on November 11th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I was a member of a small group that tried to identify ‘brands’ of Catholics. We identified those Catholics who have either self-commissioned or have the experience an ‘official’ commissioning in ministry. About 12-15 % are thus commissioned..by CARA studies.. Lectors ,CCD teachers RCIA leaders, Eucharistic ministers, greeters, soup kitchen workers, St Vincent de paul volunteers Small christian community members, some Choir members. etc All the above have exponentially increased since VaticanII. Their differenciation is that they no longer see themselves as observor, ‘praciticing’ Catholics but as disciples ‘ they are not the observor Catholics that were almost the entire lay church in pre-Vat II. Some are in each of Steinfels groups but most in 3 with a sprnikling in 2& 4 [ me is 4]
on November 11th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I left out a rather large hidden group.. leaders/activists in Lay movements..
on November 11th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Ed Gleason –
What about the St. Vincent dePaul Societies in each parish? Even my grandfather was a member, as was my father. And there were men who worked with parish organizations such as the CYO. In my childhood (during the depression) helping one’s fellow parishioners was often a matter of helping the poor. I should add that the women were often much to busy with their large families to do volunteer work. (How *did* Winkie manage 9 kids?) Women with only a few kids often did volunteer work such as United Fund solitication, etc. Granted, this was all part time volunteering.
on November 11th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Brazil is very strong Peter. Here in the US there is very little understanding among Catholics about what is going on there. But there are parallels with the gospel in that the poor and downtrodden are being serviced and doing the servicing. They are so organized that many have very strong political influence. Down there they do not have to sound high and mighty using such words as “the preferential option for the poor.” Faith and trust abound over any system of beliefs. In other words the true meaning of faith.
http://pewforum.org/surveys/pentecostal/countries/?CountryID=29
on November 11th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
It is more than interesting to read these posts and see such diverging interpretations of common phenomena.
Catechesis seems to have taught many a hermeneutic of rupture, and ingrained it so deeply they are not even aware of it. The V2 generation struggled with they way they learned their faith, and passed that on to their students, who are now dismissive of the way they were raised. That is a key to the discussion of catechesis, since it is more about formation (accepting one’s teacher’s faith) than about information (how to recite the same prayers as the teacher). There is a lesson in there about the importance of tradition, of not rejecting one’s teachers if you do not want to be rejected by your students.
This is distinct from Ann’s issue, though likely related. Poor catechesis no doubt led many Catholics to believe that critical thinking is somehow incompatible with faith. (It does not help that some non-catholic Christians believe that faith and reason are incompatible.) Such inadequate catechesis predates V2 by a millennium or two, but good catechesis would prepare individuals to be grateful for whatever is good and true, no matter what the source. Sometimes it is a struggle to integrate faith and reason, but the faith to face that challenge is what should be taught.
on November 12th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Jim McK –
You say, “Poor catechesis no doubt led many Catholics to believe that critical thinking is somehow incompatible with faith”. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but it seems to me that the history of the Chruch is one of great intolerance of dissent.
While it is true that certain medievals further developed the logic of the ancients for use by theologians, it is also true that the medieval Church burned dissenters to death. Aquinas himself was called on the carpet by the Bishop of Paris on the suspicion of heresy. He talked his way out of it, but shortly after his death some of his teachings were condemned as heresy. This extreme intolerance of critical thinking has sent a message to Catholics and non-Catholics alike that critical thinking is still dangerous to theologians careers.
I submit that this intolerance by the Church is a major reason why Catholics have left it in droves, and I’m not just talking about iacademics.
on November 12th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Claire:
I thank you for your kindness and concern, but the truth is that I wasn’t as good a Catholic as I could have been- not by a very long shot. I pray at every Mass that they will come back, but I’m afraid the sex scandal sealed that road off. My anger at the Bishops’ shameful conduct, and I include our previous Pope, is something that I fear will be with me a long time (well not that long given my age!). But I soldier on with great optimism anyway. I hope things turn around for your daughter. College was where my kids branched off into the pervasive smog of cynicism and secular culture. Myself, I use to argue with my Ancient Greek Philosophy professor and almost got thrown out for my trouble. But my love of Socrates and the Socratic method allowed me to dazzle him on finals, and I got an A. But hey, I’ve been doing all the talking; what do you think about me?
on November 12th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Bob: what do I think about you? Well, since you’re in group 1 and I’m in group 3, I tend to disagree with your comments and I expect that you reciprocate that disapproval! But now that I know that you’re more senior, I’ll be more respectful … and I share your strong reaction to the sex scandal. (Read bishop-accountability.org abuse tracker blog if you want to get depressed about it.)
I, too, hope that my daughter comes back to Catholicism. If only I was a better witness, she would see Christ in me. Last year I attended our RCIA meetings to see what circumstances led people to come back to the church (answer: getting married, having kids, wanting a clean start in their life as responsible spouse or parent). As to my daughter, I hope that her keen interest in the Meaning of Life will lead her back to church. I’m sure that you too have thought long and hard about that problem. If you figure out how to attract one’s adult children back to Mass, I’ll gladly receive suggestions!
on November 12th, 2009 at 3:59 am
@Bill,
“As far as I am concerned this blog has saved Commonweal. It is a great blog since more diverse opinions are shared than anywhere else in Catholic land.”
This is critical point, and thank you for mentioning it (and slaps to me for missing the obvious). I agree, BTW. Don’t think the blog neceearily assists the editors in determining how to keep the magazine itself afloat in these times, but this blog is certainly the means by which I’ve been able to access so many interesting views and perspectives.
It’s a Godsend.
on November 12th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Fr. Joe,
Thanks for posting this topic. As luck would have it I spent about an hour last evening discussing Peter Steinfels four categories and the whole topic with my 41 year old son, Chris. He is visiting and I asked him to read the article because I wanted to get his view. He grew up with the magazine in the house and it was always available. He even received it as a gift for a decade after graduation.
But he falls into the same category as Bob Swartz’s “six kids, all of whom dropped out of the Faith.” So as an aside Bob as a 70 year old who would place himself on the left of centre on Peter’s scale, it really doesn’t seem to matter which side left or right they were raised on. I would however, be interested to know if you believe they are all “good kids” and live within the spirit of a Catholic sensibility to social justice and have an above normal sense of the “common good”.
In my reading of Steinfels four categories, I believe his third group is the largest simply because it includes Catholics like your kids and mine and dozens of other “young” Catholics which we brought into this world and to whom we tried to pass on our faith, but who rejected, in particular the institutional Church.
Now to share what I think is a very interesting insight from my son. He talked about Commonweal’s demographic as Northwest European in origin, (Irish, Anglos, Dutch, German) traditionally immigrants who arrived in North American (I say it that way because I’m another Canadian and the story is as true for the English areas of this country as in America) poor, isolated from the mainstream and lived their identity through their Catholicism.
As the article to a degree admits, young Catholics today have no identity of this type. They are by and large fully accepted into society. They are doctors, lawyers, scientists and successful politicians. Joe Biden’s Catholicity in the past election wasn’t even an issue except for a few Catholics who didn’t think he was Catholic enough.
Chris thinks Commonweal has one of two choices to make to attract new young readers. One is to move from its centre left to a more centre right position in an attempt to reach out to those in Peter’s neo-orthodox category. This risks losing the more radical social justice component of its readership.
The other choice in his opinion is to reach out to the other Catholic demographic to which it doesn’t have a historical relationship. These are, most importantly, Catholics from Latin America and the Phillipines. This he believes is less risky (more morally palatable and more morally righteous!) than moving right and will be more accepted by its traditional and now elderly more communitarian minded readers.
Either way the old story of ghetto Catholicism has got to go.
Note: I asked Chris to write his own more fully worked out response which I will post at http://www.tomorrowstrust.ca when he gets it finished.
on November 12th, 2009 at 8:32 am
This is a very interesting dialogue, as are most of the conversations here. I enjoy the Commonweal blog very much.
What I wonder about all the time as the battle-scarred news editor of The Wanderer is how does one reach out to the bitter ex-Catholics with whom I agree on most economic, social and political issues and how does one get them to love the Church, despite the problems we all know too well, and how does one attract non-Catholics of good will who would love the Church if they knew what it really was but who carry so much anti-Catholic baggage inherited from their grandparents.
As for young Catholics, from my experience as a father of six, none of whom practice their faith but are “culturally Catholic,” one just has to wait for the Holy Spirit to enlighten them.
Raised Catholic, but with no CCD, no Catholic school, etc., I was drawn to the Church in (nominally Protestant) college because of viciously anti-Catholic philosophy professors, who challenged me to defend the Church. Through a miracle, I discovered Hilaire Belloc’s Servile State while studying Kant, Hegel and Marx, and it was Belloc who preserved my sanity during the years I studied modern European literature.
I think all U.S. Catholics, if they want to have a “successful” Church in this country, need to rally around the heroic figures of Dorothy Day and Benedict XVI, and all who fit within their orbits. And the US bishops really do need to “fix the liturgy” along the lines expressed daily over the New Liturgical Movement!
on November 12th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Ann, are we the heirs of Aquinas, or of the bishop of Paris? Of Galileo or the Pope who silenced him?
In a very real way, we are the Church of Aquinas and Galileo. That is one of the things Aquinas left us, an appreciation that faith and reason both reach toward the truth.
We are also the heirs of bishops and popes, who struggle to hold the church together and keep it from going off on misguided tracks. Sometimes they have done a brilliant job, but we are more likely to remember the many and flagrant mistakes they have made through the years.
Those who leave are far more likely to see the Church as the latter, but good catechesis should teach how the Church thrives when we use all our abilities to seek the truth, when we are inspired by the examples of Aquinas and Galileo.
on November 12th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I had the same reaction as John Borst’s son (a few years younger than I am). The growth in the Church over the last 20 years is connected to immigration, much as it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, obviously in some ways similar to and in others different from that period. I think one issue in reaching out to this demographic is that the parallel generation that gave Commonweal its position — the educated sons and daughters of the zero generation — hasn’t yet to come into its own, and, there has not been (and hopefully will not be) a force like WWII to at once, unify it with non-Catholic Americans, without fully disintegrating Catholic identification.
In that respect, it’s useful to acknowledge how unique the 50s and 60s were for Catholics: fully American and still fully Catholic. My parents’ generation.
So anyway, I never went to Catholic school of any kind but was raised by people who were Catholic even when they didn’t really want to be (my parents are politically more liberal than I am, but they get as indignant over divorce as anyone I’ve ever met). My parents left the church for me, their siblings did not, I went back, and then left again because I find it hard to claim allegiance to beliefs I wouldn’t want myself or my children to live by. My children are protestant, and open minded in general about religion. They may not stay in the kind of church they were raised in, but I won’t count that as a loss.
When you teach people that yours is the one way and THE truth, it’s not only a high standard that you have set for yourself, but if people of integrity disagree, they will leave because they feel they must.
And, following on from what Anne said about critical thinking. Let’s not delude ourselves — there are too many points in the history of the Church where thinkers turned into Icarus because they got too close to the sun that had already decreed what the truth was for that particular matter. For many, it’s hard to square a notion of true critical thinking that is outcome determinative in so many respects.
on November 12th, 2009 at 11:24 am
At NCR today is another, and I think quite useful, essay about another divide or class distinction:
a major essay on conscience fron the Santa Clara Center on Ethics talkin g about personalist and eccleisdial Catholics.
In the current divides poltically and religiously, the ditinction makes real sense to me and addressing it in its complexity might help us move forward.
on November 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“What I wonder about all the time as the battle-scarred news editor of The Wanderer is how does one reach out to the bitter ex-Catholics with whom I agree on most economic, social and political issues and how does one get them to love the Church, despite the problems we all know too well, and how does one attract non-Catholics of good will who would love the Church if they knew what it really was but who carry so much anti-Catholic baggage inherited from their grandparents.”
Hi, Paul and all,
Are you familiar with the “Catholics Come Home” campaign? I believe these spots will be running on television networks this holiday season. Not that an advertising campaign is enough in and of itself, but it’s a use of mass media in a way that I don’t recall previously.
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/
(I think this is the right link)
on November 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
As a PR strategy, I like “Catholics Come Home” a lot better than “…Feel free to go somewhere else.”
on November 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Two things: (1) I note that in his description of the fourth group–the social radicals–nothing was said about their faith-commitment, which was mentioned in regard to the other three. I wonder why. Where do they fit on the faith-scale and the encounter with culture scale?
*2) Fr. Yves Congar gave a talk in 1960 on “Diversity and Divisions.” Two paragraphs worth pondering. The first refers to splits within French Catholicism between people who had welcomed the movements of theological and pastoral renewal then flourishing and people who hadn’t:
“In the same country, such as our own, certain believers or, better, certain priests, have not followed the movement to the point that one can wonder sometimes if there are not, co-existing side by side, two different religions, the one which arose before the return to the Bible and the liturgy and the one which has arisen from and is inspired by that return. Here there is a communitarian and missionary, biblical and kerygmatic style; there there are particular devotions, groups preserving themselves by little mixing with the world… In a certain sense, they might be two little churches within the framework of the one big one. If different social or political orientations are mixed in, or thought to be mixed in, it can happen that they become almost strangers to one another: like the Jews and the Samaritans, “they do not associate with one another” (Jn 4:9). Within the accepted framework of the big official Church, there might be chapels which severally represent mentalities, religious nationalities as it were, defined by human, political, ideological, or artistic options, where people almost sense more communion with a non-Catholic or a non-Christian of the same tendencies than with his brethren in the faith.”
The second paragraph refers to problems that arise when a Christian makes particular political choices on the basis of his Christian commitment:
“His march towards heaven entails his commitments as a citizen of the earthly city: inevitably he will espouse its diversities and divisions. Indeed sometimes he may espouse them by a voluntary choice made out of Christian fidelity. Does this not double the danger? For in such a choice, made out of a desire for integral Christian service, there is an immediate danger that we will include in our choice, even in its particular and perhaps debatable elements, the absolute element of our Christian service and commitment and also that we will believe, in practice, that there is an identity between our position and the reality of the Church itself. This is a history we all know well, the history of many divisions either from the Church or within the Church. If it were just a matter of celebrating the Eucharist, I could do that with everyone (and more!); but if it’s a matter of meeting one another in those fully historical and fully fleshly activities with which, as they say, we “incarnate our faith,” what problems arise!
“If people want to practice a Christianity, not of the ghetto, but of presence to the world, to its activities, to its searches, obviously Christians will to some degree embrace their contours, their approaches, their progress. It is in countries where this option of Christian presence to the world is stronger than an option or tradition of a life partitioned off in Catholic frameworks that the problems of pluralism are posed with the greatest sharpness. It is only natural to try to make a synthesis between the realities of culture or of nationality, of social or even political commitment, supposed to be good or worthy of a Christian, and our faith, our service of God and of neighbor. It’s natural, yes, but what a dangerous effort! Historically, many schisms arose from such syntheses. In two unfortunately posthumous articles, Dom Nicolas Oehmen showed that the “place” of schism, that is, the point of ambiguity and of danger, is precisely too close a link between Christianity and a culture, a national interest, a human undertaking, whether personal or social. For if the link is too close, it leads people to practice–I use examples without intending to judge–an Egyptian, or a progressive, or a bourgeois Christianity, without any readiness to communicate with an Israeli, a conservative, or a workers’ Christianity, even simply with a universal Christianity. The chosen Church, which in reality is a chapel, is more important than the Church itself. The “Other” is as it were chased out of communion, which is reduced to what I bear in myself, personally and spontaneously.”
I think that many of our divisions arise as much from “odium politicum” as from “odium theologicum” (from political or theological hatred). But then I’m regularly astounded at the fierce certainty many people seem to be able to obtain in contingent political matters!
on November 12th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Going back to the original question about natural affinities: From my limited experience I think there’s a rift between 2 and 3. 2 tends to be sympathetic to 1 and 3 to 4 (both in a “they’re the crazy uncle who makes us chuckle” way). I see some tenuous links between 2 and 3, but 2 tends to be focused on being counter-cultural, while 3 wants to redeem the culture. I think the main disagreement is over whether the current culture can be redeemed or if it’s a futile effort at this particular moment.
For fun, some examples of how I would (broadly) characterize the groups:
#1: catholicculture.org
#2: buildingcathedrals.blogspot.com
#3: vox-nova.com
#4: youngadultcatholics-blog.com
on November 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
AthanasiusX
For a little more fun, I’d suggest,
#1: http://www.catholicsexbegone.org
#2: http://www.catholicwithallthetrappings.com
#3: http://www.catholicwhome.net
#4: http://www.justcatholicrevolutionaries.org
on November 12th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
oops the program put the hyperlink in because I put the www in. I had taken out the hyperlink before submitting,sorry of course they go nowhere.
on November 12th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Thanks for those words from Congar. So true and prophetic. It is so easy to forego the discernment by the spirit for expediency.
on November 13th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I have been reading Commonweal for years (intermittently, at any rate). I guess the 4 divisions do not do much for me, especially given that my US Catholic experiences in Philadelphia and in rural Maine and Tennessee parishes have not introduced me to people so clearly divided along these lines. I think many parishoners in Maine and Tennessee oscillate between 2 and 3. If I need long battles on sharply ideological positions, I can just visit the internet for that. What a relief. It strikes me that the vast majority of the rural parish members never have heard of Commonweal, especially the 90% of my present parish who come from Mexico, Guatemala, or El Salvador.
I really have grown to like this blog, even though I probably am more conservative than many of you. I myself am 38, and an adult convert. My knowledge of the Catholic faith based on a jumble of sources – 19th and early 20th century French and Gabonese missionary writings, life with a Gabonese Catholic family for a year, a forgettable RCIA experience in the US, and then reading on my own. I guess I can say I’m conservative on theology and liturgy but find less and less inspiration from the First Things crowd, especially on politics. I feel much more at home with African Catholics than anything I’ve experienced in the US, but I’m an African history professor…It seems like the Gabonese and other African Catholics put together social activism and faithfulness to Church teachings, while these end up being largely separate currents in the US. This isn’t to say that there aren’t major problems within African Catholic communities, but they just play out differently than here.
There’s a lot to say about the magazine and the blog and how they can reach younger readers, I’m sure, but I do want to praise both for a minute. At least there is a generally respectful exchange of ideas here, without some of the things that really have grown to annoy me about some other forums. Crunchy Con’s apocalyptic tendencies have worn me out, and in recent months white nationalists are getting more active over there. Pass. First Things’ efforts to conjure up Obama jackboots just seems insane to me. If one really wants martyrs and persecutions, one can find real examples right now – the Democratic Republic of Congo, for one. I do not generally vote democrat, but am tired of people constantly amping up the villany of their opponents. So Commonweal has value, even if I rarely agree with most of the posters. And the coverage of literature in the magazine is very good…
on November 13th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Jeremy, thank you and welcome. (If one commenter may welcome another).
First Things seems to have lost their way a bit, at least on their website. It’s a shame.
on November 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
For Peter: Yes, I think my former CCD students would consider themselves to be Catholics, but I’ve seen only a few in church. Thanks.
on November 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Fr K., is the rest of Yves Congar’s talk available anywhere? Thanks!
on November 14th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Might some simple but major reasons why some college-aged Catholics don’t go to Mass often be that they don’t think they’re obliged to go plus they stay out so late Saturday nights and need sleep?
Their parents also often think they are not obliged to attend every Sunday, and many find themselves obliged to do other things on the week-ends. .
Their minimizing of the need for Mass is a problem, but maybe it’s not as big a one as we old folks think.
on November 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
For dotCommonweal blog
I come late to this discussion, as I did to the Catholic Church. Is there a place for converts in Peter Steinfels’ typology? I grew up secular and liberal and entered the church in 1982 following an accident that changed my worldview. (I tell the story in my book, The Crack between the Worlds: a dancer’s memoir of loss, faith and family excerpts and info at http://www.maggiekast.com.) My wonderful post-Vatican II Catholic education began with R.C.I.A. at a campus ministry, guided by the 500-page Dutch Catechism (no longer in use). My education continued at a seminary, where I studied liturgy in preparation for work in liturgical dance.
Clearly I fall into Steinfels’ third category, as I articulated in “Liberal Catholicism: Whatever Could That Mean?” (http://www.americamagazine.org/content/current-issue.cfm?issueid=612)
But I question the importance of identity, the concept on which Steinfels’ typology is based. Among many things covered by my Catholic education was the idea that a faith under siege will retreat and focus on identity, on boundaries, whereas one that is confident will let the edges blur in the interests of expansion. Yes, my identity changed when I became Catholic, but not in the sense of changing my stance as a discrete person; on the contrary, I became more connected. More important to me than a change of identity were changes in belief, practice and relation to community. Thus I am glad to find much in common with Protestants and others who share liberal Christian faith, and I do not need to see my liberal Catholicism as the definitive one.