Young Douthat has had another revelation about the Church
In These Days. If you put it to music, it would go something like this:
I got
schism, you got schism,
all of God's children's got schism
When I get to heaven, gonna take off my schism
When I get to heaven, gonna take off my schism
I'm gonna
walk all over God's heaven
Schism, Schism
Everybody talkin' bout schism ain't havin’ one
Everybody talkin' bout schism ain't havin’ one
Schism, Schism
I'm gonna
walk all over God's heaven.
Douthat
took off from Pope Francis’s comment that he prays there won’t be a schism, but
there can always be one and we simply have to get on with it. Douthat then
notes the (mostly) American anti-Francis fetishists who are more doctrinally Catholic than the pope, and with whom he has much
sympathy. Because there has to be an equal and opposite contrast he mentions
that the German bishops are
liberal crypto-heretics. And it’s the Germans (!) who are using their money (not
Americans!) to further their schism.
But, he
decides happily, as long as both sides are talking about it but not doing it maybe it
won’t happen right away. Francis's "ambiguous style" (mentioned twice) actually helps, even if it drives some of the devout, like Douthat, crazy.
Heresy is the denial of a truth of faith. Apostasy is the denial of all of them. In my current church bulletin, Bishop Robert Barron says 13 is the median age for Catholic children to go into apostasy. Schism is the "refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff." (Catechism, Par. 2089). By definition, the pope can't go into schism. But the word "schism" creates a frisson in heretics and nervous nellies.
I would have let the latest revelation from the visionary of 42nd Street pass unnoticed, but it happily has already been refuted by the always very clear David Bentley Hart in the current print edition of Commonweal (and on line). Amoris Laetitiae and the history of Christian marriage are the bigger game Hart is stalking. But he stops en route to acknowledge Douthat's alarm about the pope's imagined marriage heresy:
"The problem is not simply that he [Douthat] is wrong on the facts; it is that he obviously has a concept of the early centuries of Christianity that borders on fantasy."I bring this up because reading Douthat's column and Hart's piece back-to-back, as I did serendipitously today, sheds light in several directions at once. It is recommended.
I wonder if Bob Ginsberg's observation in the previous thread, that Americans that history, is germane here.
ReplyDeleteRaber also appreciated the DBH piece in C'weal.
"...Bishop Robert Barron says 13 is the median age for Catholic children to go into apostasy." I think most 13 year olds don't have the maturity or understanding to qualify as apostates.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of schism, my very inexpert opinion on the big schism of 1054 is that the Filioque made a good excuse for something they wanted to do anyway. That it was more about politics and cultural differences than about doctrine. I can easily imagine present day Catholics schisming over a disagreement that they raise to the level of doctrine, but which is really about politics, culture wars, and choosing up sides.
Katherine, I was gob-smacked. But here are Bishop Barron's own words: "The 2018 Saint Mary's Press Study 'The Dynamics of Disaffiliation in Young Catholics' includes extensive research among young Catholics who have left the church. One of their most alarming findings was that youth stop identifying as Catholics at the median age of 13 for reasons ranging from disbelief to dissatisfaction with Church teaching."
DeleteIt seems unlikely, to me too, that a 13-year-old is making a mature decision to commit apostasy, but the decision seems to last for life or a a very long time for many of them.
I don't know why Barron appeared in the Bulletin, other than that it was catechetical Sunday, and we are using a lot of his material for different levels of instruction and study.
Apostasy is a pretty strong word, and I don't feel that teen rebellion, laziness, and poor attitude really meet the defin (doesn't it imply a formal rejection of Jesus Christ?) However I do believe that once they bail out they often don't come back.
Delete"defin" should be definition, don't know why it got chopped short.
DeleteIf they are still gone at 35, and still gone at 75, what was it? I certainly agree that 13-year-olds are not in a position to make up their minds about God. But, according to Barron, they do.
DeleteI'd be interested to find out if the permanently gone ones joined another Christian denomination, became part of another faith (Buddhism, etc.), became spiritual but not religious, or are atheists.
DeleteIf they're not old enough to make up their minds about God, why are we confirming them at 12 or 13?
DeleteReligion, like politics, is local. If kids don't see a place for themselves in a parish of grumpy old people who have been nagging them about learning prayers and filling out think-and-do books since age 5, they are happy to get shut of church and dive back into their screens.
The Boy tells us he believes life is random and has no meaning. If there is a God, He is indifferent. There is no system of rewards and punishments in the hereafter. He believes in some universals of common decency that reduce misery for the sufferers and those who suffer by seeing it. Religion is magical thinking, and the money you give to the Church would be better given directly to people who need it. That's why he hires homeless guys to shovel the walk at the coffee shop, saves them the day old bagels that would otherwise get tossed, and gives people $20 if he finds out they've taken in a stray animal. He buys his clothes at the Salvation Army to reduce waste and to provide jobs for people who work in those stores.
This is basically the same view everyone in my mother's family has held for generations. Despite our efforts to expose him to another way, I have raised another thrifty, soft-hearted, agnostic Unitarian.
Is it genetic?
Jean,
DeleteThey have done generational studies on religiosity.
The intensity of religiosity tends to remain the same across generations. If you have intensity religious parents you will tend to also be intensity religious. However if they try too much to make you like them, you are likely to go through a period of rebellion but ultimately find a different intensely religious niche.
Grandparents have surprisingly strong effects. So if you don't like your parents brand of religions, your grandparents provides a good alternative.
The intensity dimension of religion might be genetic; however I think the brand of religion is environmental.
"If they're not old enough to make up their minds about God, why are we confirming them at 12 or 13?" I dunno. On the other hand, some of the Eastern churches confirm them at the same time they are baptized as infants. I guess another way to look at it is that sacraments are supposed to be a channel of grace, which depends on God's action rather than ours. And God works on his own timetable.
DeleteJack, very interesting. Yes, I can see that grandparents do affect religious patterns where kids are old enough and live close enough to have formed a bond with them. However, I wonder how much families exert influence on kids in any way as extended families become more far flung, and nuclear family ties continue to loosen, what with divorce, working parents, single parent births, etc.
DeleteJean, if I remember correctly (I can't lay my hands on the book) the study was done across enough generations that they saw no lessening of the effects such as you would expect from changing social conditions.
DeleteOf course that might mean there is a genetic effect. From time to time there have been claims for some genetic effects on religiosity. These are likely to be in emotionality and cognitive dispositions and maybe are not as affected by the social environment as cultural elements of religion.
Both Dorothy Day and Merton came from relatively non religious families yet became very interested in religious experience. Actually some of the people most likely to have conversion experiences are those brought up with no religion.
I wasn't raised with much of a religion; we went to the Unitarian church only sporadically.
DeleteI have had what I would consider some religious experiences, but I seem hard-wired to be skeptical of what I can't see, categorize, or analyze. I made kind of a study of contemporary adult conversion stories, and most of these pivot on some event in which the person feels that God has been revealed by saving them from something in their lives.
In my case, God didn't save me from squat, but I somehow got the strength to get through what was thrown at me through some reserves that seemed far larger than my own.
The desire for faith is there, but it is fleeting and tenuous. I think that my doubts rubbed off on my son in subconscious ways. He probably knew that I was never as sure of or as enthusiastic about church things as I pretended.
Nature or nurture? I wonder if anyone will ever tease that out.
I got schism
ReplyDeleteI got musings
I got my views
Who could ask for anything more.
If the German bishops are wrong about the next pope, there is going to be a Teutonic blood-letting.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Jim. The German bishops are in a direct line of descent from the Dutch bishops of the 1960s, with their heretical Catechism (which is more user-friendly stylistically and organizationally than the later, official one) and their unpronounceable theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx. But it must be noted that the German bishops are trying to deal with their flocks, whereas other bishops we know support compliant justices and avert their eyes to avoid specific criticism the appointer-in-chief.
DeleteMaybe Douthat (and many others) are looking for schism in the wrong place.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Roman Catholic Woman Priests?
Roman Catholic Women Priests
"The movement within the Roman Catholic Church known as Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP) began with the ordination to the priesthood of seven women on the Danube River in 2002."
One of those women was Dagmar Celeste, the former wife of the former governor of Ohio. She lives here in Cleveland. From what I know by rumor she did not attract many followers.
However the movement has slowly grown here in Cleveland. It is more like a large house church and meets in Brecksville United Church of Christ. It now has its own bishop. She was formerly part of the diocesan bureaucracy.
This summer a former woman pastoral staff member of one of our parishes was ordained in Germany to the priesthood. She opened her new parish last Sunday in a remodeled former Byzantine church. She has a Ph.D. in leadership and Doctorate of Ministry from the diocesan seminary plus twenty years in parish ministry at the Catholic parish down the street. She and her former pastor remain good friends.
It will be interesting to see what happens. As a sociologist I can see two scenarios;
1. The movement continues to develop as a growing number of house churches that might live without much conflict with parishes, i.e. that mostly women go to these places from time to time but also participate in their home parishes.
2. Some of these talented women become very successful and develop mega churches of their own that become highly visible challenges to the status quo.
What do think?
One of my cousins is a woman priest. She was formerly Roman Catholic but was ordained in one of the "communities in the Catholic tradition". From their website it appears that they trace their ordinations to someone who was a validly consecrated bishop. Not sure why that matters if they are not affiliated with Rome.
DeleteMy cousin's parish is in a large city, but seems to be a small congregation. They have on their website that their liturgies are in the Catholic tradition, but "all are welcome" regardless of orientation, gender, marital status, or family planming. It appears that their mission is to minister to those on the margins of the traditional church. I admire them for that. I don't see this developing into a megachurch movement.
Schismatic has usually been applied only to churches that have validly ordained ministers, e.g. most Protestant denominations including the Anglicans/Episcopals are technically not even considered churches since they don't have valid orders.
DeleteThe Orthodox, The Ancient Eastern Churches, Old Catholics who left Vatican I, and the SPXX who left after Vatican II are all considered to have valid orders, and to be real but separated churches.
The RCWP claims to have valid ordinations since their bishops were consecrated by validly consecrated Catholic bishops. Rome says that their ordinations were invalid because woman cannot be made bishops since they are improper matter.
Jack, can you throw any light on this? Although Pope Leo XIII solemnly grunted that the Anglicans do not have valid orders, one of the two recent popes (JPII, I think) gave the archbishop of Canterbury a pectoral cross. Why would a pope be giving an pectoral cross to someone who is not validly ordained?
DeleteAnd when you finish with that, how about Brother Roger Schutz of Taize receiving Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger?
Our recent popes seem to have adopted Herman Goering's position -- I decide who is a Catholic -- without causing a schism.
The case against Anglican orders rests on the beliefs and practices of a period of their history. No matter about a more recent period when many of them have become more Catholic in their beliefs and practices. In other words, apostolic succession was interrupted.
DeleteHowever the Church has always maintained that sacraments are valid even if the ministers are sinful. That applies to cases when a validly ordained priest has lost his faith and no longer believes in what he is doing. The idea has been that the church as a whole intends for the Mass to happen and therefore it is still a valid Eucharist. Further it may even be a valid Eucharist if the celebrant is an imposter who has not be ordained if everyone else thinks it is a valid Mass. Once you grant the reasoning in these extreme cases to shield the faithful from being superstitious about Mass not being valid, one really has to ask the question of Anglicans and others who obviously intend to be doing what Christ did, whether or not their errors are also covered by God. I think it is understandings like this that have led Popes to treat Anglican leaders as if they were validly ordained.
The Taize situation is one in which Protestants who are known to be in communion in their hearts are granted communion even if they have not been formally admitted into Catholicism. I think that happen to one of the British Prime Ministers who only became Catholic formally after he left office. It is not just a Papal thing; bishops can grant similar favors though they run more risk of being criticized.
I was under the impression that some Anglican priests could trace their ecclesial "lineage" back to validly consecrated bishops. Though my personal worthless opinion is that we can't put God in a box; as Jack said, "... the church as a whole intends for the Mass to happen..."
DeleteI remember being touched by the Taize incident in which Brother Roger received Communion from then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
There are hundreds of bishops floating around who claim apostolic succession in all sorts of ways. I am very skeptical of the 'magic touch' approach to apostolic succession. Too close to superstition.
DeleteI think the RCWP comes close to this problem. They seem to have developed as a organization for ordaining women more than an organization for serving communities. It is like a license to set up a community. On 'ordination mill' somewhat like the degree mills.
I think this side discussion is illuminated by what the David Bentley Hart article I linked to above says about marriage and the Christian family, and how long the Church has really "always taught" about those issues.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI have to say that I tend to admire strict Catholic traditionalists in their effort to go back to the orthodoxy of the Church's Golden Age, which was apparently about 1957.
ReplyDeleteBoomers. Amirite?
I prefer to think that, at the age of 79, I have been on sabbatical for the past 6 years. Sabbatical from pious agnosticism, that is, Well, I DID have a Jesuit education!!!
ReplyDeleteThere is an interesting book titled "The Other Catholics" by one Julie Byrne that goes into great detail about some of the split-offs and never-weres that go by the name of Catholic.
ReplyDeleteA neat never-was one in the SF Bay Area is the St. John Coltrane African Orthodox Church: https://www.sftravel.com/article/everything-you-need-know-about-san-franciscos-st-john-coltrane-church
If you are a jazz fan, their liturgies are right up your alley.
A man by the name of Charles Bransom has done extensive work on apostolic succession. In the past he has focused on those who have succeeded Scipione Rebida.
ReplyDeleteMore than ninety five percent of the approximately 5,135 Roman Catholic bishops alive today trace their episcopal lineage back to one bishop who was appointed in 1541 - Scipione Rebiba. Why so many bishops trace their lineages to this one bishop can be explained in great part by the intense sacramental activity of Pope Benedict XIII, who ordained at least 159 bishops during his episcopate and pontificate, including many cardinals, papal diplomats, and bishops of important dioceses who, in turn, ordained many other bishops. The bishop who ordained Benedict XIII gives us the direct link to Scipione Rebiba. It is widely believed that Rebiba was ordained bishop by Gian Pietro Cardinal Carafa, who became Pope Paul IV. However, no documentary evidence has been found to verify this hypothesis.
The lack of documentation of the episcopal ordination for the last bishop in any episcopal lineage should not be considered as evidence that the lineage ends with that bishop or that the bishop in question never received episcopal ordination. It simply means that the details of that bishop's episcopal ordination have not yet been found and that the bishop in question is the last known bishop in that lineage.
A word of caution regarding episcopal lineages: until 1965 the lineages prepared for many bishops showed Pope Alexander VII as the ordaining bishop of Cardinal Paluzzo Altieri in 1666, and those lineages went back to the early 1400`s. In the mid 1960`s, a contemporary account of Cardinal Altieri`s episcopal ordination was found in the Gazette de France. This account revealed that Pope Alexander VII became ill shortly before the ceremony and was replaced by Cardinal Ulderico Carpegna. Any episcopal lineage which gives Pope Alexander VII as the consecrator of Cardinal Altieri is incorrect.
Interesting bit of history!
DeleteFor those who agonize over Apostolic Succession, here is an interesting position statement and even more interesting repartee in the comments section: https://cath2lds.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/the-problem-of-apostolic-succession/
ReplyDelete