The New York Times did something good: it published a story about the church as I experience it from week to week and year to year. This story looks at some of those in the greater NYC area who completed their sacramental initiation during the Easter Vigil.
Perhaps the greatest challenge of all for the church, in an age when it must re-evangelize cultures like ours, is to proclaim the Good News into the headwind of a media framing of the church that is dominated by scandals and in which stories are fed to the media by victims and their professional advocates. This story is welcome.
Our numbers on RCIA-to-Baptism have held steady for two decades. Numbers for first Communion and belated Confirmation ebb and flow. We did have a huge spike in everything for Easter in the third or fourth year of Christ Renews His Parish, but the pastor said that if he analyzed it by who was who he couldn't draw a straight line from CHRP to the Easter Vigil. It was just a, um, whatchacall a huge spike.
ReplyDeleteThe NYTimes is under intense heat at the moment (again) for alleged anti-Semitism. One of the chief offenders seems to be Tom Friedman. Go figure. It could just be the Bibi Brigade feeling free at last with the Sun of Trump beaming down on their truculent leader. But I bet the Times would be happy to get some attaboys from Catholics under the circumstances.
DeleteI was surprised to see today's story. It was a glowing story in a paper (the one I read every day) that I see as pretty anti-Catholic, but also anti-religious in general. The RCIA is a wonderful program in our parish. The numbers seem to wax and wane from year-to-year but at various Sundays the members are recognized at Sunday Mass, some newbies, some catching up on the sacraments, and some who seem to enjoy being part of the group. It is inspiring so good for the NYTs, at least today.
ReplyDeleteI liked the NYT article on the RCIA people. Yeah, it was nice to see something positive about the Church for a change.
DeleteOur RCIA numbers wax and wane, too. This year we had three. Last year there weren't any. A previous year we had a dozen.
I could even read it on the NYT site since I wasn't timed out yet for maxing out free articles.
Right now on the Times on line 5/3/19: 3:33 pm: Free looks in honor of a free press!
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/reader-center/world-press-freedom-day.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage
Thanks for the heads-up, Margaret.
DeleteThe cartoon that caused the anti-Semitic charges appeared, according to the Times story, in the international edition. I have never seen it, only read the description in the Times various mea culpas. I gather it appeared in conjunction with a Tom Friedman column. The editor who picked has been "disciplined," again per the Times. Even the publisher is quoted with apologies.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon as described in the Times! has a blind Donald Trump being led by Netanyahu. A dog (seeing eye?) is leading Trump and the dog has a Star of David on its collar. I am having a hard time coming up with an image of this. But if Arthur Sulzberger is apologizing someone must be fuming. The apologia also quotes Ron Dermer, Israeli ambassador to the U.S. and major Trump supporter. So what is the real complaint: anti-Netanyahu, anti-Trump, anti-American policy to Israel, anti-Israel, or anti-Semitic. All of the above?
I don't think the cartoon had anything to do with Tom Friedman's article, except maybe they grouped it because he is Jewish. I looked up what I think is his latest article, entitled "Has Our Luck Ran Out?" I found it on another site since I am back in time-out for NYT articles. It was about how globally we are facing four different "climate" changes, without the necessary leadership to get through them. It was a good article, maybe worth a post.
DeleteYou can see the cartoon at this URL
ReplyDeletehttps://www.timesofisrael.com/ny-times-apologizes-for-printing-netanyahu-cartoon-with-anti-semitic-tropes/
Thanks, Anne. That's an ugly cartoon. I'm surprised the NYT published it in the first place.
DeleteThanks, Anne. If Bill were on the leash and Hillary were holding it, Trump would retweet it. It's sort of where we are these days.
DeleteI have to say, it's harder to minimize or defend once you see the picture.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere what I take to be a "maximalist" interpretation of the allegedly anti-Semitic cartoon. This is from Bret Stephens, a NY Times columnist who formerly was an editor for the Jerusalem Post:
ReplyDelete"The Times wasn’t explaining anti-Semitism. It was purveying it.
"It did so in the form of a cartoon, provided to the newspaper by a wire service and published directly above an unrelated column by Tom Friedman, in which a guide dog with a prideful countenance and the face of Benjamin Netanyahu leads a blind, fat Donald Trump wearing dark glasses and a black yarmulke. Lest there be any doubt as to the identity of the dog-man, it wears a collar from which hangs a Star of David.
"Here was an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Stürmer. The Jew in the form of a dog. The small but wily Jew leading the dumb and trusting American. The hated Trump being Judaized with a skullcap. The nominal servant acting as the true master. The cartoon checked so many anti-Semitic boxes that the only thing missing was a dollar sign."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.html
Thanks for the explanation.
DeleteClearly I'm not a Jew. I only saw it as a statement on how Trump is blind to any other POV than Netanyahu's. It's anti-Netanyahu, but I don't see it as anti-Semitic, or even anti-Israeli.
Raber said that Trump in a yarmulke put it out of bounds for him.
In New York it is not uncommon for non-Jewish politicians to wear a yarmulke when speaking or campaigning before a Jewish audience. Trump probably has worn a yarmulke on such occasions. Good Raber doesn't vote in New York!
DeleteI tend to agree with you, Jean. I see it as a typical politican cartoon illustrating that Trump's Israel policy is heavily swayed by the -uber-conservatives in Israel, just as it is here. A similar cartoon could be drawn with Trump being led around by the evangelical "christian" community who are anti-Muslim,anti-Palestinian, and believe that Israel has to go back to its old testament land areas in order for Jesus to come again.
DeletePerhaps the head-covering pushes it over the line, I don't know.
"The first several rows of pews were packed with men and women draped in white robes. They were neocatechumens; they were initiated in the church earlier in their lives only to drift away. Some had detoured through addiction, infidelity and jobs that consumed their lives. The vigil marked their return to the church, like prodigal children."
ReplyDeleteNeocatechumens? Now there's get another long, drug-out process run by Church Ladies for those of us who have fallen away and want to come back? And we have to stand up in front of everyone in a special robe so they can gloat?
First I've heard of it.
Ugh. I'll just keep going to Mass, ask St. Anthony for spiritual cimmunion, and take my chances with the Last Rites. No way I'm going through RCIA redux!
First I heard of it, too. While some people do opt for a "refresher" course if they have been away for a while, nobody is required to go through RCIA again, or even in the first place. There's more than one path into the Church.
DeleteAnd if someone wanted to come back to the sacraments, the normal way would be just to address it in confession, and nobody else needs to be involved.
Jean,
DeleteI think these people are part of The Neocatechumenal Way. The Crux article is balanced giving the pro's and con's of the movement It is definitely meant to be optional. I suspect their inclusion in an RCIA event is meant to integrate them into parish life.
Jack, thanks very much. The NYT article's caption identifying neocatechumens as those renewing their faith after an absence was clearly incorrect.
DeleteIntegrating them into parish life sounds wise given the division the movement has caused in some parishes.
Doing this at the Vigil, and lengthening an already interminable service, strikes me as likely to foment resentments. Maybe doing it on the Feast of the Pentecost?
I wonder if the followers of the Way would be more or less inclined to welcome Jim's single mother.
Jean,
DeleteSociological theories of sect formation (which have been extended to Catholic religious orders and movements) say that sects (and their new insights and practices) are more likely to be attractive to those are not invested in establishment religion. On the other hand those who are invested often have little to gain and sometimes much to lose.
When the marginal people start to flock to the new movement, people are likely to see that not only is it attracting people but its attracting the very people whom the establishment is least likely to have any effect upon.
This new movement like all sects requires a lot of things not required by the establishment. When people are attracted to and prove themselves by their willingness, the members are likely to accept them and may even be impressed more by their conversion because of their past. At the same time the single mother may begin to experience her difference from the parish as a positive not a negative. And if the parish doesn't like the movement, the single mother would have even more reason to see their past judgments of her as being their problem not hers.
After all Jesus said the last shall be first, and first shall be last. The publicans not the Pharisees are the winners when it comes to new movements. Of course the historical Pharisees were actually once the new movement, but by the time the Gospels were written they were on their way to becoming the new establishment. But that is the way of all sects.
Most conversations occur because of relationships, e.g. one's spouse, or children or friends. The intellectual conversion is relatively rare, and even in that case it may be through a network. Remember Thomas Merton was part of a group that were all investigating Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteThe new people coming in through relationships are not offsetting the people who are leaving because of relationships let alone those who are leaving because our leadership does a good job of alienating people.
In regard to alienating people, our new bishop has been going around to the parishes and conducting various listening sessions on the sex abuse scandal. He has promised but not delivered on an up to date list of priest abusers.
So what has he learned and what has he decided to do? He noticed that some parishes stand during the whole communion time and others kneel after they receive. He decided beginning last Sunday that all parishes would stand from the beginning of the communion until its end. This is the sort of misuse of authority that is guaranteed to alienate some and impress no one. Even those who are in favor of standing found it poor leadership.
Yes, top down, and misuse of authority. There's a lot of that going around, and legalistic stuff in defense of the "brand" (and nobody is worried about the brand except those who don't have anything else to do). An example: up until last year our parish has used an oil Easter candle. Looks like a candle except it is filled with oil. Has all the symbols, etc. on it. The word came down from on high that everyone was to use a real wax Easter candle. Well, it refuses to light. It is a good deal taller than the oil one, and the kid servers have to stand on a stool to light it. Usually they end up having to enlist the aid of Father or a deacon, who also have trouble getting it to light. The oil one was easy to light. But the "brand" is wax. Like the requirement that Easter Vigil can't start until actual sundown. Or no one but a priest or deacon can purify the vessels after Communion. Nitpicking doesn't attract anyone.
DeleteYes, and the change in bishops only means a change in nitpicking. Under the last bishop the nitpicking was about the Easter Vigil could not start until after not simply sundown but either civil or nautical twilight! That has all been quietly dropped. No more reminders from the Chancery.
DeleteMy suspicion is that this is not about bishops as much as about the bishop's curia. That is some officials in his entourage get the idea that he might be sympathetic to their viewpoint, and then get to enjoy enforcing it on everyone.
It is much the same with the curia's in the parish. Jean's church ladies are an example. There are always staff or volunteers who see that a pastor might be sympathetic to their ideas and then get to enforce them on the whole parish.
"Most conversations occur because of relationships, e.g. one's spouse, or children or friends. The intellectual conversion is relatively rare"
DeleteThat has been our parish's RCIA experience as well. I think that's borne out in the NY Times article as well.
I see below that Tom has invoked Bishop Barron of Word on Fire fame. I take his approach to evangelizing to be a sort of intellectual approach - not necessarily only via theology and philosophy, but perhaps more through arts and literature.
The deacon who quoted Bishop Barron is a fan, and one his his favorite Barron quotes is that you don't start to explain baseball by beginning with the infield fly rule. I'd say his approach is on the order of "tell them the story, don't present doctrine." The only good discussions of why I'm a Catholic I've ever been in started with "why do you..." and not with "why does the Church..."
DeleteJack: "tell them the story, don't present doctrine."
DeleteThis seems quite dishonest to me. Years ago I knew a woman who had been involved with RCIA. She drew up a reading list of books and periodicals, and it was censored - anything that might spark questions or controversy was nixed - so no Commonweal, no America, no a whole lot of books and periodicals. She was told to redirect the discussions if issues such as contraception, the denial of a sacrament to women, the treatment of gays in the church, or other hot-button issues (including the 2002 sex abuse scandal) came up, and not permit discussions of these things. She was to refer questions of doctrine that some had trouble with such as papal infallibility, confession, or the literal existence of the flesh and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist (etc) to the priests.
I dissented from doctrines of the church beginning in elementary school (Catholic) in the 1950s. I was ready to leave because of dissent in (Catholic) college until a priest/theology professor took me aside over coffee multiple times after class and explained what he thought VII would bring about in the future, including blessing the primacy of conscience without putting a lot of hedging language into it (as the church was doing, and continues to do in the current catechism).
So I stayed - until years later when I had time for extensive self-directed study. After a while I began to connect the dots of the relationship of many doctrines to the tangible harm done to many, many people because of those doctrines.
So Barron wants to dazzle people with his pretty, extremely well-produced (technically) videos in the Catholicism series (I only watched a few episodes, couldn't handle watching him after a while). Hook them with the pretty stuff and avoid the hard stuff as long as possible.
I know a few converts - they converted because of marriage, because they didn't want to stay in the pew while their families received communion. They didn't agree with a lot of RC teaching, but kept that to themselves.
So, does being Catholic mean "accepting with docility" "all" that the church teaches?
Or does it mean simply one has a strong emotional attachment to a particular type of religious expression and/or attachment to a community of people and a set of traditions - First Holy Communion and white dresses, or maybe Advent candles and wreaths.
What do you still-practicing Catholics think about what being a Catholic means - the catechism definitions and accepting it all with "docility" or the emotional attachment that so many people say is the real reason they stay in the church - family heritage, traditions, community etc.
Francis has not done everything that I had hoped he would do, but he has taken on some of the worst things about Catholicism. So, his critics are escalating the battle, saying he is very likely a heretic, and saying that he should be removed from office. After watching a show on Luther and the Reformation recently, the notion that the RCC might be facing another possible schism seemed more likely. I saw the first stories about this latest attack on Francis in Reuters - if it's a lead story there, one wonders if it really is a serious possibility.
"So, does being Catholic mean "accepting with docility" "all" that the church teaches?"
DeleteHell's bells, they didn't even do that back in my parents' day. Even the self-annointed Torquemadas running around bemoaning "cafeteria Catholics" don't accept, with docility, every petal that falls from the cardinal archbishop's lips. If they did, they'd be trying to get on board with Francis instead of knee-capping him and hoping for a better, more Republican, pope,
There is a God. I met him in church. We talk to each other in the Catholic language. If I tried talking to him in another language (say, even, Latin, but also including Episcopalian), neither of us would know what I am talking about.
About the heresy accusation letter, Michael Sean Winters has a good article in NCR today: https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/heresy-accusation-letter-deconstructed
DeleteAccording to this there are 19 signatories on the letter. I never heard of any of the names, including Dominican Father Aidan Nichols, who is supposedly well known. Whatever. There are 1800 or so people who added their signatures to the letter, published by LifeSite News, an extreme right wing site. Winters compares them to the followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was excommunicated in the 1950s for his extreme views. When you consider how many Catholics there are in the world, the number is fairly insignificant. It would be fine with me if they would pick up their toys and go join the LeFebvrists and leave the rest of us alone. If they schism, that's their problem.
If Jim Pauwels is reading this, what do you think about your archbishop being named by the heresy accusation letter as being one of the "evil bishops"?
About what I think being a Catholic means; it doesn't mean that I go over the Catechism with a fine toothed comb. The articles of the Nicene Creed mean a lot to me. The sacraments, particularly Baptism and the Eucharist, mean a great deal to me. Part of it is family connection. It is a connection in particular to the ancestors who passed the faith on to me. Some of them persevered against great odds, keeping the faith in pioneer times when there was little or no support in the early days. And of course the family I grew up in, which included some people I consider saints.
Since there is now a lot more of my life behind me than ahead of me, some of the things I used to be troubled about, I no longer worry about. An example is atonement theology, which I had a lot of trouble with. I am more in line with the view of John Duns Scotus about the Incarnation being an act of infinite love by God. I figure when I get to eternity, I'll ask God about it and he'll sort it out for me; that and a lot of other things. Meanwhile I'm not going to let it disturb my peace of mind.
BTW I absolutely agree with you that there is no place for dishonesty and obfuscation in the conversion process. People deserve honest answers; and then they can decide for themselves if it is something they can live with.
Tom Blackburn: don't have your e-mail..so a question off topic...
DeleteCan I quote you: "There is a God. I met him in church. We talk to each other in the Catholic language. If I tried talking to him in another language (say, even, Latin, but also including Episcopalian), neither of us would know what I am talking about."
With or without attribution (as you prefer).
For a short talk I'm giving. Thanks.
Margaret, quote away. I try to give credit when I am repeating others, so if there's no credit it is most likely me, as in this case. Attribution is up to you. If, as usual, no one you are talking to ever heard of me, you may take credit (or blame) yourself.
DeleteThank you!
DeleteOne of the deacons in our Wednesday group quoted Bishop Barron as saying for every new Catholic who comes into the church, 6.5 leave. I haven't been able to confirm that statistic. Down here if someone disappears we assume he or she went up north to die closer to the children.
ReplyDeleteOur RCIA numbers vary a bit from year to year, but over the long haul, they're down from where they were 10-20 years ago. The proximate cause is that there are fewer church weddings than there used to be.
ReplyDeleteTom - I have read the same thing in multiple sources, that for every convert, at least 6 Catholics leave. There are also a lot of questions about how many who come in through RCIA stay more than a few years. The leave rate is fairly high, according to anecdotal evidence. I don't know if there is any hard data about it though. Some of the converts often seem more Catholic than the pope, especially this pope, and look down their noses at the lukewarm cradle Catholics they know. They out-pious everyone..
ReplyDeleteThe most recent Gallup poll shows that all religious groups continue to lose member, and that the Catholics are losing them at a higher rate (percentage of the total) than any other denomination.
A year or two ago, CARA reported that infant baptisms were the lowest number since they had started keeping track. Of course, that correlated to the dramatic drop in marriages in the church.
About the six leaving for every one gained statistic, I'm willing to bet that very few, if any, are leaving for the reasons which have the signatories of the heresy accusation letter getting their knickers in a knot. In fact some of the leavers may be leaving because of the intolerant attitudes exhibited by the smaller, purer church crowd.
DeleteConverts are always more, shall we say?, fervent than those of us who were to the manor born. They had to invest more to get in. I try to love them and avoid psychoanalyzing them.
ReplyDeleteNo, they're not always more Catholic than the pope, and many of them weary of this trope.
DeleteI meant, generally speaking. Exceptions are plentiful.
ReplyDeleteConverts need both stories and theology. The "stories" I got growing up in a workinng class Catholic neighborhood. But understanding what Catholics believe is important to adults to untangle.
ReplyDeleteThe missing components of RCIA as I experienced it were these:
1. What is expected of you as a Catholic. Prospective converts need to be told very clearly that being Catholic means making life changes, particularly in the bedroom.
2. Introduction to the parish. RCIA is the province of those trained to lead it. You stand up in front of the parish for the Rite of Sending and with your squirmy toddler for the Vigil fol-de-rol, but you are basically sequestered from the wider parish, and, you are ignored after your reception. I
It takes us converts a LONG time to learn to "speak Catholic" (I like the way Tom put it), and having a few friendly "translators" in the parish for a year or two after you've been thrown across the Tiber might help.
All of you are my "translators," and I owe you all a debt.
The "big life changes in the bedroom" thing might be difficult for the instructors to articulate since the majority of Catholics don't exactly go by the book in that area. The uber-trads would say it's a deal breaker, some others might lay out the teaching and say, "Do the best you can."
DeleteWhat's wrong with saying that "this is the Church's teaching and you are expected to prayerfully consider how this might change things in your own life and marriage"? Or have one of the NFP peddlers from the diocese come in and give a talk?
DeleteThat's exactly how it would go in our parish. But it varies from place to place. And our parish is pretty much like others in that there are a lot more 1-3 kid families than there are 6-10 ones. Not to say the smaller families aren't following the rule book. But the ones teaching NFP are usually the 8+ couples. Not sure what that says, except it's not a great ad for NFP.
DeleteForgive this interruption, but for those of you who don't have full access to the New York Times website, I see that the paper has taken down its paywall for three days. The article is dated May 2. I don't know if that necessarily means the three days are May 2-4; could be May 3-5. Anyway, just wanted to let you know, so you can download those pieces you've heard about and would have liked to read.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/reader-center/world-press-freedom-day.html
Why The Times Is Taking Down Its Paywall for 3 Days
As we mark World Press Freedom Day, our international editor asks each of us to imagine what would happen around the world if journalists, and the public, were not watching.
By Michael Slackman
May 2, 2019
I would love to see credible database on the retention rate of RCIA candidates for the first and fifth years post reception. My former small parish would take in from 2 to 5 per year. I only knew of 1 who continued with us. Others may have moved away, but no one seemed to know ... or evidently care.
ReplyDeleteJim - what does "retention" mean? Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
DeleteMost of the converts in our parish stop going to Mass within a few years. I suspect they went through RCIA to keep the in-laws happy and to show that they were serious about raising the kids up Catholic.
DeleteI guess if you take the view that being Catholic is a lifelong condition, you can claim them.
Jim P: dream on.
DeleteEpiscopalianism does a much better job of treating its communicate as adults. I guess that is why I have met so many former RCs whenever I visit one of those churches.
ReplyDeleteWe had a nice adult confirmation prep program with the Episcopapists. The priest led it, the discussion was very lively, and I recall laughing a lot. The bishop came in and met with us before the sacrament.
DeleteI felt RCIA was kind of a re-do of the same info, only the Church Ladies did all the talking, and there was no laughing.
I wasn't sure why I needed to have confirmation redone as a Catholic, since the liturgy and vows were exactly the same. I didn't push it because it made Father uncomfortable.
Yeah, lots of Catholics in ECUSA. All the glitter but none of the guilt.
Jimmy: piscopalianism does a much better job of treating its communicate as adults. I guess that is why I have met so many former RCs whenever I visit one of those churches.
DeleteYes, a whole lot of ex-RCs in Episcopal pews these days. One former Catholic said the best thing about being Episcopalian is that they don't expect people to "check their brains at the door". The EC doesn't have a 1000 page catechism of "must believes", but presents the scriptures, and the official take on them, and leaves it up to each person to work out their own understandings as intelligent, adult christians. They believe in the "Real Presence" but don't get into specifics because, as they note, quite correctly, it's a mystery. Definitely most don't believe in transubstantiation!
The EC diocese of Washington DC has a woman bishop. She has never been RC, but her husband is Catholic. Our new rector is one of 8 siblings, attended all Catholic schools, graduated from Notre Dame and has based a homily on a story about her mother's rosary. Just one more former Catholic. I suspect she doesn't agree that "once a Catholic, always a Catholic". I missed her "getting to know you and let you know me and ask whatever questions you want" talk at the church, so I don't know if she switched because she had long wanted to be a priest or not - but maybe. She's a second career priest (20 years in the government and corporate worlds), like so many deacons in the RCC. The RCC's loss was the EC's gain with her, that's for sure.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLongtime Commonweal columnist Jo McGowan has posted "Why I Stayed...and Why I’m Leaving" at https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/why-i-stayedand-why-i%E2%80%99m-leaving
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGene, thanks for posting. Our magazine always arrives late out here in the cornfield. I am so sorry for Jo and her family ... but sorrier for the Church that has lost her. Her essays about her daughter over the years were always sensitive and inspiring, the best of what a pro-life attitude looks like.
DeleteI know we have to believe that Christ works through even the most imperfect imperfect vessels like the priest at Moy's funeral. Some days that's awfully hard. I am glad other family members were there to speak to more positively.
Who knows: Maybe something sank in and that priest will wise up.
I deleted my previous comment because it was unkind. I have not read Jo McGowan's other essays, which I should do before posting an ill-considered comment.
DeleteEvery priest and deacon who preaches at funerals, weddings and baptisms should read that Jo McGowan column.
DeleteA bit of a cold-water question: Why did she decide to have a funeral Mass? As she writes she had taken her distance from the Church, presumably her parish. What could you expect from a priest who probably didn't know her, her family, her daughter? She hadn't catechized him! Doesn't it work both ways?
DeleteI think McGowan tries to explain the funeral Mass decision as a kind of emotional yearning for what once sustained her.
DeleteBut I think Margaret has a valid point (though I do find it a bit cold). If you have fallen away, you don't really have a right to complain. Thought that has never stopped me!I
I am a bit stymied about why the priest didn't meet with the family ahead of time to discuss her daughter's life. Most clergy do this.
In discussing our funeral preferences, Raber said he wants a funeral Mass with all the smells and bells he can get. That means every blood relative will be sitting like mopes during communion, because they're all Protestants or unfit to receive. I guess I would request a reserved area for family to avoid possible confusion, chaos, and consternation by the Church Lady EMs.
I opted for a graveside committal service only. It's all doped out in my Death Folder. It takes about five minutes.
The last funeral Mass I attended: 75 percent of the crowd didn't know what was going on...stand? kneel? Why not just keep to your seat?
DeletePerhaps more than a majority weren't Catholics; but some were. Is it time to rethink funeral Masses? Maybe skip them. Memorial Masses seem to work with far-flung families. What about the wake at home, where people remember the deceased, drink to his/her good works, and end with an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be! It might remind all of us of mutual responsibilities to honor the dead and pray for them instead of counting on the over-worked, under-informed clergy.
Some lay people want to have more say...here's our chance.
I find the way they do funerals here a bit overwhelming. For the families, not so much for me as a bystander. You have visitation all afternoon the day before the funeral. If the person was K of C or Catholic Daughters, they do a rosary. Then you have a parish rosary, chaplet, or Scripture service in the evening. There's varying degrees of people getting up and telling what the person meant to them. By the time they finally get the dear departed buried the next day and the luncheon over, seems like the family would be deer in the headlights. But of course they can opt out some of that, so I assume it's what they want.
DeletePersonally I just want the parish rosary, no open mic afterwards, a funeral Mass, and burial in my hometown cemetery. That last part I probably won't get.
Katherine, my gosh, it sounds exhausting! When family friends died a few years ago (within six weeks of each other), their kids (my childhood friends) had visitation at the Church an hour before the funeral Mass, no eulogy, no rosary, no open mic (I hate those). There was a lunch in the parish hall after.
DeleteMargaret, yes, memorial services give the family more time to plan, gather, and work out wrangles that might otherwise lead to rifts.
I am of an age when I go to funerals like I used to go to birthday parties, and it seems to me -- but apparently not to Margaret, Katherine or Jean -- that funerals are what the Church does best. Yes, they bring out people who have never been inside a church and people who deliberately haven't been inside a church lately. But at our parish, the priests, through the years -- and including a couple you wouldn't necessarily expect it from -- have made the strangers welcome and the Mass inclusive. They talk to the next of kin before the Mass to make sure they have the right thing to say in their homily, and they try, with some success, to confine open mics to the "viewing" the night before. Usually, though, someone from the family speaks at the Mass, and it usually works out funnier than I knew the speaker had in him or her. We even had a friend of the deceased read a eulogy the deceased had written for himself (it was mostly about us, and it was funny; I might try that).
DeleteOne question I have heard asked after one of our funerals, twice now, is "do you know of any parishes like this in (where I live)?"
And one lesson I have taken from the eulogies I heard is: You can't judge a man by his condiments.
Jim: Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
ReplyDeleteThat's how they inflate the numbers, ignoring the reality that tens of millions of people who were baptized Catholic are no longer Catholic.
So, if someone comes to RCIA to convert, and they were baptized in, for example, the Episcopal church, for whom baptism is a sacrament also, with the same trinitarian formula, the same ritual, complete with oil and water, etc, would you say they are "once Episcopalian, always Episcopalian" so they would not be Catholics even after going through all the steps to become one?
The Catholic church accepts the validity of the baptisms of other denominations, as long as they say the right words (etc). So, once a Lutheran, always a Lutheran. Unless you are implying that their baptisms are ontologically inferior to Catholic baptisms. Even though they are accepted as valid.
I am not certain to what extent the church "inflates its numbers". In fact, I don't think it does. The percentage of Catholics in the US, which seems to have dropped by a few percentage points over the last couple of decades, is not a matter of the institution reporting numbers to pollsters; it's a matter of individual responders self-identifying as Catholic to the pollsters.
DeleteYour reference to baptism is extremely important. It illuminates the truth, taught by the Second Vatican Council, that in some way the members of the various Christian churches and denominations are all members of the church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic church. There is a sense in which Lutherans and Episcopalians *are* Catholic - or at least are related by thick and strong bonds to the church - and one of the most concrete illustrations of that is those churches' acknowledgement that there is one baptism.
Certainly, a person who once professed run-of-the-mill Catholicism can change her/his mind and profess something else. I believe the church would say, though, that even that doesn't completely sever the bond between the church and that person.
Hmmm. Jim, you are really trying hard to make a case that really might not stand up to close examination. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. So, if Episcopalians and Lutherans etc, with valid baptisms, decide to become Catholic, they really don't need to go through any process after all - according to your understanding of "one baptism" they are already Catholic anyway, they just don't know it. Or maybe the triumphalism of the Catholic church declaring itself the "one, true church" is the problem, leading to a false conclusion - if you are baptized with the proper words etc in any denomination, you are really a Catholic. And if you leave you are really a Catholic too. Since VII the RCC has acknowledged that even non-christians might be "saved", but only throuogh Christ and his church (the church being the RCC). So I guess they are also Catholic?
DeleteThe real problem here is that the RCC has declared unilaterally that Christ's "church" subsists in the RCC. And the RCC also insists that once baptized in the RCC church (apparently it has a more valid and stronger baptism than other churches) they can never, ever declare themselves no longer Catholic officially - in canon law. Someone in Ireland started a petition or program or something because he found that he could not divorce the Catholic church after writing to his bishop to please reduce the count of Catholics in his diocese by one. Was told he was still Catholic because "once a Catholic, always a Catholic".
Seriously, Jim, doesn't this all seem a bit over the top?
Ron Dreher has some thoughts on the efforts of Catholics to convince him and other ex-Catholics to return to the RCC. He left because of the sex abuse scandal, as did the others he mentioned. However, it seems none of them actually looked at the roots of the scandal, which lie in RC teachings - when I realized that, that's when I left. The sex abuse scandal was a trigger to force me to look very carefully at RC teachings, to understand the underlying disease that was causing the symptoms that produced the "scandal" - which will not ever be cured until those doctrines are surgically removed from RCC teaching.
Anyway, Dreher's column
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/catholic-triumphalism/
"The real problem here is that the RCC has declared unilaterally that Christ's "church" subsists in the RCC." Well, it wasn't exactly unilateral: Matt. 16:18. After that, it's all historical interpretation.
DeleteI hope Ron Dreher discovers or rediscovers the Quakers. Anyone who keeps, turning, turning as he does ought to a) come out right, b) land somewhere or c) get dizzy. At the moment, he seems, to me, to be at point c, but he keeps turning and turning (in his widening gyre?).
About Dreher's column (actually there are two columns, the first links to the second). I get his point about triumphalism and hubris. We could do with a whole lot less of both. But that's not all he said. There's this:
Delete"An Orthodox Christian can go about his life without having to pay the slightest attention to his bishop, because he can have faith that the bishop isn’t going to pull any funny stuff liturgically or doctrinally. The bishop may end up being a thief, a puppet of political leaders, or otherwise corrupt — but he’s not going to mess with the liturgy or the doctrine. A figure like Pope Francis is unthinkable within Orthodoxy. The turmoil of the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath is also entirely unknown and alien to Orthodoxy."
He's basically saying that he trusts the Orthodox church because it never changes doctrine or liturgy. Not sure that's quite true, but whatever. Vatican 2 and playing fast and loose with Tradition, and all that. I'm fine with him staying Orthodox, because if he came back, he'd be one of the ones signing the accusation of heresy letter saying that the chair of Peter is vacant (because a pope forfeits his office if he falls into heresy).
Jim P. By "the church" I assume you mean the denomination known as the RCC. Is a one-way bond a true bond?
ReplyDeleteJim wrote, "Every priest and deacon who preaches at funerals, weddings and baptisms should read that Jo McGowan column." I would add, we'd all do well to read other columns of hers. As Jean noted above, "Her essays about her daughter over the years were always sensitive and inspiring, the best of what a pro-life attitude looks like." Her columns on other subjects were also very good. To see more of them, google "Jo McGowan"/"commonwealmagazine.org"
ReplyDeletePer my comment @ 5/9, 11:22: Why didn't she share her columns with the Indian Catholic clergy, even her local clergy?
DeleteI just snuck into Commonweal's Web Site, where I no longer functionally exist (someone there even sent me an email to verify that I am an angry human and not a bot, but my status remains: Not Valid.) I wondered, with Margaret, why McGowan bothered with a funeral in a place she left in 2009. I also am tired of hearing that sexual abuse is "still a crisis" as the number of new cases for the U.S. dwindles far below similar organizations, and most of the new "crisis" information is old (yes, disgusting. But old) news dredged up by attorneys general thinking about running for governor. If walk-aways can get tired of Catholic tropes, I think it's OK for me to get tired of walk-away tropes.
DeleteBack in the days when we ran Re-membering in our parish and invited what we were not offended when they called themselves "pissed-off Catholics" to come and talk, I heard dozens of stories of tone-deaf and/or brain dead homilies at funerals or weddings. I can't imagine it never happens at Protestant or Buddhist funerals and weddings.
Yes, tone-deaf sermons occur among Protestants. The Lutheran who have a "wages of sin is death" sermon at Gramma's funeral will be on my fecal roster forever.
DeleteAlso, yes, I often feel I probably get tiresome with my "why I got out of line" comments. I think the fact that I can't stick with a denomination must stem from some type of unrealistic expectations I have about faith.
DeleteSorry if I go off too much on the poor Church Ladies.
Long ago you convinced me the Church Ladies deserve it.
DeleteLord deliver me from Evangelical funerals where they try to save all the not-born-again and backsliders.
Delete