It has been said that there are no new heresies, just recycled old ones.
In this article Michael Sean Winters discusses similarities in some of the problems surfacing in the church today with the rise of Jansenism in the 17th century
MSW discusses an article by George Weigel published recently in First Things:
"George Weigel did the church a great service last week when he published an article in First Things applauding Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez's churlish statement about Joe Biden on Inauguration Day. Apparently, and unsurprisingly, Weigel knows about the inner workings of the U.S. bishops' working group formed to deal with the Biden administration, and he confirmed what many of us had suspected....Weigel's admiration for the tone and content of Gomez's statement as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was predictable. You would almost think he might have had a hand in drafting it."
"....Weigel claims that Gomez's statement was pastoral. How does he conceive of being a pastor? Shouting items from the catechism at people? You do not need a pastor for that. An algorithm will do."
"Besides, if this statement was genuinely pastoral in nature, why did the working group and Gomez not consult with Biden's actual pastors? Did he ask what pastoral approach they would take? Is the president of the bishops' conference now the grand imam for every U.S. Catholic?"
"The reference to the working group crafting a statement on "eucharistic coherence," however, is the most alarming (emphasis mine). It pulls back the curtain on the real goal for establishing this working group. They do not seek to engage the new president with the goal of advancing the common good, not provide him with pastoral care. They want to position the entire episcopate of the United States such that it becomes inevitable that Biden is declared unfit to receive Communion."
"....Weigel thinks grace can come to him and those like him, but he can decree to whom grace cannot come. He seems not to recognize that grace works in mysterious ways, that it rarely comes in an instant but works its way gradually into the human soul. He should re-read Pope Francis' observations in Gaudete et Exultate:
Those who yield to this pelagian or semi-pelagian mindset, even though they speak warmly of God's grace, "ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style."
"The historical comparison is obvious: The threat posed by Weigel today is akin to the threat of Jansenism in the 17th century. He is flirting with the stuff of schism.
"When, in 1640, the collaborators and disciples of the recently deceased Cornelius Jansen published his book Augustinus, they were not planning to start a schism. "
"...Politics and theology, then as now, were all mixed up together. Some 17th-century politicians, most notably Cardinal Richelieu, took notice and, as Joseph Bergin explains in his book Church, Society, and Religious Change in France, 1580-1730, worried that their extreme views "made a normal life within lay society incompatible with Christian living, and that it would drive those subjected to it either to outright despair or withdrawal from the world."
"There were many deep and difficult theological issues at play in the Jansenist schism. Interestingly, the most central issue then, as with today's Jansenists, had to do with the reception of holy Communion. The Jansenists, then as now, were trying to limit the freedom of opinion open to Catholics – and their opponents were the Jesuits! Bergin writes that the Council of Trent "actually feared the dangers of making definitive pronouncements on questions that had remained undecided for centuries."
"He adds, "Its decrees on fundamental issues of original sin, the freedom of the human will and predestination to salvation or damnation ... were compromises that left the door open to further discussion and, therefore disagreement."
"Jansen wanted to close that door, as does Weigel and, apparently, so, too, does the bishops' working group."
"The Catholic Church in France could not solve the problem of Jansenism on its own. Pope Clement X, in the 1713 bull Unigenitus, condemned 101 specific tenets of Jansenism. It took years for the reception of the papal bull to be complete..."
"The Jansenism of today will also be solved only with the intervention of the Holy See. Francis should understand that there is a Jansenistic functional schism in the church and that it has infected the hierarchy and the clergy, just as its predecessor did 300 years ago."
Whether or not Weigel and the bishops are headed in the direction of Jansenism or some other heresy, I will leave to historians and theologians decide.
ReplyDeleteAs a social scientist I have a much simpler category, sectarianism. Sectarian movements within church organizations head for schism because they promote higher standards of thinking and behavior in contrast to other members of the church and society. They are not content to merely exhibit higher standards such as members of religious orders do with the observance of poverty, chastity and obedience but rather intend to impose their thinking and behavior upon rest of the church and society. Protestantism constantly revives itself by producing more and more sects.
The American Church became very sectarian during the period of European immigration when bishops decided they needed schools, health care and social institutions to insulate Catholics against being converted into Protestantism. A high degree of cohesion and effort was maintained because of the perceived by threat from the majority of the country. In Poland and Ireland similar high degrees of cohesion were formed against perceived external political and religious threats (England and Russia). Unfortunately when such perceived threats vanish, very high levels of religious practice quickly crumble.
With the ecumenism of Vatican II fears of Protestants receded but were quickly replaced by a fear of communism than secularism which some bishops have come to share with Evangelical Protestants. Again the motivation dynamics are clear. Identify a perceived religious threat, and use that to produce high degrees of cohesion and effort within the group. Similar dynamics happened when nationalistic leaders use a foreign or domestic enemy to promote a high degree of national unity and loyalty. Trump basically used the same dynamics which is why our sectarian bishops and the Evangelicals find it so easy to be taken in by him.
Most sociologists of religion see Catholicism as the Great Church, the church for everyone as the opposite of sectarianism. Our defects are that we tend to be too accommodating to power, money and culture (worldliness). But we have religious orders and other spiritual movements within the Church that regularly arise to inspire Catholics to higher standards. We convert ourselves and the world by founding new spiritualities (e.g. Franciscans, Jesuits) that inspire people and face the problems of both the church and society rather condemning other Catholics and members of society.
I think you may be right that sectarianism describes this behavior better than Jansenism. Actual Jansenism was pretty complex. Weigel and the bishops in the article do share some characteristics with it, notably their desire to be Communion cops, and their tendency to be rigorist and legalistic.
DeleteI am sorry, but I think NCR has gone bonkers. Elsewhere, I saw their editors call for a Vatican investigation of the USCCB.
ReplyDeleteI don't completely agree with MSW's assessment that this amounts to Jansenism. But can you deny that there is troubling division in the church that in some ways is de facto schism? I think maybe Jack's take on it may be more accurate than MSW's.
DeleteAbout the Vatican investigation of the USCCB, it's not going to happen. But if you remember in the last part of Benedict XVI's reign, a six year investigation of the Leadership Council of Women Religious (LCWR) was initiated by some conservative/traditional bishops and paid for at least in part by the Knights of Columbus. I think NCR article is making the point that it would serve them right to get some of their own medicine. But that kind of schadenfreude wouldn't be a good Christian witness.
Right - I don't think that, whatever the situation is in the church today, it's de facto schism.
DeleteWe've discussed Archbishop Gomez's letter already, and we've agreed (I think - at least I do :-)) that it was undiplomatic. To my way of thinking, that's a venial sin. Gomez got himself publicly upbraided by Cardinal Cupich, and it seems that the latter will push within the conference to have more formal processes for consultation in communicating with government officials. Fine. Maybe something will come of that, or not. Either way, it's not exactly the stuff of schism.
As for the content of Gomez's letter itself, it was straightforward witnessing to what the church teaches. That's the aspect of Winters' column which is so bizarre: the implication that Gomez is committing schism by ... saying what the church believes. If Gomez's words bother the Biden Administration or its cheerleaders in Catholic media, then they're sort of convicting themselves.
As for the committee or whatever it is which is being established to work with Biden Administration, let's see what it's about and how it operates before we deem it a vehicle for schism. It's possible that the bishops, and/or its committee, will try to work with the Biden Administration on policies which both can support.
Personally, I don't want the USCCB to be an extension of the Biden Administration, nor a center of opposition. I want our bishops to stand for the values of the kingdom of heaven, and cooperate with the Biden Administration when they're able to, and to be able to explain civilly (but clearly and assertively) when they're not able to.
Regarding visitations: there are times it is warranted. I don't think this is one of those times. Being conservative is not sinful.
DeleteNCR didn't support the visitation of the US sisters. I don't think it supported the visitation of seminaries, either. Nor has it supported Holy See investigations into the works of individual theologians. And I believe there are times when it has spoken against Holy See interference in the prerogatives of national conferences, such as liturgical translation. My sense of the tradition of NCR is that it has supported more autonomy, not less, for the people of God. Apparently that principle is contingent on church politics. More autonomy for our kind of people, less for yours.
Jim, they can be conservative and witness to the teaching of the church all they want to, and I don't expect them to be Biden boosters. Where I disagree with them is when they try to be Communion cops and use the sacrament for a club or a carrot. That infringes on freedom of conscience. Especially if they were to come up with a statement of "Eucharistic coherence" defining some people out as not being worthy. Nobody is worthy, including them. Making the Eucharist a fence or a wall instead of a gateway to Christ is where they make the church their little exclusive club. And that I do object to.
DeleteAbout MSW, he said he was going to have a column today saying why he disagrees with Biden on abortion. Which is kind of a "duh". I disagree with the whole Democratic party on abortion. But I disagree with Trumpism on just about everything. We'll see if the Repubs can extricate their party from Trumpism. There is a saying about going to bed with dogs and waking up with fleas (kind of insulting to dogs!). The USCCB needs to be careful about the fleas.
The MSW column on politics and abortion can be found here. It is actually pretty good.
DeleteKatherine, thanks for that link to the MSW column on abortion. I agree he gets quite a bit right.
DeleteI'm sorry to say, he's pretty much right on about Trump's morally corrupting influence on the pro-life movement. Trump pollutes everything he touches. He's Sauron.
What MSW apparently doesn't recognize is that, for a voter who thinks abortion is the great human rights issue of our time, the hill upon which a voter will stand and die, the 2020 ballot wasn't the no-brainer that MSW apparently thinks it was. Because, if that is the voter's point of view regarding abortion - then Biden *still* was an even worse candidate than Trump, just as Clinton was worse than Trump in 2016. Everything that is awful about Trump *still* doesn't outweigh the awfulness of Biden on abortion - and Biden was the *moderate* in the galaxy of his party's presidential candidates, i.e. the party as a whole is even worse.
You may not agree with that calculus. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump, either. Maybe pro-life advocates aren't thinking rightly or clearly - maybe the way they are weighing up the competing moral evils is flawed. I say this without rancor: I think most Americans are ignorant about moral decision-making. I don't use that word "ignorant" as a term of personal insult. I mean it in its literal sense: most Americans have virtually no education or training in the art and science of moral decision-making, and they are surrounded by a lot of bad examples they can draw on. Most people, I think, are a lot like Trump (and, as MSW suggests, perhaps like Biden) - they go with their gut, or go with their heart. And in many cases, it's an unformed heart.
Before Trump, I would have said that Republicans, with all their party's flaws, occupied the moral high ground vis a vis Democrats: Republicans were hands-down, night-and-day better on the life issues, while Democrats were only marginally better on the other social issues. Now that Trump has completed his hostile takeover of the GOP and seemingly isn't about to relinquish his personal political party, the GOP has become anti-immigrant and, in many respects, anti-American, and I've pretty much given up on it. But, for now, the party is still pro-life (although that could easily change, given the make-up of Trump's base), and a lot of pro-life voters haven't reached the point of giving-up-on that I have. There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence (I am not certain about more scientifically rigorous evidence) that a lot of pro-life voters aren't deluded about Trump; they know what they're buying. But Democrats have failed to give these voters an alternative. They have nowhere else to turn.
And, to be sure, I expect a lot of pro-life voters aren't conflicted at all: they like Trump. They like the nationalism, they are all too ready to despise persons of color, they believe they are victimized by the party of the elite which the Democratic Party has become.
The Democrats and Republicans have been in a centrifugal totentanz over abortion until they both ended up in extreme opposite positions. In my view, killing of a human in the first trimester or before neural activity is tolerable. I don't think a Catholic can do this as it is a rejection of what comes from God. But this is not common ground with all Americans. Maybe if we can get more political parties on the playing field, some sort of compromise and peace can be attained.
DeleteGiven the damage to the country by Trump, I have put abortion on the shelf until some political balance returns, if ever. How can we help the unborn we can't see if we dismiss the people we can see?
And for yet another point of view is this article by Rebecca Bratten Weiss.
Delete"So is this the message the Catholic faithful should send to our Catholic president, in these early days of his administration? Should we demand Biden to legislate against abortion?"
DeleteWell, yes, we should. But speaking for myself, I'd be at least a bit pleased if he'd simply stop working actively to expand abortion.
Apologies - my previous comment was a reply to questions which were posed by Rebecca Bratten Weiss in the article which Katherine linked to.
Delete"Jim, they can be conservative and witness to the teaching of the church all they want to, and I don't expect them to be Biden boosters. Where I disagree with them is when they try to be Communion cops and use the sacrament for a club or a carrot. That infringes on freedom of conscience."
DeleteThere are reasons the disciplines around reception of communion exist, and many of us would do well to examine and think about them. I think we should expect bishops to be consistent, impartial and fair in how they impose penalties. Certainly, they should avoid even the appearance of political favoritism. The same expectations and rules should apply to you, me and President Biden.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis is the Rev. Sam Sawyer, SJ in America Magazine, suggesting that the Mexico City policy gives President Biden an opportunity to actually build consensus and unity on abortion. (Biden yesterday rescinded the Mexico City policy, following the custom of other recent Democratic presidents).
Deletehttps://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2021/01/29/joe-biden-abortion-mexico-city-policy-unity-239853?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7606&pnespid=iOpg96hWCAGNRHFaNJhISBBHghTg79DE_saP.ctm
Sawyer's point is that this is an opportunity missed. I think he's right.
Let me make a point about the Mexico City policy and Democratic presidents, one that ties this in with our larger discussion of American bishops:
I suspect most of us are still feeling enormous relief in having a normal, functioning and seemingly competent president in the Oval Office. The sensation of, "The nightmare of the last four years is over!" hasn't receded yet. I'm enjoying that feeling as much as anyone.
But an incoming Democratic administration is not unalloyed good news for the Catholic Church in the United States. The previous one, the Obama Administration, was insensitive and even occasionally hostile to issues that are important to many Catholics, including many bishops. This new administration is led by an Obama Administration veteran, and so far his cabinet picks and other nominations understandably are drawing heavily from Obama Administration veterans (understandably so). So far, the Biden Administration feels very much like Obama Administration 2.0.
To many Catholics, and I suspect to at least some bishops, Obama 2.0 does not start with a clean slate. It is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Its starting point is one of skepticism and distrust. It is incumbent on the Biden Administration to show that it deserves trust and goodwill from these skeptics.
And so, from that point of view, the rescinding of the Mexico City policy is a bad start. It sends precisely the wrong signal to skeptics. It signals that this is, indeed, more of the same, and that we should expect more Democratic Administration aggression and hostility on abortion, school choice, conscience protections, hostility to Catholic Charities and the all the other wounds and bruises which haven't healed from the Obama days.
Jim, the bishops didn't stop with abortion, but dragged in contraception, gay marriage, and gender.
DeleteDo you believe in the separation of church and state?
Do you believe that elected political leaders should use their office to impose the religious beliefs of their own affiliation on everyone in the USA?
Do you think that the US should become a Roman Catholic theocracy? Or maybe just a christian-in-general theocracy?
Jim: I don't think that, whatever the situation is in the church today, it's de facto schism.
DeleteSeriously? It may not be a formal, legal schism, but there is a de facto schism under the official dictionary definition
schism/ˈs(k)izəm/
split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.
the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences.
The first definition of schism unquestionably describes the RCC in the US today. The second maybe not because the separation is nor formal.
However, the dropping out of more than 30 million cradle Catholics from the church in the US in the last few decades points to a form of schism. They moved from one group of schismatics under the first definition before formally removing themselves from the pews - but most do not join another denomination, nor do most join the unofficial Catholic groups. They become nones. The younger the generation, the higher the numbers of drop-outs who have become "nones". But there are also a lot of "dones" - boomers who have left - like me and Jim M, and a majority of my Catholic friends from college days. Less attention is paid to the "dones" than to the "nones" because we aren't going to be creating new little Catholic babies. However, they often track us down these days to offer to visit us at home to tell us how we can leave the church money in our wills. It's amazing how hard it is to get off Catholic rolls!
It is hard for me to believe that some Catholics still don't see what has happened, and what will continue to happen. Is it because the total numbers haven't fallen due to immigration to the US during the same period?
Maybe it's simply playing ostrich.
BTW, I doubt many Catholics would be thrilled if we had a Muslim president who decided he had to impose sharia laws on the entire population because his Iman told him that he had to to do that be a "real" Muslim and still be allowed into the mosque.
I have to admit they lost me totally when they tacked on all the gender and birth control stuff. No longer a matter of life or death, 800,000 unborn lives per year. Isn't that more important than the rest, enough to shelve the rest?
DeleteIf I might add, it turned a matter of life and death which could be argued across faiths into a kind of Roman Catholic sharia.
DeleteHi Anne - I don't think your questions about "separation of church and state" stand up to examination. Yes, I "believe in" (support) the First Amendment, one of the purposes of which is to prevent the state from imposing an official state religion. That word "imposing" isn't anodyne. The first European settlers, Puritans, Catholics and some Jews, came here because they were religiously persecuted in Europe - persecuted by the State. Our own history tells us that the threat to moral freedom doesn't come from one religion imposing its will on others; it comes from the State imposing its will on religious minorities, of which the Catholic church always has been one in the US and still is today. That was true in the 1600s, and it was true during the Obama Administration. It is not conservatives who are growing increasingly intolerant of religion, it is progressives.
DeleteIn a democracy, there is zero danger that the Catholic church will control the levers of the state; we are a minority in the United States. If Catholic views prevail at all in the United States, it is because Catholics have managed to persuade others of our views. That is probably not very amazing, as the United States still is a Protestant-majority country, and the many variations of Protestantism all are rooted in Catholicism.
The disappointment that some Catholics (like me) feel toward a politician like Joe Biden who actively promotes abortion is not because that is un-American; it's certainly his civil right to be a Catholic who doesn't embrace the fullness of Catholic faith. No, the disappointment is because it's not good witness to the Catholic faith. He is "evangelizing" (and accumulating awesome power upon a foundation of) something which is a very great evil. Catholics aren't supposed to do that.
"Jim, the bishops didn't stop with abortion, but dragged in contraception, gay marriage, and gender."
DeleteI don't think I've ever heard anybody in the clergy say anything about contraception, ever. I think that ship sailed decades ago. For those who were young adults in the 1960s and early 1970s, I know it was a fraught topic. I grew up later than that, and by my era (1980s), it already was a nothingburger. I've probably mentioned this before: for the first five years of my marriage, I had no idea the Catholic Church officially forbade contraception. I don't think many people spend much energy arguing about contraception anymore.
As for gay marriage, there is a sort of civil peace around it now. As long as the State permits the Catholic Church and other churches not to have gay weddings under their auspices or on their premises, I think it will quickly fade away as a bone of contention - in fact, it already has. In other words, as long as the Catholic Church is left in peace on that topic, then that ship also has sailed. I expect there are some activists who are not happy that the Catholic Church and other churches won't allow a gay couple to tie the knot under church auspices, and they would seek to use the power of the State (judges and legislatures) to force these Churches to do what it is not able to do; just as activists continue to seek to use the power of the State to force bakers, florists, photographers et al to violate their consciences. That is a shame. It's intolerant. It's very un-American. It's possible that one outcome of all this is that the State will stop recognizing the validity of religious wedding ceremonies; couples who want a religious wedding would have two weddings, one in a church and another in a courtroom or a county clerk's office. I believe that happens already in other countries and everyone lives with it.
Gender identity still is a fraught topic, and not just in matters of religion; I don't think there is an overall civil, social consensus yet on that cluster of issues. But as regards churches, the dynamic is exactly what I've described on other issues: activists seek to use the power of the State to force churches to do what they otherwise wouldn't do - in other words, to abridge religious freedom.
Jim, dragging in what homilies are given, or not given, is irrelevant.
DeleteIt was the bishops; letter that lectured Biden about contraception, gay marriage, and gender issues, indicating that he should use his position to push the religious beliefs of Catholics on the entire country - with an implied "or else".
So wrong.
It seems that you interpret separation of church and state to mean it's OK for the government to use legislation to impose the religious beliefs of one group onto the entire nation - as long as those beliefs are Roman Catholic anyway.
Would you advocate the death penalty for adultery? Or for homosexual acts? These are the religious beliefs of some, and are enforced in some countries. So you agree that a Muslim president should push similar legislation in the US?
IOW - you seem to believe that separation of church and state means "religious freedom for me" but maybe not for others.
Jim: activists continue to seek to use the power of the State to force bakers, florists, photographers et al to violate their consciences. That is a shame. It's intolerant. It's very un-American
Wow - I sure hope you don't really mean that sentiment.
Tell me - why do you think it's OK for a for-profit business open to the public to discriminate against gays (such as the baker case)? They are not a church - they are a business open to the public.
Do you also agree with these instances of discrimination based on "christian" belief?
Discrimination against inter-racial couples isn't over yet either.
Here is a 2019 story about a wedding venue that had a policy that they would not host gay weddings or interracial weddings because of the owner's "christian beliefs".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49571207
In Loving v the Commonwealth of Virginia a judge based his decision on his religious beliefs to deny legal marriage to an interracial couple.
Virginia judge ruled: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
"And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Jim, gay marriage is legal. Interracial marriage is legal. Private, for profit businesses (not religious institutions) open to the public have no right to discriminate against minorities - whether they are racial minorities or gays.
I find it really hard to believe that you support such discrimination.
I really hope that you will examine your conscience on this matter.
Jack: We convert ourselves and the world by founding new spiritualities (e.g. Franciscans, Jesuits) that inspire people and face the problems of both the church and society rather condemning other Catholics and members of society.
ReplyDeleteThe traditional spiritualities (Franciscan, Ignatian, Benedictine) are in steep decline. The relatively recent lay movements such as Communion and Liberatation are very conservative, lay lead so no power, and don't seem to be inspirational to many in terms of spirituality.
Where do you see any new movements comparable to Franciscans, Jesuits, Benedictines that will inspire people as the church heads into the future?
I don't see any inspiration on the horizon.
What I continue to see is the RCC turning its back on the world, and in some senses, on itself (the church as people of God). Too much of the leadership (in America anyway) does not look forward, but backwards, clinging almost desperately to the RCC's historical pattern of patriarchy, clericalism, and authoritarianism that does indeed "condemn other Catholics and members of society."- just as it has throughout most of its history.
What I see more and more frequently is this kind of movement in the American church.
Deletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/came-latin-incense-and-burned-books-out-went-half-parishioners
Perhaps inspirational to the segment that fears change, that fears the world, but not a spiritually inspiring movement to very many.
Rigor for ourselves, God's love to all others. When you invert that, you get Weigel, Donohue, the Church Ladies, and other pains in the ass.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that Weigel et al are correct about all their rules and regulations, but without love, what's the point of spouting them? It's just pride in being correct.
IMO, Peter Steinfels put Weigel in his place back in 2011. I never felt compelled to take Weigel seriously after that. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/fabricating-bernardin
Thanks for that link, Jean. I hadn't read that article, it's good.
DeleteInteresting article about Weigel.
DeleteJack, are you still around? I asked my question about what you see as new spiritualities being birthed by the RCC in our own era in all seriousness. I would really like to know, because I don't see any.
What I see in the realm of spirituality that reaches ordinary people is found in the emerging church - which is informal, and inspired by writers - including priests and nuns and ministers - from a range of christian denominations.
Anne,
DeleteI thought your observation and question was an important one that deserved waiting until I put my thoughts together. The question asked by both sociologists and theologians has been why after Vatican II have we not had a lot of new religious orders like after Trent (e.g. the Jesuits).
My answer to that is that we have to understanding more deeply how religious orders have functioned historically in renewing the Church. They did it by organizing resources in a separate way from the parochial system that I call parallel.
Initially all these lay people did not set up Eucharistic communities but rather organized their prayer around what would later be recognized as their forms of the Divine Office. Saint Benedict rule spends a lot of time organizing the Divine Office drawing upon monastic traditions. The Mass is hardly mentioned. Priests were not encouraged to join the community, and when they did what they were allowed to do was determined by the Abbot. Their rank in the community was determined by their date of entry. All this eventually changed as the Benedictines became clerical and developed the notion of private Masses in additional to the community Mass.
However, over the centuries there has always been a lot of creative tension between bishops and religious orders.
The religious orders were more capable of reforming the Church because poverty, chastity and obedience allowed them to organize resources much more efficiently that lay people.
It is important however to recognize that this begin with individuals both men and women solitaries living isolated from parish structures more like what you describe as the emerging church.
The main thing that enabled religious to organize was the vow of celibacy. I think voluntarism will be what enables lay people to organize their time, talent and treasure to both civic and church reform. Essentially several volunteers can provide the person power of one full time religious. As long as one does not get paid for one’s work, one can function independently of church run organizations.
I hope that the pandemic will help many people get over their dependency upon parishes and congregations for their spiritual lives.
Jack - my supposition is pretty straightforward: that religious orders have not replenished their numbers for many decades now because lives of poverty, chastity and obedience don't appeal to people as much as they once did; and the primary reason is that people are not as poor as they once were, especially in the developed world but also increasingly in the developing world, where tremendous strides have been made during the last 30-40 years to lift people out of poverty. If that is right, it's interesting, because I believe that, culturally in the developed world, the prospect of living a life of chastity and obedience seems more off-putting than poverty. But whereas in the past, joining an order would have provided a roadmap to a life full of meaning and fulfillment to someone who otherwise would be looking at, say, a lifetime of factory work, today people have many other options which don't entail poverty or chastity or promises of obedience. Promises to obey don't appear in any wedding vows I've heard over the course of my lifetime.
DeleteI also have the impression that, despite the vows of poverty, many religious orders accumulated wealth over the years and centuries, and despite numerous examples within the order of individuals embracing lives of poverty and simplicity, the orders' financial means afforded a degree of freedom to do great and interesting things, like build hospitals or travel around the world on missions, which must have made for satisfying lives for members of the orders.
"I hope that the pandemic will help many people get over their dependency upon parishes and congregations for their spiritual lives."
DeleteSurely that has been happening already as most of us are homebound during this time. But I don't see it as all good. After Pentecost, the apostles and their disciples went forth, preached the Good News, and then organized their followers into communities of disciples; the biblical witness is that this was God's plan. Discipleship is intrinsically communal, whether it is a parish, a religious order or some other faith community. Certainly, there are hermits, but I think we need to see them as exceptions rather than a way of life which can be "scaled" to a common way of life.
The American Catholic experience depends on parishes and schools for its communal "glue". Take that foundation away, and I think it's quite likely that the Catholic Church in the US will quickly wither.
I see "both and" as a good thing to happen, for us to be communities of believers again once we are able to, but also having cultivated our own spirituality during the time of distancing. Hopefully we can chew gum and walk, and hang on to both, because we need to be communal as well as prayerful and spiritual in our personal sphere.
DeleteI don't think we're communal enough. It should go beyond gathering for worship. I think there should be more actual financial mutual support and sharing. I'm talking Christian socialism. A better way of life embedded in and contrary to the capitalist environment. An impediment to this is the Roman imperial model, top down clericalism. Community cannot thrive in this setup.
DeleteI think there are at least three major models of Catholic spirituality: the spiritualities of solitude, spiritualities of community, and spiritualities of mission.
DeleteMuch like Dulles models of the church, all of these aspects of Christian life need to be present in the world but not equally in all people or in times and places. Historically in religious life the ideal religious was initially the desert solitary (Anthony) then the communal monk (The Rule of Saint Benedict) then teaching and mission orders (the Jesuits)
The spirituality of the desert solitaries did not neglect community and mission. Hospitality was a key virtue for almost all desert solitaries. Like the Benedictines they received each person as Christ, they shared what they had both spiritually and materially. Ideally the desert solitary had a spiritual father (mother) to whom he or she opened his spiritual life and who provided the wisdom to help the person not make mistakes.
I mostly agree with Stanley and Jim; I have always felt the need for a church home. The problem is that I'm easily discouraged by the cliques and officiousness of the self-appointed parish leaders I've seen across three different denominations in my lifetime.
DeleteIn my estimation, communal worship might be enriched if parishes thought more about the various needs in their parishes and in their larger communities and how to strengthen each other to perform the spiritual and corporal acts of mercy.
In Catholic parishes, this should amount to more than herding non-Catholic family members through RCIA, hanging out the Welcome Home sign for the Bad Catholics a few times a year, and maybe having a spaghetti supper for somebody who can't afford their cancer treatment.
Sidebar about living in community: I read about the Dominican sisters at the mother house in Adrian, Michigan, today. They have experienced a lot of covid deaths this month, but I liked what Sister Patricia says at the end, "Our hearts can be broken open wide enough to truly love each other.” https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-health-watch/michigan-dominican-sisters-find-grace-carry-forth-9-die-covid
Stanley, it sounds like what you want is the community described in Acts. Some of the charismatic communities use that model.
DeleteAnne, I certainly admire and envy the way of life of the early Church. I admire the Catholic Worker Movement, as well, but I think their embrace of extreme poverty is a bit much, especially for families and I'm thinking of the kids who didn't have a say. Dialing back the materialism is enough for me. You do this by driving a used car, I believe. After my Prius died, I'm driving the used Camry I bought my mother. I guess I visualize christians as helping one another more intensely as a model for the world. And reaching out to help others outside their community as a model for the world.
DeleteJack: However, over the centuries there has always been a lot of creative tension between bishops and religious orders.
ReplyDeleteFrom what little I know of all this, it seems that for centuries the Abbots of monasteries were richer, and more powerful, than bishops, at least in Ireland and the other British isles. Whether or not they were less corrupt than the bishops, I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me.
Did the sins of clericalism mostly arise with the shift in balance of powers from the religious orders to the bishops and non-order priesthood?
Jack, I think your three models of spirituality are a good start. I have long thought that personality plays a big role in individual fit of religion and spirituality. Most are born into a particular religion and into the model of spirituality that predominates in that religion.
ReplyDeleteWhen the parent determined choice is not a good fit for a child, the child will eventually either become a dutiful presence in the pews, but not really a true believer, or they may leave completely. The choice to leave can be very hard because of the disapproval of family and community. So many continue to go through the motions but do not really have a spiritual life or experience spiritual growth.
The churches tend to a one-size-fits all model and there are seldom options available for those who don’t fit the mold.
So the fastest growing religious group in America is the SBNR/Nones.
Jean, Jim, Katherine and Stanley all seek community for their religious expression, preferring a parish environment. Jack and I can go it alone, more or less. Jack finds great spiritual meaning chanting the Divine Office, with occasional communal support from the Orthodox Church near his home. I find it in small centering prayer groups.
ReplyDeleteA limited example of how different personalities seek different ways to meet their individual religious and spiritual needs. But few RC parishes offer more than the standard menu of liturgy, rosaries, etc. There is rarely anything available for the more contemplatively oriented people. Episcopal parishes have liturgy and bible study, but also don’t offer much for the contemplative types.
Anne - I really think you are onto something with your insight about different personalities.
DeleteThere are many different spiritualities within the church. As noted above (or somewhere :-)), traditionally those spiritualities have been expressed and accommodated via religious orders. But the different spiritualities are "larger" than orders - it is something which pertains to all of us. Surely much of the tension (and conflict) within the church is an attempt to accommodate these different spiritualities under the same large tent.
It was reflecting this weekend that describing Catholics as "conservative" and "liberal" is inadequate and probably too limiting. The much-publicized disagreement between Archbishop Gomez and Cardinal Cupich probably can better be understood as tension between two different spiritualities. Francis surely has identified a new (and in many ways fresh) stream of spirituality into the church, and he naturally associates with (and nominates) bishops who share his spirituality. Gomez I think has a different spirituality, one more in sync with Benedict. All four men, Gomez, Cupich, Francis and Benedict would have some views which we would describe as conservative and some which we would describe as liberal (with each landing on different places on that spectrum than others for specific issues). As I say, I think it makes more sense to talk about different spiritualities rather than politics.
Looking at the problem as a problem of accommodating different spiritualities also puts a different cast on the problem of building up church unity.
Sorry, that comment is a little incoherent. I should take more time on writing some of these down.
DeleteAn article from the (bonkers) NCR that deserves a read - and some thought, prayer, and reflection.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/pro-life-and-pro-choice-catholics-should-work-together-president-biden-reduce-abortion
This article from today was good, too: "Catholics live in real time with real challenges. Liberals must challenge conservatives and vice- versa. Each generation brings with it a new set of questions to ask of the ancient verities. The verities remain, but if they are to remain alive, they will change and develop. Only dead things do not change."
DeleteI see that the link for that article doesn't work. Here is the url: https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/liberal-catholics-and-temptation-sectarianism
DeleteI didn’t really agree with MSW. He seems to dismiss the email writer’s observation that many Catholics dissent from many RC teachings yet remain Catholic. The writer wondered why they don’t leave. MSW brushes the doctrinal issues aside, focusing instead on the cultural markers of tribal identity.
DeleteYet those doctrinal issues are what drove me, and millions of other cradle Catholics, from the church. It did not feel honest to stay. And since I believe that some of these teachings are the root cause of a great deal of harm done to ordinary people, I did not wish to be a passive participant by supporting the church which holds these harmful doctrines.,
MSW is so entranced by the fun stuff like Advent wreaths and by Catholics rituals that he doesn’t seem to realize how difficult it can be to stay Catholic even though also liking the fun stuff. It becomes a matter of principle.
MSW also quoted from an email from a reader "...that captured a kind of propositional Catholicism that is uniquely conservative". Some of the stuff named in the email are indeed teachings that may or may not fit the definition of doctrine. But some of it consists of things which are just as much "cultural markers" as the customs you mention. Such the role of women in the family, which has varied from different cultures, and especially, different times. Then the reader kindly invites those who differ from his definition (he calls a number of things "Magisterial teaching" which are not) to leave. Kind of, "Don't let the door hit you in the back on the way out." I think MSW is making the case for keeping the church a bigger tent, rather than insisting that anyone stay in when it's against their conscience.
DeleteAnne, sorry, my beginning sentences above are a bit muddled. You and I are talking about the same reader email.
DeleteKatherine, I think you're right on about that reader seemingly wishing for a 'smaller, purer' church. Unfortunately, there seem to be at least a handful of bishops who are selling that program, too. My take on Francis is that he wants a church of dialogue and accompaniment.
DeleteIf I may make a modest suggestion: as we are in a liturgical year which features the Gospel of Mark, one of the themes in that Gospel is having an open heart vs. having a closed, stony heart. This topic we're discussing of the "big tent" vs. "smaller, purer" is worth keeping in mind as we travel through the liturgical year. It may help us to appreciate the Gospel readings, and may help us appreciate the wisdom (and, if may say so, the holiness!) of Francis.
Jim, good suggestion about the Gospel of Mark. I need to study it more. I have always been more drawn to Luke for personal reading for some reason..
DeleteAlso it's the year of St. Joseph, who tends to be an unsung hero, and someone we can learn from as being in the right place at the right time.
The MSW article is interesting; my reactions.
ReplyDelete1. Liberal Catholics have been here longer than “Conservative Catholics.”
My youth was formed by Vatican II, Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day. Once JP2 came on the scene all of that changed. Emphasis more on doctrine and continuity with pre-Vatican II. His rejection of the whole movement of the Latin American Church in favor of the poor spilled over into and neglect of Merton and Day. Now that we have Francis Vatican II, Merton and Day and liberation theology are back in favor at least in Rome but not with the American Bishops. They are still stuck in the JP2 emphasis upon doctrine and rejection of the culture of death.
2. WSW says that Catholicism is more than a set of beliefs. I would not phrase it that way.
Christianity is first of about love of God and love of neighbor. That rather than a list of beliefs is the foundation. What we have had in Christianity is huge fragmentation and discord about beliefs. The move toward ecumenism, the recognition that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ was a great accomplishment of Vatican II. We cannot allow beliefs to become a source of hatred either within or outside the church, or with the world.
Catholicism is more the liturgy than a set of beliefs. It is the whole liturgy, the Divine Office was well as the Mass and Sacraments. The ancient principle was that we experience what we believe in the liturgy. We are as we pray. So our fundamental experience as believing Catholics is what we pray in the liturgy, not what has been said in Ecumenical Councils or Papal Encyclicals or the Catechism.
Vatican II underlined not only that we the people of God are the Church, but also placed a renewed liturgy rather than a set of doctrines or moral practices at the center of being Church.
3. “No priest, no bishop and no bishops' conference can force us out of this church.”
My experience of being church is the experience of praying the Divine Office. What I pray is who I am. I never pray alone but with all those of both the East and West who have prayed various similar Divine Offices before me. So I am not stuck with any pastor or bishop or bishops’ conference, or even Pope, or Church Council. All of that is so much straw in comparison to the great ‘cloud of witnesses” who in various times and places have sung the liturgy of the angels here on earth. One Orthodox bishop has written that there are three liturgies which ultimately are one: the liturgy of heaven, the liturgy celebrated here on earth in church services, and the liturgy of the heart which takes place within each of us. That is why in his opinion there is no contradiction between the life of solitude and communal worship.
Well, the mass liturgy leaves many people cold or indifferent. Few even know about the Divine Office or any form of Christian meditation.
DeleteThe liturgy is also kept in a small little box. Look at the dictatorship of the GIRM!
Does liturgy really embody what all Catholics believe? A majority of Catholics do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. All masses are led by male priests yet the research shows that a majority of Catholics support the ideas of opening the priesthood to married people, as well as single. To women as well as men. While it is true that mandatory celibacy is not doctrine. JPII and Benedict have tried to claim that denying the sacrament of Holy Orders to women is magisterial doctrine. How many believe that Jesus came only for “ men “ and not for “us”. ALL of us. Not just for many of us. How many believe the words of the creed - literally, as taught by the church? Etc.
Catholicism is more the liturgy than a set of beliefs.....(VII) placed a renewed liturgy rather than a set of doctrines or moral practices at the center of being Church.
But the Catholic liturgy embodies a set of beliefs. It is a formal, ritualized repetition of a set of doctrines.
"But the Catholic liturgy embodies a set of beliefs. It is a formal, ritualized repetition of a set of doctrines." If that's how you look at it. It isn't how I look at it.
DeleteHow do you look at it, Katherine?
DeleteTo me, it's the request, and the gift, that Jesus gave to us on the night before he died: "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood"
DeleteWe can ritualize it all we want to, but at its heart, that's still what the Mass means to me.
Yes, that is what it means to you.
DeleteBut that meaning dies not negate the fact that the liturgy of the mass embodies a set of beliefs - addressing Jack's statement above that the liturgy is the center of church rather than a set of beliefs. It's the "rather than" phrase that I disagree with. The liturgy embodies the set of beliefs, it does not replace them. It's a ritual that expresses the set of beliefs that the RCC teaches.
I think being Catholic is all of the above. It's faith, it's love, it's worship, it's thankfulness, it's personal holiness, it's social justice, it's culture, it's forgiveness, it's service, it's doctrine, it's canon law. It's the kingdom of heaven. It's life in Christ.
DeleteCatholic politicians like Biden who build a career by working against the gift of life disappoint me. It is not admirable public witness. It is not saintly.
With the possible exception of canon law, those terms can be used to describe what being a Christian is - also what a Jew is, and a Muslim. Etc. They are not the only exclusive to Catholicism.
DeleteIs Barr's career an example of admirable public witness? Is Biden the only Catholic politician who is not "admirable " because he separates his personal religious beliefs from his responsibility to represent all Americans ? Not just Catholic Americans?
The issue under discussion isn't Biden - it's whether or not liturgy is the center of the church rather than beliefs - doctrine. I believe that liturgy embodies doctrine.
Can you name a single politician who is saintly? Maybe Jimmy Carter (in his old age only) would be one?
Pesonal holiness - very few people are holy, and those who are are not necessarily Catholic.
Well, Jews, Muslims etc would also not describe their faith as being life in Christ. :)
Delete"Is Biden the only Catholic politician who is not "admirable " because he separates his personal religious beliefs from his responsibility to represent all Americans ?"
DeleteSince you ask - I think Biden is one of the *least* admirable in this respect. In the earlier part of his career, he managed to integrate his personal views with his policy views. That changed, right around the time the Democratic Party stopped tolerating a diversity of views around abortion.
Still Biden claimed to continue to support the Hyde Amendment up until 2019 - after he had launched his campaign for the presidency. He made statements during the campaign that he would not wish to overturn the Hyde Amendment. Virtually every other major Democratic candidate spoke up and said they would overturn it. A day or two later, Biden did an about-face and announced he now wished to overturn it.
It's quite possible he wouldn't have been nominated for the presidency had he stuck to what we must assume to be his principles.
Somewhat similar stories of about-faces can be told about many politicians of a certain age - those who have been around since the time when it was okay for a Democrat to be pro-life. The senior senator from my state, Dick Durbin, is another Catholic who was pro-life until he discovered that he had a better chance of winning elections by being pro-choice.
As for Barr, it's difficult to compare him with Biden, Durbin, Pelosi et al because Barr hasn't had to run for office. On the whole, I think he has managed to integrate his personal faith and his public service. And I find that admirable. I think we should hear from him before condemning him too roundly for whatever his level of cooperation was in that string of federal executions.
I used to think Republican elected officials were a good deal more principled than their Democratic peers in this respect. The Age of Trump has shattered that delusion for me.
The RCC has never been a “big tent”. It’s gotten away from inquisitions, imprisoning, torturing and executing heretics, but is has fought independent thinkers tooth and nail throughout it’s entire history.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, Jim, you defended the Gomez statement, pointing out that Gomez was simply stating Catholic teaching, and not differentiating President Biden’s responsibilities to ALL Americans from his personal religious beliefs.
Vatican II was a baby step towards opening the RCC to change, to development of new understandings, to enlarging the tent. But JPII and Benedict slammed the door on this. They silenced dozens of theologians, And also many priests and nuns who expressed ideas that contradicted church teachings. Some left in order not to be silenced. The tent for them was very small.
Lay people just left one by one, or family by family. Millions of cradle Catholics left, creating a de facto schism. They did not start new churches, but slipped away quietly. The dozens and dozens of bishops appointed by Francis’ predecessors continue to try to keep the tent small.
Francis has his blind spots - he is still a clericalist at heart, but he is fighting the tendency. He has a blind spot about women also. But he is trying to open the windows and doors again that had been briefly cracked open to let the fresh air in, to invite in the Holy Spirit. But it maybe too late. Western Europe is lost to the church, and Eastern Europe is headed in that direction. The Americas are headed that way too. Smaller “purer” may be the future.
"As I recall, Jim, you defended the Gomez statement, pointing out that Gomez was simply stating Catholic teaching"
DeleteI did say that about Catholic teaching. To the extent I defended it, it was against the ridiculous idea that the letter merited a Vatican investigation.
I also said that Gomez's letter didn't hit the right notes for the occasion. It came across as ungracious. Too much vinegar with the honey.
I may get have to go back and reread what you said. My impression was that you approved of the letter.
DeleteWhat do you think about MSWs column? Should dissenters stay or go?
I always think dissenters should stay and struggle with the difficulties, and everyone else should be patient with them. Honestly, I think all of us have a good deal to learn from dissenters' honesty and courage in facing up to the difficulties.
DeletePeople find their own way out the door, if they feel they must, without the rest of us pushing them out.
So even after they have “struggled” with teachings and still don’t accept them, it’s fine if they stay because they like the coffee and doughnuts and fish frys and advent wreaths etc.
DeleteAlthough different sets of beliefs are the reasons there are many Christian denominations, it seems that acceptance of the exclusively RC teachings are not an actual marker of being “Catholic “.
So, as a practical matter, RC teachings are of little importance to being Catholic it seems.
"So, as a practical matter, RC teachings are of little importance to being Catholic it seems"
DeleteAnne, as they say, it's complicated. I do agree with Jim that the rest of us don't need to push anyone out the door. And with you that they should have the freedom to leave if they want to. But in a way, you're arguing for the "smaller purer church" as much as the conservatives.
Anne, I'm surprised that you don't feel more sympathy toward those who struggle with Catholic beliefs. Catholicism - Christianity - is going to challenge everyone in one way (or more than one way) or another. Some people choose to leave. Some people don't. Some people continue to try to work it out. Some just give up.
DeleteThe gist of my comment was that those who self-identify as Good Catholics shouldn't make it their business to be the purity police and shove those who are struggling out the door for not being sufficiently Catholic.
Where Joe Biden lands in all this, I have no idea. I don't know whether he struggles with abortion or not. I do think his campaign (and its allies in the media, including the Catholic media) has politicized his Catholic identity. That makes it fair game for criticism.
So....Joe Biden should not self-identify as a "good Catholic" in your mind? Because as the president of ALL the people he won't try to impose Catholic beliefs on ALL 335 million Americans?
DeleteAre you a Good Catholic who is standing in judgment over someone you do not believe to be "sufficiently" Catholic?
Jim, some struggle and still conclude that the church is dead wrong on a lot of stuff. Believe me, I have immense compassion for those who honestly struggle with the teachings. I’ve been there and the decision to stay or go can be excruciatingly difficult.
DeleteI suspect that you have no experience with real doctrinal struggle, and so really can’t help. You don’t understand it. Not your fault, it’s just how you are wired.
I just don’t get the attitude that people should stay when they disagree profoundly with teachings that are essentially what differentiates Roman Catholicism from other Christian churches. It implies that the teachings aren’t meant to be believed, really. Cafeteria Catholicism is ok, at least as long as the pews have people and those people write checks to the church.
That’s the implication of Dissenters should stay argument.
I do appreciate the intellectual underpinnings and history of RCC. So I continue to read RC publications even though I don’t accept many of the specific to Catholicism teachings.
DeleteAt this point. I don’t even know how many General Christian doctrines I believe. But I can still go along with the Christian understandings Jesus taught about love, mercy, forgiveness. I haven’t found a better religion than Christianity when it comes to those teachings.
Katherine: But in a way, you're arguing for the "smaller purer church" as much as the conservatives.
DeleteNot arguing for it, simply observing that this is the direction it has been headed for decades now.
Jean, I would love to know your thoughts on this subject.
ReplyDeleteI really don't care any more. Every denomination has vocal zealots who are rule-obsessed or ride some issue as "the very worst sin of all." They consider themselves "principled" and "faithful," and you're not going to persuade them that they might also be lacking in mercy or just downright vindictive.
DeleteSo I'll sit in my seat and we'll find out what God thinks about it when we all hit the Pearly Gates.
A few of the rule-bound have latched onto the notion of "accompaniment" as some way to pad the pews we have to stay seated in. I have no idea what "accompaniment" looks like. From what I have observed, it's more or less letting Bad Catholics come in and pay to watch the show as long as we don't hit the concession stand.
A few of the rule-bound have latched onto the notion of "accompaniment" as some way to pad the pews we have to stay seated in. I have no idea what "accompaniment" looks like. From what I have observed, it's more or less letting Bad Catholics come in and pay to watch the show as long as we don't hit the concession stand.
DeleteLol!
I think that’s the key. Bad Catholics who dissent from teachings will be invited to stay - as long as they keep throwing money in the basket anyway.
Yes, throwing money in the basket and raising their kids in the Church.
DeleteI would be happy to send out the parish birthday cards and cut out quilt squares, but so far, the Church Ladies only want me busing tables at the fish frys and bringing food for the funeral lunches, places where they won't have to "explain" me in this small and in-bred parish.
If you are not Mother Church's favorite child, I think you learn to get what nourishment you can from her, and then look for ways to live your life in Christ as opportunities present themselves.
From what I see of Good Catholics, they don't seem to be any happier or to be doing any more tangible good in the world than I am.
At least I'm not out there discouraging people with a lot of legalistic gatekeeping that reinforce the notion that God is a hard-to-please parent and his love is conditional.
Well, the liturgy lovers have an ally in Francis.
ReplyDeleteBut, he also doesn’t seem to realize that God is present to all of us, at all times and in all places. Not just at mass.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/spirituality/francis-chronicles/christianity-without-liturgy-absent-christ-pope-says
Anne, thanks for that link. Those are some pretty strong words from Francis.
Delete