Today’s young, orthodox Catholics aren’t ecclesial revanchists motivated a desire to turn back that clock we’re always informed can never stop ticking. In general, they’re very much engaged with the world around them, and not inclined to shut themselves off in isolation. In short, they’re self-consciously orthodox, which is, it should be said, not the same thing as having naturally and unreflectively lived a certain way. It probably couldn’t have been any other way: A postconciliar generation (or two) of Catholics who remain in the faith have seen the diverging interpretations, and by and large have embraced one of them.
But can a sense of ‘having chosen’ a return to orthodoxy ever be problematic? In a blog post at dotCommonweal, J. Peter Nixon suggests it can be to the extent it mirrors a consumerist mindset. Much of it you might have heard before, and there are unfortunately some overstatements (see the reference to “bare-knuckled tactics” by ecclesial “conservatives”–the kind of language more appropriate to election-night punditry). But one observation in his column, in particular, grabbed me:
Younger Catholics, for the most part, are simply not attached enough to the Church as an institution to think “institutionally” about their theological commitments. Communal dialogue is something you engage in because you have a community. The majority of younger Catholics—like a majority of younger Christians—are spiritual consumers. If they are dissatisfied, they will choose “exit” rather than “voice.”
I’d put a little more faith in young Catholics than that–I’m not sure it’s fair to diagnose their loyalty to the Church as a whole as so transient that they’d simply “exit” if they stopped being “satisfied.” But Nixon is on to something with his categorization of “choice” vs. “voice.” (and for more on the specific allusion he’s making, see this). This is anecdotal, but virtually all of the youngish (say, under-35) orthodox Catholics I know, for example, don’t attend Mass at their local parish. They’ll travel long distances–sometimes, clear across cities–to certain “special” chapels or “traditionalist parishes” or order houses where a dynamic priest keeps them coming back. In many ways this is highly commendable: That someone is willing to take significant additional time out of their day to commute to church signifies a deep commitment to the liturgy and an impressive grasp of its importance. And it’s a sympathetic dilemma: Certainly, young people don’t do this to spite their canon-law pastor, but they do often find the services on offer in their bailiwick in some sense impoverished, or the preaching theologically wayward, or the architecture grossly midcentury, and for the good of their spiritual health decide they can and must find a home elsewhere.
But should this be the end goal? Might it be fruitful to encourage a way of thinking that emphasizes not only the individual’s conscious embrace of orthodoxy (key though individual response has always been in Catholicism), but which also sees this commitment as eventually settling, becoming the norm, and integrating itself into the existing framework rather than subsisting outside of or in a subculture of it? This, then, would seem to be an emerging challenge for the “movement” back towards orthodoxy. We’ve become, maybe by accident, accustomed to a sort of “remnant” mindset rather than an institutional one, to prophetic denunciations from without but with not enough “working within.” So perhaps it’s time for “self-conscious” young Catholics to start seeing themselves less as dissidents and “choosers” and more simply as part of the future of the Church, and begin working out what that means.
August 20th, 2012 | 2:26 pm
The author’s anecdotal evidence may be limited by the breadth of his source material: if anything, I happen to be seeing the opposite trend among young Catholics, who choose not to be “one of those” fanatical Catholics that allows their Church to have an impact on their life beyond the basic cult requirements. Minimalist and Recusant Catholicism is still alive and well, so long as the Mythical Franciscan Platitude continues to pre-empt the Great Commission. http://www.focusequip.org/blog/posts/did-francis-really-say-preach-gospel-use-words.html
August 20th, 2012 | 6:17 pm
@ Faj,
Perhaps there is some truth to both your and Mr. Cantirino’s experiences.
Older generations of Catholics are not monoliths, there is no reason why millennial Catholics should be either.
To add my experience:
I live in a historically Catholic, very young, east coast city. I have noticed that younger Catholics, whether traditional or not, seem to be very invested in their parishes. Also, about half of the people I see at daily masses here fall into the 20-35 age group. I think it’s a very good sign.
August 20th, 2012 | 7:32 pm
“We’ve become, maybe by accident, accustomed to a sort of ‘remnant’ mindset rather than an institutional one, to prophetic denunciations from without but with not enough ‘working within.’”
Parishes have encouraged this mindset in part by offering “tailored” events like Life Teen Masses and a wide variety of multi-lingual liturgies. Add that to the general disintegration of Catholic communities within parish boundaries, and it’s understandable that young people don’t feel like they are truly a part of their canonical parishes. The attraction of specialty Masses—ranging the spectrum from traditional to charismatic—and the like are seen as an opportunity to work out what it means to build a future for the Church. All culture comes from cult, after all, and without that common ground, it’s difficult to build a religious future.
But it’s also worth considering that the attraction of some of these communities revolves around the solid preaching of Catholic doctrine, and since the individual’s first moral responsibility is to save his own soul, he rightly deduces that it is more urgent to receive moral formation than it is to worry about his parish community. It’s an unfortunate reality that most parishes not only avoid teaching moral doctrine, but frequently undermine it from the pulpit. One must see to himself first of all, and then do what he can for others. Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all that.
August 20th, 2012 | 10:49 pm
Young Catholics often travel to a parish where other young Catholics are – attending their local parish often results in feeling like worshipping in a petri dish. Young Catholics want companionship and a chance to meet their future spouse – and that’s going to happen where other people of their age and persuasion are meeting.
To the extent that these orthodox young people need to be coming back into the Church as an institution, I agree. But the Church feels divided and so does their experience of it – priests who discourage their pursuit of virtue, parishoners who belittle their fervor, and a general feeling of unwelcome.
At this point, I think many young people are just waiting for the old guard to die.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:04 am
Perhaps it’s because I’m not Catholic, I don’t find this “dilemma” sympathetic at all. It seems to me that those who regularly travel to attend services at parishes which are more “orthodox” are at best thoroughly inculcated with the Protestant mindset of the culture, and at worst, tending towards heresy.
More practically, what these folks don’t seem to realize is that every parish has problems because people are people. At least if “the services on offer in their bailiwick [are] in some sense impoverished, or the preaching theologically wayward, or the architecture grossly midcentury,” those are all easily identifiable problems, and can, with effort these young folks aren’t willing to put in (I’m in this age group myself, so I know whereof I speak), be fixed. Instead you’re going to go to a parish whose problems you overlook?
August 22nd, 2012 | 7:44 pm
“At least if “the services on offer in their bailiwick [are] in some sense impoverished, or the preaching theologically wayward, or the architecture grossly midcentury,” those are all easily identifiable problems, and can, with effort these young folks aren’t willing to put in (I’m in this age group myself, so I know whereof I speak), be fixed. Instead you’re going to go to a parish whose problems you overlook?”
There is little to no possibility that a young lay Catholic (or even old lay Catholic) would be able to have any prospect of improving impoverished services or wayward sermons in their parish, and the only way mid-century architecture is likely to be overcome is by parishes consolidating into more traditional-style buildings.
August 23rd, 2012 | 9:45 am
“There is little to no possibility that a young lay Catholic (or even old lay Catholic) would be able to have any prospect of improving impoverished services or wayward sermons in their parish”
As Wikipedia would say, citation needed. Of course nothing’s going to change if people don’t try to change it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact