The Apologetic Substitute
Jan 24, 2011
David Mills
“Do you really think ‘anti-apologism’ is a problem?” wrote my friend Mark Barrett in response to last week’s column, “The Reasons the Heart Wants,” which tried to defend the craft of defending and explaining the Faith against the claim that’s it’s pointless if not counter-productive.
He was thinking of Catholics, while I had been thinking more of hip, postmodern Evangelicals and Orthodox writers who contrast Eastern “mystical theology” with Western “rationalism,” as well as of conservative believers in every tradition who seem to have despaired of Christianity getting a fair hearing and decided not to try.
I had, though, also been thinking of Catholics who associate apologetics with presumptuous, bumptious converts who upon conversion claim instant expertise and authority, like someone who marries into an old family and immediately tries to arrange the family reunions and tell everyone what great-grandfather actually meant, or like the northerner who moves south for the weather and keeps telling the natives (with some reason, I just might note) how this was done up north. I can understand why Catholics who grew up in the Church find this so annoying, and think they are right to believe the convert—and I speak as one—doesn’t know enough to say as much as he tends to.
Mark was thinking of a different group. Many Catholics, he wrote, “have steroided up on apologetics.” For many serious Catholics his age (he’s in his early thirties), and many much older as well, the Faith
is a set of intellectual propositions and political positions, which they can defend very well (if they couldn't they wouldn't be practicing), and they are very proud of this ability, and will argue all day long. However, they lack Holy Cards, which as you know by now is the single greatest issue facing the Church in the modern age. When will First Things address this crisis in the Church?
He continued: “I'm not attacking intellectual work or making a sentimental point that ‘our lives are the only Bible some people will ever read,’ or arguing for the restoration of some mythical simple pious past (which is simply a manifestation of precisely the same phenomenon under a different guise).” He was arguing for the priority of culture in a world in which ideas are more easily adopted than a culture found and lived.
In the culture of the past few decades, because the catechesis has been so bad, “Catholics have been forced to turn to apologetic resources, staffed disproportionately by converts.” These do very good work, but usually “fail to pass on the cultural foundations on which the intellect builds.” They never mention holy cards, for one thing.
The problems comes for Catholics “when the apologetics subculture becomes a substitute for an authentic Catholic culture.”
Knowing one's faith and explaining it is very important, but just as important is the preservation and passing along of our Catholic culture, and in that department we are in dire straits, up to and including very educated and apologetically-minded Catholics. There are legitimate reasons why this happens, not all of them bad, and the intentions are benign. However, it is a problem, and it unquestionably erodes our identity as Catholics.
This analysis applies, I should say, to almost any Christian body or tradition. Just look at how many young Evangelicals leave Evangelicalism or Christianity entirely.
I think Mark is right about this. Culture precedes apologetics—or maybe it would be more accurate to say apologetics only matters for the believer when it leads him to a greater comfort with or confidence in the culture that has formed and continues to form him, freeing him from doubts so that the culture can mold him more deeply. (Critical reflection on that culture and argument is the job of theology, and theology may, of course, suggest doubts. It’s complicated, as they say in movies.)
Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees might apply to many of us, cut rate Gnostics that we are, who assume—partly, perhaps, because we like to argue and think we’re good at it—that knowledge and particularly success in argument is the essence of the Faith. We could easily be found praying “Lord, I thank you that I am not like that poor guy over there with his holy cards, who wouldn’t know what to say to Richard Dawkins,” when he is having a lively and intimate conversation with Our Lord, His Mother, and several saints with whom we are not yet on speaking terms.
Pride goes before a fall, as Proverbs notes. Accepting an argument is not conviction, even when you think the argument final and conclusive. You may change your life or your life may be changed and suddenly the argument doesn’t seem so final and conclusive any more. We can all think of obvious cases when someone made a moral choice, usually sexual, that led him to reject beliefs he had believed with all his heart and mind, and should assume that we might be equally affected by choices more subtle and harder to see. That you can defend a doctrine now and win does not mean you will believe it tomorrow.
But a culture, a culture has more power to hold you, to restrain you, to make you see and feel the real costs of moral decisions, since they may tear you away from the world you know and love. It presents you with something you want, which is something you can lose. (This argues for much better church discipline than any church now offers.) In that, culture works apologetically. It makes an argument for the Faith, if the argument is only, “This is a life worth living, and you know that because you have lived it.”
There is much more to be said for the necessity of a specifically Catholic (or Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist) culture. But to put it simply, the Church, and therefore the world, would be better off if more Catholics had holy cards and knew what to do with them, even if that meant they didn't know the arguments quite as well.
David Mills is Deputy Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here. He suggests to young writers finding smart and interesting friends, as they make your life easier.
Comments:
1.24.2011 | 10:15am
TBH says:
As a convert myself I found one of Bernanos' statements rather humbling when I read it: acknowldging the joy of the convert, he also felt sadness they did not have the opportunity to grow up Catholic. In a sense, it seems every convert should wish they had had this experience.
1.24.2011 | 10:35am
Jennifer says:
The holy card vs. apologetic idea in interesting, it is, of course Fides et Ratio personified--point being the Holy Card Dude and the Apologist desperately need each other.
This makes me think of not necessarily anti-apologist argument, so much as the limits of apologetics and not over-blowing the bounds of it's purpose. Nor overlook WHY apologetics is even necessary. (Hint: it ain't because the WORLD is wrong.)
The dominance of apologetics in Catholic media--which may or may not have to do with the convert status of some of our more prominent ones, as they continue to argue with themselves and the members of whatever faith (or faithless) group they once belonged to--threatens to put Catholic culture and intellectual discourse into a permanently defensive position and make us forget that, despite some discouraging cultural shifts, Catholic thought is what it claims to be, universal, and remains a deft and penetrating cultural and intellectual force, without having to become bunkered down and defensive as a default position.
I also wonder if current Catholic apologetics moves away from the tradition of Frank Sheed--the sort of apologetics for the faithful themselves, who need to be reminded of what it is the apologetic tradition is custodian of, "The Thing" that reminds us not of an inside faith that needs to be defended from an outside world of evil and rational error, but that we exist within that world as a functional part of it, and in many ways are worse than it because we should know better.
You know, the humility that reminds us we aren't simply in possession of the winning side of a rational argument, making us intellectually AND morally superior. Rather, if the world remains unconvinced, if apologetics is still, in fact, necessary, than the problem is not with the world but with ourselves. For, as Frank Sheed was so excellent at reminding us, the problem with Catholicism is the Catholic herself. For if we believed the Eucharist was what we claim it is, we would be so utterly transformed, that the need for rational argument would be not only superfluous but redundant. Quite simply, it's not difficult to understand why the radical claims of Catholic sacramentality seem false. We do not always behave as if it is true, even in symbol, let alone in real presence.
If apologetics is still, finally, necessary, and I believe it is, it should remind us how much work we all need to do in fulfilling and becoming what the apologist is charged with defending.
This makes me think of not necessarily anti-apologist argument, so much as the limits of apologetics and not over-blowing the bounds of it's purpose. Nor overlook WHY apologetics is even necessary. (Hint: it ain't because the WORLD is wrong.)
The dominance of apologetics in Catholic media--which may or may not have to do with the convert status of some of our more prominent ones, as they continue to argue with themselves and the members of whatever faith (or faithless) group they once belonged to--threatens to put Catholic culture and intellectual discourse into a permanently defensive position and make us forget that, despite some discouraging cultural shifts, Catholic thought is what it claims to be, universal, and remains a deft and penetrating cultural and intellectual force, without having to become bunkered down and defensive as a default position.
I also wonder if current Catholic apologetics moves away from the tradition of Frank Sheed--the sort of apologetics for the faithful themselves, who need to be reminded of what it is the apologetic tradition is custodian of, "The Thing" that reminds us not of an inside faith that needs to be defended from an outside world of evil and rational error, but that we exist within that world as a functional part of it, and in many ways are worse than it because we should know better.
You know, the humility that reminds us we aren't simply in possession of the winning side of a rational argument, making us intellectually AND morally superior. Rather, if the world remains unconvinced, if apologetics is still, in fact, necessary, than the problem is not with the world but with ourselves. For, as Frank Sheed was so excellent at reminding us, the problem with Catholicism is the Catholic herself. For if we believed the Eucharist was what we claim it is, we would be so utterly transformed, that the need for rational argument would be not only superfluous but redundant. Quite simply, it's not difficult to understand why the radical claims of Catholic sacramentality seem false. We do not always behave as if it is true, even in symbol, let alone in real presence.
If apologetics is still, finally, necessary, and I believe it is, it should remind us how much work we all need to do in fulfilling and becoming what the apologist is charged with defending.
1.24.2011 | 12:02pm
C. Ehrlich says:
"But a culture, a culture has more power to hold you, to restrain you, to make you see and feel the real costs of moral decisions, since they may tear you away from the world you know and love. It presents you with something you want, which is something you can lose."
For better or worse. I've known Mormons who can't give up their distinctively Mormon beliefs because doing so would cost them so much socially and culturally. So, before trapping ourselves and others within an ideologically based culture, a good deal of reflection may be in order. Otherwise, you may easily find yourself trapped by indefensible traditions, and with little recourse but blind dogmatism and bad faith rationalizations about why "apologetics" is suspicious, or about how one's traditions never seem to get a "fair hearing."
For better or worse. I've known Mormons who can't give up their distinctively Mormon beliefs because doing so would cost them so much socially and culturally. So, before trapping ourselves and others within an ideologically based culture, a good deal of reflection may be in order. Otherwise, you may easily find yourself trapped by indefensible traditions, and with little recourse but blind dogmatism and bad faith rationalizations about why "apologetics" is suspicious, or about how one's traditions never seem to get a "fair hearing."
1.24.2011 | 12:02pm
Jorge Lavandria says:
TBH, Bernanos wrote at a time when growing up Catholic meant growing up Catholic. In the context of the last 40 years of catechetical malfeasance, "growing up Catholic" is next to meaningless for most "Catholics."
So in endorsing Bernanos's statement, you should add an itty bitty adverb: authentically.
For all their faults, converts who have read and thought their way into the Church have more Catholic culture than most cradle-Catholics (de)formed during the last 40 years.
That doesn't mean converts ought not be humble and keep their ears to the ground and learn the culture (which they are going to have to work hard even to locate in order to learn). It does, however, mean that one can't just quote Bernanos at them.
So in endorsing Bernanos's statement, you should add an itty bitty adverb: authentically.
For all their faults, converts who have read and thought their way into the Church have more Catholic culture than most cradle-Catholics (de)formed during the last 40 years.
That doesn't mean converts ought not be humble and keep their ears to the ground and learn the culture (which they are going to have to work hard even to locate in order to learn). It does, however, mean that one can't just quote Bernanos at them.
1.24.2011 | 12:07pm
Kevin M. Tierney says:
I find this a fascinating article, and something I've mused about in my head throughout the years.
In the wake of the Council, lay "participation" exploded. We also, lets be honest, as a Church became very poor at educating our Catholics. So lay Catholics stepped in an emergency situation, to stop the bleeding of Catholics ignorant in their faith. The modern apologetics movement is born.
The lay involvement understood the intellectual contstructs, but it could be said they lacked the "spiritual" constructs. This isn't to say they weren't holy individuals (most of them are I would say) just that they do not approach things from a spiritual standpointt. Before the Council, your "apologists" were typically priests. They had a pretty robust spiritual training in regard to intellectual rigor.
So where do we go from here? How does one strike a balance? I think this is the ultimate challenge for Catholics in the new age, whether they be clerics, lay faithful, etc.
In the wake of the Council, lay "participation" exploded. We also, lets be honest, as a Church became very poor at educating our Catholics. So lay Catholics stepped in an emergency situation, to stop the bleeding of Catholics ignorant in their faith. The modern apologetics movement is born.
The lay involvement understood the intellectual contstructs, but it could be said they lacked the "spiritual" constructs. This isn't to say they weren't holy individuals (most of them are I would say) just that they do not approach things from a spiritual standpointt. Before the Council, your "apologists" were typically priests. They had a pretty robust spiritual training in regard to intellectual rigor.
So where do we go from here? How does one strike a balance? I think this is the ultimate challenge for Catholics in the new age, whether they be clerics, lay faithful, etc.
1.24.2011 | 12:18pm
Billy says:
I agree there are problems with apologetics; but not in that it is "infected" with Reason, as many might say. But rather, that it is infected by popular political ideas. Apologetics diatribes on EWTN/RN, have radio talk show hosts, who are not priests, simply ad-libbing "sacred" doctrine. And when they don't know something? They fill in with their own political opinions. Introducing them as God.
Apologetics - especially the "conservative" (read: Republican) apologetics of say EWTN/EWRN, of Karl Keating and so forth - is indeed one problem in contemporary Catholicism. But on the other hand, is it true that the old Holy Card "culture," the seemingly traditional religion of the "heart," the right answer or remedy? Remember here that the Bible warned constantly, that the "heart" can be "deceived," and was often "false." While as for "tradition"? The traditional, conservative religion of Jesus' day, was the religion of Judaism; which crucified Jesus, for allegedly new, radical ideas.
So what really IS the answer? Maybe after all, it is something more like a religious Science; informed by Reason. As the natural Theology of Haldane asserts, after all.
Indeed, for Aquinas, the real heart of our very soul, was not sentiment; but "Reason." And for Aquinas say, even the human embryo does not really become human, it does not have a soul, until our mind, our brain, is sufficiently "formed" (from Ps. 139), to sustain human thought, and divine "reason." While Aquinas was in effect, not "just" a saint; but was also in effect made the official philosopher of the Church (1917 canon, 1918 revision, sec. 589 & 1366).
Indeed, even St. Paul, who stressed faith a great deal, finally told us to "always be prepared to give a reason for our faith."
So? "Come, let us Reason together."
Apologetics - especially the "conservative" (read: Republican) apologetics of say EWTN/EWRN, of Karl Keating and so forth - is indeed one problem in contemporary Catholicism. But on the other hand, is it true that the old Holy Card "culture," the seemingly traditional religion of the "heart," the right answer or remedy? Remember here that the Bible warned constantly, that the "heart" can be "deceived," and was often "false." While as for "tradition"? The traditional, conservative religion of Jesus' day, was the religion of Judaism; which crucified Jesus, for allegedly new, radical ideas.
So what really IS the answer? Maybe after all, it is something more like a religious Science; informed by Reason. As the natural Theology of Haldane asserts, after all.
Indeed, for Aquinas, the real heart of our very soul, was not sentiment; but "Reason." And for Aquinas say, even the human embryo does not really become human, it does not have a soul, until our mind, our brain, is sufficiently "formed" (from Ps. 139), to sustain human thought, and divine "reason." While Aquinas was in effect, not "just" a saint; but was also in effect made the official philosopher of the Church (1917 canon, 1918 revision, sec. 589 & 1366).
Indeed, even St. Paul, who stressed faith a great deal, finally told us to "always be prepared to give a reason for our faith."
So? "Come, let us Reason together."
1.24.2011 | 12:28pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
It is indeed a great gift to have a culture which supports you in your faith and helps you keep it. Cultures are themselves fallen creatures in some sense, however, and thus fallible guides. We may see our cultures in heaven, but they will be transformed, not as they are now.
Culture has the danger of disguising from people that they have little belief, little actual faith. Luciadag transformed can be part of a believer's repertoire, but Luciadag alone is worse than nothing, because it gives a Swede the false idea he is still part of the the historical faith.
I am very suspicious of culture-building because it is so often merely a revival of customs that were once excellent vehicles but are now museum-pieces. There are opposite problems as well - attempts to redesign culture to fit a modern church in which merely fashionable items are re-explained as if they were of spiritual benefit. In that error, customs are sometimes discarded merely because they are unfashionable, though they still have use.
We are all always in grave danger of confusing our own culture with the actual faith. That said, I certainly put enormous energy into creating a culture for my children which supported their faith.
Culture has the danger of disguising from people that they have little belief, little actual faith. Luciadag transformed can be part of a believer's repertoire, but Luciadag alone is worse than nothing, because it gives a Swede the false idea he is still part of the the historical faith.
I am very suspicious of culture-building because it is so often merely a revival of customs that were once excellent vehicles but are now museum-pieces. There are opposite problems as well - attempts to redesign culture to fit a modern church in which merely fashionable items are re-explained as if they were of spiritual benefit. In that error, customs are sometimes discarded merely because they are unfashionable, though they still have use.
We are all always in grave danger of confusing our own culture with the actual faith. That said, I certainly put enormous energy into creating a culture for my children which supported their faith.
1.24.2011 | 12:33pm
Jim N says:
Bravo to Mark Barrett for pointing out the misplaced emphasis on apologetics over culture. About seven years ago I was one of the young (more or less) Catholics who "steroided up" on apologetics. I was born in 1960 and raised, mostly, in a Church reeling from the sixties and post Vatican II uncertainty. I welcomed the certainty of apologetics and believed that all important issues of faith and theology could be resolved by rational analysis. I found over time that I needed more than apologetics to sustain my faith. I found that life did present problems which couldn't be solved by apologetics. I found faith challenging and frustrating and I grew to find the typical apologists, who seemed to have all the answers, and who never seemed to struggle with faith, to be superficial and unsatisfying. I would still agree that it is important to understand and to be able to defend our faith. Nevertheless I have found that the essence of Christianity is the emphasis on love, forgiveness and care for the poor and marginalized. These concepts are all over the Gospels (though you might not find them in an apologetics workbook). Furthermore the theological virtues are essentially Christian. The pagan world already had the virtues of fortitude, temperance, knowledge, etc. Non-Christians get annoyed (and rightfully so) with the arrogance and presumption of Christians who seem to have all the rational answers. They do not get annoyed by Christians who express their faith by living a life of charity, humility and service as described in the Gospels. I read more Graham Greene now than Frank Sheed.
1.24.2011 | 12:48pm
Brian says:
Maybe I missed something, but since I'm not RC, and wasn't raised RC, I had absolutely no idea what "holy cards" were as I was reading this article. So I had to go read Wikipedia's take on them. I think I sort of "get" what holy cards are supposed to mean in this article, but without defining the term within the article itself, the article narrows its focus tremendously, from possibly connecting with all kinds of Christians to only connecting with Roman Catholics. Maybe you could address that somewhere else, so I (and possibly others like me) could better understand what role holy cards play in the average life of someone who is raised Catholic.
1.24.2011 | 1:03pm
Steve says:
Yes, pride goeth before the fall. And yes, the problem with Catholicism is the Catholic himself. As a cradle Catholic, fallen away Evangelical ex-altar boy, who reverted and has heard, seen, and benefitted from much of the convert-filled Catholic apologetics available, I know some benefits and pitfalls with substituting intellectual knowledge with heartfelt knowledge. It reminds me much of Gil's recent comboxes on needing a lot of knowledge before being worn out on it and coming to believe in the darkness and ignorance of a purer faith in The Blessed Trinity (in "...Heresy as a Teaching Moment,", I believe). "Use words if necessary," spoken by St. Francis might be substituted as a shorter version. Which all ties in with Weigel's recent article concerning "chattering" in church. Serious practitioners of any cause know when to buckle down and apply themselves and when to socialize. This requires sacrifice. There is little value in that which is acquired too cheaply. Which brings up my chief agreement with Mills, "... a culture (read 'life lived') had more power to ... hold ... restrain ... make you see the real costs of moral decisions (read 'sin') since they ('sins') may tear you away from the world (read 'church, community, sacraments') you KNOW and love. ...(This argues for much better church discipline than any church now offers.)" Contrast this with Speaker Pelosi waxing eloquently on St. Thomas Aquinas' "defense" of abortion and meeting with the Pope (no public recant), with Sen. John Kerry receiving communion (the "Blessed Sacrament"?) in a Methodist Church, or with even the long beach-wear filled communion lines with non-existant confessional lines. Is it any wonder many poorly catechised leave for presently deeper "cultures" that require living sacrifice such as Islam, LDS, or even yoga? To have read St. Augustine upbraiding Pelagius was a mind-blower for this apologized, but lukewarm lite consumer of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. I guess doctrine is important, and "the devil is (hides) in the details". May God continue to have mercy as we cry out in our bodily weaknesses.
1.24.2011 | 1:15pm
David Mills says:
Brian: Good point. My friend's reference to holy cards was part of an ongoing discussion, where they'd come to symbolize a distinct and concrete culture, and that was the way I was using them. I was assuming others could fill in the distinctives of their own traditions.
Billy: They weren't meant as a symbol for fifties culture or a religion of sentiment. But we don't and can't reason outside a culture and tradition and within being embedded in something, so some attention to that something is crucial. St. Thomas himself certainly didn't, which is why people like Gilson and Maritain and Chesterton and McInerney work at passing on his insights.
Everyone else: Thank your for an illuminating discussion so far. It reflects the dialectic between culture and argument that I've trying to express in this and the last two columns.
Billy: They weren't meant as a symbol for fifties culture or a religion of sentiment. But we don't and can't reason outside a culture and tradition and within being embedded in something, so some attention to that something is crucial. St. Thomas himself certainly didn't, which is why people like Gilson and Maritain and Chesterton and McInerney work at passing on his insights.
Everyone else: Thank your for an illuminating discussion so far. It reflects the dialectic between culture and argument that I've trying to express in this and the last two columns.
1.24.2011 | 1:20pm
Francesca says:
But is it really true that we don't give each other Holy Cards? My stepmother emails me photos of beautiful things she's seen in churches, like a stain glass window of a saint. And she sends me pictures of the stars, with the comment that its beauty comes from that of its Maker. Bloggers, for instance Maclin Horton at Light on Dark Water, often post photos with some specific intention of reminding us of the beauty of God's creation. Don't we actually give each other Holy Cards in a post-Vatican II sense a protestant can understand, and thus actually recognise the need for a spiritual aesthetic to underlie our apologetics?
1.24.2011 | 1:21pm
Joe McFaul says:
Maybe I can help. Holy Cards and many other Catholic traditions allow you to breath the Church and feel the Communion of Saints and the human connectedness with God is a way that logic, scriptural exegesis and apologetics don't do very well.
Holy cards and other traditions also allow you to realize that you, of all people, probably don't have the answers. I have carefully studied scripture and consider myself a well catechized Catholic who would know "what to say to Richard Dawkins."
Yet, there is an old lady originally from Mexico who lives near me. She attends Mass daily and has a statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe in her front yard. I see her frequently in prayer in front of the statue. Catholics, of course, don't worship Mary, but I'm pretty sure this lady actually does. This lady doesn't know much about Dawkins, probably doesn't know much about any of the great theological battles of the day--but she lives her life in holiness, taking care of her children and grandchildren in love and kindness. Despite her heretical worship of Mary, she is a much better follower of Christ than I am. She has a lot to teach me about faith, but one lesson I've already observed is that holiness is not a complete or even accurate understanding of theology, doctrinal confessions or statements of belief.
Holiness is, in part, a state of mind. Holy cards remind me of that observation. Sometimes I need to stop thinking and just breathe.
Holy cards and other traditions also allow you to realize that you, of all people, probably don't have the answers. I have carefully studied scripture and consider myself a well catechized Catholic who would know "what to say to Richard Dawkins."
Yet, there is an old lady originally from Mexico who lives near me. She attends Mass daily and has a statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe in her front yard. I see her frequently in prayer in front of the statue. Catholics, of course, don't worship Mary, but I'm pretty sure this lady actually does. This lady doesn't know much about Dawkins, probably doesn't know much about any of the great theological battles of the day--but she lives her life in holiness, taking care of her children and grandchildren in love and kindness. Despite her heretical worship of Mary, she is a much better follower of Christ than I am. She has a lot to teach me about faith, but one lesson I've already observed is that holiness is not a complete or even accurate understanding of theology, doctrinal confessions or statements of belief.
Holiness is, in part, a state of mind. Holy cards remind me of that observation. Sometimes I need to stop thinking and just breathe.
1.24.2011 | 1:43pm
jm says:
The only holy cards I see nowadays at my church are memorial cards, either given at the time of a viewing or mailed to those who signed the condolence book. Are other people getting holy cards?
I must admit, I alwaysl liked them. I remember my grandfather's prayer book, his Missal, filled with holy cards used to mark specific prayers, days, sections of the Mass.
What I always liked about them is that they were visual representations of some mystery, and they would make the whole process seem less abstract. A picture of the Annunciation could certainly bring up questions of Mary's original sin (or lack thereof) -- more succinctly, it said to me something like - God asks you to do something, are you willing to say 'yes'?
I must admit, I alwaysl liked them. I remember my grandfather's prayer book, his Missal, filled with holy cards used to mark specific prayers, days, sections of the Mass.
What I always liked about them is that they were visual representations of some mystery, and they would make the whole process seem less abstract. A picture of the Annunciation could certainly bring up questions of Mary's original sin (or lack thereof) -- more succinctly, it said to me something like - God asks you to do something, are you willing to say 'yes'?
1.24.2011 | 1:45pm
Gil says:
Billy,
When you write, "And for Aquinas say, even the human embryo does not really become human, it does not have a soul, until our mind, our brain, is sufficiently 'formed' (from Ps. 139), to sustain human thought, and divine 'reason,'" what you are demonstrating is that even the greatest Catholic theologian can get it wrong on certain occasions, and I suspect that if Aquinas had had access to the scientific knowledge we have today of fetal development, he would correct his error better than any of us.
I also have to agree with Jorge Lavandria when he writes, "Bernanos wrote at a time when growing up Catholic meant growing up Catholic. In the context of the last 40 years of catechetical malfeasance, 'growing up Catholic' is next to meaningless for most 'Catholics.'" Instructive in this respect is Philip Rieff's important diagnosis of the larger culture that Catholic culture became subsumed in, "Triumph of the Therapeutic".
I have written elsewhere that "Since Vatican II there has been a persistent failure to recognize the three fundamentals of lay formation, which amounts to keeping the proverbial horses tied to the back of the wagon with the false hope that they can push the wagon forward. Those three horses are the triad of lay formation: Eucharist, Parish and The People of God, which, as in the Trinity of the Godhead, must exist simultaneously for each to manifest, and to arrive at this simultaneity, assembly life must be reestablished, something bishops and priests have no interest in."
What writers keep referring to as widespread lay formation since Vatican II is in fact a morphing of clericalism: more and more lay persons become functionaries in the service of a pastor's individual vision that in every case I've witnessed counters true lay formation, and in some cases opposes the Catholic faith. Although the charitable services provided by these functionaries have value to the Church and the persons she helps, it hurts the Church when we pretend this phenomenon is lay formation.
What we have today in the Catholic Church is not Catholic culture but a subculture made up of cells consisting of Catholics determined to keep the faith alive until bishops and priests are ready to restore a truly Catholic culture, which can only occur with genuine lay formation, which necessitates a now non-existent assembly life.
The omnipresence of apologetics in popular culture is in my view is a reaction against bishops and priests adhering to the phenomenon of subsuming every vestige of Catholic culture into the larger culture, robbing Catholic culture of its inherently counter-cultural identity.
When you write, "And for Aquinas say, even the human embryo does not really become human, it does not have a soul, until our mind, our brain, is sufficiently 'formed' (from Ps. 139), to sustain human thought, and divine 'reason,'" what you are demonstrating is that even the greatest Catholic theologian can get it wrong on certain occasions, and I suspect that if Aquinas had had access to the scientific knowledge we have today of fetal development, he would correct his error better than any of us.
I also have to agree with Jorge Lavandria when he writes, "Bernanos wrote at a time when growing up Catholic meant growing up Catholic. In the context of the last 40 years of catechetical malfeasance, 'growing up Catholic' is next to meaningless for most 'Catholics.'" Instructive in this respect is Philip Rieff's important diagnosis of the larger culture that Catholic culture became subsumed in, "Triumph of the Therapeutic".
I have written elsewhere that "Since Vatican II there has been a persistent failure to recognize the three fundamentals of lay formation, which amounts to keeping the proverbial horses tied to the back of the wagon with the false hope that they can push the wagon forward. Those three horses are the triad of lay formation: Eucharist, Parish and The People of God, which, as in the Trinity of the Godhead, must exist simultaneously for each to manifest, and to arrive at this simultaneity, assembly life must be reestablished, something bishops and priests have no interest in."
What writers keep referring to as widespread lay formation since Vatican II is in fact a morphing of clericalism: more and more lay persons become functionaries in the service of a pastor's individual vision that in every case I've witnessed counters true lay formation, and in some cases opposes the Catholic faith. Although the charitable services provided by these functionaries have value to the Church and the persons she helps, it hurts the Church when we pretend this phenomenon is lay formation.
What we have today in the Catholic Church is not Catholic culture but a subculture made up of cells consisting of Catholics determined to keep the faith alive until bishops and priests are ready to restore a truly Catholic culture, which can only occur with genuine lay formation, which necessitates a now non-existent assembly life.
The omnipresence of apologetics in popular culture is in my view is a reaction against bishops and priests adhering to the phenomenon of subsuming every vestige of Catholic culture into the larger culture, robbing Catholic culture of its inherently counter-cultural identity.
1.24.2011 | 1:58pm
David says:
With apologies that this is more barbarous than apothegmatic, am I right to think we are, at least in part, pondering 'peitho', here? - a good 'New Testament' word about which, for example, Eric Voegelin (that self-described 'modernist', and escapee from the Nazis) has a lot of interesting things to say.
To toss out possibly familiar, variously plausible fictions, what is persuasive about the priest in Graham Greene's 'The Power and the Glory', about Puddleglum imprisoned, in C.S. Lewis's 'The Silver Chair'? Apologetic subtlety? 'Holy cards' (whatever they may be taken to include)?
To shift to art and history together, what is persuasive about St. Thomas of Canterbury, whether in the fictions of, say, Anouilh, Alfred Duggan, or perhaps most notably, T.S. Eliot, or in all one can find out about him by concerted historical study?
Would attempting to persuade the saliently 'warty' not to engage in apologetics be a serving of what C.S. Lewis calls "Bulverism"?
What is being meant by 'culture', here? One can, in addition to languages, speak not only of dialects, but of oikolects, and idiolects. Should we discriminate less finely where 'cultures' are at issue? How delineated are 'cultures', and who gets to say (and why - with what reasons or arguments...)?
David Mills writes, "There is much more to be said for the necessity of a specifically Catholic (or Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist) culture." In beginning Book II, ch. 1 of his 16th-century OHEL contribution, C.S. Lewis says, "Unfortunately the very names we have to use to describe this controversy are themselves controversial. To call the one party Catholics implicitly grants their claim; to call them Roman Catholics implictly denies it." Must everyone agree to excluded some specifically "Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist" cultures from "Catholic culture"? Even if self-describing members of what they consider Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist Churches insist on being excluded/included? Must eveyone agree to include them?
Whichever self-describing claimants to being "Mormons" are included in the data to which Anti-MTD points, is this not an illustration of the abusability of natural goods of 'culture' - if it can be made so successfully to propagate not only any knowledge of truth and natural law that survives there, but the heterodox monstrosities of "Mormon" teachings?
How validly - and broadly - can we extrapolate, today, the picture Trollope painted of the workings of Parliament, 150 years ago: persuasive speeches full of arguments were meant for being reported, not to convince or persuade MPs, independent judgement and conscience were effectively scorned in practice - party/faction-spirit was what mattered, it was all about of getting people 'ripe' for 'progressive change', not a (reasoned) search for what is true and good?
With Voegelin, I would concur with the propriety - and applicability - of the words with which Richard Hooker opens his massive work of (among other things) apologetic: "Though for no other cause, yet for this; that posterity may know we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream".
To toss out possibly familiar, variously plausible fictions, what is persuasive about the priest in Graham Greene's 'The Power and the Glory', about Puddleglum imprisoned, in C.S. Lewis's 'The Silver Chair'? Apologetic subtlety? 'Holy cards' (whatever they may be taken to include)?
To shift to art and history together, what is persuasive about St. Thomas of Canterbury, whether in the fictions of, say, Anouilh, Alfred Duggan, or perhaps most notably, T.S. Eliot, or in all one can find out about him by concerted historical study?
Would attempting to persuade the saliently 'warty' not to engage in apologetics be a serving of what C.S. Lewis calls "Bulverism"?
What is being meant by 'culture', here? One can, in addition to languages, speak not only of dialects, but of oikolects, and idiolects. Should we discriminate less finely where 'cultures' are at issue? How delineated are 'cultures', and who gets to say (and why - with what reasons or arguments...)?
David Mills writes, "There is much more to be said for the necessity of a specifically Catholic (or Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist) culture." In beginning Book II, ch. 1 of his 16th-century OHEL contribution, C.S. Lewis says, "Unfortunately the very names we have to use to describe this controversy are themselves controversial. To call the one party Catholics implicitly grants their claim; to call them Roman Catholics implictly denies it." Must everyone agree to excluded some specifically "Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist" cultures from "Catholic culture"? Even if self-describing members of what they consider Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist Churches insist on being excluded/included? Must eveyone agree to include them?
Whichever self-describing claimants to being "Mormons" are included in the data to which Anti-MTD points, is this not an illustration of the abusability of natural goods of 'culture' - if it can be made so successfully to propagate not only any knowledge of truth and natural law that survives there, but the heterodox monstrosities of "Mormon" teachings?
How validly - and broadly - can we extrapolate, today, the picture Trollope painted of the workings of Parliament, 150 years ago: persuasive speeches full of arguments were meant for being reported, not to convince or persuade MPs, independent judgement and conscience were effectively scorned in practice - party/faction-spirit was what mattered, it was all about of getting people 'ripe' for 'progressive change', not a (reasoned) search for what is true and good?
With Voegelin, I would concur with the propriety - and applicability - of the words with which Richard Hooker opens his massive work of (among other things) apologetic: "Though for no other cause, yet for this; that posterity may know we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream".
1.24.2011 | 2:55pm
Alejandro says:
Joe: I think you might be a little to quick to indict the "old lady" from Mexico of actually worshiping Mary. To Anglo-Americans (for lack of a better term) the veneration that many Latins (Italians, Hispanics, etc) show to Mary and the other saints may seems excessive at times but I assure you that 99 % of the time even the most simple minded understand that only God is adored and that the "worship" (veneration) given to the saints is of infinitely lower status. What also tells me that this lady is probably not adoring Mary is that she is a daily mass goer. The people I worry about are the ones with an excessive popular piety that is not checked by the receiving of the sacraments. There are many Hispanics, Philippinos, Italians etc that do mix superstition with devotion to the Saints. The majority of those cases involve people who no longer practice the faith but only hang on to some of the popular piety they learned as children but was never properly explained through catechesis.
As far as holy cards go, it's a beautiful metaphor for that old Catholic culture that influences every part of our lives. The Friday fish fries, May crownings, home enthronement of the Sacred Heart, in Catholic countries the patronal feasts of our hometowns, and many other celebrations and daily activities. In many places this has been lost and in others it has devolved into secularized celebrations. The Assumption is still a holiday in hugely agnostic France and even though the Spanish president must still swear an oath in front of a crucifix he himself has proven to be irreligious. These are the perils of the "holy card" culture. Either we teach people the faith and keep their meaning alive or it turns into a pretext for empty celebrations.
As far as holy cards go, it's a beautiful metaphor for that old Catholic culture that influences every part of our lives. The Friday fish fries, May crownings, home enthronement of the Sacred Heart, in Catholic countries the patronal feasts of our hometowns, and many other celebrations and daily activities. In many places this has been lost and in others it has devolved into secularized celebrations. The Assumption is still a holiday in hugely agnostic France and even though the Spanish president must still swear an oath in front of a crucifix he himself has proven to be irreligious. These are the perils of the "holy card" culture. Either we teach people the faith and keep their meaning alive or it turns into a pretext for empty celebrations.
1.24.2011 | 3:12pm
Jarrad Faulk says:
I find this dicussing interesting but flawed. I am a convert of 2 1/2 years who was raised a Southern Baptist in Louisiana. I am also 30 years old so the cultural expressions of Catholic piety like Holy Cards mean very little to me with regards to authentic expressions of faith because even most if not all of the Catholics my age that I know now or have know throughout my life have never used them. To me, the holy card cradle Catholic vs the Apologetics convert is a false dichotomy. Do any of us know if Karl Keating or Scott Hahn do or do not pray with holy cards? Or do you want these men to exercise a quiet piety free of the intellectualism of defending the faith. Mr. Keating is a cradle Catholic. What category does he fall into? How do we "neatly" box him?
In my mind, apologetics has filled the void of catechesis. If you lament 40 years of terrible catechesis then don't sour about the apologetics. Its a natural response. Where I initially grew up in south Louisiana, it was once almost entirely Catholic complete with a very distinct and Catholic culture. Now there are Protestant churches of considerable size there. How did they get there? How did they grow? Protestant apologetics trumped Catholic culture! And don't think that the Mormons don't have apologists either. They just happen to to show up at your door in pairs and, like Protestant apologists, are armed with everything they know to make you turn from your idolitrous, Holy Card Catholic cultural false religion.
I grew up in a faith tradition where most people believed that if you were Catholic then you were a member of a Synagogue of Satan and that you were going to hell if you weren't "saved" by the "true" gospel of Jesus Christ. Talk about a binding culture! Until the Holy Card cradle Catholics start telling their sons and daughters who leave the Church that hellfire awaits then as heretics then there is simply no equivalent. This may have gone on at some point I'm unaware of.
Personally, I thank God for the apologists and the holy card Catholics as I seen them performing seperate but vital functions. The apologists boldly proclaim the truth and the holy carders live a faith that is life giving. And if one person belongs to both groups then all the better.
In my mind, apologetics has filled the void of catechesis. If you lament 40 years of terrible catechesis then don't sour about the apologetics. Its a natural response. Where I initially grew up in south Louisiana, it was once almost entirely Catholic complete with a very distinct and Catholic culture. Now there are Protestant churches of considerable size there. How did they get there? How did they grow? Protestant apologetics trumped Catholic culture! And don't think that the Mormons don't have apologists either. They just happen to to show up at your door in pairs and, like Protestant apologists, are armed with everything they know to make you turn from your idolitrous, Holy Card Catholic cultural false religion.
I grew up in a faith tradition where most people believed that if you were Catholic then you were a member of a Synagogue of Satan and that you were going to hell if you weren't "saved" by the "true" gospel of Jesus Christ. Talk about a binding culture! Until the Holy Card cradle Catholics start telling their sons and daughters who leave the Church that hellfire awaits then as heretics then there is simply no equivalent. This may have gone on at some point I'm unaware of.
Personally, I thank God for the apologists and the holy card Catholics as I seen them performing seperate but vital functions. The apologists boldly proclaim the truth and the holy carders live a faith that is life giving. And if one person belongs to both groups then all the better.
1.24.2011 | 3:15pm
Anonymous says:
I'm a bit confused ---
First, the converts to Catholicism over the past century or two have not merely contributed to apologetic aspects of the faith, or faith in dialogue with other traditions. (Is Dorothy Day an apologetic writer? Blessed John Henry Newman?) Certainly non-converts like, uh, Pope John Paul II have been far more important for Catholicism than any convert in the past hundred years, but is this what people are talking about when they mention "apologetic resources, staffed disproportionately by converts"? I think we would do well to teach our children in the faith through convert writers such as John Henry Newman, Dorothy Day, Jacques Maritain, Edith Stein ...
Second, how are the things you mentioned (being well-versed in the stances and rational support for those stances endorsed by the Church and living those ideas, embodying them as a member of a culture) mutually exclusive or in any way opposed? In my experience, the people who do one thing well often do the other thing well --- while I can imagine someone who is immersed in the culture but ignorant of the intellectual tradition (I don't think this is necessarily bad), I have never met anyone, nor can I imagine anyone who is really interested in learning Catholic teaching and positions, reads encyclicals and St. Thomas Aquinas, but refrains from engaging in culturally Catholic things. Maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by "apologetics" (maybe I'm just unfamiliar with a whole slew of popular level books defending Catholicism on a more superficial level?) or Catholic culture (I would think that this involves things like going to mass, owning a rosary and using it at least once in a while, having lots of kids and owning some kind of depiction of a saint or two, and striving to abide by Catholic teachings, living a holy life).
First, the converts to Catholicism over the past century or two have not merely contributed to apologetic aspects of the faith, or faith in dialogue with other traditions. (Is Dorothy Day an apologetic writer? Blessed John Henry Newman?) Certainly non-converts like, uh, Pope John Paul II have been far more important for Catholicism than any convert in the past hundred years, but is this what people are talking about when they mention "apologetic resources, staffed disproportionately by converts"? I think we would do well to teach our children in the faith through convert writers such as John Henry Newman, Dorothy Day, Jacques Maritain, Edith Stein ...
Second, how are the things you mentioned (being well-versed in the stances and rational support for those stances endorsed by the Church and living those ideas, embodying them as a member of a culture) mutually exclusive or in any way opposed? In my experience, the people who do one thing well often do the other thing well --- while I can imagine someone who is immersed in the culture but ignorant of the intellectual tradition (I don't think this is necessarily bad), I have never met anyone, nor can I imagine anyone who is really interested in learning Catholic teaching and positions, reads encyclicals and St. Thomas Aquinas, but refrains from engaging in culturally Catholic things. Maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by "apologetics" (maybe I'm just unfamiliar with a whole slew of popular level books defending Catholicism on a more superficial level?) or Catholic culture (I would think that this involves things like going to mass, owning a rosary and using it at least once in a while, having lots of kids and owning some kind of depiction of a saint or two, and striving to abide by Catholic teachings, living a holy life).
1.24.2011 | 3:23pm
GABRIEL says:
The Catholic Church was founded by His Majesty Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
End of debate.
End of debate.
1.24.2011 | 3:41pm
Terry Versch says:
I have not felt the need to engage in Apologetics. I am a charsimatic convert. I spent 34 years on the "left coast" where churches are very preditory. I have been in Ohio for 10 years now and most churches get along just fine. I work at a Christian food bank and am on the Ministery Team along with a Baptist Minister, Assembly of God Minister, Menonite Minister and various lay persons. The chairman of the board stood up one day and thanked God because he could close his eyes and not know which church anyone was from. I have discovered that the Catholic faith is base on two columns, scripture and tradition. Because the original Bible was written in a language that had few words, we have to have tradition to define the scriptures. If anyone doesn't care to go that way, I don't feel that I owe them any sort of "appology". I am in the "business" of spreading the good news. As a recovering alcoholic, I tend to stay where the "rubber hits the road". I feel that Religion doesn't have to be difficult. A friend of mine,(Catholic) is excited about a Catholic radio station in Birmingham, Alabama run by Catholic Apologetics whose goal is to convert half of Birmingham by 2020. They should be trying to convert the second largest group in the world, which is unchurched Catholics. The Baptists are able to fend for themselves. To me, Jesus spoke "the big picture" and it is easy to understand. Once the Bible was written down, we have been arguing ever since. I in no way support the Mormon Religion, however the reason they do so well is all in the Monday night "family night". They do what we fail to do, that is sit down with their children and pray and communicate.
1.24.2011 | 3:51pm
Mark V E Y says:
The relationship between the "holy card" people and apologist-types could be illustrated by the relationship between a nation's public citizens and its military. It is the public citizens' way of living that the military defends. Also, we know military members are also public citizens and vice-versa. Not a perfect example but I think this captures how the two "factions" (albeit the lines are blurred) need each other, hand in hand, to exist in a culture constantly under attack from the outside. The blurring of the lines is very obvious in the real world. I know many apologist-types that they themselves fit quite comfortably in the "holy card" category.
Another "visual" my feeble mind also came up with is an inflated balloon. The gas inside is like the "holy card" people while the rubber balloon is like the apologists. To hold its shape, the system needs both parts. Of course, they both need the binding string of Christ's grace to keep them both together and in proper order.
These are oversimplifications, I know. I just wanted to share.
Another "visual" my feeble mind also came up with is an inflated balloon. The gas inside is like the "holy card" people while the rubber balloon is like the apologists. To hold its shape, the system needs both parts. Of course, they both need the binding string of Christ's grace to keep them both together and in proper order.
These are oversimplifications, I know. I just wanted to share.
1.24.2011 | 3:51pm
Henry says:
Gabriel:
I think a real Christian is never so entirely self-confident as you appear to be. Indeed, the Bible itself offers far more uncertainty, that Prideful, triumphalist Catholics do.
Note this example: even after Jesus appeared to found his church,on the "rock" of Peter, even after giving Peter the "keys"? Right after all that - Peter began to disagree with Jesus on a major doctrinal matter (the necessity of the crucifixion).
So that, in Mat. 16.23, Jesus effectively revoked all his apparent support of Peter. When Jesus called St. Peter, the first Pope, "Satan."
"End of debate"?
I think a real Christian is never so entirely self-confident as you appear to be. Indeed, the Bible itself offers far more uncertainty, that Prideful, triumphalist Catholics do.
Note this example: even after Jesus appeared to found his church,on the "rock" of Peter, even after giving Peter the "keys"? Right after all that - Peter began to disagree with Jesus on a major doctrinal matter (the necessity of the crucifixion).
So that, in Mat. 16.23, Jesus effectively revoked all his apparent support of Peter. When Jesus called St. Peter, the first Pope, "Satan."
"End of debate"?
1.24.2011 | 4:04pm
Joe Carter says:
For those of us who don't speak Catholic, could someone explain the "holy card"?
1.24.2011 | 4:10pm
jm says:
Gabriel,
Doesn't every Christian church trace its ancestry back to Jesus Christ?
JM
Doesn't every Christian church trace its ancestry back to Jesus Christ?
JM
1.24.2011 | 4:32pm
Gil says:
Joe - they are either pictures of Jesus or any of a number of saints beginning with Mary, often, but not necessarily including texts that are historical descriptions or prayers/petitions related to them.
I suspect the idea of holy cards begins with the first fashioned crucifix, then the fish, on to stain-glassed windows, etc. to keep the gospel stories and the stories of the Church's martyrs and saints alive, especially before the age of universal literacy.
What holy cards and apologetics first share in common in the story, the Gospel, and thus they come from the same source, and should be honored as such, keeping in mind that the story is told in innumerable other ways, all a part of Catholic culture.
I suspect the idea of holy cards begins with the first fashioned crucifix, then the fish, on to stain-glassed windows, etc. to keep the gospel stories and the stories of the Church's martyrs and saints alive, especially before the age of universal literacy.
What holy cards and apologetics first share in common in the story, the Gospel, and thus they come from the same source, and should be honored as such, keeping in mind that the story is told in innumerable other ways, all a part of Catholic culture.
1.24.2011 | 4:46pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Alejandro provides a good description of those who cling to cultural items, thinking they are faith items. To steal from Luther statement about the scriptures, those cultural items are the manger which bear the Christ, but are not themselves the Christ. That many people once found Christ in that manger does not make it a part of Him.
Here is another bit about cultural preservation as an aid to the faith that seems missing from this discussion. For most of Church history, most cultures were closed, not only in moving from faith to faith, but even among coreligionists - leading to jokes about Irish-American grandmothers worrying that Maureen was "marrying outside the faith" when she became engaged to Vincent. (Similar situations applied in other Christian groups.) In most times and places, culture was not easily separable from faith. Your king, or duke, or family patriarch decided what your faith was. Even in an American society which encourages individual decision, moving in or out of a faith is quite recent. People considered themselves part of a group far more than we do now, and religious change was more usually along a line of intensity within one's own tradition.
Whatever is coming next, it isn't European ethnic enclaves in villages and cities, where culture is absorbed with faith and faith absorbed with culture.
Here is another bit about cultural preservation as an aid to the faith that seems missing from this discussion. For most of Church history, most cultures were closed, not only in moving from faith to faith, but even among coreligionists - leading to jokes about Irish-American grandmothers worrying that Maureen was "marrying outside the faith" when she became engaged to Vincent. (Similar situations applied in other Christian groups.) In most times and places, culture was not easily separable from faith. Your king, or duke, or family patriarch decided what your faith was. Even in an American society which encourages individual decision, moving in or out of a faith is quite recent. People considered themselves part of a group far more than we do now, and religious change was more usually along a line of intensity within one's own tradition.
Whatever is coming next, it isn't European ethnic enclaves in villages and cities, where culture is absorbed with faith and faith absorbed with culture.
1.24.2011 | 4:47pm
M. Love says:
I am baffled as well by the attempts to pit apologetics against culture. Surely we need both, in ample measure. Catholics need culture to keep their faith from withering on the vine, and modern non-Catholic "seekers" need apologetics to convince them of the rational basis of the Christian faith. Many people are held back from belief by the popular notion that Christians are largely mouth-breathing know-nothing dullards clinging to a childish fantasy. If you can persuade a non-believer that Christianity is philosophically deep and intellectually fulfilling, you've taken a large step towards his conversion. That's the role of apologetics.
I am one of those dreadful Catholic converts (from atheism, in my case), and my conversion was almost entirely effected by Christian apologetics, Catholic and otherwise. I knew no Catholics in person, and never saw a holy card until our priest handed some out at an RCIA class. Even then, I wasn't sure what to make of them, and did not realize until some time later that they were a common Catholic devotional aid.
And I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that holy-card Catholicism may have actually served to drive me further from the Church, had I encountered it too early on in my journey. It takes a while for some converts to get comfortable with the Church's wide embrace of everything from the highest art to the lowest kitsch, and many of us need time to warm up to the plaster statues, Divine-Mercy paintings, and Infants of Prague. I do love them now, and my wife fills our house with various (mostly tasteful) devotionals, but you have to allow converts some space with this stuff.
But culture is crucial. My initial conversion-through-apologetics was a classic conversion of the head, while my conversion of the heart is a much slower, and still ongoing, process. I expect it will be a lifelong journey, and while I will continue to enjoy EWTN-style apologetics, I have realized that I need Catholic culture to sustain my faith.
I am one of those dreadful Catholic converts (from atheism, in my case), and my conversion was almost entirely effected by Christian apologetics, Catholic and otherwise. I knew no Catholics in person, and never saw a holy card until our priest handed some out at an RCIA class. Even then, I wasn't sure what to make of them, and did not realize until some time later that they were a common Catholic devotional aid.
And I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that holy-card Catholicism may have actually served to drive me further from the Church, had I encountered it too early on in my journey. It takes a while for some converts to get comfortable with the Church's wide embrace of everything from the highest art to the lowest kitsch, and many of us need time to warm up to the plaster statues, Divine-Mercy paintings, and Infants of Prague. I do love them now, and my wife fills our house with various (mostly tasteful) devotionals, but you have to allow converts some space with this stuff.
But culture is crucial. My initial conversion-through-apologetics was a classic conversion of the head, while my conversion of the heart is a much slower, and still ongoing, process. I expect it will be a lifelong journey, and while I will continue to enjoy EWTN-style apologetics, I have realized that I need Catholic culture to sustain my faith.
1.24.2011 | 5:16pm
J.W. Cox says:
But isn't part of the problem that "Catholic culture" in the US no longer exists? Or at least no longer exists as a common, trans-generational experience?
I'm not saying that apologetics is or should be or can be a substitute: it can't, at least by itself. But I think it should be part of...well, of whatever "culture" is supposed to mean.
I was sitting in a meeting of parishioners a few years back, not long after being received into the Roman Catholic Church. One man, who grew up Catholic in the 50's, said we'd have more parishioners and more involvement if the parish offered the marching bands and other youth activities he recalled from his childhood. Even then, I thought: the "culture" he remembers as so vital and engaging no longer exists.
One thing I've been wondering lately is if the 'cultural' part of faith is found more often in 12-Step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous: there, one finds people who have surrendered fully, who have turned to a "Higher Power" and in whatever ill-informed, fumbling way put their trust in that Power, day by day, sometimes moment by moment. And they are bound together not only by their common suffering, but more importantly by the promise, realized one day at a time, of a redeemed life, lived according to the virtues (though they're not called that).
This kind of surrender and faith, done in and through fellowship, seems like a "culture." Is it? And it seems a more immediate culture, and one focused outwardly in service and help, than many Catholics in the pews have been able to find in their parish.
So..what is "culture" and what does, or can, "Catholic culture" look like in the 21st century?
I'm not saying that apologetics is or should be or can be a substitute: it can't, at least by itself. But I think it should be part of...well, of whatever "culture" is supposed to mean.
I was sitting in a meeting of parishioners a few years back, not long after being received into the Roman Catholic Church. One man, who grew up Catholic in the 50's, said we'd have more parishioners and more involvement if the parish offered the marching bands and other youth activities he recalled from his childhood. Even then, I thought: the "culture" he remembers as so vital and engaging no longer exists.
One thing I've been wondering lately is if the 'cultural' part of faith is found more often in 12-Step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous: there, one finds people who have surrendered fully, who have turned to a "Higher Power" and in whatever ill-informed, fumbling way put their trust in that Power, day by day, sometimes moment by moment. And they are bound together not only by their common suffering, but more importantly by the promise, realized one day at a time, of a redeemed life, lived according to the virtues (though they're not called that).
This kind of surrender and faith, done in and through fellowship, seems like a "culture." Is it? And it seems a more immediate culture, and one focused outwardly in service and help, than many Catholics in the pews have been able to find in their parish.
So..what is "culture" and what does, or can, "Catholic culture" look like in the 21st century?
1.24.2011 | 5:47pm
Paul says:
Is what "orthodox" and conservative Catholics want, really a return to Catholic culture? Or a return to what they remember from their childhood?
Probably everyone at times, has longed, nostalgically, romantically, for a return to our childhood. And specifically here, to the religion of our childhood: when the saints were presented to us as baseball card heroes.
But one day, the Bible says, we are supposed to "mature" in our religion.
Probably everyone at times, has longed, nostalgically, romantically, for a return to our childhood. And specifically here, to the religion of our childhood: when the saints were presented to us as baseball card heroes.
But one day, the Bible says, we are supposed to "mature" in our religion.
1.24.2011 | 6:05pm
James2 says:
Was it T.S. Eliot that referred to "all the pretty saints"?
In a way, I hope I never quite forget my "inner child," and memories of such things. As the same time though, I am also extremely glad that I grew up, too. To see the warts in my childhood heroes and priests, after all.
By the way, what do we all need? It is not just 1) a lingering, simple childhood impression of nice heroes. And 2) not even apologetics. What we all really need is 3) real Reason. And even specifically, 4) contemporary (not Medieval), scholarly theology.
Anything else is Regression to the womb.
In a way, I hope I never quite forget my "inner child," and memories of such things. As the same time though, I am also extremely glad that I grew up, too. To see the warts in my childhood heroes and priests, after all.
By the way, what do we all need? It is not just 1) a lingering, simple childhood impression of nice heroes. And 2) not even apologetics. What we all really need is 3) real Reason. And even specifically, 4) contemporary (not Medieval), scholarly theology.
Anything else is Regression to the womb.
1.24.2011 | 6:09pm
judy says:
Jesus said "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs."
Mull that over. I have holy cards, I am a cradle Catholic, I have also learned much from apologetics only because I want to learn about and be able to defend my faith.
Read the book of Wisdom. Fall in love with Righteousness: Jesus. Become like a little child and pray in front of the Blessed Sacrament with a Holy card or without. You can not dissect the road to heaven. You simply have to walk on it like the "old lady from Mexico". God Bless us all on this journey to the one true Light, Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God. Amen
Mull that over. I have holy cards, I am a cradle Catholic, I have also learned much from apologetics only because I want to learn about and be able to defend my faith.
Read the book of Wisdom. Fall in love with Righteousness: Jesus. Become like a little child and pray in front of the Blessed Sacrament with a Holy card or without. You can not dissect the road to heaven. You simply have to walk on it like the "old lady from Mexico". God Bless us all on this journey to the one true Light, Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God. Amen
1.24.2011 | 6:27pm
Edward Alleyn says:
"or like the northerner who moves south for the weather and keeps telling the natives (with some reason, I just might note) how this was done up north."
What is that suppose to mean? How what was done up north? The weather?
Confused in Kentucky
What is that suppose to mean? How what was done up north? The weather?
Confused in Kentucky
1.24.2011 | 7:28pm
FPOC says:
I think this is similar to what Hadley Arkes was discussing in his essay on Ave Maria University (on The Catholic Thing) last week. We must consider the strength and perversity of modern secular culture (more like a slog through the sewer than a culture), which is formidable compared with the middle of last century.
1.24.2011 | 7:40pm
Gil says:
I walked into a Hispanic church and saw a life-size, bright-colored statue of St. Michael the Archangel and was lifted into a strange and beautiful place, and I immediately recalled the prayer we would say at every Mass when I was a child, my favorite prayer as a child. There is nostalgia in this, but there is also a profound sense of a 2000 year journey in which all of us are radically interconnected and staying on course.
I also recall how in the early 80s when I was involved in the music industry in Los Angeles, holy cards, religious statues, rosaries and other Catholic artifacts were prevalent among punkers, even though they were irreligious, and often mocking the Church. Regardless what status any of this holds for anyone, the fact is the Catholic Church in her many manifestations is strewn all over the place.
I also recall how in the early 80s when I was involved in the music industry in Los Angeles, holy cards, religious statues, rosaries and other Catholic artifacts were prevalent among punkers, even though they were irreligious, and often mocking the Church. Regardless what status any of this holds for anyone, the fact is the Catholic Church in her many manifestations is strewn all over the place.
1.24.2011 | 8:19pm
Gil says:
James2,
I suppose you are aware that in rejecting reflections on medieval theology, you are not only severing from tradition, but also buying into an ideology that only values what is new. Reflecting on theology and philosophy of the past is not regression. Regression would be the opposite of what you believe, valuing nothing new, but only what exists in the past.
I suppose you are aware that in rejecting reflections on medieval theology, you are not only severing from tradition, but also buying into an ideology that only values what is new. Reflecting on theology and philosophy of the past is not regression. Regression would be the opposite of what you believe, valuing nothing new, but only what exists in the past.
1.24.2011 | 8:31pm
patricksarsfield says:
I am a cradle Catholic who finds convert apologists a bit off-putting, as teh author suggested many of us do. IS that because I was poorly catechized? Hardly. I can give you C&V that demonstrates the truth of the Catholic Church as well as most but it isn't any of that that convinces me of the Truth of the Catholic Church.
Why is the Catholic Church the True Church of Christ? Because it was not founded in the Sixteenth Century or late by some mere man, such as the officious Martin Luther, Henry VIII, John Knox, Munzner, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Cauvin or some follower of one of their traditions. Rather, it was founded in the First Century AD by Jesus Christ Almighty.
All the back and forth about Faith without works is just so much bosh. Source: John 2:24. As I see it, when Luther found himself on the losing part of the theological arguments that his theses produced, he threw in whatever he had to to hold on to his clearly erroneous views. Sola Scriptura was his "deus ex machina" when the clear weight of Tradition came down against him. And "James is an espistle of straw" was his ultimate "deus ex machina" when it was demonstrated that even on the basis of Scriptura alone, Martin was flat out wrong. So Protestantism is just a non-starter for most Cradle Catholics (except maybe for those looking for divorces). And talking about Divorce: how could anyone take Protestantism seriously given its clearly unchristian position on Divorce-Remarriage when that was an area where Christ was more strict that the writer of Leviticus?
What is the real religion of Christ about? It is about looking at Jesus hanging in Agony for us in the front of practically every Catholic Church I have ever visited. More Protestant silliness: why their naked crosses or the ones draped with a cloth?
Likewise, Christ's Religion is reflected in Botticelli's Madonnas. And in La Morenita and the Filipinos' Sambang Gabi and the great witness my ancestors, the Irish, gave over several hundred years of persecution by Henry VIII's descendants and his "church." And that the Poles have given over and over again. and think of the zeal of the Spaniards and yes, even of the Parisians when Henri IV tried to take Paris without a Mass!
As aCradle Catholic, I find it impossible to give much credence to any religion that tries to ignore the first 1517 years of Christ's Church or to say that Christ somehow disowned His Bride until Martin came along to set up a better church thn the one Christ left the World.
Why is the Catholic Church the True Church of Christ? Because it was not founded in the Sixteenth Century or late by some mere man, such as the officious Martin Luther, Henry VIII, John Knox, Munzner, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Cauvin or some follower of one of their traditions. Rather, it was founded in the First Century AD by Jesus Christ Almighty.
All the back and forth about Faith without works is just so much bosh. Source: John 2:24. As I see it, when Luther found himself on the losing part of the theological arguments that his theses produced, he threw in whatever he had to to hold on to his clearly erroneous views. Sola Scriptura was his "deus ex machina" when the clear weight of Tradition came down against him. And "James is an espistle of straw" was his ultimate "deus ex machina" when it was demonstrated that even on the basis of Scriptura alone, Martin was flat out wrong. So Protestantism is just a non-starter for most Cradle Catholics (except maybe for those looking for divorces). And talking about Divorce: how could anyone take Protestantism seriously given its clearly unchristian position on Divorce-Remarriage when that was an area where Christ was more strict that the writer of Leviticus?
What is the real religion of Christ about? It is about looking at Jesus hanging in Agony for us in the front of practically every Catholic Church I have ever visited. More Protestant silliness: why their naked crosses or the ones draped with a cloth?
Likewise, Christ's Religion is reflected in Botticelli's Madonnas. And in La Morenita and the Filipinos' Sambang Gabi and the great witness my ancestors, the Irish, gave over several hundred years of persecution by Henry VIII's descendants and his "church." And that the Poles have given over and over again. and think of the zeal of the Spaniards and yes, even of the Parisians when Henri IV tried to take Paris without a Mass!
As aCradle Catholic, I find it impossible to give much credence to any religion that tries to ignore the first 1517 years of Christ's Church or to say that Christ somehow disowned His Bride until Martin came along to set up a better church thn the one Christ left the World.
1.24.2011 | 8:35pm
patricksarsfield says:
Gabriel writes:
"The Catholic Church was founded by His Majesty Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
End of debate. "
Yes.
"The Catholic Church was founded by His Majesty Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
End of debate. "
Yes.
1.24.2011 | 8:42pm
patricksarsfield says:
Holy cards are one part of Catholic Culture, but so is Sala 7 of the Florentine Museum known as the Uffizi (Gli Uffizi). In that room are a number of Botticellis including the Birth of Venus, but for Catholics, it has two of the most sublime representations of La Madonna col Bambino: Our Lady of the Magnificat and our Lady of the Pomegranate. Done when Martin Luther was still a young oaf, those paintings show the glory of the Catholic Religion as well as just about any representation of the beliefs of Catholics. Now did Sandro follow some C&V in the Good Book in coming up with his representation? Not that I know of, but so what.
1.24.2011 | 8:48pm
patricksarsfield says:
Henry forgets John 21, the first 12 chapters of Acts and Acts 15 when he writes:
"Note this example: even after Jesus appeared to found his church,on the "rock" of Peter, even after giving Peter the "keys"? Right after all that - Peter began to disagree with Jesus on a major doctrinal matter (the necessity of the crucifixion). So that, in Mat. 16.23, Jesus effectively revoked all his apparent support of Peter. When Jesus called St. Peter, the first Pope, "Satan."
Jesus said what He said to Peter at Caesarea Phillipi but He also said-- later hronologically--what He said in John 21 (feed my lambs; tend my sheep) and in Acts 10 when he told Peter (not Paul or anyone else) to go to the Gentile Cornelius.
"
"Note this example: even after Jesus appeared to found his church,on the "rock" of Peter, even after giving Peter the "keys"? Right after all that - Peter began to disagree with Jesus on a major doctrinal matter (the necessity of the crucifixion). So that, in Mat. 16.23, Jesus effectively revoked all his apparent support of Peter. When Jesus called St. Peter, the first Pope, "Satan."
Jesus said what He said to Peter at Caesarea Phillipi but He also said-- later hronologically--what He said in John 21 (feed my lambs; tend my sheep) and in Acts 10 when he told Peter (not Paul or anyone else) to go to the Gentile Cornelius.
"
1.24.2011 | 10:46pm
Gil says:
I just want my Protestant brothers and sisters who have journeyed to and found a home in Catholicism, as well as those who still abide in Christ in the dominations not yet in union with Rome, that your lives have been a blessing. Accusation has no place here. So many Christians from so many denominations have a heartfelt love for Our Lord, and want nothing more than to follow him.
My experience with converts in the parish I have belonged to for more than 20 years is that they take the strongest stance for the Church and contribute more than any other group in what I consider decisive in any successful evangelization: catechesis.
My favorite theologian of all time is Hans Urs von Balthasar, and he was close friends with the man I consider the greatest Protestant theologian, Karl Barth. It was in their love and respect for each other that they became great guides for each other.
Jesus said that they (non-Christians) would know us (Christians) by our unity. And unity is not possible without us loving one another. For me, The Book of Revelation speaks to that unity more than anything, Beloved John attempting via a vision from Our Lord to encourage unity in love. Revelation 2:2-5:
"I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
"4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
My experience with converts in the parish I have belonged to for more than 20 years is that they take the strongest stance for the Church and contribute more than any other group in what I consider decisive in any successful evangelization: catechesis.
My favorite theologian of all time is Hans Urs von Balthasar, and he was close friends with the man I consider the greatest Protestant theologian, Karl Barth. It was in their love and respect for each other that they became great guides for each other.
Jesus said that they (non-Christians) would know us (Christians) by our unity. And unity is not possible without us loving one another. For me, The Book of Revelation speaks to that unity more than anything, Beloved John attempting via a vision from Our Lord to encourage unity in love. Revelation 2:2-5:
"I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
"4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
1.24.2011 | 11:06pm
Sam F says:
Catholic culture? As a convert I must say that my exposure to that culture from cradle Catholics consisted of our catechumen program. In that excellent program we were asked what our pet name for God was and what His pet name for us was. And then there was the class about the Church being like a wagon train stuck in a rut and our need to light out across the wide countryside. Oh and we got to draw pictures of God and arrange them on the floor as a mandala. I guess that pretty much covers my exposure to Catholic culture from the "natives". Maybe where the tire meets the road the article's argument is slightly flawed.
1.25.2011 | 12:28am
patricksarsfield says:
Sam reveals what is lacking in so much of non-Catholic culture when he terms "excellent" a parish conversion program that asks "what our pet name for God was and what His pet name for us was. And then there was the class about the Church being like a wagon train stuck in a rut and our need to light out across the wide countryside. Oh and we got to draw pictures of God and arrange them on the floor as a mandala. "
De gustibus .... But to my way of thinking, Catholic culture is better found in Aquinas, von Bingen, Botticelli, Rafaello, Palestrina and the great works of anonymous art that fill so many cathedrals than in wagon trains and mandalas.
I recently had the privilege of spending half an hour on three occasions during the same week in front of the Duomo in Orvieto and another twenty minutes or so in the San Brizio Chapel (done by Luca Signorelli and his school including a young apprentice named Rafaello Sanzio). The Duomo's facade does such a fine job telling the story of Christ in gilded paint that it is justly famed throughout Italy as "il giglio d'oro." (the golden lily). The San Brizio Chapel is an incredible portrayal of the End of the World. I dare say there well may be more great art to inspire Christian imaginations in that one church than in all the hundreds of thousands of Protestant churches built in the USA.
As a Cradle Catholic, I feel as comfortable in any Catholic church in the World as I do in the parish to which I "belong." In fact, I always "belong" in any Catholic Church I find myself in.
Of course, I do have my favorites. When in my native city of New York, I often visit St. Patrick's, which I have been visiting since I was no more than five years old. My mother and grandmother would take us there throughout my youth.
Likewise, if I am in Rome, I can go to St. Peter's and again feel as though I am home. I remember as a kid receiving a book from my grandmother on St. Peter's. I wanted to go there from that day on. I have been to Rome four times since and have visited St. Peter's and/or the Vatican on at least ten days during those visits to Rome. When I cross into the Piazza di San Pietro, I immediately feel the sentiment that Bernini hoped to engender in his design of the Square and of the surrounding colonnades. The colonnades were designed to "embrace" everyone in the Piazza. When I am in the Piazza, I feel as though I am in the embrace of Christ's Holy Catholic Church (la Santa Madre Chiesa).
De gustibus .... But to my way of thinking, Catholic culture is better found in Aquinas, von Bingen, Botticelli, Rafaello, Palestrina and the great works of anonymous art that fill so many cathedrals than in wagon trains and mandalas.
I recently had the privilege of spending half an hour on three occasions during the same week in front of the Duomo in Orvieto and another twenty minutes or so in the San Brizio Chapel (done by Luca Signorelli and his school including a young apprentice named Rafaello Sanzio). The Duomo's facade does such a fine job telling the story of Christ in gilded paint that it is justly famed throughout Italy as "il giglio d'oro." (the golden lily). The San Brizio Chapel is an incredible portrayal of the End of the World. I dare say there well may be more great art to inspire Christian imaginations in that one church than in all the hundreds of thousands of Protestant churches built in the USA.
As a Cradle Catholic, I feel as comfortable in any Catholic church in the World as I do in the parish to which I "belong." In fact, I always "belong" in any Catholic Church I find myself in.
Of course, I do have my favorites. When in my native city of New York, I often visit St. Patrick's, which I have been visiting since I was no more than five years old. My mother and grandmother would take us there throughout my youth.
Likewise, if I am in Rome, I can go to St. Peter's and again feel as though I am home. I remember as a kid receiving a book from my grandmother on St. Peter's. I wanted to go there from that day on. I have been to Rome four times since and have visited St. Peter's and/or the Vatican on at least ten days during those visits to Rome. When I cross into the Piazza di San Pietro, I immediately feel the sentiment that Bernini hoped to engender in his design of the Square and of the surrounding colonnades. The colonnades were designed to "embrace" everyone in the Piazza. When I am in the Piazza, I feel as though I am in the embrace of Christ's Holy Catholic Church (la Santa Madre Chiesa).
1.25.2011 | 12:59am
austin says:
As a convert my conversion began with finding The Story of a Soul in a bookstore in Rome and reading it all night long-- decades ago. The apologetics of Chesterton helped me understand the church and what it meant to be a Catholic Christian.
Today, many teenagers go to college and have no answer to the methodological naturalism and atheism that awaits them. They become atheists themselves. They need to be prepared for this. I teach at a local university, and atheistic professors tend to be very evangelical about their 'faith'. It is naive not to understand that apologetics are necessary, but not sufficent for our faith in an agnostic culture.
Today, many teenagers go to college and have no answer to the methodological naturalism and atheism that awaits them. They become atheists themselves. They need to be prepared for this. I teach at a local university, and atheistic professors tend to be very evangelical about their 'faith'. It is naive not to understand that apologetics are necessary, but not sufficent for our faith in an agnostic culture.
1.25.2011 | 3:51am
Michael PS says:
The Second Council of Nicea has the question of Holy Cards pretty well covered
1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.
The Council clarifies its meaning, by saying "these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men."
This is the teaching of the last ecumenical, most holy and inspired council, in which the Fathers of East and West spoke, with one voice, the same heavenly utterances of the gospel.
1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.
The Council clarifies its meaning, by saying "these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men."
This is the teaching of the last ecumenical, most holy and inspired council, in which the Fathers of East and West spoke, with one voice, the same heavenly utterances of the gospel.
1.25.2011 | 5:20am
edmond says:
Thank you for this great article and thank you for the interesting responses.
Many of us look back at our childhood church because it was a time when the faith was understood almost in unison. When we went to mass we took the time to check time for the one hour fast, some of us even made a list of sins to confess. There was diligence. Today, even catholics disagree with each other e.g. pro-choice, pro-life, etc.
I seriously think that to be able to again be on the same "faith page" it is incumbent upon all catholic families to take the time to study their faith, ask questions and get to the bottomline answers of their beliefs. Many catholics take the faith for granted most specially the concept of faith. Apologetics can help by becoming a focal point or a reserve of valid explanations that dispel false practices and that have creeped in because of someone's say so. Again it is also the delivery of the explanation that is crucial.
Today the word sacrifice longer has a "heroic"ring to it and sadly has become synonymous with "sucker". To be labeled a martyr in today's language would be derogatory or equated with not taking the opportunity, a "loser". My point is, these misconceptions arise from a loss of understanding and appreciation for the finer things of the catholic faith and teachings and we can't expect to be spoon fed.
Many of us look back at our childhood church because it was a time when the faith was understood almost in unison. When we went to mass we took the time to check time for the one hour fast, some of us even made a list of sins to confess. There was diligence. Today, even catholics disagree with each other e.g. pro-choice, pro-life, etc.
I seriously think that to be able to again be on the same "faith page" it is incumbent upon all catholic families to take the time to study their faith, ask questions and get to the bottomline answers of their beliefs. Many catholics take the faith for granted most specially the concept of faith. Apologetics can help by becoming a focal point or a reserve of valid explanations that dispel false practices and that have creeped in because of someone's say so. Again it is also the delivery of the explanation that is crucial.
Today the word sacrifice longer has a "heroic"ring to it and sadly has become synonymous with "sucker". To be labeled a martyr in today's language would be derogatory or equated with not taking the opportunity, a "loser". My point is, these misconceptions arise from a loss of understanding and appreciation for the finer things of the catholic faith and teachings and we can't expect to be spoon fed.
1.25.2011 | 10:00am
Kevin M. Tierney says:
Let's not get distracted.
For example, I agree with this article, and I don't own a single holy card.
I think the problem is more that there is a tendency for the faith to become nothing but an intellectual construct. in some circles, how holy one is, that is based on how knowledgeable they are about this or that canon of this or that council, or the precise dogmatic definition on how Christ's righteousness is appropriated.
Yet there really isn't much of an underpinning behind those doctrinal formations. Most of them are lay people risen to the status of suddenly "Catholic experts", and not just in their particular forte, but in all aspects of the Catholic faith. For example, I'd wager that about 90% of Catholic apologists when dealing with non-catholics are entirely out of their league when dealing with prudential standpoints Catholics of good will can take.
For example, I agree with this article, and I don't own a single holy card.
I think the problem is more that there is a tendency for the faith to become nothing but an intellectual construct. in some circles, how holy one is, that is based on how knowledgeable they are about this or that canon of this or that council, or the precise dogmatic definition on how Christ's righteousness is appropriated.
Yet there really isn't much of an underpinning behind those doctrinal formations. Most of them are lay people risen to the status of suddenly "Catholic experts", and not just in their particular forte, but in all aspects of the Catholic faith. For example, I'd wager that about 90% of Catholic apologists when dealing with non-catholics are entirely out of their league when dealing with prudential standpoints Catholics of good will can take.
1.25.2011 | 11:10am
Gil says:
I agree with Austin's observation, especially that it is naive not to understand that apologetics are necessary: Christians everywhere are up against a rabid atheistic force not only in Academia but in every walk of life that seeks to silence Christians everywhere, and many Christians submit to this silencing, often out of simply feeling inadequate in expressing their faith. Let's honor those who have taken on the responsibility of being informed in their faith and who are generous in sharing it with other Christians less informed. Whether from Protestants or Catholics (including recent converts), apologetics should be welcomed with gratitude.
1.25.2011 | 1:55pm
Ed says:
I'm a convert. Having a background in Medieval studies, and being reasonably widely read, and being a lover of classical music, part of the appeal of Catholicism was indeed the culture, albeit of an older variety. I found, as did a number of other correspondents here, that all that is gone.
I looked over a couple of years at whether I had a vocation. Part of the process of learning that I did not was the encounter with the Church as she is, in at least two dioceses. In the first, I was assigned a sister as a spiritual director. She suggested I immerse myself in Sufi writings. And mazes, that's the ticket. In the second, with a group of other interested souls, the vocations director (later to be sent off in the night to who knows what unsuspecting destination during one of the endless episodes of the Scandals) asked what our favorite prayers were. On my telling him, the Rosary, he enlightened me that I was spiritually immature. Apparently the spiritually mature grope folks during confession, oops, reconciliation. Seemed to work for him.
Meanwhile catechesis is in a state of unrigorous mortis. Teaching catechism to a class of high schoolers, I discovered 0 out of 17, many the products of Catholic schools, knew that we believe in bodily resurrection. My fellow teacher (had to have a fellow teacher because adults can't be trusted alone with children) believed and taught the bodily resurrection was a fairy tale.
There's more to the problem than Catholic laxity. I've been taking my elderly mother to her church (and the church of my youth). It's a fundamentalist group, and they do I think a superb job of catechesis in their own terms, and maintaining the culture I recall from 50 years ago. But the younger generation isn't showing up en masse, as far as I can see.
Sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't a very deep one, - that in the modern West the shepherds and farmers of the parables have stopped being a memory; and the cultural hierarchies that reflected celestial ones have lost legitimacy.
Of course anecdotes prove nothing, but I gather we're at the edge of a demographic precipice. We'll have to get much poorer, much smaller, more persecuted, and more humbled before we can refound a Christian culture and learn how to argue for it.
Ever the optimist :-)
I looked over a couple of years at whether I had a vocation. Part of the process of learning that I did not was the encounter with the Church as she is, in at least two dioceses. In the first, I was assigned a sister as a spiritual director. She suggested I immerse myself in Sufi writings. And mazes, that's the ticket. In the second, with a group of other interested souls, the vocations director (later to be sent off in the night to who knows what unsuspecting destination during one of the endless episodes of the Scandals) asked what our favorite prayers were. On my telling him, the Rosary, he enlightened me that I was spiritually immature. Apparently the spiritually mature grope folks during confession, oops, reconciliation. Seemed to work for him.
Meanwhile catechesis is in a state of unrigorous mortis. Teaching catechism to a class of high schoolers, I discovered 0 out of 17, many the products of Catholic schools, knew that we believe in bodily resurrection. My fellow teacher (had to have a fellow teacher because adults can't be trusted alone with children) believed and taught the bodily resurrection was a fairy tale.
There's more to the problem than Catholic laxity. I've been taking my elderly mother to her church (and the church of my youth). It's a fundamentalist group, and they do I think a superb job of catechesis in their own terms, and maintaining the culture I recall from 50 years ago. But the younger generation isn't showing up en masse, as far as I can see.
Sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't a very deep one, - that in the modern West the shepherds and farmers of the parables have stopped being a memory; and the cultural hierarchies that reflected celestial ones have lost legitimacy.
Of course anecdotes prove nothing, but I gather we're at the edge of a demographic precipice. We'll have to get much poorer, much smaller, more persecuted, and more humbled before we can refound a Christian culture and learn how to argue for it.
Ever the optimist :-)
1.25.2011 | 2:25pm
Benjamin Baxter says:
I think we're straying from the point made from the earlier posters and the essay: Apologetics and a life of faith are both necessary. It isn't a matter of one over the other or one infusing the other but each supporting each other.
I'll echo the earlier poster who made the point about Fides et Ratio in saying that in the several instances I've tried to read Fides et Ratio I never get past the first sentence. It's so evocative and so true that the rest is commentary.
Like faith and reason, the faith exemplified by holy cards and the reason exemplified by a bookshelf full of Kreeft are twin wings on which we fly in the pursuit of truth. Without faith, we are the Pharisees. Without reason we are the Gnostics.
I'll echo the earlier poster who made the point about Fides et Ratio in saying that in the several instances I've tried to read Fides et Ratio I never get past the first sentence. It's so evocative and so true that the rest is commentary.
Like faith and reason, the faith exemplified by holy cards and the reason exemplified by a bookshelf full of Kreeft are twin wings on which we fly in the pursuit of truth. Without faith, we are the Pharisees. Without reason we are the Gnostics.
1.25.2011 | 2:42pm
Ed says:
Benjamin Baxter: "Like faith and reason, the faith exemplified by holy cards and the reason exemplified by a bookshelf full of Kreeft are twin wings on which we fly in the pursuit of truth. Without faith, we are the Pharisees. Without reason we are the Gnostics. "
Sure. I think later posters are pointing out that both those examples seem remarkably inefficacious these days. and we're having trouble coming up with better. So why? And what now?
Sure. I think later posters are pointing out that both those examples seem remarkably inefficacious these days. and we're having trouble coming up with better. So why? And what now?
1.25.2011 | 4:11pm
Gil says:
Ed,
You are, of course, correct in your estimation of the state of catechesis and Catholic culture. I feel ridiculous harping, but it becomes more and more obvious to me that Philip Rieff's book, "Triumph of the Therapeutic", is required reading in diagnosing the problem, as is John Paul II's "Theology of the Body".
I am also convinced that assembly life has to be reinstituted: it doesn't exist anywhere in the Catholic Church that I know of, and there is no other way for the Church to combat the radical individualism that afflicts not on the Church, but the world. This is what all the early leaders of the Church understood, especially Paul and John.
The first task of Satan is to convince us he doesn’t exist, and the second task is to convince us we don’t need community, that our transcendence is in becoming free of community, being gods unto ourselves.
You are, of course, correct in your estimation of the state of catechesis and Catholic culture. I feel ridiculous harping, but it becomes more and more obvious to me that Philip Rieff's book, "Triumph of the Therapeutic", is required reading in diagnosing the problem, as is John Paul II's "Theology of the Body".
I am also convinced that assembly life has to be reinstituted: it doesn't exist anywhere in the Catholic Church that I know of, and there is no other way for the Church to combat the radical individualism that afflicts not on the Church, but the world. This is what all the early leaders of the Church understood, especially Paul and John.
The first task of Satan is to convince us he doesn’t exist, and the second task is to convince us we don’t need community, that our transcendence is in becoming free of community, being gods unto ourselves.
1.25.2011 | 4:36pm
Gil says:
From Philip Rieff in his book, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, pp 69-70:
“…Rousseau tried to meet modern conditions by a polemical analysis of the community as a burden from which the individual had to free himself if he was to achieve a sense of well-being. To be a broken link in the chain of the community was the first requirement for being a therapist of the free individual. Not binding sentiment but critical detachment was the attitude most conducive to a sense of well-being. It is noteworthy how De Tocqueville took up this Rousseauian polemic and turned it around in his remarkable dissection of the Rousseauian doctrine of democratic individualism…De Tocqueville, like John Stuart Mill and liberals to this day, worried about what would happen to public life once individualism had sapped its virtues. For the individual would no longer feel committed to the ‘chain of all the members of the community.’ ‘Democracy,’ De Tocqueville concluded, ‘breaks that chain and severs every link of it.’ The individual is thus, in De Toqueville’s grand diagnosis, the defaulted citizen; he has cut off his feelings from communal affections. Individuals learn to feel that ‘they owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands.’ In a highly differentiated democratic culture, truly and for the first time, there arose the possibility of every man standing for himself, each at last leading a truly private life, trained to understand rather than love (or hate) his neighbor.”
Rieff goes on to explain the dilemma ensuing from this radical individualism: “Such a life was ‘corrupt’, defined by that term Socrates used in speaking to Crito, in analogy for organic corruption. The parts of an organism cannot be healthy if the whole was corrupt, and the whole cannot be but corrupt if the parts were not integrated positively into a whole.”
It’s easy to see how the Body of Christ was so thoroughly corrupted, and how Paul VI turns out to be one of the great prophetic voices of the 20th century, for he did not, in God’s grace in sustaining the office of Peter, succumb to the malignancy of radical individualism, and was able to critique the heart of it, the attack on the domestic church (the family) and, in his Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, point a way for us to travel in this new century.
“…Rousseau tried to meet modern conditions by a polemical analysis of the community as a burden from which the individual had to free himself if he was to achieve a sense of well-being. To be a broken link in the chain of the community was the first requirement for being a therapist of the free individual. Not binding sentiment but critical detachment was the attitude most conducive to a sense of well-being. It is noteworthy how De Tocqueville took up this Rousseauian polemic and turned it around in his remarkable dissection of the Rousseauian doctrine of democratic individualism…De Tocqueville, like John Stuart Mill and liberals to this day, worried about what would happen to public life once individualism had sapped its virtues. For the individual would no longer feel committed to the ‘chain of all the members of the community.’ ‘Democracy,’ De Tocqueville concluded, ‘breaks that chain and severs every link of it.’ The individual is thus, in De Toqueville’s grand diagnosis, the defaulted citizen; he has cut off his feelings from communal affections. Individuals learn to feel that ‘they owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands.’ In a highly differentiated democratic culture, truly and for the first time, there arose the possibility of every man standing for himself, each at last leading a truly private life, trained to understand rather than love (or hate) his neighbor.”
Rieff goes on to explain the dilemma ensuing from this radical individualism: “Such a life was ‘corrupt’, defined by that term Socrates used in speaking to Crito, in analogy for organic corruption. The parts of an organism cannot be healthy if the whole was corrupt, and the whole cannot be but corrupt if the parts were not integrated positively into a whole.”
It’s easy to see how the Body of Christ was so thoroughly corrupted, and how Paul VI turns out to be one of the great prophetic voices of the 20th century, for he did not, in God’s grace in sustaining the office of Peter, succumb to the malignancy of radical individualism, and was able to critique the heart of it, the attack on the domestic church (the family) and, in his Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, point a way for us to travel in this new century.
1.26.2011 | 5:28pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
There certainly is a problem, in fact a serious scandal, in the Catholic apologetics subculture. Unfortunately, Mr. Mills doen't even come close to addressing it.
Sure, there is more to making a compelling case for the Faith than just "steroiding up on apologetics", as important as apologetics is, properly used toward that end is. It has to be incorporated into a lifestyle.
In this light, the absolutely vile and calumnious screeds written by prominent Catholic apologists like Mark Shea regarding those who hold legitimately Catholic views on matters relating to war, capital punishment, and other issues of this nature that happens disagree with is the scandal I am referring to. To compound this problem, no one in the mainstream Catholic apologetics or writers establishment (of which First Things is a sigficant part) has done their serious Christian duty to fraternally correct this behavior and publilcly distance themselves from Mr Shea until he acts according to such correction. Beyond that, prominent groups like Catholic Answers still have Mr. Shea on their speaker bureau despite their detailed knowledge of his calumnious writings. He is still one of the contributing writers of Deal Hudson's Inside Catholic web portal as well as being senior content editor for Catholic Exchange and a blogger for the National Catholic Register. Every entretiy made by myself and others to Mr. Shea's colleagues have been met with indifference at best and hostility at worst. Catholic Answers senior apologist Jimmy Akin went so far as to accuse those who pointed out the clear double standard with which Shea treated Akin as "setting one orthodox Catholic apologist against another".
Until those in the Catholic apologists and writers establishment are willing to deal with this most serious problem, they have no buiness complaining when non-Catholics be they Evangelicals or secularists enage in similar behavior.
Sure, there is more to making a compelling case for the Faith than just "steroiding up on apologetics", as important as apologetics is, properly used toward that end is. It has to be incorporated into a lifestyle.
In this light, the absolutely vile and calumnious screeds written by prominent Catholic apologists like Mark Shea regarding those who hold legitimately Catholic views on matters relating to war, capital punishment, and other issues of this nature that happens disagree with is the scandal I am referring to. To compound this problem, no one in the mainstream Catholic apologetics or writers establishment (of which First Things is a sigficant part) has done their serious Christian duty to fraternally correct this behavior and publilcly distance themselves from Mr Shea until he acts according to such correction. Beyond that, prominent groups like Catholic Answers still have Mr. Shea on their speaker bureau despite their detailed knowledge of his calumnious writings. He is still one of the contributing writers of Deal Hudson's Inside Catholic web portal as well as being senior content editor for Catholic Exchange and a blogger for the National Catholic Register. Every entretiy made by myself and others to Mr. Shea's colleagues have been met with indifference at best and hostility at worst. Catholic Answers senior apologist Jimmy Akin went so far as to accuse those who pointed out the clear double standard with which Shea treated Akin as "setting one orthodox Catholic apologist against another".
Until those in the Catholic apologists and writers establishment are willing to deal with this most serious problem, they have no buiness complaining when non-Catholics be they Evangelicals or secularists enage in similar behavior.
1.27.2011 | 11:14am
Crowhill says:
It is possible to accept Catholic doctrine and not accept Catholic culture (e.g., holy cards, rosaries, etc.).
1.27.2011 | 1:54pm
Gil says:
Mr. Mockerage,
Could you please provide some detail/examples of Mr. Shea's "vile and calumnious screeds"? The reason I ask is that I have heard him speak on many occasions throughout the years, but have not witnessed it.
Thanks.
Crowhill,
Absolutely, one can embrace all that is doctrinal and dogmatic without in any way embracing many aspects of Catholic culture, including holy cards and rosaries. Catholic culture is so varied and rich that there is much that would attract many persons, and much that would not attract many.
Could you please provide some detail/examples of Mr. Shea's "vile and calumnious screeds"? The reason I ask is that I have heard him speak on many occasions throughout the years, but have not witnessed it.
Thanks.
Crowhill,
Absolutely, one can embrace all that is doctrinal and dogmatic without in any way embracing many aspects of Catholic culture, including holy cards and rosaries. Catholic culture is so varied and rich that there is much that would attract many persons, and much that would not attract many.
1.27.2011 | 10:45pm
Gil says:
Mr. Mockeridge,
I can't remember the last time I visited a Mark Shea blog site; it was some time ago. But I found one where he offers his view on a particular issue you are concerned about, capital punishment. And I believe the readers here can make their own judgment on Mr. Shea's explication on this difficult question, and if they care to they can go here:
http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/death-penalty-magisterium-vs-left-and-right.html
I can't remember the last time I visited a Mark Shea blog site; it was some time ago. But I found one where he offers his view on a particular issue you are concerned about, capital punishment. And I believe the readers here can make their own judgment on Mr. Shea's explication on this difficult question, and if they care to they can go here:
http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/death-penalty-magisterium-vs-left-and-right.html
1.28.2011 | 12:47pm
Gil says:
Apologetics is so import, so necessary, and so I have thought about all that has been posted here, and I would like to offer a couple of reflections:
If apologetics is engaged with a tone of smugness, then the teaching is tinged with accusation, and we know who the father of accusation is.
Contempt is anger tinged with disrespect, and although we are sometimes justified in being angry, we are never justified in disrespecting someone, because that is also an accusation, and because everyone is made in the image of God, it is always in some degree an assault against God.
Apologetics in love is always instruction (catechesis), while apologetics in smugness and/or contempt is always a power play, and one necessarily resides in any given second in love or in power. God is love (agape). Self-emptying is love, which is a clearing the path for the Holy Spirit to speak.
If apologetics is engaged with a tone of smugness, then the teaching is tinged with accusation, and we know who the father of accusation is.
Contempt is anger tinged with disrespect, and although we are sometimes justified in being angry, we are never justified in disrespecting someone, because that is also an accusation, and because everyone is made in the image of God, it is always in some degree an assault against God.
Apologetics in love is always instruction (catechesis), while apologetics in smugness and/or contempt is always a power play, and one necessarily resides in any given second in love or in power. God is love (agape). Self-emptying is love, which is a clearing the path for the Holy Spirit to speak.
1.28.2011 | 3:24pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
First of all, Gil, in that article he characterizes Catholics who support capital punishment and who disagree with the pope's prudential judgment as though they are rejecting Church teaching. Prudenital judgments are NOT a part of Church teaching. In the case of the death penalty, the Church does not have the authortiy to pronounce on the efficacy of penal systems.
If those who support capital punishment are dissenting from Church teaching, the former Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), gave approval to this "dissent", while acting in his offcial capacity as prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith when he said the following:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. (Worthiness to receive holy communion #3)
If those who support capital punishment are dissenting from Church teaching, the former Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), gave approval to this "dissent", while acting in his offcial capacity as prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith when he said the following:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. (Worthiness to receive holy communion #3)
1.28.2011 | 3:26pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
Gil:
You also have him equating MArc Theissen's defense of the Bush Administration's Enhanced Innterrogation Techniques with Pro aborts here:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/05/cathleen-kaveny-and-marc-thiessen.html
You also have him equating MArc Theissen's defense of the Bush Administration's Enhanced Innterrogation Techniques with Pro aborts here:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/05/cathleen-kaveny-and-marc-thiessen.html
1.28.2011 | 3:44pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
You can also read many of his posts from the following links:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/search/label/Consequentialism%20on%20Parade
Here Shea basically equates those who cite the deterrent effect of capital punishment (a legititmate objective vis-a-vis Catholic teaching) as one reason why we still need capital punishment as "We desire death and lots of it":
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/for-the-average-abortion-advocate/
Christopher Blosser, of the Ratzinger Fan Club expressed concerns about Mr Shea's behavior here:
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/06/rewarding-bad-behavior.html
Although that barely scratches the surface, that more than suffices to make my point. The fact that someone like Mark Shea has yet to be fraternally corrected by his peers in teh Catholic apologists and writers establilshment is indeed a scandal.
http://markshea.blogspot.com/search/label/Consequentialism%20on%20Parade
Here Shea basically equates those who cite the deterrent effect of capital punishment (a legititmate objective vis-a-vis Catholic teaching) as one reason why we still need capital punishment as "We desire death and lots of it":
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/for-the-average-abortion-advocate/
Christopher Blosser, of the Ratzinger Fan Club expressed concerns about Mr Shea's behavior here:
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/06/rewarding-bad-behavior.html
Although that barely scratches the surface, that more than suffices to make my point. The fact that someone like Mark Shea has yet to be fraternally corrected by his peers in teh Catholic apologists and writers establilshment is indeed a scandal.
1.28.2011 | 5:03pm
Gil says:
Mr. Mockeridge,
Thank you for responding to my concerns, especially concerning the death penalty. I am in agreeance with you that all voices from all perspectives must remain active, and that we in love should respect each other’s views as well as receive the body and blood of Our Lord together. There is a great mystery to evil, and I am convinced the tension involved in disagreeing keeps us close to that mystery.
In 1968 at age 20 I was faced with the death penalty. The prosecutor in my case held a press conference and stated that if he didn't put me in the electric chair he would resign from office as prosecutor.
I was involved in a conspiracy to commit bank robberies and the killing of what turned out to be an innocent man (I was told by a person in our criminal network that a member of that network was going to testify in Federal Court, but that turned out to be a lie: he was truly an innocent man, and I deserved in true justice to die for what I did, and I see no way around that judgment, especially my own.)
During my trial I refused all assistance, even though I was eligible to be supported with unlimited state funds for my trial because I faced the death penalty. What I did instead was prepare for my execution, for I was determined to go to death row and be executed.
I now see it as an intervention from God that resulted in my being sentenced to only 30 years in prison with eligibility for parole. I did nothing to bring that about: it was a totally alien, external force. This, however, did not make me get religion. That happened long after I was out of prison and my daughter was born.
The reason we must abide in the disagreement that you rightly recommend is to keep the tension alive to stay in touch with the mystery or evil, otherwise we will be deafened to the justice that cries out from the ground.
I wanted to share with you a particular meditation that will accompany me till the end of my days: I deserved to die, and for me I deserved that not only because it would have been just, what the innocent man's blood cried out for, but because of the victims who had to live on in their trauma and endless grief, the man's relatives. Even in the case of a family that comes to believe that persons like me should not be executed, the fact remains that it is impossible for our minds to grasp the immensity of what a murder means absent a reflection on what persons like me deserve in justice. In other words, the tension you call for is right in my mind, whether we execute or not.
In all the debates about the death penalty and just war we often lose sight of the horror the horror. For example, I had supported our invasion of Iraq for reasons that went intellectually and emotionally deep: not only Saddam's genocidal acts, but in particular, for me, students disappearing, not showing up for dinner at their families’ homes, and how they would be tortured sometimes for months, and when we went looking for buried missiles we found mass graves with the bodies of these students. It was only much later, reflecting on Pope John Paul II's reflections that I came to believe I wrong about the invasion, but this in no way made me sense that I needed to go to confession. I now believe the pope was able to perceive a gestalt understanding that escaped me, that he could sense that there was a better way to prevent even more torture and deaths.
Yes, we must defend human lives, and sometimes that means going to war and sometimes means carrying out the death penalty (how can we not ponder the predicament of a man on death row killing a guard or another prisoner?)
So it is that I sense that your criticism of Mark Shea involves a perceived smugness that is polemical and would beat back and exclude the tension we just have to accept, not falsely resolve or dismiss, when thinking and debating deeply about the ultimate evil, the deliberate taking of innocent human life. But all of this goes with the territory that involves shades of disagreement that we must embrace in keeping the tension alive.
Thank you for responding to my concerns, especially concerning the death penalty. I am in agreeance with you that all voices from all perspectives must remain active, and that we in love should respect each other’s views as well as receive the body and blood of Our Lord together. There is a great mystery to evil, and I am convinced the tension involved in disagreeing keeps us close to that mystery.
In 1968 at age 20 I was faced with the death penalty. The prosecutor in my case held a press conference and stated that if he didn't put me in the electric chair he would resign from office as prosecutor.
I was involved in a conspiracy to commit bank robberies and the killing of what turned out to be an innocent man (I was told by a person in our criminal network that a member of that network was going to testify in Federal Court, but that turned out to be a lie: he was truly an innocent man, and I deserved in true justice to die for what I did, and I see no way around that judgment, especially my own.)
During my trial I refused all assistance, even though I was eligible to be supported with unlimited state funds for my trial because I faced the death penalty. What I did instead was prepare for my execution, for I was determined to go to death row and be executed.
I now see it as an intervention from God that resulted in my being sentenced to only 30 years in prison with eligibility for parole. I did nothing to bring that about: it was a totally alien, external force. This, however, did not make me get religion. That happened long after I was out of prison and my daughter was born.
The reason we must abide in the disagreement that you rightly recommend is to keep the tension alive to stay in touch with the mystery or evil, otherwise we will be deafened to the justice that cries out from the ground.
I wanted to share with you a particular meditation that will accompany me till the end of my days: I deserved to die, and for me I deserved that not only because it would have been just, what the innocent man's blood cried out for, but because of the victims who had to live on in their trauma and endless grief, the man's relatives. Even in the case of a family that comes to believe that persons like me should not be executed, the fact remains that it is impossible for our minds to grasp the immensity of what a murder means absent a reflection on what persons like me deserve in justice. In other words, the tension you call for is right in my mind, whether we execute or not.
In all the debates about the death penalty and just war we often lose sight of the horror the horror. For example, I had supported our invasion of Iraq for reasons that went intellectually and emotionally deep: not only Saddam's genocidal acts, but in particular, for me, students disappearing, not showing up for dinner at their families’ homes, and how they would be tortured sometimes for months, and when we went looking for buried missiles we found mass graves with the bodies of these students. It was only much later, reflecting on Pope John Paul II's reflections that I came to believe I wrong about the invasion, but this in no way made me sense that I needed to go to confession. I now believe the pope was able to perceive a gestalt understanding that escaped me, that he could sense that there was a better way to prevent even more torture and deaths.
Yes, we must defend human lives, and sometimes that means going to war and sometimes means carrying out the death penalty (how can we not ponder the predicament of a man on death row killing a guard or another prisoner?)
So it is that I sense that your criticism of Mark Shea involves a perceived smugness that is polemical and would beat back and exclude the tension we just have to accept, not falsely resolve or dismiss, when thinking and debating deeply about the ultimate evil, the deliberate taking of innocent human life. But all of this goes with the territory that involves shades of disagreement that we must embrace in keeping the tension alive.
1.28.2011 | 5:21pm
Gil says:
Avery Cardinal Dulles in my opinion gave the best reflection ever on the death penalty and its place in Catholic teaching, which still doesn't end the discussion or the tension:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
1.28.2011 | 6:52pm
Gil Costello says:
There is a film, "Five Minutes of Heaven", with Liam Neeson that moves the viewer into the tension I'm talking about better than anything I've ever seen, a tension that once explored resolves none of the polemics, but does have a humbling effect.
1.29.2011 | 3:07pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
Gil:
I find it commendable that you are as objective as you are regarding the death penalty considering your experience. The reason I believe the death penalty is necessary is because they simply deserve it, I blieve given several reasons among which are the common occurances of murders being coordinated from behind bars and deterrence.
Mark Shea's screeds go beyond being smug, they are calunmious. Smugness I can handle, calumny is another matter entirely. The fact that no one amongst the prominent Catholic apologist and writers establishment, including the powers tht be here at First Things, shows that they are hypocrites of the worst sorts and care more about protecting an old boys club than they do about protecting the integrity of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. And that is a scandal and a disgrace to the Church!!!
I find it commendable that you are as objective as you are regarding the death penalty considering your experience. The reason I believe the death penalty is necessary is because they simply deserve it, I blieve given several reasons among which are the common occurances of murders being coordinated from behind bars and deterrence.
Mark Shea's screeds go beyond being smug, they are calunmious. Smugness I can handle, calumny is another matter entirely. The fact that no one amongst the prominent Catholic apologist and writers establishment, including the powers tht be here at First Things, shows that they are hypocrites of the worst sorts and care more about protecting an old boys club than they do about protecting the integrity of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. And that is a scandal and a disgrace to the Church!!!
1.29.2011 | 3:40pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
"The reason I believe the death penalty is necessary is because they simply deserve it, I blieve given several reasons among which are the common occurances of murders being coordinated from behind bars and deterrence.
"
Correction, the above sentence should read:
The reason I believe the dath penalty is still necessary is NOT becuase they simply deserve it, I believegiven several reasons among which are the common occurances of murders being coordinated from behind bars and deterrence.
"
Correction, the above sentence should read:
The reason I believe the dath penalty is still necessary is NOT becuase they simply deserve it, I believegiven several reasons among which are the common occurances of murders being coordinated from behind bars and deterrence.
1.29.2011 | 3:43pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
Another correction:
The fact that no one amongst the prominent Catholic apologist and writers establishment, including the powers tht be here at First Things, has not practiced proper fraternal correction with Mr. Shea shows that they are hypocrites of the worst sorts and care more about protecting an old boys club than they do about protecting the integrity of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. And that is a scandal and a disgrace to the Church!!!
The fact that no one amongst the prominent Catholic apologist and writers establishment, including the powers tht be here at First Things, has not practiced proper fraternal correction with Mr. Shea shows that they are hypocrites of the worst sorts and care more about protecting an old boys club than they do about protecting the integrity of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. And that is a scandal and a disgrace to the Church!!!
2.1.2011 | 10:10pm
Dave Armstrong says:
Greg Mockeridge writes about:
". . . the absolutely vile and calumnious screeds written by prominent Catholic apologists like Mark Shea regarding those who hold legitimately Catholic views on matters relating to war, capital punishment, and other issues . . . no one in the mainstream Catholic apologetics or writers establishment (of which First Things is a sigficant part) has done their serious Christian duty to fraternally correct this behavior and publilcly distance themselves from Mr Shea until he acts according to such correction."
I know about some of these controversies, as I was unwittingly involved in some myself. There is enough hypocrisy to go around here. In 2005, Greg himself and his good friend Shawn McElhinney vehemently disagreed with me over the nuclear issue (I argued against the nuclear bombings of Japan and held that the Church opposes it and they took the opposite position). I never impugned their Catholicism, as they claimed. Quite the contrary.
But Shawn launched into the stratosphere and shot off the most personally insulting invective that I have ever received from anyone, bar none (which is really saying something because we apologists receive tons of personal attacks on a regular basis -- mostly from the small anti-Catholic wing of Protestantism and atheists -- , and I have been active online for almost 15 years now).
Long story short: I won't quote anything that Shawn wrote, but it is still online for all to see. I just checked. If anyone doubts this, they can go to his old blog called Rerum Novarum and do a Google search of "Armstrong" and find all kinds of extended, no-holds-barred vicious attacks, saying everything under the sun about me. If one were to believe all his reports about me, I make Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler look like St. Francis and St. Clare in comparison.
Greg's double standard on this is obvious. That, too, was a dispute about Catholic moral teaching (about war). Greg loudly objects here about "absolutely vile and calumnious screeds" -- yet he has no problem with the same sort of garbage remaining online for all to see, on his good friend Shawn's blog. The attacks have been there for over five years now, in some cases.
In the interest of Catholic unity, I tried for many months to reason with Shawn that he had misunderstood key aspects of my argument and what I supposedly thought about him. I tried to get his friends to see the wrongness of the personal attacks. This was all to no avail. Sometime later, a mutual friend and fellow apologist, Dr. Art Sippo, recognized that our fighting back and forth was scandalous. He strongly urged that we both remove our materials written about each other. I quickly agreed and removed all references to Shawn whatever (in my papers on nuclear ethics, that remain up) from my site, even though I was within my rights in defending my name against the outrageous attacks. I turned the other cheek.
But Shawn flatly refused, and his material is still online. He feels that he is perfectly justified in writing any "absolutely vile and calumnious screeds" about myself and my position on the nuclear issue. That's fine. But it is a scandal if (as Greg argues) Mark Shea writes some insulting things.
I think Shea can certainly be faulted on quite a bit of his rhetoric. I don't think he does nearly as well in writing about politics and moral issues, as he does when he sticks to apologetics. And in fact, I did register my protest on his site when he was arguing about the torture issue (there were endless discussions over there about that). So I am on record as expressing my disapproval (while being a rather big fan of his straight apologetics work). At the time, either Greg or Shawn (I forget which one it was, but it was someone in their "camp") even commended me for it.
But where is the disapproval from Greg about all the garbage that his good friend Shawn wrote about me, and refuses to consider ever removing from sight? If we're gonna have concern for moral and ethical conduct online, then it should be consistent, not selective: against people saying things we don't care for, but winking at, and thinking nothing of equally unjustifiable ad hominem attacks when uttered in favor of a position we are in favor of, and against a person we are also angry at.
I disagreed publicly with a fellow apologist in the "old boy's club" at the time. Will Greg be consistent after five years and publicly rebuke the calumnious junk that his friend wrote about me, since he is so concerned about eliminating "vile and calumnious screeds" against others (fellow Catholics) from the Internet?
". . . the absolutely vile and calumnious screeds written by prominent Catholic apologists like Mark Shea regarding those who hold legitimately Catholic views on matters relating to war, capital punishment, and other issues . . . no one in the mainstream Catholic apologetics or writers establishment (of which First Things is a sigficant part) has done their serious Christian duty to fraternally correct this behavior and publilcly distance themselves from Mr Shea until he acts according to such correction."
I know about some of these controversies, as I was unwittingly involved in some myself. There is enough hypocrisy to go around here. In 2005, Greg himself and his good friend Shawn McElhinney vehemently disagreed with me over the nuclear issue (I argued against the nuclear bombings of Japan and held that the Church opposes it and they took the opposite position). I never impugned their Catholicism, as they claimed. Quite the contrary.
But Shawn launched into the stratosphere and shot off the most personally insulting invective that I have ever received from anyone, bar none (which is really saying something because we apologists receive tons of personal attacks on a regular basis -- mostly from the small anti-Catholic wing of Protestantism and atheists -- , and I have been active online for almost 15 years now).
Long story short: I won't quote anything that Shawn wrote, but it is still online for all to see. I just checked. If anyone doubts this, they can go to his old blog called Rerum Novarum and do a Google search of "Armstrong" and find all kinds of extended, no-holds-barred vicious attacks, saying everything under the sun about me. If one were to believe all his reports about me, I make Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler look like St. Francis and St. Clare in comparison.
Greg's double standard on this is obvious. That, too, was a dispute about Catholic moral teaching (about war). Greg loudly objects here about "absolutely vile and calumnious screeds" -- yet he has no problem with the same sort of garbage remaining online for all to see, on his good friend Shawn's blog. The attacks have been there for over five years now, in some cases.
In the interest of Catholic unity, I tried for many months to reason with Shawn that he had misunderstood key aspects of my argument and what I supposedly thought about him. I tried to get his friends to see the wrongness of the personal attacks. This was all to no avail. Sometime later, a mutual friend and fellow apologist, Dr. Art Sippo, recognized that our fighting back and forth was scandalous. He strongly urged that we both remove our materials written about each other. I quickly agreed and removed all references to Shawn whatever (in my papers on nuclear ethics, that remain up) from my site, even though I was within my rights in defending my name against the outrageous attacks. I turned the other cheek.
But Shawn flatly refused, and his material is still online. He feels that he is perfectly justified in writing any "absolutely vile and calumnious screeds" about myself and my position on the nuclear issue. That's fine. But it is a scandal if (as Greg argues) Mark Shea writes some insulting things.
I think Shea can certainly be faulted on quite a bit of his rhetoric. I don't think he does nearly as well in writing about politics and moral issues, as he does when he sticks to apologetics. And in fact, I did register my protest on his site when he was arguing about the torture issue (there were endless discussions over there about that). So I am on record as expressing my disapproval (while being a rather big fan of his straight apologetics work). At the time, either Greg or Shawn (I forget which one it was, but it was someone in their "camp") even commended me for it.
But where is the disapproval from Greg about all the garbage that his good friend Shawn wrote about me, and refuses to consider ever removing from sight? If we're gonna have concern for moral and ethical conduct online, then it should be consistent, not selective: against people saying things we don't care for, but winking at, and thinking nothing of equally unjustifiable ad hominem attacks when uttered in favor of a position we are in favor of, and against a person we are also angry at.
I disagreed publicly with a fellow apologist in the "old boy's club" at the time. Will Greg be consistent after five years and publicly rebuke the calumnious junk that his friend wrote about me, since he is so concerned about eliminating "vile and calumnious screeds" against others (fellow Catholics) from the Internet?
2.3.2011 | 3:49am
Ivan says:
Far too many apologists suffer from narcissistic personality disorder:
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx36.htm
The kind of demons involved here are probably only cast out by prayer and fasting.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx36.htm
The kind of demons involved here are probably only cast out by prayer and fasting.
2.3.2011 | 2:46pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
Dave:
Give me an example of where Shawn engaged in calumny. Where does Shawn equate those who hold legitimately Catholic views with pro aborts or any other kind of vile accusations Mark routinely makes. Furthermore, Shawn is not a prominent Catholic apologist who is protected by either silence or overt defense of the etire Catholic apologists writers establishment. Yes, you criticized Mark. But why haven't you said anything about groups like Catholic Answers who continue to have Mark on their speakers bureau despite his scandalous behavior? Please explain how that is befitting of the "largest apologetics and evagelization organization in North America"?
Dave, your beef with Shawn has everything to do with the fact that you publicly pontificated on a subject you knew and still know nothing about and got caught.
TYou are like a schoolyard bully who cries like a little girl when someone smacks you in the mouth.
Have a little cheese with your whine and don't go away mad, just go away!
Give me an example of where Shawn engaged in calumny. Where does Shawn equate those who hold legitimately Catholic views with pro aborts or any other kind of vile accusations Mark routinely makes. Furthermore, Shawn is not a prominent Catholic apologist who is protected by either silence or overt defense of the etire Catholic apologists writers establishment. Yes, you criticized Mark. But why haven't you said anything about groups like Catholic Answers who continue to have Mark on their speakers bureau despite his scandalous behavior? Please explain how that is befitting of the "largest apologetics and evagelization organization in North America"?
Dave, your beef with Shawn has everything to do with the fact that you publicly pontificated on a subject you knew and still know nothing about and got caught.
TYou are like a schoolyard bully who cries like a little girl when someone smacks you in the mouth.
Have a little cheese with your whine and don't go away mad, just go away!
2.4.2011 | 12:26am
Dave Armstrong says:
[cont.]
Dave, you may be able to fool those who hang on your every word as if it came from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets, but people capable of critical discernment and who have even an elementary understanding of how to construct a valid argument will recognize your approach here for what it is worth.
In light of the absolute outhouse compost that he threw together, Dave has a lot of gall referring to "skewed factual data" or "mere aversion." He has acted as disgracefully as Benedict Arnold in this whole situation and my tolerance for his blatant misrepresentation of my position on this was used up long ago. I was content to let the issue die but with his latest attempt at grandstanding and public sensationalism (and once again violating the private discussion forum to resurrect this subject publicly), I decided enough was enough.
. . . every assertion Dave makes above is a bald faced lie.
And Dave should be ashamed of himself for attempting to pass off such a heap of dung as he has as some kind of “serious scholarship” when in fact, I wrote better and more convincing papers than this offering in junior high school back in the day.
It is frankly embarrassing to see a person with Dave’s gifts act in this fashion but I am not surprised to see it really. That is what happens with those who have either a provincialist approach to issues or an apologetic "must-debate-anything-however-ignorant-I-am-about-the-subject-to-be-discussed"mentality coupled with a predictable and "one-size-fits-all" approach to these matters. And in Dave's case, it is pretty evident that he has all three of those problems in spades along with perhaps a few others I am not about to go into at the present time.
Now that is fine when you do not have all the facts but I provided them and Dave (if he had any scholastic integrity whatsoever) would recognize this and account for it accordingly.
(all from one post, dated 1-23-06 and still online)
There is tons more of this sort of bilge, believe me . . . but this was perhaps the most ridiculous single example of how Shawn does "discussion" with a fellow Catholic. Greg sees nothing wrong with it (because he agrees with Shawn's position on nuclear bombing) and so he simply spews out more insults rather than seeing the absurd double standard for what it is.
Dave, you may be able to fool those who hang on your every word as if it came from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets, but people capable of critical discernment and who have even an elementary understanding of how to construct a valid argument will recognize your approach here for what it is worth.
In light of the absolute outhouse compost that he threw together, Dave has a lot of gall referring to "skewed factual data" or "mere aversion." He has acted as disgracefully as Benedict Arnold in this whole situation and my tolerance for his blatant misrepresentation of my position on this was used up long ago. I was content to let the issue die but with his latest attempt at grandstanding and public sensationalism (and once again violating the private discussion forum to resurrect this subject publicly), I decided enough was enough.
. . . every assertion Dave makes above is a bald faced lie.
And Dave should be ashamed of himself for attempting to pass off such a heap of dung as he has as some kind of “serious scholarship” when in fact, I wrote better and more convincing papers than this offering in junior high school back in the day.
It is frankly embarrassing to see a person with Dave’s gifts act in this fashion but I am not surprised to see it really. That is what happens with those who have either a provincialist approach to issues or an apologetic "must-debate-anything-however-ignorant-I-am-about-the-subject-to-be-discussed"mentality coupled with a predictable and "one-size-fits-all" approach to these matters. And in Dave's case, it is pretty evident that he has all three of those problems in spades along with perhaps a few others I am not about to go into at the present time.
Now that is fine when you do not have all the facts but I provided them and Dave (if he had any scholastic integrity whatsoever) would recognize this and account for it accordingly.
(all from one post, dated 1-23-06 and still online)
There is tons more of this sort of bilge, believe me . . . but this was perhaps the most ridiculous single example of how Shawn does "discussion" with a fellow Catholic. Greg sees nothing wrong with it (because he agrees with Shawn's position on nuclear bombing) and so he simply spews out more insults rather than seeing the absurd double standard for what it is.
2.4.2011 | 1:27pm
Greg Mockeridge says:
Dave;
Everything Shawn says there is true. So, there is no double standard. You just proved my point. What more can I say?
Everything Shawn says there is true. So, there is no double standard. You just proved my point. What more can I say?
2.19.2011 | 2:23am
Donayre Despina says:
By the way, what do we all need? It is not just 1) a lingering, simple childhood impression of nice heroes. And 2) not even apologetics. What we all really need is 3) real Reason. And even specifically, 4) contemporary (not Medieval), scholarly theology. Here is another bit about cultural preservation as an aid to the faith that seems missing from this discussion. For most of Church history, most cultures were closed, not only in moving from faith to faith, but even among coreligionists - leading to jokes about Irish-American grandmothers worrying that Maureen was "marrying outside the faith" when she became engaged to Vincent. (Similar situations applied in other Christian groups.) In most times and places, culture was not easily separable from faith. Your king, or duke, or family patriarch decided what your faith was. Even in an American society which encourages individual decision, moving in or out of a faith is quite recent. People considered themselves part of a group far more than we do now, and religious change was more usually along a line of intensity within one's own tradition.
3.17.2011 | 11:33am
Zaharchuk Royce says:
They weren't meant as a symbol for fifties culture or a religion of sentiment. But we don't and can't reason outside a culture and tradition and within being embedded in something, so some attention to that something is crucial. St. Thomas himself certainly didn't, which is why people like Gilson and Maritain and Chesterton and McInerney work at passing on his insights. But Shawn flatly refused, and his material is still online. He feels that he is perfectly justified in writing any "absolutely vile and calumnious screeds" about myself and my position on the nuclear issue. That's fine. But it is a scandal if (as Greg argues) Mark Shea writes some insulting things.
Anyway, I bring this up here because Mormon teenagers score far and away the highest in terms of authentic religious engagement with their faith (Roman Catholic teens are by far and away the lowest -- even significantly lower on most counts than mainline Protestant teens, which surprised me). Creasy Dean's chapter on how Mormons manage to hold on to their teens, and to inculcate them with a serious, living faith, ought to be read by everyone. It is tremendously impressive to see how families and church communities work in concert to create a culture in which the faith can take hold in the lives of these kids. The level of sacrifice and devotion the parents make for the sake of the kids' faith -- e.g., committing to waking up at five in the morning every morning for the last four years of the kids' high school years to spend an hour or so with them in "seminary" (their term for guided Scripture study and catechism) -- is extraordinary.
Reading that chapter reminded me of something Dorothy Day, I think, once said, when asked to define the good society: "A society that makes it easy to be good." There's also a line in the book that I thought made an excellent point: teaching our children what we believe is not the same thing as teaching them what we love -- and that can make all the difference.