World Youth Day 2011: Insights on Young Catholicism
September 16, 2011
Margarita Mooney
What does it mean for Catholicism when young Catholics gather from around the world to hear Pope Benedict XVI celebrate Mass, as 1.5. million of them did Sunday, August 21 in Madrid for World Youth Day? Veteran Vatican-watcher John Allen argued in a DePaul University talk last April that the most significant trend in Catholicism today is the recovery of traditional markers of Catholic identity, practice, and language by engaged young Catholics. These are the young Catholics at World Youth Day: young men and women who seek to know their faith more deeply and evangelize the culture in which they live.
But just what does World Youth Day tell us about young Catholicism, and youth in general? It tells us first that the old liberal-conservative division in American Catholicism is hopelessly outworn. These youth, with their demand for a strenuous and countercultural faith are confounding both those elite reformers who believe the Church would be stronger if it effected a rapprochement with secularism and certain traditionalists who wish all Catholics would return to the Latin Mass.
Young adults interested in Catholicism will probably not try to change church teachings on hard issues like women’s ordination and sexual morality. If the penalties for leaving Catholicism (both doctrinally and socially) are lower than in previous generations, why not just leave Catholicism for high-church Protestantism that often looks like Catholicism in liturgy but has fewer doctrinal obligations? Why not join one of thousands of generally non-hierarchical evangelical churches and pick the theology that suits you? And on the other hand, why would outdoor Mass-goers align themselves with a movement that longs for a return to the days before Vatican II?
Engaged Catholics are often naively unaware of the debates that divided previous generations of Catholicism. They are, for the most part, not interested in joining in these debates and reopening old wounds. They are not waiting for their parents, or even their priests or bishops, to tell them what to do. They are organizing Bible studies and service missions in the U.S. and abroad, and many college students have even asked clergy to bring back all-night Eucharistic adoration.
But if Allen is right that young Catholics are not interested in the issues that divided Catholics after Vatican II, then why did he express so much concern that Catholicism could fall into a “tribal” state of affairs in which “conservative” Catholics do not talk to “liberal” Catholics? Allen’s talk left me wondering: Will the “tribal” divisions among Catholics die out with those who lived through Vatican II? Or will the battle lines be re-drawn among these younger Catholics?
I agree with Allen that Catholic intellectuals and pastoral leaders should not push younger Catholics to take sides on debates that moved older generations of Catholics. We must remember that it is not the possibility of joining one or the other “side” of these debates that would motivate a busy nineteen-year-old college kid to attend Eucharistic adoration at 2 a.m. on a Saturday; rather, the young engaged Catholics are drawn in precisely by the beauty of Catholic traditions much older and much larger than the (mostly Western and mostly recent) liberal-conservative divide in Catholicism.
The central issues I see facing young adults are raised by modernity: what does it mean to profess the Creed in a skeptical society? How does one find a sense of purpose in a society that celebrates consumerism and individualism as its highest goals? How does one believe in a loving and merciful God—above all, a faithful God of steadfast and enduring love—in an era of transient and conditional relationships, when many Catholics will live through their parents’ divorce or their own failed relationships? In other words, why believe in anything, much less Catholicism?
In this context, old traditionalist clichés about resisting every element of the modern world, and old liberal clichés about embracing each one, take on a new meaning. These young Catholics, while perhaps occupying different positions on some social issues, are exploring the basic moral teachings of the Church and the ancient Catholic sacraments of communion and confession precisely because of what these have to offer modernity. So, on the one hand, Catholic reformers should not bemoan younger Catholics who seek traditional forms of worship like Eucharistic adoration, who want to receive communion on the tongue, and who request more opportunities to attend daily Mass and confession. On the other hand, Catholic traditionalists should not ridicule those young Catholics who, inspired by the church’s social justice tradition, fight for immigration reform, volunteer to serve our burgeoning prison population, or worry that some people may be losing out from globalization.
Catholics need to build a spirituality of friendship and communion. Sociologically speaking, Catholics are the largest single denomination in the U.S. and reflect every major social cleavage: class, race, education, and region. Catholics are fully part of and reflect American culture. While this multi-vocality of Catholicism should be deeply appreciated, it can also be divisive if differentiation leads to conflict rather than solidarity. Saying “I go to the Humane Vitae parish” or “I go to the social justice parish” suggests that one only embraces part of the Catholic tradition rather than the whole. To go on subscribing to such divisions, when our youth are giving us a strong example of the unity and vitality found in the basics of Catholic ritual life and Catholic teaching, is fruitless.
Allen pointed to some signs of hope that will help Catholics live this spirituality of friendship and communion, two of which were grassroots response to papal visits: Salt & Light (a media operation launched in Canada after 2002 World Youth Day in Toronto), and Catholic Voices (a U.K. media outreach that brought the testimonies of young Catholics in the U.K. to the airwaves when the first official papal visit there in 400 years occurred in 2010). What will World Youth Day 2011 in Madrid do for Catholicism worldwide? We should expect young Catholics to continue developing new forms of witness, showing that Catholics and all of humanity can transcend our differences and deeply held opinions to come together, understand each other, and build a world of faith and reconciliation. Perhaps they will not merely redraw the boundaries but erase them entirely.
Margarita Mooney is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Faculty Fellow in the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
9.16.2011 | 1:42pm
Randy says:
If young people have a desire to rebel against today's mainstream culture, then piety, chastity, humility, temperance, and sacrifice is the most obvious way to do it. It makes the old folks (the Boomers) wonder, "what in the *%&# is this world coming to?"
9.16.2011 | 1:46pm
Dave Eden says:
I wonder if Allen is spreading confusion on the distinction between "conservative" and "liberal" as applied to Catholics? I fear that what people usually mean by "conservative Catholic" and "liberal Catholic" should rather be described as "Catholic" and "Heretic". Catholics are sinful like everyone else, so they often don't live up to the teachings. But to deliberately oppose Catholic doctrine is not to set up a certain camp within Catholicism, it is placing oneself outside of Catholicism. (The term "orthodox" is often used to clarify a Catholic who tries to be faithful, but this word is unhelpful encumenically because it leads to confusion with respect to our Christian brothers and sisters who are Capital-O Orthodox Christians.)
There are two other important meanings of liberal vs. conservative as applied to Catholics, where the distinction is authentic. First, there is the political sense, which has many dimensions including fiscal policy, foreign policy and wars, and social policy. Catholics are perfectly free to hold a wide range of views on these issues and identify as liberal or conservative in a political sense. But on bedrock, obvious matters of Catholic moral teaching, such as abortion, there is no room for obfuscation.
Second, there is the matter of style of worship and expression, for example, in the liturgy. There are boundaries that need to be kept (don't butcher the words of the Consecration) but otherwise Catholics are free to express different styles. For example, I'm not personally a fan of charismatic services and I love lots of Latin and incense. But I acknowledge that others may have a different style and they share my desire to be faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium.
Thus, I argue that the words "liberal" and "conservative" should not be used in an unqualified way when referring to Catholics in a religious context. At best the distinction can be confusing, at worst it is a false and insidious distinction that plays into the hands of hypocrites such as so-called "pro-choice" so-called "Catholics".
There are two other important meanings of liberal vs. conservative as applied to Catholics, where the distinction is authentic. First, there is the political sense, which has many dimensions including fiscal policy, foreign policy and wars, and social policy. Catholics are perfectly free to hold a wide range of views on these issues and identify as liberal or conservative in a political sense. But on bedrock, obvious matters of Catholic moral teaching, such as abortion, there is no room for obfuscation.
Second, there is the matter of style of worship and expression, for example, in the liturgy. There are boundaries that need to be kept (don't butcher the words of the Consecration) but otherwise Catholics are free to express different styles. For example, I'm not personally a fan of charismatic services and I love lots of Latin and incense. But I acknowledge that others may have a different style and they share my desire to be faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium.
Thus, I argue that the words "liberal" and "conservative" should not be used in an unqualified way when referring to Catholics in a religious context. At best the distinction can be confusing, at worst it is a false and insidious distinction that plays into the hands of hypocrites such as so-called "pro-choice" so-called "Catholics".
9.16.2011 | 2:58pm
Teddy says:
Great article, Margarita. I appreciate your hopeful tone.
It seems wise to let young people love Christ and the Church, and not burden them with archaic debates. That's for sure.
As a 22-year-old, however, I am still very much concerned with different perspectives on ecclesiology, liturgy, the relationship between laity and priesthood, and so on. Vatican II, for all of its controversy, did have an end goal in mind, and it did accomplish something, while engaging these issues heatedly.
Young and old alike should stick to the adage, "sentire cum ecclesia"--think with the Church. Persons of faith must be able to follow their intellectual curiousity where it leads--but if they love the Church, they must always remain obedient and faithful to her. That, I think, is the true dividing line between the faithful and non-faithful.
Dave Eden: I think your analysis, though significant, just adds to the somewhat stale liberal-conservative rhetoric that Margarita and John Allen are showing is becoming more and more obsolete as excited young Catholics move past the divide and into a faithful position, as I described above. All the same, I think your observations of "liberal-conservative" are true, if unneeded.
It seems wise to let young people love Christ and the Church, and not burden them with archaic debates. That's for sure.
As a 22-year-old, however, I am still very much concerned with different perspectives on ecclesiology, liturgy, the relationship between laity and priesthood, and so on. Vatican II, for all of its controversy, did have an end goal in mind, and it did accomplish something, while engaging these issues heatedly.
Young and old alike should stick to the adage, "sentire cum ecclesia"--think with the Church. Persons of faith must be able to follow their intellectual curiousity where it leads--but if they love the Church, they must always remain obedient and faithful to her. That, I think, is the true dividing line between the faithful and non-faithful.
Dave Eden: I think your analysis, though significant, just adds to the somewhat stale liberal-conservative rhetoric that Margarita and John Allen are showing is becoming more and more obsolete as excited young Catholics move past the divide and into a faithful position, as I described above. All the same, I think your observations of "liberal-conservative" are true, if unneeded.
9.16.2011 | 3:49pm
Dave Eden says:
Teddy: I think we are in agreement, especially on the essential point of simply trying to be faithful. My concern was simply that making an assertion about moving beyond a debate sounds a lot like pro-abortion rhetoric, that society has "moved beyond the old debate". I'm thrilled if young Catholics are simply focussing on being faithful, but "moving beyond the old debates" could be misconstrued. Some might think that it means "hey, it doesn't matter what you think about sexual ethics or the Real Presence, we're all just Catholics, man...". That gives cover to people like hypocritical politicians who claim to be Catholic but vote against clear church teaching. That is not a stale issue, far from it, and the consequences are profound and real, both temporally and eternally.
9.16.2011 | 6:07pm
Alan says:
The idea of "voting against clear church teaching" demands some context. The Church teaches what is right and wrong, but it does not teach--or should not teach--how best to achieve worthy objectives. One may be pro-life and yet vote for the Hyde Amendment rather than a law that prohibits funding for all abortions. One may be Catholic and yet conclude that same-sex marriage does not threaten the institution of marriage--that is a prudential rather than a moral judgment. One may be concerned for one's neighbor and yet conclude that vigorous efforts to deal with illegal immigration may serve the common good.
Catholics in public office have, and should have, a wide range of discretion about how to achieve the public good, as long as the public good is not defined as promoting something that is clearly immoral.
Catholics in public office have, and should have, a wide range of discretion about how to achieve the public good, as long as the public good is not defined as promoting something that is clearly immoral.
9.16.2011 | 8:36pm
savvy says:
Alan,
Catholicism has a hierarchy of truths. A Catholic who opposes traditional marriage, or is neutral about it would be in bigger disagreement than someone who opposes purgatory or immigration reform.
Catholicism has a hierarchy of truths. A Catholic who opposes traditional marriage, or is neutral about it would be in bigger disagreement than someone who opposes purgatory or immigration reform.
9.17.2011 | 6:17pm
riboco says:
This year’s WYD theme is “Planted and built up in Jesus Christ, firm in the faith” (cf. Col 2:7). In his message for the occasion, the Holy Father underscored the importance of passing on to today’s generation of young people and their right to receive from previous generations “solid points of reference” that can help them make choices and on which they can build their own lives.
9.17.2011 | 7:07pm
Resh Galuta says:
It's very encouraging that Catholic students and recent graduates are willing to take a big wad of their parents' money, travel to a glamorous location, attend a big week-long Catholic-themed party and spout a few pseudo-traditional slogans. Now let's see how many are willing to work and study and live frugally in obscurity for several years (or decades) until they know something well enough to uphold the tradition of Catholic scholarship.
9.17.2011 | 9:50pm
John says:
From my perspective (a 26-yr old Midwestern Cradle Catholic), I'm just "tired" of the sexual issues. I get tired of talking about Pelvic Theology issues just as much as a rigid conservative doesn't like our sex-saturated culture. I wouldn't consider myself Liberal; I'm more of an open-minded conservative. Although I'm not "into" labels all that much either. I believe in God, I think (I'm sort of agnostic, maybe a deist); it's my version of God though. Perhaps I'm a Christian Humanist. I'm not a huge fan of religion, though. I'm not, however, "spiritual but not religious". I don't like the sexual abuse scandal in the Church; I don't like cover-up. Yes, I realize sexual abuse "exists" in the real world, but the real world doesn't claim to be "of God" like the Church does (huge difference). I realize no one is perfect, but I'm not perfect and I'm not touch little boys.
I am a self-proclaimed Theologian. I'm pro-life. I'm against abortion. I'm against war, but not necessarily a pacifist. I don't like abortion being a "political football". I don't think birth control is "wrong" or "immoral" (within the context of marriage). I don't think gay marriage is wrong, but as a heterosexual, I don't even know why gay marriage is such a big deal. I'm not even married. I think the State should not be involved in the marital contract.
I am a self-proclaimed Theologian. I'm pro-life. I'm against abortion. I'm against war, but not necessarily a pacifist. I don't like abortion being a "political football". I don't think birth control is "wrong" or "immoral" (within the context of marriage). I don't think gay marriage is wrong, but as a heterosexual, I don't even know why gay marriage is such a big deal. I'm not even married. I think the State should not be involved in the marital contract.
9.17.2011 | 10:53pm
Mark VA says:
As one of those "certain traditionalists", I would like to suggest to young Catholics that as a group, and thru no fault of their own, they remain cut off from the fullness of the Catholic Tradition. This deplorable situation, several decades in development, has resulted in a severely diminished capacity to formulate questions vital to the Faith among the younger generation.
For example, I don't see how it is possible for a young Catholic today, who knows only the Ordinary Form of the Mass, to correctly judge the intent, and the subsequent application, of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Without any knowledge of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, Sacrosanctum Concilium necessarily remains a document addressing a foreign country, plus its application has to be accepted on blind faith. Which conveniently plays into the hands of those who have a vested interest in perpetuating this lack of knowledge.
To be countercultural today means to be studying, and practicing, Tradition.
For example, I don't see how it is possible for a young Catholic today, who knows only the Ordinary Form of the Mass, to correctly judge the intent, and the subsequent application, of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Without any knowledge of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, Sacrosanctum Concilium necessarily remains a document addressing a foreign country, plus its application has to be accepted on blind faith. Which conveniently plays into the hands of those who have a vested interest in perpetuating this lack of knowledge.
To be countercultural today means to be studying, and practicing, Tradition.
9.18.2011 | 2:25pm
savvy says:
John,
The church claims to be of God, but does not claim to be perfect.
If someone told me their church had no sinners, I would not go, because it would be a lie.
I think you should study things, before you decide to reject them.
Find out what the church teaches exactly and why.
Someone once said, the crisis of every age is a crisis of saints.
These are some tough times, but great saints have been born in periods of great darkness.
The church claims to be of God, but does not claim to be perfect.
If someone told me their church had no sinners, I would not go, because it would be a lie.
I think you should study things, before you decide to reject them.
Find out what the church teaches exactly and why.
Someone once said, the crisis of every age is a crisis of saints.
These are some tough times, but great saints have been born in periods of great darkness.
9.18.2011 | 3:56pm
John says:
savvy:
In what sense do you mean "church"? I didn't the church (i.e., the people) didn't have sinners. The problem is that some "priests" act as if they are better than everyone else. Pure arrogance!! Jesus wasn't arrogant.
Regardless, that's what not what I hear, and see. Most "priests" I know act as if they are perfect, that they can do no wrong. That's the "problem" with clericalism. The Pope thinks he is perfect. A lot of Cardinals think they are perfect. A lot in my generation (the millenials?) have serious theological and epistemological arguments against and problems with Papal Infallibility. Call us Protestants, call us what you want, but we're still "Catholic", albeit, not Roman Catholic. A lot of my peers look at Rome and see Rome as being very much out of touch with reality--an everyday lived experience as someone lives in the United States, or even in Central America.
I have studied, and do study things, thank you very much. What have I rejected?
In what sense do you mean "church"? I didn't the church (i.e., the people) didn't have sinners. The problem is that some "priests" act as if they are better than everyone else. Pure arrogance!! Jesus wasn't arrogant.
Regardless, that's what not what I hear, and see. Most "priests" I know act as if they are perfect, that they can do no wrong. That's the "problem" with clericalism. The Pope thinks he is perfect. A lot of Cardinals think they are perfect. A lot in my generation (the millenials?) have serious theological and epistemological arguments against and problems with Papal Infallibility. Call us Protestants, call us what you want, but we're still "Catholic", albeit, not Roman Catholic. A lot of my peers look at Rome and see Rome as being very much out of touch with reality--an everyday lived experience as someone lives in the United States, or even in Central America.
I have studied, and do study things, thank you very much. What have I rejected?
9.18.2011 | 4:22pm
Mark VA says:
John:
It may be interesting to know what kind of "... theological and epistemological arguments against and problems with Papal Infallibility" a young person of your age may have.
Also, in the context of the Catholic Faith, if you could speak of the difference, as you see it, between Infallibility, and Papal Infallibility.
It may be interesting to know what kind of "... theological and epistemological arguments against and problems with Papal Infallibility" a young person of your age may have.
Also, in the context of the Catholic Faith, if you could speak of the difference, as you see it, between Infallibility, and Papal Infallibility.
9.18.2011 | 4:26pm
savvy says:
John,
I agree there are priests who think they are superior. This is clearly wrong. It stems from a misunderstanding of the priesthood itself.
The Pope does not claim to be perfect.
You are confusing infallibility with impeccability.
Infallibility applies to the church's official teachings on faith and morals. Not everything the Pope or anyone else says or does.
If your church is in union with the Bishop of Rome, in the Latin rite, then you are Roman Catholic.
If you think the church is in error on these issues. You should reject the Bible as well, because the Bible came from the church and no scripture is of private interpretation.
The Church was born at Pentecost, the Bible was compiled centuries later.
How would you know how many books should be in the Bible, if it was not for the historic church?
I agree there are priests who think they are superior. This is clearly wrong. It stems from a misunderstanding of the priesthood itself.
The Pope does not claim to be perfect.
You are confusing infallibility with impeccability.
Infallibility applies to the church's official teachings on faith and morals. Not everything the Pope or anyone else says or does.
If your church is in union with the Bishop of Rome, in the Latin rite, then you are Roman Catholic.
If you think the church is in error on these issues. You should reject the Bible as well, because the Bible came from the church and no scripture is of private interpretation.
The Church was born at Pentecost, the Bible was compiled centuries later.
How would you know how many books should be in the Bible, if it was not for the historic church?
9.18.2011 | 4:40pm
savvy says:
Mark,
The Novus Ordo, is considered legitimate by the church. You have no right to declare it not valid.
The opposite of Orthodoxy is Heterodoxy, not traditional or non-traditional.
The Novus Ordo, is considered legitimate by the church. You have no right to declare it not valid.
The opposite of Orthodoxy is Heterodoxy, not traditional or non-traditional.
9.18.2011 | 4:44pm
savvy says:
John,
The church is also not divided into people and priests. The church in fact cannot exist without both.
The church is also not divided into people and priests. The church in fact cannot exist without both.
9.18.2011 | 5:00pm
John says:
Savvy:
See my replies below...
"I agree there are priests who think they are superior. This is clearly wrong. It stems from a misunderstanding of the priesthood itself."
"The Pope does not claim to be perfect."
Perhaps he doesn't "claim" to be perfect, but he thinks he is right, or correct, about everything (faith & morals), and the Pope, a mere man, cannot be.
"You are confusing infallibility with impeccability."
No, I'm not.
"Infallibility applies to the church's official teachings on faith and morals. Not everything the Pope or anyone else says or does."
I know. That's my point; the pope isn't right (infallible) about everything regarding faith & morals.
"If your church is in union with the Bishop of Rome, in the Latin rite, then you are Roman Catholic."
My church (i.e., the parish) is union with the local ordinary, who, I suspect, is in union with Rome. Not all priests, however, like their local ordinary, or Rome for that matter.
"If you think the church is in error on these issues. You should reject the Bible as well, because the Bible came from the church and no scripture is of private interpretation."
When you say church, in what sense do you mean? Church--the people/community; Church--the hierarchy?, or Church--the physical building. Please clarify.
"The Church was born at Pentecost, the Bible was compiled centuries later."
I agree with that. But the actual Roman Catholic Church didn't come around until much later--in the 300s, with Constantine leading the way.
See my replies below...
"I agree there are priests who think they are superior. This is clearly wrong. It stems from a misunderstanding of the priesthood itself."
"The Pope does not claim to be perfect."
Perhaps he doesn't "claim" to be perfect, but he thinks he is right, or correct, about everything (faith & morals), and the Pope, a mere man, cannot be.
"You are confusing infallibility with impeccability."
No, I'm not.
"Infallibility applies to the church's official teachings on faith and morals. Not everything the Pope or anyone else says or does."
I know. That's my point; the pope isn't right (infallible) about everything regarding faith & morals.
"If your church is in union with the Bishop of Rome, in the Latin rite, then you are Roman Catholic."
My church (i.e., the parish) is union with the local ordinary, who, I suspect, is in union with Rome. Not all priests, however, like their local ordinary, or Rome for that matter.
"If you think the church is in error on these issues. You should reject the Bible as well, because the Bible came from the church and no scripture is of private interpretation."
When you say church, in what sense do you mean? Church--the people/community; Church--the hierarchy?, or Church--the physical building. Please clarify.
"The Church was born at Pentecost, the Bible was compiled centuries later."
I agree with that. But the actual Roman Catholic Church didn't come around until much later--in the 300s, with Constantine leading the way.
9.18.2011 | 5:07pm
John says:
Mark:
Please see my replies below....
"It may be interesting to know what kind of "... theological and epistemological arguments against and problems with Papal Infallibility" a young person of your age may have."
Epistemological: Does the Pope (whomever it might be) 'know' everything, or all there is to know? No.
Theological: The only one who knows all there is to know is God.
"Also, in the context of the Catholic Faith, if you could speak of the difference, as you see it, between Infallibility, and Papal Infallibility."
I suppose it's a distinction without a difference. But I don't believe in Papal infallibility
Please see my replies below....
"It may be interesting to know what kind of "... theological and epistemological arguments against and problems with Papal Infallibility" a young person of your age may have."
Epistemological: Does the Pope (whomever it might be) 'know' everything, or all there is to know? No.
Theological: The only one who knows all there is to know is God.
"Also, in the context of the Catholic Faith, if you could speak of the difference, as you see it, between Infallibility, and Papal Infallibility."
I suppose it's a distinction without a difference. But I don't believe in Papal infallibility
9.18.2011 | 5:26pm
Mark VA says:
Savvy:
I consider the Novus Ordo Mass (aka the Ordinary Form of the Mass) a perfectly legitimate and valid Mass. Perhaps the word "traditionalist" has led you to a hasty, and incorrect, conclusion.
I consider the Novus Ordo Mass (aka the Ordinary Form of the Mass) a perfectly legitimate and valid Mass. Perhaps the word "traditionalist" has led you to a hasty, and incorrect, conclusion.
9.18.2011 | 6:40pm
savia D'cunha says:
John,
Are you serious?
You should read the writings of the early church fathers, Rome was one of the centres of Christianity. The Eastern Catholic churches are older than Rome, but share the same faith.
These views on faith and morals were held much before Constantine.
The New Testament church consists of Bishops, priests and laity. It's both the visible church on earth, and the mystical bride of Christ.
The local ordinaries who told you otherwise are wrong and in heresy.
Why are these priests even priests if they do not subscribe to these fundamental things?
Are you serious?
You should read the writings of the early church fathers, Rome was one of the centres of Christianity. The Eastern Catholic churches are older than Rome, but share the same faith.
These views on faith and morals were held much before Constantine.
The New Testament church consists of Bishops, priests and laity. It's both the visible church on earth, and the mystical bride of Christ.
The local ordinaries who told you otherwise are wrong and in heresy.
Why are these priests even priests if they do not subscribe to these fundamental things?
9.18.2011 | 7:00pm
savia D'cunha says:
John,
I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the term infallibility.
An infallible pronouncement, is only made by the the Pope and the Bishops in union with him, when a certain doctrine has been called into question, because there are no new doctrines.
Disciplines change, traditions change, but doctrines do not.
I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the term infallibility.
An infallible pronouncement, is only made by the the Pope and the Bishops in union with him, when a certain doctrine has been called into question, because there are no new doctrines.
Disciplines change, traditions change, but doctrines do not.
9.18.2011 | 7:20pm
savvy says:
John,
You should also note that the ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible, by both Catholic and Orthodox churches. i.e. Eastern and Western.
Your views on the nature of the church would in fact be Protestant.
You should also note that the ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible, by both Catholic and Orthodox churches. i.e. Eastern and Western.
Your views on the nature of the church would in fact be Protestant.
9.18.2011 | 8:51pm
Mark VA says:
John:
Thank you for your reply. One small detail is left:
If infallibility and Papal Infallibility are, as you stated, "distinctions without a difference", and you "don't believe in Papal infallibility", then I conclude that in the context of our discussion, you don't believe in infallibility, period. For example, the moral teachings of the Bible may not be considered infallible.
Is this an accurate statement, or have I inferred too much?
Thank you for your reply. One small detail is left:
If infallibility and Papal Infallibility are, as you stated, "distinctions without a difference", and you "don't believe in Papal infallibility", then I conclude that in the context of our discussion, you don't believe in infallibility, period. For example, the moral teachings of the Bible may not be considered infallible.
Is this an accurate statement, or have I inferred too much?
9.18.2011 | 9:51pm
Jay says:
@ Resh Gulata: Some of the youth who attended World Youth Day saved their money, raised funds, and worked hard to attend; not all came with "wad of their parents' money". Your words are filled with ignorance and cynicism that falls on deaf ears.
Not all of those who attended the World Youth Day in Madrid, Spain will take their experience to heart and have a conversion toward God. In fact, some might choose to leave the faith or live against the Gospel. I remind myself that the Holy Spirit works with and through each one of us and that our journey through life is a constant conversion; everyday our old selves die to become more like Christ.
Pope Benedict XVI gave a remark on the plane going to Spain that is insightful and quite humbling to objective reality:
"God always sows in silence. The results are not immediately apparent in the statistics. And the seed the Lord scatters on the ground with the World Youth Days is like the seed of which he speaks in the Gospel: some seeds fell along the path and were lost; some fell on rocky ground and were lost, some fell upon thorns and were lost; but other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth abundant fruit.
It is exactly like this with the sowing of the WYDs: a great deal is lost — and this is human. To borrow other words from the Lord: the mustard seed was small, but it grew and became a great tree. And with yet other words: of course, a great deal is lost, we cannot say straight away that there will be an immense growth of the Church tomorrow. God does not act in this way. However, the Church grows in silence and vigorously. I know from other World Youth Days that a great many friendships were born, friendships for life; a great many experiences that God exists. And let us place trust in this silent growth, and we may be certain, even if the statistics do not tell us much, that the Lord’s seed really grows and will be for very many people the beginning of a friendship with God and with others, of a universality of thought, of a common responsibility which really shows us that these days do bear fruit. Many thanks!"
As a twenty-something Catholic, there is much to be joyful about in our fallen world because Jesus is resurrected and will come again.
******
Source: INTERVIEW OF THE HOLY FATHER BENEDICT XVI
WITH THE JOURNALISTS DURING THE FLIGHT TO MADRID
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110818_intervista-madrid_en.html
Not all of those who attended the World Youth Day in Madrid, Spain will take their experience to heart and have a conversion toward God. In fact, some might choose to leave the faith or live against the Gospel. I remind myself that the Holy Spirit works with and through each one of us and that our journey through life is a constant conversion; everyday our old selves die to become more like Christ.
Pope Benedict XVI gave a remark on the plane going to Spain that is insightful and quite humbling to objective reality:
"God always sows in silence. The results are not immediately apparent in the statistics. And the seed the Lord scatters on the ground with the World Youth Days is like the seed of which he speaks in the Gospel: some seeds fell along the path and were lost; some fell on rocky ground and were lost, some fell upon thorns and were lost; but other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth abundant fruit.
It is exactly like this with the sowing of the WYDs: a great deal is lost — and this is human. To borrow other words from the Lord: the mustard seed was small, but it grew and became a great tree. And with yet other words: of course, a great deal is lost, we cannot say straight away that there will be an immense growth of the Church tomorrow. God does not act in this way. However, the Church grows in silence and vigorously. I know from other World Youth Days that a great many friendships were born, friendships for life; a great many experiences that God exists. And let us place trust in this silent growth, and we may be certain, even if the statistics do not tell us much, that the Lord’s seed really grows and will be for very many people the beginning of a friendship with God and with others, of a universality of thought, of a common responsibility which really shows us that these days do bear fruit. Many thanks!"
As a twenty-something Catholic, there is much to be joyful about in our fallen world because Jesus is resurrected and will come again.
******
Source: INTERVIEW OF THE HOLY FATHER BENEDICT XVI
WITH THE JOURNALISTS DURING THE FLIGHT TO MADRID
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110818_intervista-madrid_en.html
9.18.2011 | 10:37pm
John says:
MarkVA:
"If infallibility and Papal Infallibility are, as you stated, "distinctions without a difference", and you "don't believe in Papal infallibility", then I conclude that in the context of our discussion, you don't believe in infallibility, period. For example, the moral teachings of the Bible may not be considered infallible.
Is this an accurate statement, or have I inferred too much?"
Well, I don't necessarily "believe in" the complete/total inerrancy of Scripture--context is important. Man, Pope or not, Catholic or not, Christian or not, Religious or not, etc., is very fallible. Am I, therefore, Cartesian? I wouldn't go that far. I do "believe in" body & soul. I suppose I'm like Thomas--I need to see it before I believe it.
Savvy:
"You should also note that the ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible, by both Catholic and Orthodox churches. i.e. Eastern and Western.
Your views on the nature of the church would in fact be Protestant."
Yes, Protestant, but high Protestant or Low Catholic, but not necessarily Roman Catholic. I'm very Eastern, perhaps Oriental.
I've read the Early Fathers--Basil, Athanasius, etc. I guess I'm more of an Eastern guy. I'm not a huge fan of Rome.
"If infallibility and Papal Infallibility are, as you stated, "distinctions without a difference", and you "don't believe in Papal infallibility", then I conclude that in the context of our discussion, you don't believe in infallibility, period. For example, the moral teachings of the Bible may not be considered infallible.
Is this an accurate statement, or have I inferred too much?"
Well, I don't necessarily "believe in" the complete/total inerrancy of Scripture--context is important. Man, Pope or not, Catholic or not, Christian or not, Religious or not, etc., is very fallible. Am I, therefore, Cartesian? I wouldn't go that far. I do "believe in" body & soul. I suppose I'm like Thomas--I need to see it before I believe it.
Savvy:
"You should also note that the ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible, by both Catholic and Orthodox churches. i.e. Eastern and Western.
Your views on the nature of the church would in fact be Protestant."
Yes, Protestant, but high Protestant or Low Catholic, but not necessarily Roman Catholic. I'm very Eastern, perhaps Oriental.
I've read the Early Fathers--Basil, Athanasius, etc. I guess I'm more of an Eastern guy. I'm not a huge fan of Rome.
9.18.2011 | 10:50pm
savvy says:
Jay,
I do agree that the church is growing in silence. In my own parish there are young people whose parents do not go to church, so they come on their own.
My parish is packed with teenagers on a Saturday night.
I think commitment is more important than numbers.
I do agree that the church is growing in silence. In my own parish there are young people whose parents do not go to church, so they come on their own.
My parish is packed with teenagers on a Saturday night.
I think commitment is more important than numbers.
9.18.2011 | 11:15pm
savvy says:
Mark,
Man certainly is fallible, but the church established by Christ is not.
Do you actually belong to a church? because it seems like you pick and choose what you want to.
Basil and Athanasius are both doctors of the church.
There are Eastern churches in union with the Bishop of Rome.
Man certainly is fallible, but the church established by Christ is not.
Do you actually belong to a church? because it seems like you pick and choose what you want to.
Basil and Athanasius are both doctors of the church.
There are Eastern churches in union with the Bishop of Rome.
9.18.2011 | 11:17pm
savvy says:
The Orthodox and Oriental do not share your views on the nature of the church. So perhaps you are just confused.
9.18.2011 | 11:24pm
edmond says:
Aside from the worldly pull of mass media and the glitz counter-culture, the Catholic youth are confounded with the choices the writer puts forth, e.g. less rigid protestantism, etc. However, I believe the greatest challenge of young catholics is wrestling with the ambiguities of the catholic teaching which are higly evident for example through pro-choice catholic groups and other sub cults that have chosen to develop their own theologies. I agree with Margarita Mooney that the youth should not be pushed into the "debate", rather they should be challenged into the debate to resolve for themselves the basis of their faith. One of the defining characteristics of catholicism is the spiritual toughness that is complemented by physical and intellectual discipline. Today's circumstances that some perceive to be too overwhelming for Catholicism to be carried by the youth should be reminded of how it was during the time of early Christian persecutions. Spiritual backbone.
9.18.2011 | 11:50pm
savia D'cunha says:
John,
The East does not share your views either.
The Church Is Visible and One A Critique of Protestant Ecclesiology
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf
The East does not share your views either.
The Church Is Visible and One A Critique of Protestant Ecclesiology
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf
9.19.2011 | 10:31am
Dave Eden says:
edmond: I like your talk about backbone and optimism that younger Catholics can respond to the challenges. At the risk of sounding like a pedantic bore, I feel a need to interject again, however. There are no ambiguities in Catholic teaching that permit "pro-choice catholic groups". Such groups are an attempt to subvert the Catholic church from within. I can respect a former Catholic who disagrees with Catholic teaching and leaves to pursue pro-abortion or whatever interests. But positions like "catholics for choice" are just plain disingenuous. Such groups are as contradictory as would be, for example, "atheists for the Trinity".
9.19.2011 | 10:56am
savvy says:
John,
In the absence of an authority to solve doctrinal disputes, people are going to end up creating their own Christianity.
There is still one Catholic church, in union with the Successor of Peter.
There are thousands of Protestant denominations, that constantly contradict each other.
In the absence of an authority to solve doctrinal disputes, people are going to end up creating their own Christianity.
There is still one Catholic church, in union with the Successor of Peter.
There are thousands of Protestant denominations, that constantly contradict each other.
9.19.2011 | 12:49pm
Michael PS says:
The people I find most worrying are not those who obviously deny Catholic teaching.
In his monumental works, like “Prière et Poésie”and “Introduction à la Philosophie de la Prière,” Bremond, whose work on poetry, symbolism and romanticism earned him election to the Académie française and a eulogy from the French Symbolist poet, Paul Valéry, was careful to cite with approval only saints and writers of undoubted orthodoxy, or, at least, those who had died in the peace of the Church. However, his selection and arrangement of these writings resulted in something very like a vade-mecum for Modernists – and all with the sanction of the ecclesiastical censors.
In philosophy, Maurice Blondel, especially after he purchased the journal Annales de la Philosophie Chrétienne, with Lucien Laberthonière, as editor was able to do much the same in philosophy, especially as he and the journal were outspoken critics of l’Action française, which the French hierarchy feared and hated as a threat to their policy of « Ralliement a la République . »
I am not suggesting Bremond or Blondel were Modernists, in the heretical sense, but their works certainly lent themselves to a Modernist interpretation.
.
I could give any number of similar examples. Ecclesiastical censors and the Holy Office itself were unable to find examiners, both competent to evaluate the work of the Modernist-leaning writers and willing to criticise it. This was especially true of those who wrote as philosophers, mystical theologians and church historians; so long as they kept away from dogmatic theology, they were given free rein. One only has to look at a list of the most influential names in 20th century theology to see the extent to which a Modernist atmosphere pervaded the divinity schools – Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Joseph Maréchal. Even those who kept within the bounds of orthodoxy fostered a atmosphere congenial to Modernism and their historicism could be used by others to defend dogmatic relativism.
Nor is devotion to the old liturgy any guarantee of orthodoxy; men like Loisy and Tyrrell and Von Hugel would have been appalled by the liturgical changes after Vatican II. They believed the “picture language” of popular preaching and the traditional rituals and devotions were well-suited to arouse the religious feelings – the only thing they really cared about – of the mass of people. You have only to look at the union of Liberalism and Ritualism in Anglcanism, with its reverent scepticism to see that.
In his monumental works, like “Prière et Poésie”and “Introduction à la Philosophie de la Prière,” Bremond, whose work on poetry, symbolism and romanticism earned him election to the Académie française and a eulogy from the French Symbolist poet, Paul Valéry, was careful to cite with approval only saints and writers of undoubted orthodoxy, or, at least, those who had died in the peace of the Church. However, his selection and arrangement of these writings resulted in something very like a vade-mecum for Modernists – and all with the sanction of the ecclesiastical censors.
In philosophy, Maurice Blondel, especially after he purchased the journal Annales de la Philosophie Chrétienne, with Lucien Laberthonière, as editor was able to do much the same in philosophy, especially as he and the journal were outspoken critics of l’Action française, which the French hierarchy feared and hated as a threat to their policy of « Ralliement a la République . »
I am not suggesting Bremond or Blondel were Modernists, in the heretical sense, but their works certainly lent themselves to a Modernist interpretation.
.
I could give any number of similar examples. Ecclesiastical censors and the Holy Office itself were unable to find examiners, both competent to evaluate the work of the Modernist-leaning writers and willing to criticise it. This was especially true of those who wrote as philosophers, mystical theologians and church historians; so long as they kept away from dogmatic theology, they were given free rein. One only has to look at a list of the most influential names in 20th century theology to see the extent to which a Modernist atmosphere pervaded the divinity schools – Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Joseph Maréchal. Even those who kept within the bounds of orthodoxy fostered a atmosphere congenial to Modernism and their historicism could be used by others to defend dogmatic relativism.
Nor is devotion to the old liturgy any guarantee of orthodoxy; men like Loisy and Tyrrell and Von Hugel would have been appalled by the liturgical changes after Vatican II. They believed the “picture language” of popular preaching and the traditional rituals and devotions were well-suited to arouse the religious feelings – the only thing they really cared about – of the mass of people. You have only to look at the union of Liberalism and Ritualism in Anglcanism, with its reverent scepticism to see that.
9.20.2011 | 4:14am
edmond says:
Dave, here's somenting I read: FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
"Recently, I read that a certain Archdiocese is no longer going to ask couples who are cohabitating — living together — to separate. Am I missing something, or has the Church stopped teaching that premarital sex is wrong?"
www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0206.html
Ambiguous enough?
Or you could try:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=113
"The vast majority of Catholic theologians writing about sexual morality have challenged the basis for the church’s official teaching. "
"Recently, I read that a certain Archdiocese is no longer going to ask couples who are cohabitating — living together — to separate. Am I missing something, or has the Church stopped teaching that premarital sex is wrong?"
www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0206.html
Ambiguous enough?
Or you could try:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=113
"The vast majority of Catholic theologians writing about sexual morality have challenged the basis for the church’s official teaching. "
9.20.2011 | 10:45am
Dave Eden says:
edmond: Fair enough. Such things can cause destructive confusion for sure. I think this is a matter of clarification: the examples you cite are exactly the kind of subversive nonsense I referred to earlier. Such things are not Catholic teaching in the sense I intended, but to your point I acknowledge that many people could easily think that it's Catholic teaching. Authoritative sources such at the Catechism or papal documents do not have such ambiguity.
This opens another issue that I'm reluctant to get into: how far does the hierarchy go in policing what's happening at the local level? I confess I'm glad that I don't have that responsibility. Being too heavy handed might drive away people who are trying to come back to the faith. But being too light alllows destructive error to persist.
This opens another issue that I'm reluctant to get into: how far does the hierarchy go in policing what's happening at the local level? I confess I'm glad that I don't have that responsibility. Being too heavy handed might drive away people who are trying to come back to the faith. But being too light alllows destructive error to persist.
9.21.2011 | 12:10am
edmond says:
Thanks Dave, finally your question is the question that got me interested in First Things last year. I believe the repository of true church teaching is slowly shrinking in terms of the number of priests and bishops who aside from being qualified to transmit sound doctrine, do have the correct sound doctrine to transmit. There has always been, to my mind some urgency for the laity to step up to the plate, take hold of the true knowledge from that shrinking repository and pass it on as authentically as they learned it. The seminaries show a reduction in applicants for the priesthood, so it is really up to the laity as it was in Christ's time. As for the style, some good priests do need people skills as do a lot of laity. Some are gifted by birth and some are infused by the Holy Spirit with the appropriate gifts. It just takes commitment.
