In this article by Sandro Magister, we read of an analysis of existing trends, with regards to Christianity. We already realize that the future of Christianity in America is by no means certain; while in Europe, its prospects are even more bleak. In fact, where Christianity is thriving most is in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Mr. Magister speaks of "a book that described this very effectively, published in the United States in 2002 and in Italy at the beginning of 2004. The original title is The Next Christendom. The Coming of Global Christianity. The author is Philip Jenkins, a religious historian and professor at Pennsylvania State University." There are several trends of which Christians ought to be aware, among which are as follows:
The dominant traits of this new Christianity are Pentecostal and Evangelical: a deep personal faith, a demanding and puritanical morality, doctrinal orthodoxy, community ties, a strong spirit of mission, prophecy, healings, and visions. In one image, it is "Fire from Heaven," the title of a famous 1995 essay by Harvey Cox.It seems as though all the friction currently playing out, between differing views in the Western Church, may in the end be irrelevant. Based on current trends, numerically speaking, North America and Europe are steadily losing influence in the global Church. One point in fact is that priestly vocations in the developing world are exploding, while Europe and North America struggle with dwindling numbers.
As for the dialectic between the conservatives and the progressivists, the evolution underway increasingly takes the latter out of the game. If the future of the Church is in the developing world, the Catholicism flourishing there is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the liberal agenda of the advocates of a Vatican Council III. The next conclave will surely take this into account.Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here.
Peace, Paul.
I'm not really convinced of this. Latin America is not really awash in priestly vocations. And Africa and Asia can hardly be said to be "exploding."
But I wouldn't mind seeing the progressive/traditionalist clash slide into oblivion. It doesn't really address the core issues of materialism, apathy, depersonalization, individualism, etc., as most all of these qualities are possessed by both sides. If Christianity fails in the First World, it will be because the challenges of Vatican II were not taken seriously enough.
"I'm not really convinced of this."
Todd, here is the article from CWNews, April 2000, where the Congregation for the Clergy declares the worldwide crisis of clerical vocations has ended. I have lost the reference to the more detailed by-continent analysis, but it clearly stated that vocations in North America were flat, falling drastically in Europe, and rising dramatically enough in the rest of the world to more than compensate for the losses in the Western Church. You can quibble about what descriptive words I choose to use, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Further, read here how Bishop Myers of Peoria single-handedly turned around the vocations crisis in his diocese, by an appeal to orthodox (i.e. traditional) Catholic teaching. To me, it is clear that expanding such a program would reproduce this success elsewhere.
"...most all of these qualities are possessed by both sides."
I genuinely don't understand your point here. The way I see it, a traditionalist should embrace an orthodox understanding of these issues, as promoted by JP2, and so they should be consistent with the challenges of Vatican II.
Peace, Paul.
I don't subscribe or read CWNews; I find their journalism suspect at times and skewed to a somewhat narcissistic sensationalism.
I don't follow vocations statistics closely except in this country. I do know that by the mid-2010's (barring some crisis or surge), clergy numbers will have stabilized in most older dioceses in the northeast and midwest. Stabilized, meaning settled in at levels seen in 1910-1940. Did you know that American Catholics are being served today by about the same percentage of clergy as we were in 1945?
Currently, new southern and western dioceses are relatively stable because they lack a quantity of small-town parishes that were founded in the older dioceses.
"Further, read here how Bishop Myers of Peoria single-handedly turned around the vocations crisis in his diocese, by an appeal to orthodox (i.e. traditional) Catholic teaching. To me, it is clear that expanding such a program would reproduce this success elsewhere."
Perhaps. But perhaps other dioceses have already been recruited into Peoria and other places.
"I genuinely don't understand your point here."
Simple. Both traditionalists and progressives are burdened by the ambient American culture, including its weaknesses: individualism, fundamentalism, materialism, intolerance, relativism, etc.. Sure, some individuals on either side have avoided some or most of these sins. But the traditionalist movement in this country (as is the progressive strain in Catholicism) cannot help but be influenced by the human society in which they live.
"The way I see it, a traditionalist should embrace an orthodox understanding of these issues, as promoted by JP2, and so they should be consistent with the challenges of Vatican II."
"Should" is a pretty broad word. I know traditionalists who have as much of a problem with some aspects of Vatican II or the pope as progressives do. Surely you're not trying to sell the point that traditionalists are generally good Catholics and progressives are naughty Protestants. Sorry, my friend: you're stuck with this loyal progressive soul as your brother in Catholicism. And you're not getting rid of me.
"Surely you're not trying to sell the point that traditionalists are generally good Catholics and progressives are naughty Protestants."
Todd, both you and I know that trying to map people onto a one-dimensional continuum is inherently problematic, but I'll try and explain myself by example, rather than by labels.
Take an issue whose official teaching has evolved in the twentieth century, for example, ecumenism. The Council taught how this should be understood, and the Holy Father has been a champion of that cause. Those who agree with him, I'll call the "Vatican II" people. Those who think the issue should have never been addressed, and left as it was, I'll call the "Vatican I" people. Those who think the Pope's understanding of the issue is still too constricted, and needs to be broadened, I'll call the "Vatican III" people.
Clearly, different people may even stand with different groups on different issues. But, on the whole, those who stand with the Holy Father on all questions where Church teaching is definitive, we should call "orthodox" Catholics.
Yes, there are issues of prudence or discipline where the faithful may differ in opinion from the Holy Father, but on issues of faith and morals, which are central, anything else to the left or right would be considered "heterodox".
Maybe I should avoid using the word "traditional", as it is often interpreted as "conservative", and implied to mean those who reject the authentic evolution of doctrine, as happened at the Council. I don't mean that to be the case, which is why "orthodox" is a better word.
I suppose it is possible, for example, for someone to be liturgically "progressive" and doctrinally "orthodox" or even doctrinally "conservative", but to me there is a dichotomy. It seems that someone who is "progressive" in one area would likely advocate a "pushing of the envelope" in other areas as well, which is why I believe many are suspicious of liturgical progressives.
Yes, being progressive has helped the Church in authentic reform and authentic doctrinal evolution over the centuries, and are thus quite valuable to the Church for that reason. But the same would go for a conservative who strives to conserve the Church's traditional understanding on a given issue. The key in both groups is in knowing when to back off and accept that issues have been settled. That is the sign of an orthodox Catholic believer.
Peace, Paul.
I suppose where I would see some departure from Vatican II is on the increasing insistence on doctrinal (or political) uniformity. You wrote, "... there are issues of prudence or discipline where the faithful may differ in opinion from the Holy Father, but on issues of faith and morals, which are central, anything else to the left or right would be considered 'heterodox'."
And I think of a good degree of wiggle room self-granted to self-styled conservatives, Antonin Scalia, for instance, who rejects outright the pope's nuanced stand on capital punishment. Is Scalia "heterodox?" By your argument, yes, for he has publicly stated himself at odds with the Holy Father's moral teaching on this practice. I know of one young priest who related to me his difficulty with receiving this teaching, but eventually, he opted to accept it, despite his misgivings. I have publicly said I have difficulty with the theology behind the CDF position on ordained women. As long as I don't attend such ordinations, participate in liturgy led by women priests, or openly advocate for the ordination of women, am I considered okay? Or is my criticism of the CDF reason enough to consider me "heterodox," even if I publicly state now is not the time for it?
"It seems that someone who is 'progressive' in one area would likely advocate a 'pushing of the envelope' in other areas as well, which is why I believe many are suspicious of liturgical progressives."
Reasonable, perhaps. But that would be your own interpretation. My experience has been that traditionalists I serve in parishes are often wary of me, but since the pastoral realm is far more important to my ministry focus, their suspicions tend not to be borne out in later years.
"The key in both groups is in knowing when to back off and accept that issues have been settled. That is the sign of an orthodox Catholic believer."
The ol' "offer it up" approach. That implies a certain trust in our leadership. These are difficult days to ask Catholics to make such acts of trust. Perhaps I would amend your thought here to picking one's battles carefully.
And lastly, I suggest you and I (and most any other single Catholic) is radically unqualified to make the orthodox/heterodox assessment of people. Some positions, perhaps. But people? I'd prefer to stay away from such labels and work with the Gospel as closely as I can instead.
"...the increasing insistence on doctrinal (or political) uniformity."
Todd, I don't know what the Vatican's position is on political uniformity, but it seems to me that doctrinal uniformity is something good, and that Our Lord would be pleased to see it. That's what the Eucharist is, a visible manifestation of Communion of mind and heart. Why is that bad?
"Is Scalia 'heterodox?'"
It is my understanding that the Holy Father's "nuanced stand" on capital punishment is just that; and that this is an emerging area of morality in recent years, initiated by the current Pope, which is by no means settled. I don't know what Scalia said, but he certainly seems to be entitled an opinion, given his position.
"...am I considered okay?"
The belief in women's ordination is heterodox, by definition. However, whether the CDF considers a person holding that belief to be heterodox is another matter. The inner workings of the mind and heart are for God alone, and it would not be right to coerce one against his will. But, as I understand it, one may give intellectual assent with reservations. I don't believe the CDF would have a problem with your status, as long as you avoid the overt signs you mentioned.
"I'd prefer to stay away from such labels..."
Obviously, you are right, here. Recall I said that "trying to map people onto a one-dimensional continuum is inherently problematic". Of course, anything that smacks of passing judgment should be shunned, but we all know that in discussing people and their ideas, we often use such categories as shorthand notation for concepts that are radically complex.
Here is an article which discusses a Catholic Diocese of 75,000 in Burma that has 70 seminarians. Pretty impressive. Granted, success like that may be exceptional, but still indicative of a general trend of growth in vocations in that part of the world.
I prefer to not quote from secondary sources, unless the primary sources cannot be linked. So, Karl Keating, in his recent e-letter, makes a reference to a recent L'Osservatore Romano article, showing worldwide growth in priests and seminarians, during the quarter century between 1978 and 2002. Here's the skinny:
On priests:
-------------
Africa - up 73%
Asia - up 65%
Americas - up 1%
Europe - down 19%
On Seminarians:
-------------------
Africa - up 76%
Asia - up 60%
Americas - up 31%
Europe - up 12%
I'm not sure why the stats lump North and South America together. Maybe the numbers for North America are poor, and they want to avoid any appearance of a crisis here.
You have to admit, worldwide, the overall prospects for the priesthood are looking pretty good.