In George Weigel's recent article, we read of his conversation with a very liberal-minded priest, who believes the Church's problems would be solved by doing away with the "all-male, unmarried clergy."
Mr. Weigel counters that, in fact, the faith is alive and well in those centers where orthodoxy reigns.
The Church is dying in places where the Gospel is preached as a lifestyle option in a global supermarket of spiritualities. The Church is thriving, or being reborn with the vigor anticipated by Vatican II, where the full Gospel is preached -- in charity, but in its full integrity. That's a matter of empirical fact, confirmed time and again in Europe, North America, and Australia. Catholic Lite leads to Catholic Dead. The adventure of orthodoxy is what attracts young people today. In a world that constantly panders to the young, a Church of challenge, which combines the truth with love and pastoral care, is a very attractive proposition indeed. That's what I find on campuses, in seminaries, in parishes, and at World Youth Days.
Peace, Paul.
It's hard to know where to begin with this. Any self-respecting liberal Catholic would tend not to accept a single priest as a spokesperson for the entire sense of post-conciliar Catholicism. And clearly, Mr Weigel blows him off as well.
I think there was a lot of deadweight in the Church from prior to the sixties, and we've done fairly well in getting rid of a lot of that. I think that a separate clergy culture has a lot more to do with lay alienation than celibacy or gender, per se.
What I have noticed in my travels and experiences is that intentional Catholicism, be it liberal, traditional, in parishes, or vowed religious communities, even in seminaries, bears fruit because of the possibility and reality of a commitment beyond Catholic minimalism. Many Catholic communities languish not because of perceived orthodoxy or modernity, but because their lifestyle is not centered on Christ. Unlike Mr Weigel, I've known a number of more "orthodox" places that struggle mightily. Ideology does not breed fruitfulness, rather commitment, sacrifice, prayer, justice, and especially the cardinal virtues.
"the faith is alive and well in those centers where orthodoxy reigns."
What are these centers?
I am not doubting you, I am looking for "empirical facts," as this week I have been told by one ultra conservative Catholic that there is "no vocations crisis" in her diocese (Atlanta, IIRC) because of its conservativism; and by one somewhat progressive Catholic that vocations are way up wherever the "Lifeteen" program has been put in place.
Both of these women seemed startled when I asked if they had any figures to support their assertions.
They didn't think they were necessary, because "everyone knows," and you can see it "with your own eyes."
I don't know where you can go to find the empirical evidence you're looking for, but I wanted to offer this site as an alternative. It's not quantitative, but it's a little better than "everyone knows." I like to read it when I feel myself getting too negative about the Church.
Todd, as always there are two sides to any coin, and as always, you have admirably defended the progressive side. I would only caution that your use of the word "orthodox" still seems to me to imply the sort of "ultra-conservatism" that Sal refers to. I don't see orthodoxy that way, and I don't believe Weigel does either. I think a better working definition of the orthodox might be those who either readily concur with the Holy Father in all matters of faith, morals and discipline; or at the very least give intellectual assent. Just a thought.
Greetings!
There is a bit of "spin" that goes on when Weigle and others claim Catholicism is thriving in more conservative or orthodox circles.
For example, they'll take a seminary with 10 freshman candidates last year and 12 freshman this year and claim a 20 percent increase, which masks the reality that 12 candidates is not many candidates.
They'll point to an increase in vocations in developing nations under John Paul II without discussing that the numbers of priests world-wide have been on a continual decline under this pontiff.
Speaking of the developing nations, they seldom talk about how orthodox those churches really are. They may be conservative in their piety (i.e. - pray the Rosary), but liberal in their theology (i.e. - liberation theology). They may have fewer gay men, but more heterosexuals with mistresses.
Then there is little examination of the psycology of the priest Weigle wants to see. My experience in seminary was that almost all of us entered on the more conservative side, but those who remained ultra-conservative through the formation process often were screwed up in obvious ways to anyone who had to live with them.
I'm not saying that there are not men and women called to celibacy, nor am I saying traditional piety has no value. Heck, I pray teh Rosary most days, go to daily Mass, frequent confession, etc....
What I am saying is not that tradition has no value, but that it is in the process of development, and there are indications within the tradition itself that we need to take the next steps.
The top two issues for me in order would be women priests, then married priests. After this, I think we need a real and open dialogue with the Catholic gay community and theologians about how a gay person lives a graced life (could there be gay marriages? ). Finally, we need to look at ways of introducing some sort of consultative or democratic processes into the Church without losing the value of the office of the papacy and bishops.
I would say these these are the top four issues of our time, but there are other issues that are important too.
Peace!
Jcecil3,
I appreciate your comments. It makes me think of a passage I read in what you might call an "ultra-conservative" book recently, which had the effect of taking some of the wind out of the vocations boom theory.
It mentioned how the author had made a trip to a South East Asian country and met with the rector of one of those supposedly "booming" seminaries. Contrary to what he hoped to see, he found the rector dressed in street clothes, with suggestive posters on the walls of his office. He said he does this to better relate to his seminarians.
He also found that, though the seminary could have easily been filled four times over, based on the demand to get in, it's not always because of a thirst for sacrifice or holiness. It turns out that, in that country, being a priest has a certain level of social prestige, and a guaranteed stable income, with which a man could better support his family. I could go on, but you get the picture.
So, not that it's the same story everywhere, but I think that the moral of the story is that things are not always what they are cracked up to be on first impression.