It probably needs to be said that with all the bishops’ recent actions on all sorts of things: liturgy, abortion provisions in health insurance, marriage and gays and lesbians, that the running presumption is a fruitful and healthy Church. I’m not always sure our prelates have their eye on the prize.
A pastor I once worked for adopted the motto of another priest he knew. “Does this action we’re contemplating further the kingdom of God and spread the Gospel to others in any way?”
Put in those terms, matters like which color to paint the church, what nickname to assign the school’s athletic teams, whether to serve turkey or ham at the rectory dinner, seem to pale in comparison.
Commenter Sean resurrected a tw0-year-old thread with this comment:
And all of these unfamiliar translations changes are going to:
1) Bring the faithful back to Sunday worship in droves
2) Evangelise the youth and inspire them with a love of God
3) enable better proclamation of the Gospel in the Third World
4) Bring about the Coming of the Kingdom
5) enable us to better feed the hungry, house the homeless, welcome the refugee, speak out against injustices and all the rest of Matt 25.25??
NO wonder Jesus got angry with his religious leaders and their nit-picking.
Sean’s right. Why aren’t the bishops tackling the difficult and demanding issues?
I know I’m dissatisfied with the USCCB treatment of these core issues of evangelization. By the way, the same pastor quoted above also objected to spending $250 on Christmas and Triduum ads in the local newspapers. Maybe fifty people could have been fed for a day, sure. But what business (if you want to use a crass term) are we in, anyway?
Sean’s first two points should be at the top of the priority list of any parish. We are at a stage where we should be considering what might bring back inactive Catholics in droves. We should be trying to figure out why Catholic tweens and teens, regardless of whether they are homeschooled, Catholic-schooled, or weeknight catechized after public school, all pretty much look the sam, and all drop out at pretty much the same rate.
The bishops are earnest about strengthening marriages, I’m sure. Rather than spend hundreds of thousands against same sex unions, the money would be better spent on Marriage Encounter, expanding the offerings, providing weekend child care, and getting speakers out into the parishes. Our prelates have drunk some pretty strong Kool-Aid to be so concerned with what others might be doing. My mom had a bead on my own such whining when I was a kid. She told me to pay no attention to what other kids’ parents were letting them get away with, and to focus on my own stuff.
Our bishops and many on the Catholic Right seem inebriated with the notion of entitlement. We are the One True Church, and people are lost without us. We are the One True Church, and the universe owes us the largest membership. We are the One True Church, and if people don’t realize it, then to hell with them. Literally.
I don’t buy the attitude. At best, it’s lazy. At worst, corrupt. I don’t have an argument against the basic premise, mind you. The Holy Spirit led me to Catholicism when I was ten, and far be it from me to argue against God. But there’s an unhealthy hubris at work in some of our bishops and pastors, and many believers to think that we deserve to be awash in vocations, donations, and good will.The truth is: we don’t. We are not entirely worthy. God is worthy, and we are God’s instruments and servants.
Take those decisions about musical choices at Mass, for example. All I care about are finding songs that connect with the Scriptures and the liturgy, and that allow people to express their faith and deepen it. I’m the ultimate pragmatist because if plainsong (or any other genre or repertoire choice) doesn’t get it done, then it won’t be used. The music isn’t about my favorites, the assembly’s favorites, or anyone else’s preferences, backed up with documentation or otherwise. Music and song, wonderful and enlightening as they are, are tools. Means to an end. No more.
I think it’s very possible to have strong, principled stands on issues that potentially alienate others. The Church struggles with polygamy in Africa, with abortion in the West, certainly with contraceptives everywhere. The very least one can suggest is to do no harm. Respect women in marriage and religious life, care for women in crisis pregnancies, and support families in word and deed. And some Catholics protest, “We do, we do, we do!” And yet, are simple and earnest suggestions from the laity taken seriously? Not always.
Strong and principled stands don’t get you much airtime on Fox and other mainstream media. But they do earn notice when seekers and inquirers come calling.
So take a stand in the combox here, if you will. In what better and truer efforts should our bishops be leading? And if they’re unwilling to lead, from what efforts should they be getting out of the way?
22 November 2009
Uniformity
Posted by catholicsensibility under Commentary, The Blogosphere[11] Comments
There is a tremendous comfort in uniformity. In the natural realm, it permits enormous flocks of birds or fish to fly or swim in the face of predators. A few get caught. Most get away. The group continues as before.
If one specimen is a little scrawnier and slower than the rest, the eagle or lion or shark will catch up more easily and have a meal. On the other hand, a member might be a little more plump, a little more flashy. That might draw some notice from the chasers.
Catholics are not fish. (Well, some call us sheep, but that’s wool for another post.) We do not profess faith in a “uniform, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” We are one. We are not uniform, nor was it the Lord’s intention that we be so.
Some people on both sides of the ideological divide–mostly conservatives, but not always–suggest uniformity is a good thing for the faith. Everybody should kneel. Every newcomer needs a school year in RCIA. Every Catholic should oppose the CCHD, the president at ND, and support EWTN, santo subito JPII, and the GOP.
I dissent.
We are human beings, not animals. Our survival does not depend on our blogs having the same posts and opinions. Our parishes will not thrive if everyone thinks the same way. Our Church was instituted to reflect the unparalleled creative diversity made by God. In a phrase: we are not fish.
When our political pro-life efforts come to naught, it is time to listen to new ideas from people who don’t think with the pack. When Mass attendance drops below 40%, it’s time to cease repeating the same tired memes and get to work on many fronts: people alienated by cover-up scandals, people who desire more reverence, as well as those offended by sexism.
Put the motto on your bumper sticker: unity does not equal uniformity.
When human beings are unified, they put different talents and approaches together to achieve a goal. A football squad of fifty quarterbacks will lose every game. A Church of all conservatives will wallow and flail. Extremists of any flavor might well prefer the company of like-minded persons. But it’s a lazy, unimaginative, and uninteresting approach to life. This is my main criticism of the blogosphere. It’s one thing for a unitary blogger to offer a drumbeat. When a group blog or an entire community offers the same old stuff, are they being men and women with God-given gifts? Or are they just a school of fish?