Posted on 09/18/2010 8:26:32 PM PDT by markomalley
One of the key myths of the American Catholic imagination is this: After 200 years of fighting against public prejudice, Catholics finally broke through into America’s mainstream with the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy as president. It’s a happy thought, and not without grounding. Next to America’s broad collection of evangelical churches, baptized Catholics now make up the biggest religious community in the United States. They serve in large numbers in Congress. They have a majority on the Supreme Court. They play commanding roles in the professions and in business leadership. They’ve climbed, at long last, the Mt. Zion of social acceptance.
So goes the tale. What this has actually meant for the direction of American life, however, is another matter. Catholic statistics once seemed impressive. They filled many of us with tribal pride. But they didn’t stop a new and quite alien national landscape, a “next America,” from emerging right under our noses.
While both Barna Group and Pew Research Center data show that Americans remain a broadly Christian people, old religious loyalties are steadily softening. Overall, the number of Americans claiming no religious affiliation, about 16 percent, has doubled since 1990. One quarter of Americans aged 18-29 have no affiliation with any particular religion, and as the Barna Group noted in 2007, they “exhibit a greater degree of criticism toward Christianity than did previous generations when they were at the same stage of life. In fact, in just a decade . . . the Christian image [has] shifted substantially downward, fueled in part by a growing sense of disengagement and disillusionment among young people.”
Catholic losses have been masked by Latino immigration. But while 31 percent of Americans say they were raised in the Catholic faith, fewer than 24 percent of Americans now describe themselves as Catholic.
These facts have weight because, traditionally, religious faith has provided the basis for Americans’ moral consensus. And that moral consensus has informed American social policy and law. What people believe—or don’t believe—about God, helps to shape what they believe about men and women. And what they believe about men and women creates the framework for a nation’s public life.
Or to put it more plainly: In the coming decades Catholics will likely find it harder, not easier, to influence the course of American culture, or even to live their faith authentically. And the big difference between the “next America” and the old one will be that plenty of other committed religious believers may find themselves in the same unpleasant jam as their Catholic cousins.
At first hearing, this scenario might sound implausible; and for good reason. The roots of the American experience are deeply Protestant. They go back a very long way, to well before the nation’s founding. Whatever one thinks of the early Puritan colonists—and Catholics have few reasons to remember them fondly—no reader can study Gov. John Winthrop’s great 1630 homily before embarking for New England without being moved by the zeal and candor of the faith that produced it. In “A model of Christian charity,” he told his fellow colonists:
We are a company professing ourselves fellow members of Christ . . . That which the most in their churches maintain as truth in profession only, we must bring into familiar and constant practice; as in this duty of love, we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must look not only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren . . . We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So we will keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.
Not a bad summary of Christian discipleship, made urgent for Winthrop by the prospect of leading 700 souls on a hard, two-month voyage across the North Atlantic to an equally hard New World. What happened when they got there is a matter of historical record. And different agendas interpret the record differently.
The Puritan habits of hard work, industry and faith branded themselves on the American personality. While Puritan influence later diluted in waves of immigrants from other Protestant traditions, it clearly helped shape the political beliefs of John Adams and many of the other American Founders. Adams and his colleagues were men who, as Daniel Boorstin once suggested, had minds that were a “miscellany and a museum;” men who could blend the old and the new, an earnest Christian faith and Enlightenment ideas, without destroying either.
But beginning in the nineteenth century, riding a crest of scientific and industrial change, a different view of the Puritans began to emerge. In the language of their critics, the Puritans were seen as intolerant, sexually repressed, narrow-minded witch-hunters who masked material greed with a veneer of Calvinist virtue. Cast as religious fanatics, the Puritans stood accused of planting the seed of nationalist messianism by portraying America as a New Jerusalem, a “city upon a hill” (from Winthrop’s homily), with a globally redemptive mission. H.L. Mencken—equally skilled as a writer, humorist and anti-religious bigot—famously described the Puritan as a man “with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
In recent years, scholars like Christian Smith have shown how the intellectual weakness and fierce internal divisions of America’s Protestant establishment allowed “the secularization of modern public life as a kind of political revolution.” Carried out mainly between 1870 and 1930, this “rebel insurgency consisted of waves of networks of activists who were largely skeptical, freethinking, agnostic, atheist or theologically liberal; who were well educated and socially located mainly in the knowledge-production occupations, and who generally espoused materialism, naturalism, positivism and the privatization or extinction of religion.”
This insurgency could be ignored, or at least contained, for a long time. Why? Because America’s social consensus supported the country’s unofficial Christian assumptions, traditions and religion-friendly habits of thought and behavior. But law—even a constitutional guarantee—is only as strong as the popular belief that sustains it. That traditional consensus is now much weakened. Seventy years of soft atheism trickling down in a steady catechesis from our universities, social-science “helping professions,” and entertainment and news media, have eroded it.
Obviously many faith-friendly exceptions exist in each of these professional fields. And other culprits, not listed above, may also be responsible for our predicament. The late Christopher Lasch argued that modern consumer capitalism breeds and needs a “culture of narcissism”—i.e., a citizenry of weak, self-absorbed, needy personalities—in order to sustain itself. Christian Smith put it somewhat differently when he wrote that, in modern capitalism, labor “is mobile as needed, consumers purchase what is promoted, workers perform as demanded, managers execute as expected—and profits flow. And what the Torah, or the Pope, or Jesus may say in opposition is not relevant, because those are private matters” [emphasis in original].
My point here is neither to defend nor criticize our economic system. Others are much better equipped to do that than I am. My point is that “I shop, therefore I am” is not a good premise for life in a democratic society like the United States. Our country depends for its survival on an engaged, literate electorate gathered around commonly held ideals. But the practical, pastoral reality facing the Gospel in America today is a human landscape shaped by advertising, an industry Pascal Bruckner described so well as a “smiling form of sorcery”:
The buyer’s fantastic freedom of choice supposedly encourages each of us to take ourselves in hand, to be responsible, to diversify our conduct and our tastes; and most important, supposedly protects us forever from fanaticism and from being taken in. In other words, four centuries of emancipation from dogmas, gods and tyrants has led to nothing more nor less than to the marvelous possibility of choosing between several brands of dish detergent, TV channels or styles of jeans. Pushing our cart down the aisle in a supermarket or frantically wielding our remote control, these are supposed to be ways of consciously working for harmony and democracy. One could hardly come up with a more masterful misinterpretation: for we consume in order to stop being individuals and citizens; rather, to escape for a moment from the heavy burden of having to make fundamental choices.
Now, where do Catholics fit into this story?
The same Puritan worldview that informed John Winthrop’s homily so movingly, also reviled “Popery,” Catholic ritual and lingering “Romish” influences in England’s established Anglican Church. The Catholic Church was widely seen as Revelation’s Whore of Babylon. Time passed, and the American religious landscape became more diverse. But the nation’s many different Protestant sects shared a common, foreign ogre in their perceptions of the Holy See—perceptions made worse by Rome’s distrust of democracy and religious liberty. As a result, Catholics in America faced harsh Protestant discrimination throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. This included occasional riots and even physical attacks on convents, churches and seminaries. Such is the history that made John F. Kennedy’s success seem so liberating.
The irony is that mainline American Protestantism had used up much of its moral and intellectual power by 1960. Secularizers had already crushed it in the war for the cultural high ground. In effect, after so many decades of struggle, Catholics arrived on America’s center stage just as management of the theater had changed hands -- with the new owners even less friendly, but far shrewder and much more ambitious in their social and political goals, than the old ones. Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, despite their many differences, share far more than divides them, beginning with Jesus Christ himself. They also share with Jews a belief in the God of Israel and a reverence for God’s Word in the Old Testament. But the gulf between belief and unbelief, or belief and disinterest, is vastly wider.
In the years since Kennedy’s election, Vatican II and the cultural upheavals of the 1960s, two generations of citizens have grown to maturity. The world is a different place. America is a different place—and in some ways, a far more troubling one. We can’t change history, though we need to remember and understand it. But we can only blame outside factors for our present realities up to a point. As Catholics, like so many other American Christians, we have too often made our country what it is through our appetite for success, our self-delusion, our eagerness to fit in, our vanity, our compromises, our self-absorption and our tepid faith.
If government now pressures religious entities out of the public square, or promotes same-sex “marriage,” or acts in ways that undermine the integrity of the family, or compromises the sanctity of human life, or overrides the will of voters, or discourages certain forms of religious teaching as “hate speech,” or interferes with individual and communal rights of conscience—well, why not? In the name of tolerance and pluralism, we have forgotten why and how we began as nation; and we have undermined our ability to ground our arguments in anything higher than our own sectarian opinions.
The “next America” has been in its chrysalis a long time. Whether people will be happy when it fully emerges remains to be seen. But the future is not predestined. We create it with our choices. And the most important choice we can make is both terribly simple and terribly hard: to actually live what the Church teaches, to win the hearts of others by our witness, and to renew the soul of our country with the courage of our own Christian faith and integrity. There is no more revolutionary act.
Charles J. Chaput is the archbishop of Denver.
“Barbarity is absence of laws against murder and theft and lack of interest in civic virtue, religion and arts. We in America have abortion legalized, have divorce and homosexuality normalized, think that religion is a private affair, and have “piss Christ” for art. We are barbarians.”
I see your problem. You are unable to separate good individuals from a collective that contains some bad. You are able to separate Protestants (bad) from Catholics (good) in your mind - but are unable to perceive the goodness from individuals (and groups) within Protestantism. How sad.
We’re not in the Old Testament - No more divine collective condemnation, and there will be no collective salvation - simply for being Catholic, or some other religion.
As Americans - that collective means individual liberties and the pursuit of individual happiness, per our founding fathers.
The existence of barbarians among us does not make us all barbarians. To the extent that we don’t want the barbarians among us to prosper we need to show the collective political will to make the changes that will make America a better, more moral place. If you are making that point, I can somewhat agree with you.
But to somehow come to the conclusion that civilization is more barbarous now than it has ever been throughout the history of mankind is folly. To think that a single church and forcing that single dogma upon everyone (and that is the only way to do it - force as Islam knows so well “baptism by blade”) will fix things is to return to a much more barbarous time.
Our founding fathers knew that if political power were consolidated with religious power (as it was for most of Christian history) that we would get the egregious irreconcilable corruption of both politics and religion that we had that spurred the Protestant Reformation.
How can you make some of the charges that we somehow are barbarians as Americans when there is so much good that we exhibit as people - so much human suffering alleviated, so much charity, so much sacrifice for our brother man and so rich and varied a religious landscape that honors God?
You sir, cannot see the good. Because of that you have become the barbarian that you fear for the rest of America.
America is not and will never be a barbarous nation, nor will it ever be exclusively Catholic - or any other religion. If that change came to pass (exclusive religion) it would bring an end to both America and world civilization.
Prosperity is not a good, unless it is given away and Christ is followed instead (Luke 18:22). Nowehere in the Gospel do you find "increase" or "abundance" refer to material goods approvingly. In 2 Corinthians 3:15 it is grace that abounds, not "tangible good".
You are a Protestant. Therefore you read one thing and think another, and believe the liars that lead you so much you even think your quotes support your delusions.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps they just don't want to turn a friendly or family gathering into an FR religion thread? ;-)
I own some things, yes, and I use them to the Glory of God the best I know how. If I have anything of excess, I give it away.
Since Protestantism is designed to cater to human defects, it is to be expected that where greed abouds, Protestantism abounds as well. It was, after all invented to please the merchant class.
Ah, OK. Of course not. You asked about the essential criteria and I gave them to you. West Europe is not far behind, and there is much good in America and among individual Europeans and Americans. But the direction of our culture is toward barbarity. The pro-abort laws and the culture of death are a fact of life in America. If the Tea Party and the Pro-Life movement get anywhere during the rest of the current presidency, that would be welcome news, because that is about the last chance we as a nation get to redeem ourselves. If not -- we'll have to be chastised further before we turn to the light.
I did not predict that America will be exclusively Catholic. There is always error that needs to be dealt with charitably. I did predict that if America is to avoid a fall into barbarity it is to do what the Catholic Church teaches: respect life, stop prosperity worship, bring Christ into the public square.
“Since Protestantism is designed to cater to human defects, it is to be expected that where greed abouds, Protestantism abounds as well. It was, after all invented to please the merchant class.”
Who taught you that? You know they left out a few things, don’t you? At first I thought you actually believed this garbage. Now it’s clear you are just stirring the pot. I can appreciate that.
Protestantism came to be because of the corrupt human manifestation of a perfect Church founded by Christ. If you think for a moment that the Catholic Church does not cater to human defects, it must be because you haven’t needed the sacrament of Confession, or the Eucharist. You may well be the second coming in that case - have you thought about that?
As to the merchant class...The Catholic church has been in the business of salvation - and has materially prospered from it. They now object that they no longer have an exclusive franchise - and now try to emphasize a qualitative advantage of a Catholic-branded salvation.
This is all well and good for those that choose it.
I sure hope you’re not operating under the delusion that that is a mindset unique to Catholicism, because it’s not.
It’s not one that I’ve run into for all the hundreds of Catholics from various backgrounds and communities who I have worked and lived with.
And it is one that I’ve met plenty of Protestant and Evangelicals express and preach and teach on.
That’s the belief and practice of the mm family.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You wrote:
“What might the difference be?”
You don’t see the difference between a divine Person and a feeling? THE Spirit is the Holy Spirit. The word spirit can also mean a part of a person. The word “spiritual” has a wide range of meanings nowadays. It can even mean just a feeling or sentiment. You don’t see a wide difference between those things? If you can’t, then you are seriously missing the obvious.
“A spiritual presence is the real presence in this age.”
No. THE Real Presence is the real presence in this age.
“He said that he would send the spirit, not a package from the celestial butcher shop!”
The Spirit He sent is the Holy Ghost. He gives of Himself in the Eucharist.
“You sound just like the nutty unbelievers that try to ‘debate’ Bob Dutco on his radio program!”
I have no idea who that is and you might want to reconsider how you spend your free time. What I sound like is an orthodox Christian. I sound just like all the orthodox Christians of the last 2,000 years.
You wrote:
“Ahhh...well now that clears things up.”
It does. That’s why you can’t refute it.
“The flag is a symbol of the country, not the country its self. That’s what symbols are. Just as the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s flesh and blood not the actual flesh and blood.”
Except Christ said it was His flesh and blood. You seem to ignore God’s own words. We don’t.
“How you connect Mal 1:11 with the last supper is unclear.”
No, it is perfectly clear to those who have eyes to see (that leaves Protestant Christ-deniers out of course):
1) “among the Gentiles” - most Christians are Gentiles by birth, not Jews.
2) “and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering” - we offer incense and the Eucharist (a pure offering since nothing is more pure than Christ).
“Offering OR taking of the bread and wine is not the sacrifice. That was done once and therefore as Paul said at Hebrews 10:18,”
The same once-and-for-all sacrifice is re-presented in the Mass. It’s called the Eucharist.
“No “re-presentation” needed, no more offering, the sacrifice has been made once and need not be reoffered.”
It is re-presented in heaven. It is, in fact, always presented in heaven. It is so on earth as well. It is God’s gift of communion with man.
“That’s what the Scriptures make clear.”
No, actually what I posted is what is made clear by scripture. Protestants only distort scripture to satisfy their subjectivism.
You missed the part that says that we are saved not by faith alone, but by grace alone through faith and good works (James 2:17-26, Matthew 25:31-46, Eph. 2:4-10).
1. Rome has not infallibly defined James 2:17-26, so how can you REALLY know what it means?
2. James is talking about the KIND of faith one has. 14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
3. Matt 25:31-46. Just as in the case of Saul of Tarsus his persecution of the church amounted to his persecution of Christ (Acts 22:7), so, in all ages, the treatment of the Lord's followers shall be the basis of determining one's relationship to their Head, which is Christ. What is done to Christ's followers is done to him. What is done to his church is done to him. Those who think they find in these words of Jesus an excuse for making Christianity a mere matter of social charity, should look again. It is not the treatment of all the wretched and unfortunate of earth that shall make up the burden of the Christian's duty (though that must be allowed as desirable), but the treatment of "these my brethren,"
4. What is so difficult in understanding Eph 2:8-10?
eph 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
We are created/saved to do Good works, NOT TO BE Saved, but out of Love and obedience to the one what has rescued us.
You also missed that belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is necessary for salvation (John 6:41ff, 1 Cor. 11:27-29).
John 4:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
clearly, eating and drinking is a metaphor for believing.
John 6:53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Do you believe that anyone/everyone who recieves the RC Eucharist HAS eternal life? Why not?
The "literal" meaning indicates they HAVE, are in possesion of Eternal Life, not that they might be or have a chance to have eternal life.
You missed that the Church and not the scripture alone is the rule of faith (Matthew 18:18, Acts 20:28, 2 Thess. 2:14).
Matt 18:18. The context is "If your brother sins against you", ..tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. This is hardly speaking of extra biblical beliefs.
Acts 20:28. Being good shepherds of the flock does not relate has little to do with the rule of Faith or doctrine.
2 Thes 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. Care to list the substance of what was passed on by word of mouth?
Certainly, there are many Catholics who are saved, inspite of the official doctrine of Rome. They believe their Bibles and take the Lord’s words to heart.
It is not mysterious at all.. I know when I am in the fellowship of Christians, because we can NOT talk about God.
" Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks "
The anecdotal evidence for one’s faith is verbal excess apparently.
LOL, When I was Catholic they never talked about Christ, if religion came up at all it was to brag that "father so and so" came to dinner" or the party at the "knights" , or what mass they went to . I never then or now heard a discussion on Christ, or scripture . What I do hear is often blasphemy in the form of "Jesus ,Mary , Joseph" in exasperation or "GD"
And these are people that go to "daily mass " or are Eucharist ministers ... no respect for the name or work of Christ..
That says so much about their spiritual condition
Thank you for that admission so that we can see even more clearly that Rome has always waged war on the middle class.
Elitists always do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.