Whatever one thinks of the trend labeled "Evangelical Catholicism" by John Allen in "Big Picture at World Youth Day: 'It's the Evangelicals, Stupid!'" (National Catholic Reporter, August 19, 2011), it seems for better or worse to embody the most palpable drift of mainstream "conservative" Catholicism these days. Allen's analysis is quite perceptive at points, as a reader pointed out to me. Definitely worth a read.
Some of you have already noted this trend on Catholic radio programming across the country as well, not to mention traditionalist Christopher Ferrara's blistering critique of EWTN as "a network gone wrong." In any case, the trend appears to be here to stay.
The strengths of the orientation comes from its willingness to tackle the interface between faith and culture, and the broad appeal of its chatty style and presence in Catholic media. Evangelical Catholics love to talk. They talk about Scripture. They talk about doctrines. They offer arguments to defend their doctrines. They share their conversion stories. They love to appear on talk shows. They like "praise" songs, extemporaneous prayers and couldn't tell you the words to the Te Deum to save their lives. The irony is that if you were driving somewhere and not sure of the radio station you were listening to, you might have to listen for awhile to figure out that it was a Catholic station you were listening to, and not an Evangelical Protestant one.
This, in turn, points to a possible weakness of the orientation: it is thoroughly acclimated to contemporary American religious culture, which has been decisively shaped over the past decades and centuries by a mix of Protestant and secular influences, and one sometimes gets the impression that Evangelical Catholics know next to nothing about pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition, except for a few talking points in apologetics. The question that arises then is: How long can Evangelical Catholics sustain their Catholic cultural identity; or, better, what is left of their Catholic cultural identity? What differentiates them from Protestant Evangelicals, besides a few minor liturgical "externals" and some sort of relation to the pope?
[Hat tip to J.M.]
14 comments:
I'd call Ferrara's work more of a screed than a "critique". Like some others, his hatred of the "hierarchy" and his inability to accept that there can in fact be legitimate development really hurts the traditionalist cause. EWTN is modernist heretical trash? Come on.
As far as "evangelical", if it leads people into the Church and is not heretical, why should we fear it? Or is there only ONE type of spirituality in the universal Church? If it bears good fruit, who's to complain?
And Mr. Blosser, let me explain where I am coming from. I suffer from tremendous scrupulosity and despair issues. The writings of certain types of traditionalists do nothing but make me fear going to hell because I am not a traditionalist, and because I look to the Popes, the CCC, EWTN, and my own (traditional but not traditionalist) pastor for guidance. I am very afraid of God, and worry that if I don't accept the most rigorous positions espoused by some ( dancing is a sin, going to the beach is a sin), then my soul is in danger.
Mercury,
I agree that there is abundant material in EWTN and Evangelical Catholicism that can change people's lives and bring one into an experience of His grace. I also agree that traditionalists can sometimes be all-too-negativistic, though you may overstate yourself regarding Ferrara a bit, who has done some OTHER work that is in fact very commendable and insightful.
I also agree that the occasional negativism and sour-puss disposition of some traditionalists hurts their case. But I do think that many traditionalists have a case that is important to hear and understand.
I do think, though, that there's a difficulty with the traditional case, and it is this: it's not something transparent.
Take Christianity in general. It's not something that's transparently true for someone not used to thinking in Christian terms. Take Catholicism. Neither is it something transparently true for someone used to thinking in Evangelical Protestant terms. Well, traditionalism is the most extreme case: it's something that's not the least bit plausible to someone not used to thinking in traditionalist terms. But I assure you there are some very important considerations there.
Psychological-emotional issues are another matter. Even traditionalists understand that you give St. Francis de Sales to someone in your condition rather than another saint's writings who stresses the fear of hell. One can win the heart with honey, as St. Francis de Sales says, better than with something repulsive. On the other hand, I think you will agree that most of us are dying of an overdose of "we're-all-going-to-heaven" indifferentism today than fear of hell, and that, as the writer of the Book of Proverbs says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Kind regards,
Pertinacious
Thank you.
Oh I know all too well that there's not enough emphasis on the actual dangers of sin and it's consequences. Believe me - I know what it means to prefer loss of everything to mortal sin.
I just find that there are lots of peripheral things that saints may have railed on about, and that some traditionalists go on about, that the Church at large seems to let be. For example, reading St. Jean Vianney makes me fear that going to a bar or dancing, even if it's not dirty, will somehow land me in hell. I've seen some traditionalists use the words of the saints to condemn women to hell for wearing pants, swimsuits (per se, not just highly revealing ones), or jogging shorts to go jogging (one guy I read said he makes his daughters wear ankle-length skirts and long sleeves if they want to exercise or play sports of any kind).
Then there are those convinced that only a very tiny tiny tiny percentage of humanity is saved, and they always have their saints' quotes to "prove" it.
You are right about transparency, too. Some people (myself included) grew up in a pretty devout environment, but not traditionalist. It's hard to think the same way traditionalists do. But at the same time, I have to believe that this does not thereby put my soul in dire straits.
Thanks
Assessing what constitutes "good fruit" is no transparent matter either. What may count as "good fruit" to a traditionalist may be appalling to a neo-con Catholic, and vice versa, which isn't to suggest that it's all a matter of relative "taste."
You ask whether there is "only ONE type of spirituality in the universal Church." This depends on what you mean. I would prefer to start with the observation that there are differing gifts and differing personal dispositions among individuals in the Church, while there is only one Church, one baptism, one Lord, and one Truth.
From there, I would go on to acknowledge that in Church tradition one finds different sub-cultures, different liturgies, different apostolates, different traditions of Psalmody, chant, and other music.
The danger here when speaking of "spirituality," however, is that we wed this notion too closely to "personal preferences" or "personal dispositions," and the like, thus subjectivising and relativising it. Even in matters of taste, one can distinguish between a taste for McDonalds-type fast food and a taste for fresh fruits and vegetables. Some may personally PREFER McDonalds, but this doesn't make it healthy, if you see what I mean.
While there is clearly room for different modes of personal experession in religious experience, it's not all subjective and arbitrary. That's all I'm saying.
Mercury,
Something in what you relate reminds me of some rather straight-laced fundamentalist Baptist families I've known in my past. Everything about external behaviors.
There is in Catholicism some sage advice about "custody of the eyes," and such things; but even that attitude is fruitless if detached from the interior relationship with our Lord.
This is hardly the place to pursue the psychology of sanctification and spiritual growth in any depth, though it probably calls for a full post at some point. Still, it seems a lot more headway can be made by praying habitually for the DESIRE to will what God wills, and leave it at that. It's one thing to be informed about what God wills. It's another altogether to sweat the details in such a way that you worry about nothing but the externals. No surer way to a tailspin than that.
God bless,
Pertinacious
Thanks, Mr. Papist. :)
I am truly aware of what you say. As far as custody of the eyes are concerned - it's this expectation of men which is why Christians don't have to dress like Muslims. Men aren't "expected" to leer at women.
Anyway, you're right that it's not the externals that matter. The problem is, how can I have clear conscience? If I dance, for example, I do not think I am doing anything sinfully stimulating - yet in the back of my mind I know St. Jean Vianney thought it was so wrong that he withheld absolution from those who even once in while engaged in it until they repented.
Or I don't see any problem with a woman wearing a (decent) swimsuit at the beach, or sports clothing to go jogging or play soccer, yet I can't help but think "What would Padre Pio think"?
And one can go on and on - most movies we enjoy, novels we enjoy, are all at least in some minor detail at odds with the Faith - and each one of those things is like a barb for me, a fear that if I don;t immediately stop watching or reading then I a sinning, even if I am not in the least enticed to sin.
Everyone says, "first love Jesus with all your heart", but then I look at the standards of some of the saints and I am so afraid.
“For example, reading St. Jean Vianney makes me fear that going to a bar or dancing, even if it's not dirty, will somehow land me in hell.”
What are you worried about most, Mercury, going to hell or being deprived of opportunities to guzzle lime flavored beer and trip the light fantastic?
“I've seen some traditionalists use the words of the saints to condemn women to hell for wearing pants, swimsuits (per se, not just highly revealing ones), or jogging shorts to go jogging (one guy I read said he makes his daughters wear ankle-length skirts and long sleeves if they want to exercise or play sports of any kind).”
What are you worried about most, Mercury, going to hell or being deprived of opportunities to eyeball female flesh?
Behavior is a matter of conscience, but a conscience guided by St John Vianney is nothing to be ashamed, afraid, or depressed about.
As for EWTN, I would say the same thing about a significant portion of its programming as PP said of Catholic radio (keep in mind that Catholic radio stations get much if not most of their programming from EWTN): "if you were driving somewhere and not sure of the radio station you were listening to, you might have to listen for awhile to figure out that it was a Catholic station you were listening to, and not an Evangelical Protestant one." Ferrara is a blunt, analytical fellow who seldom pulls a punch, and who consistently makes valid points that "radio Catholics" are loath to confront. Too bad.
I also have to wonder, Mercury, how many Catholic saints would strike you as "too traditionalist." Perhaps all of them who wrote prior to, say, 1900?
Historically, the saints you are most likely to find "too traditionalist" for your taste (apparently weaned on the pop and candy of EWTN), have usually arisen in periods of extreme corruption, self-indulgence and sin. St Peter Damien would make your hair stand on end -- but God knows we could use more Damiens and Vianneys today, and fewer Fr. Stan Fortunas.
Ralph,
I think Mercury might start by calling you too traditionalist. I hate to even associate your brand of Catholicism with traditionalism because you drive people away from traditionalism with your appalling lack of charity.
I hate to jump in here, but Mercury is so obviously in earnest here, that your comment deserves a response. I will leave any further response to the blog administrators.
Your attack of someone who admits to suffering from scrupulosity is shameful!
--Marc
Mercury (he or she, I am not certain, I will assume the latter) has to be made aware that she cannot choose her Catholicism like freckle-faced kids choose their favorite flavor of ice cream. In for a penny, in for a pound: if you're in for EWTN, you're in for St John Vianney [if this is not true, then the Catholicism of one or the other is suspect]. And after both have been dropped into the crucible, I am willing to bet that much more will remain of the latter than the former.
Is it also an "appalling lack of charity" which makes me suspicious of those who hold up scrupulosity as the latest psychological deformity, and on that basis counsel others to ignore the pangs of conscience and be at ease in the world? Mercury appears to have been listening to someone of this sort. Perhaps she heard him on EWTN. Whatever the case, Mercury does not need others blubbering over her and comforting her like she was a child with a booboo. She needs to be told what she must already know in her heart, that fear of hell is a gift from God, not a psychological problem.
De Sales would be a good choice, PP -- with the television turned off.
Mercury,
If you have a deformed conscience, the actions can still be sinful, but you will not be held as responsible as if you knew the actions to be wrong and did them anyway. Remember that there are 3 conditions for a sin to be mortal:
grave matter (which seems to be evident) sufficient reflection (probably) and full consent of the will (demonstrably not). All three must be met. This isn't to let you (or anyone else) off the hook, but to realize that near occasions for sin may be even more prevalent nowadays than in days past, but that a near occasion of sin (like a temptation) is not, in itself, sinful.
Ralph,
I really appreciate your comments this time. Indeed, there is so much "I'm ok, you're ok" nonsense that I'm glad when I hear a bracing sermon (by a priest) or allocution (by a layman such as yourself) which presents the truth in simple, but not simplistic ways.
Phillip,
Is it perhaps because few people are listening that some traditionalists (I know the type) seem to get lost in the details? I find sometimes that a certain breed of traditionalist sounds almost Protestant when he says "always obey the priest, except when he disagrees with ME", or "that's not how we did it in ....[wherever] when I was little."
God bless,
Chris
Chris, I'm not sure what you mean by the part if your comment addressed to me. What do you mean by "grave matter (which seems to be evident), sufficient reflection (probably), and full consent of the will (probably not)"? None of the things I mentioned are self-evidently a grave matter, nor are they in official church teaching.
Nowhere did I ever indicate that I would do something I know to be a grave matter. A conscience can also be deformed in that one can see grave matter where it does exist, though.
"None of the things I mentioned are self-evidently a grave matter, nor are they in official church teaching.
Nowhere did I ever indicate that I would do something I know to be a grave matter."
In this note you seem quite confident about the state of your conscience. In your earlier note, you seemed to be soliciting sympathy over the plight into which your conscience had thrown by the nefarious
St Jean Vianney and other "traditionalists".
So what is your point, exactly? If you have attained a healthy conscience, as your most recent note certainly implies, we can all breathe a sigh of relief, offer praise to God, and go about our business. If you haven't, is your point that you hold traditionalists responsible? Really??
Cards on the table: it sounds to me like you are fishing for kindred spirits who find traditional Catholicism a nuisance, or perhaps even a threat to something you hold dear, whatever that might be. Traditionalists are used to criticism from such spirits. Certainly, there are plenty of contemporary Catholics who feel the way you do. And I'm quite sure virtually all evangelical protestants feel that way. You haven't really said which camp you fall into, and I'm not going to ask.
Post a Comment