http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-catholic-showdown-worth-watching/
This is a difficult article so you will have to employ your skills in close reading. You may also need to do some digging to ensure your understanding of the piece. Look up any people or words with which you are not familiar. Once you feel you grasp the meaning behind the article, write about the two "different sides" of Catholicism. Do you agree with the author's assessment of American Catholics? With which side to you most associate yourself and or your family? Perhaps you are still following blindly, but this offers a lot of room for thought and lively debate! Do not be afraid to give your fellow students a challenging comment, and do not shy away from refuting any comments you believe deserve refuting!
Good Luck!
FYI Mr. MacDonald will be joining our conversation on this one. Do not be surprised if you see a comment from him.
It is in the nature of humans to be curious. It is curiosity that leads humans ever forward in the constant pursuit of knowledge. But of all the areas of study, human nature itself is what intrigues us the most. And of the various studies of our cultures, religion is one of the most mind-boggling. How is it that so many people can believe in such a diversity of "truths"? How is it that they all believe their faith is the one true faith? But even within a faith itself, there are still disagreements on what is true and what is fabricated by man.
ReplyDeleteReading "A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" by Patrick J. Deneen was, to say the least, an experience. Maybe it was the different levels of intelligence between the writer and I, but I found it very hard to follow. In fact, I needed to read it several times to get an idea of what he meant. Even now, I think it would be unwise to say I have completely grasped his piece, I do not own it. However, there were a few things that a high school junior like me was still able to pick up on. Firstly, Deneen says there are "two sides" to the Catholic faith when, in reality, he names three. These three side are liberal Catholicism, conservative Catholicism, and radical Catholicism.
Deneen is quick to dismiss liberal Catholicism, which he believes "is doomed to oblivion". He mentions that children of liberal Catholics will either get rid of the faith completely or become conservative Catholics to "rebel" against their parents. As a child of people whom I would consider liberal Catholics, I disagree. I would also consider myself a liberal Catholic, and I do not see liberal Catholicism going anywhere. There is a relatively simple reason for that. Liberal Catholicism, also referred to as "cafeteria Catholicism", will always be sought by those who do not agree with everything the Church dictates, and there will always be those who want to pick and choose what parts of a religion they believe in, much like a lunch line.
On the other hand, Deneen is of the mind that conservative Catholicism is the future of our faith. He continues to split the group further, dividing them into simple conservatives and radicals. The conservatives simply believe in the faith and that the Church is infallible. Unlike liberals, they accept all parts of the Catholic faith as the Church decrees it. Radicals on the other hand believe that the nation is not founded on Catholic principles. They view America as a "flawed project" and want to either create small ethical communities, the Benedict Option, or convert the entire nation. There is no way of knowing whether this could actually happen or the repercussion if it should, but the idea sounds strikingly similar to Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale".
It is interesting to consider that the author mentions near the opening that people need to stop using political terms. Throughout the piece, these three political terms and several others litter the pages. While I do not agree with what Deneen had to say I did find it interesting, as I always do, hearing another person's opinion. Maybe Deneen is right and I am wrong. Maybe I misunderstood the piece entirely. Or maybe, just maybe, there is no "right" answer. When it comes to us humans and our beliefs, there rarely is.
Megs, I also noticed that he sort of dismissed liberal Catholicism rather quickly. I was really disappointed because I think that I believe in liberal Catholicism. I very much enjoyed how you also picked out the three different sides. I was not quite sure about them myself, but reading what you wrote really helped me understand better. Excellent work!
DeleteMeaghan, I thought you did an excellent blog, as always! I wish I would have read your blog before I posted mine because I think you understand a lot of what Deneen was saying. I enjoyed your comments about the three different forms of Catholicism also. Great work, Meaghan!
DeleteGreat job Meaghan! I always enjoy reading your blogs because they are always original, and you see things that I often miss when reading the article. Your observation of the three different types of Catholicism was definitely interesting. I also disagree with his dismissal of liberal Catholics. Overall, great work!
DeleteWay to go Meaghan! I think you did a nice job figuring out what this meant and trying to apply it to your values. That is what I wanted you to do. It is always very brave to go first! Excellent!
ReplyDeleteWhile growing up, I used to think that everyone int he world was Catholic. We all had one Church, like beliefs, and the same God. Because of this idea that the world all had ken religion, you can only imagine how surprised I was to discover that their are people that are not Catholics. Once I found this out, I was fascinated and wanted to learn more about not just those other religions, but also what it really meant to be Catholic.
ReplyDeleteI was in middle school when it really hit me that not everyone that is Catholic is the same and believes in the same things. For example, not every Catholic person goes to church on a weekly basis. Reading "A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" by Patrick J. Deneen was difficult for me. I found some paragraphs easy to comprehend while others were much more complex. I also found it hard to follow at times because of how Deneen dismissed main points such as liberal Catholicism.
My family and the environment in which I grew up in was strongly full of radical Catholicism. My family was always big to support marriages and the importance of the sacrament before things happen that society tells us are okay, that really are not. My family was also big into being pro-life. I was raised to believe that abortion is incredibly wrong, just as the church teaches. I know realize that in my life today as a young adult, that I follow liberal Catholicism. I do not believe that liberal Catholicism is "doomed to oblivion" because there will always be someone that does not completely agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches.
I have to go against Deneen when he said that conservative Catholicism is the future of our religion. The main part of this that I had a problem with, was how he stated that that Catholic Church is infallible. No one is perfect, aside from God, and because of this, everyone makes mistakes. Since the Catholic Church follows the leadership of the Pope, there is a possibility of mistakes or wrong choices.
Even though I did not really agree with what Patrick Deneen was saying throughout the piece, I respect everything he had to say and admire his opinions. The more times I read through the piece, I found myself more and more in the outside circle of a seminar. I felt as if he was trying to persuade the others in the inner circle while I was stuck unable to interject with my opinion. Just because I do not agree with Deneen's ideas does not mean they are wrong. There are never any right or wrong answer when it comes to opinions about a particular topic.
Jess, I'll start off with saying congratulations for understanding the essay, at least partially. It seems like our opinions are very similar if not identical. To add on to your point about the pope, in our theology textbook it says that once a man becomes the pope he receives graces from god that make him, as you said, infallible and such. This bothered me because even if he is the pope he is still human; he did not suddenly become a god. As such, like the rest of us humans, he is prone to making mistakes. Once again fantastic job. Keep up the good work!
DeleteJessica, I really enjoyed your strong opinion about this article. It takes a lot of moxy and guts to go outright and disagree with an article. However, I question how you can consider yourself a "Liberal Catholic", yet you are still "pro-life". You also say that you support marriage and "the importance of the sacrament before things happen that society tells us are okay", which I can only assume you are talking about birth control and pre-marital sex. So if you so strongly believe in such things, then in turn you would not be considered a "Liberal Catholic". You actually believe the exact opposite of “Liberal Catholics”, unless I am completely wrong about what “Liberal Catholics” believe. So I guess in a nutshell, I am just questioning the premise of what you consider a "Liberal Catholic". Otherwise, I really respect your opinion and I am glad you showed so much passion for the topic.
DeleteNice job Jessica!
Ian, just a reply on my take of liberal Catholicism: I thought that liberal Catholics believed in most of what the Catholic Church teaches, but not all. I could easily be mistaken, but that was just what I got out of the article.
DeleteJess, I am also a liberal Catholic and I understand how you can believe in many parts of the Church, but completely disagree with other parts. I love how you brought in our seminars, that was really neat! I'm really glad that you were not afraid to go against the essay, that took guts! Great job!
DeleteThe article, "A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" by Patrick Deneen, was definitely a challenging but interesting read. I had to read it several times, and look up a few words to grasp a little understanding of the article. However, I am still not sure that I fully grasped everything that the article had to offer.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentioned that there are two different kinds of Catholics, liberal and conservative. The first time I read through the article, I found it confusing with how Deneen mixed in political terms with religion. The liberal Catholics are Republicans, and the conservative Catholics are Democrats. I never realized or thought that Catholics were split like that. I always thought that politics and religion ever combined; I always thought they would stay separate.
Patrick Deneen said liberalism is contrary to the basic beliefs of Catholicism, and that America was found as a liberal nation. This means that America was found upon Republicans.
Deneen also implied that the future of American lies in conservative Catholicism. To be honest, I think I have to disagree with this. Conservative Catholicism is a democratic government, and I am not in favor of Democrats. The article also states that Pope Francis is viewed more as a Democrat, and that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI are republicans. I do not disagree with anything that Pope Francis has to say or offer just because he is viewed as Democrat. I just do not think that Democratic Catholicism is or should be the future of America.
Overall, this article was neat to read, and gave an interesting view on Catholicism, one that I never ever considered or thought of.
Tori, I definitely agree that the article was an interesting read, and never fear. You were not the only one stumped by this piece. I think what you said about bringing politics into it was a very important point. It's made more interesting by the fact that he says not to bring politics into it, contracting himself from the get go. From what I gather, our opinions differ slightly, but that is to be expected. No person thinks in exactly the same way, and so no opinion will be exactly the same. Great job on being one of the first people to post and fantastic blog!
DeleteTori, I like how you still mentioned a lot of the political things that he talked about. I wasn't white sure what he meant when he mentioned politics because religions and politics are normally separate. It was very nice how you mentioned that just because Pope Francis is a democrat doesn't mean that he is wrong and one should not agree with him. Good job!
DeleteFirst of all, thank you for inviting me to participate in this forum. I hope to add something productive. But no promises.
ReplyDeleteThis is a challenging selection in more than one way. It challenges a lot of what we assume it means to be “Catholic.” ECC presumes to be a Catholic school. To teach the faith requires us to know what it is, but it would appear that there is no real consensus. That strikes me as odd. We can agree on the fact that this fellow named Jesus was alive about 2000 years ago, that he was the son of God, that he died and rose from the dead three days later. We agree that his mother was assumed into the heavens, body and spirit. But we can’t agree on seemingly simple matters such as what this all means for, say, foreign policy. Why? If Catholicism is supposed to guide us, shouldn’t these things be obvious? At least for really smart people?
This is where I think Deneen might go off the rails a bit: “Liberal Catholicism, while well-represented in elite circles of the Democratic Party, qua Catholicism is finished.”
Ok. But can’t the same be said for his versions of conservative Catholicism? It’s well represented in elite circles of thinkers and academics, maybe, and it fills lots of pages of journals, but does anybody really think of Catholicism in this way? Go to church this Sunday. Ask the holiest lady in the front row who any of the people mentioned in the article are. You think she will know them? I bet you $100 she won’t.
Does that make her a bad Catholic? In a way, maybe it does. I analyze things a lot. I think about my faith. That’s great. I encourage you to do the same. But is that the only way to believe? My grandfather was not an educated man in the modern sense. He immigrated here from Italy. He didn’t read a lot of books. Or journals about Catholicism. He is what we now call a “cradle Catholic.” He was born to the faith. He adhered to it. He did not question it. Yet I would submit openly that he was at LEAST as good a Catholic as I am. Probably better.
I get the sense that the real “divide” in Catholicism is right there: people who think their faith versus people who feel it. People who analyze it and people who experience it. So then… what? If it’s true that it’s OK not to overthink it… why Catholic education? Is there some basic set of facts you need to know to be Catholic? A set of beliefs? Or do you just have to enjoy the smells and bells?
I would submit that the vast majority of people you know who are Catholic are more like my grandfather than like Deneen. But of course, my grandfather didn’t have a choice, really. You do. So. What? Read up on this stuff? Use it as a guide to your politics? Should your faith dictate your views on the war in Iraq? Why not? It dictates your views on abortion. Or at least it tries to.
In other words, Deneen might be on to something really important here. Or maybe he's right or wrong but it doesn't matter. Whatever you think about it, it seems to me like your answer has pretty profound implications for how you live your own life as a Catholic.
OK. Enough. I am posing more questions than answers. PS: Sorry I am posting as anonymous. Glitch. This is Sam MacDonald.
Mr. MacDonald,
DeleteWelcome to our blog! I hope you are having a good time discussing with us. First of all I just wanted to say I really enjoyed your opening paragraph. I enjoyed how you brought ECC into the conversation. I also like how you used the word "fellow" for Jesus. You did pose many questions, but I thought everyone one of them was interesting to think about; especially the question about "Is there a basic set of facts you need to know to be Catholic?" I am a very Catholic person, but I agree with you I wouldn't know who half of the people in this article were either. The Catholic life is tricky and we are left with many unanswered questions. Thanks for blogging! I hope you can join us again sometime!
Mr. MacDonald,
DeleteThank you for joining our conversation! You had some very interesting points, some of which I never even considered. You stated at the end, "I am posing more questions than answers." That may be true, but I certainly thought a lot harder when I had to reflect on my own life as a Catholic. My favorite part about your post was that you included your grandfather. It made the entire article easier to understand after you told a relatable story. I also thought it was interesting to hear that not every Catholic is the same. Who's faith is better? There really isn't an answer to that.
I hope you join us next weekend, too!
The first word that came to my mind after reading this article was "Wow!" Patrick Deneen's "A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" was a very complex but interesting perspective on the religion of Catholics. Even after reading this piece several times, I do not think I comprehended most of what Deneen was trying to say. But there were a couple things i was able to take out of this article.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I grew up in a very Catholic family living in a very Catholic town. However, I knew that not everyone in the world shared the same beliefs as my friends, my family, and me. I knew that not everyone was Catholic, but after reading this article I wonder about the different kinds of Catholics. Deneen pointed out two major types: liberal, or Democratic, and conservative, or Republican.
Patrick Deneen brought two people into the article that I respect and look up to very much, Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. Deneen was referring to Pope Francis as the "liberal or Democratic" and Pope John Paul II as the "conservative or Republic". To me, when you compare Republics and Democrats you are comparing completely opposite ideas around the same topic. However, I don't not think there is much difference between the two popes. I believe that both men are followers of God and great examples to how Catholics should live. Personally I found this comparison offensive, that might just be me though.
Deneen also begins to talk about the future of Catholicism. He says that liberal Catholicism is going to die and that conservative Catholicism will be the future. I would agree that my family is more conservative when it comes to our faith and its traditions. However, we are open to knew things and changing with the Church as need so I would say we are accepting to liberal Catholicism too. So as for the liberal Catholicism "dying" I strongly disagree. I think that both forms of Catholicism should and will continue to live on.
Overall, I think that Patrick Deneen's was complicated to understand, but he had some interesting theories. They just so happen to be theories I disagree with. I hope to further discuss the article and see what everyone else though about it. Like I said, it was very complex and I'm not sure I fully understood what Deneen was completely saying.
Jolene, I feel that I went in a very different direction with you on my opinion of whether the liberal Catholicism was going to die out. As I said in my blog I believe it already has and conservative Catholicism has begun to take over. Your opinion was very interesting to read though and I believe will help me have a deeper understanding of the essay. Really good job Jolene!
DeleteJolene, I would have to disagree with how you interpreted the references to Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. I think Deneen was trying to make a point about how different they both are. Pope John Paul was very traditional in his approach to being the head of the Church while Pope Francis is very modern. He is open to hearing the beliefs of the people he is the head of and tries to make the faith more approachable for those that feel they are unwelcomed into the faith. Pope Francis has clarified many doctrines which have been debated for years (such as being gay) and is doing his job by carrying the faith into a modern age of existence. He is updating the Church to be applicable in today's culture. I will agree both are wonderful examples of what it means to be a follower of Christ but each has their own way of expressing himself. I do not feel Deneen was condemning Pope John Paul and Pope Francis just classifying them to make his point more clear to his audience.
DeleteWhile I was growing up, everyone was catholic. Everyone confessed their sins. Everyone prayed before meals and before bed. Everyone believed in God. I didn't even know it was possible to think otherwise! I still remember when this little belief of mine was shattered. I found out my uncle was an atheist. What did this mean? How do you just not believe in God? I realized there was more out in the world opposed to what I grew up with.
ReplyDeleteI learned so many things that continue to blow my mind to this very day, never ceasing to amaze me. I've learned of so many different things from conflicting beliefs, to the lack of beliefs all together. Even now, I'm still learning more about my own religion too! This article alone, wow. I can't count the number of times I've read it, and I still feel like I could read it ten more times purely because I want to be able to fully grasp it. Wow.
In the article two different types of Catholicism. At first, I thought I knew exactly what the article would be about. I was expecting the two different types of Catholicism to be the Catholics who don't really follow the religion versus the ones who are very strict about Catholicism. I was caught off guard finding out that the two types of Catholicism were actually liberal and conservative. I was extremely confused. I didn't understand why religion and government were being mixed in this article. Aren't you supposed to keep those two separate?
Like I said earlier, I've read that article more times that I can even count. As many times as I've read and analyzed it, I'm not sure I agree with it. If we are going to separate Catholicism into different parts, why stop at 2? Let's keep going! I can think of so many different Catholics out there, so let's just add onto the list! There are some Catholics who feel as if God owes them. Some Catholics don't even follow the religion at all! Everyone has their own unique connection with God, meaning that everyone will worship and participate in their faith differently. Each and every single person will be different. So what does that mean? Does this mean that we are all in our own little category of Catholicism?
Maybe I just didn't read into the article enough. Maybe I read into the article too much! Maybe I'm overthinking things. (That's what AP Lang has done to me! I over analyze everything!) all I could think of while reading the article, was why complicate things? If you have a good thing, a good relationship with God, why go and find the need to label it and go so far into depth with it? When you start labeling things, it can get out of hand so easily. I'm happy with my relationship with God, and that's really all I need.
Felicia, I completely agree with you. I was slightly confused, too, on the idea that religion and government issues were mixing. I think we all live a sheltered life, growing up in a great community with nearly everyone attending Mass on the weekends. It is crazy to think that other places are not like that. I felt the same way as you did, every Catholic has his or her own relationship with God. I am extremely happy with my relationship, even though Deneen considers me a liberal. It just amazed me that he put labels on people and categorized them, especially with politics. Nice post, Felicia!
Delete“A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching” by Patrick J. Deenan was definitely a hard read. While I may have not grasped everything, I hoped to have learned something.
ReplyDeleteThe ideas proposed by Patrick J. Deneen in “A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching”, seem to provoke more of a political debate than a religious debate, but I am prepared to defend my political views just as much as my religious views.
I feel that I may be the in the few when I say that I completely agree with Deenan when he says, “Liberal Catholicism, while well-represented in elite circles of the Democratic Party, qua Catholicism is finished.” Let me explain. Liberal Catholics, by definition curtsey of Merriam-Webster, are people who reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church in specific matters of doctrine, discipline, or church government but accept the body of its teachings or its forms of worship. To be more specific, Liberal Catholics defy the strictly uniform, male priesthood and argue against the Church’s strict teaching against birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. I question how one can say that they are pro choice, but still consider themselves “Catholic”. It would seem to me that such liberal thoughts about Catholicism would lead unto more liberal thoughts, thus compromising the integrity of one’s religion to the point where there is no religion at all. So in other words, a person may become a Liberal Catholic but the question remains for how long will they stand firm in their beliefs. In my opinion, if you cannot stand up for all that the Church teaches, then how can you stand up at all. It is like saying, “I am on this boat, but I am going to put one leg in the water and wear my life jacket because I may want to jump ship soon.” Furthermore, belief in God, or any “universal spirit” for that matter, drops among liberals. According to a Gallup poll in May 2011 (citation provided below), belief in God or a universal spirit drops to 85%, down from the 98% among conservatives. So I guess what I am trying to say and what Deenan is trying to say is that Liberal Catholics are going to end up taking one side or the other. They are either going to abandon their religion and believe in something else, or they will return to the roots of Catholicism, which many have deemed as “Conservative Catholicism”.
In considerations to my family and I, I believe we are rooted in a “conservative” Catholic belief. My family is pro life and defends marriage. I guess if we are talking about political views as well, my family is Republican and conservative. I do not wane in these beliefs at all and feel strongly for them. However, I do not condemn anyone who believes opposite of me, I like when people have strong beliefs because I believe from principle stems great thinking. Strong beliefs also make for good arguing!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx
Ian, I am also one of the people that agreed with the ideas that Deneen talked about in his essay. Your defenition of liberal Catholicism really made your argument stronger and I think your whole blog was very well done. Great work.
DeleteIan, I agree with the side that you chose in this debate over liberal and conservative Catholics. I definitely thought that the article was tough to read, which may be a good thing from a debate standpoint. As Austin stated, your definition of Liberal Catholicism truly backed up what your belief was on the topic. I also thought it was good that you used a few statistics. Great work!
DeleteIan, although I don't agree with your opinion, I thought you did a great job of backing it up with evidence. I also agree that the article was difficult to understand. I do disagree about how you think liberals with eventually take a side. I have a firm belief that people can merge their thoughts together to stick to both.
DeleteOverall, nice work!
The article "A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" was one of the most difficult articles to understand that I have read in a long time. I had to read it several times before I could understand what Patrick Deneen was trying to get his audience to understand. I believe now I have at least a little bit of an idea of what Deneen was discussing.
ReplyDeleteFor all of my life I have been Catholic. Everyone around me has been Catholic. I live in a very Catholic town. I go to a Catholic school. Nearly my whole family is Catholic, so I do not know much else. I have seen many people become almost "obsessed" with the faith and people who have been driven away from it, and know really do not believe in it at all. I mean I always knew there were many religions and even atheists, but until reading Deneen's article I really never thought about the different types of Catholics.
I personally found Deneen's explanation of republican and democratic Catholic sides of the religion interesting. I also found myself agreeing with his examples of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI being republican Popes, and Pope Francis being more of a democratic Pope. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict were more conservative with their actions and were less outspoken than Pope Francis is. Pope Francis seems to like putting his ideas in bold print with his picture for everyone to see, which is for sure a more liberal side of Catholicism.
When I think of conservative Catholicism, I think of the little old lady who goes to mass early to pray the rosary, and of basically all the church people who go to church and happily go along with their days. In my opinion much of the liberal Catholics and Liberal Catholicism has already died out. Not a whole lot has changed in the church recently and there are not a whole bunch of people who stand up to do it. I have always find my self to be a pretty conservative person, and usually no matter what the topic I always find myself leaning towards the republican side. This however does not mean that the liberal side is always wrong it is just not what I think is right, much like what Deneen thinks. I agree with him that conservative Catholicism is the future, but I also think that maybe liberal Catholicism could make a return with the new pope, and show the world that it has not disappeared yet.
I am not completely sure that I understood this article completely, but I would like to think I understood most of it. It will be interesting to read what the other students said, and to hopefully at some point take this into deeper discussion in class or maybe somewhere else. Overall, I thought the article was very intriguing and something to continue to think about.
Austin, I really liked your explanation of a conservative Catholic. I too think of an "old lady who prays the rosary". I also liked how you were very upright in stating your conservative stand point. I also find myself being Republican or conservative in bias, but so what? Having a bias means having a belief, and having a belief means having a thought. From bias, I believe stems passionate thinking, and above all else a strong belief.
DeleteI also like how you pointed out that Liberal Catholicism may be making a comeback, when considering our new pope. Pope Francis is very outspoken and bold in his opinions, and he just may, as you said, "show the world that Liberal Catholicism has not disappeared."
Nice job Austin!
A lot of you are concerned that the reading is so dense that you might not get it. Maybe I can clarify things with one word: Snooki. You know who that is, right? The girl from Jersey Shore? She matters. Why? It all goes back to the part about the “Benedict Option.” The “radical” Catholics think that American culture is so perverse and gross and profane that they can no longer co-exist with it. If you read up, it’s almost always about “kids these days.” Their hot pants and abortions and foul language and infernal rap music make it impossible to raise good Catholic children these days. It was easier in 1950 because people were more modest and chaste and had manners and could recite the beatitudes in their sleep.
ReplyDeleteSomebody get me a Geritol! I am a dad. I have concerns about culture. But you know how I respond? With this picture:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2011/10/elizabeth_and_hazel_what_happened_to_the_two_girls_in_the_most_f.html
Let’s not forget that this is what America was like not so long ago. Look at that white chic. So tastefully dressed! I bet she knew all of the beatitudes! She did not watch Jersey Shore at all. What a great time to raise kids, eh?
Uh… no. I am glad I am not raising kids in 1950. Sure, my kids are more likely to wear immodest clothes and cohabitate before marriage. That concerns me. But they are far less likely to hate black people. My boys are far less likely to smack their girlfriends in the mouth. If anything, in very real ways there has never been a better time in America. Who needs the Benedict Option?
Us? Remember history? St. Marys was founded as a retreat community for Catholics who didn’t think 1850 urban America was a good culture for Catholics. So they left and formed their own community in the woods. What kind of Catholics were they? Um… Benedictines. Two of the three local parishes remain Benedictine. So is the convent.
And what about Catholic education? Some parents choose it because they think the academics are better. Or that the discipline or sports or whatever are better. Some just think that to be strong Catholics, they need to remove their kids from the popular stream of culture and raise them in a different environment. Which is, of course, another iteration of the Benedict Option.
Which is fine. Most people have mixed motivations and more than one reason for choosing ECC.
Except that Deneen is saying that the logical conclusion of this position is incredibly extreme. That the Benedict Option is openly and virulently anti-American. That it is fundamentally opposed to democracy.
Maybe he is right about the logical conclusion of these impulses. But I don’t feel particularly anti-American. Does that mean my version of Catholicism lacks any internal consistency? I don’t feel particularly Catholic That I won’t face the logic of my own positions? Maybe it does and I need to change my views. Maybe it does and it doesn’t matter.
But let’s not forget that being Catholic used to mean operating at the margins of society. The founders of St. Marys basically got run out of Philadelphia and Baltimore. Nobody would even consider voting for a Catholic president until JFK, and haven’t done so again. The notion that Catholicism is easily compatible with the culture is relatively new. And maybe that’s for a reason. Or maybe not. I don’t know.
One reaction is, stop thinking about it so much. Just go to church. You will believe some of it. Some will seem weird. But you can pick and choose. Of course, Deneen says this is watered-down Catholicism that is doomed to failure. Hmm.
PS: Was anybody giving odds on whether I would mention Snooki on the blog? Well, I did!
It says "I don't feel particularly Catholic" in there. Sorry. Typo. I feel really Catholic! In fact, I am getting ready to go to church right now.
DeleteMr.MacDonald, I am so happy that you decided to join us this weekend for our blog! I too, was very concerned that I would not fully grasp the concept of the passage, but reading your response really helped me understand it. I definitely agree that the younger generation is not doomed, but they are just different than generations before them. I mean this in positive and negative ways. Bringing Snooki into the conversation was very smart because it helps to put this whole thing into a more comprehensive perspective. I hope you can join us again soon!
DeleteAlong with many of my other classmates, I found this article difficult to fully grasp. I've read through it many times and what I finally Patrick J. Deneen thinks is that the Church will eventually have to pick one side of Catholics. Does this mean that whichever side it picks will not accept the other at all?
ReplyDeleteMy mother and I are liberal Catholics, and I completely disagree with "The children of liberal Catholics will either want their liberalism unvarnished by incense and holy water, or they will rebel and ask if there’s something more challenging". I don think this is necessarily true because, yes teenagers tent to rebel, but there are some things that teenagers learn from their parents that they feel they agree with. My mother has always taught me to not believe everything that people tell me, but to go find out for yourself. I suppose that I cannot speak for other teenagers, but I do not tend to rebel against something i am not pushed into.
No, there will never be a church that accommodates to everyone's beliefs. We weren't all made as robots to believe the same exact things in the same exact ways. It is in our human nature to argue and disagree with others, but it's not a bad thing. It is beautiful that everyone is different and has the ability to form their own opinions, that is what makes the world so diverse.
Another view I have on the subject is that maybe the younger generations are more accepting of everyone. The older, more conservative Catholic Church, was less accepting of different people. I believe that the Church should not be unapproachable. Jesus would have dinner with sinners and was not above touching leppers. There should not be an "us vs. them" factor in the church if we really believe that we are all children of God. I think that there are hopes for the near future of the Church because the new Pope, Pope Francis, is not above his people, but he believes that he serves the people as one of us.
The Church will never meet everyone's needs, but hopefully this fact will not further separate their people, but bring them together. Even though the Church is not perfect, Jesus is, and that is what should attract people to church.
Erin, your view point is one I fully agree with. Teenagers are less likely to rebel against something if they are not forced into it. As young adults we are trying to find ourselves and finding out what we believe in is part of that. Sometimes that does mean that we might leave the faith but everyone has their own way of discovering. I feel in past years the Church has been given a harsh veneer of a strict religious sect and many found it hard to remain a part of it. Pope Francis, I think, was one of the best things to happen to the Church in the past few years because he is making the faith approachable for those trying to discover the meaning of faith. He truly embodies what it means to be an image of Christ.
DeleteThere is always two sides to a story just as there are always at least two different ways to view something. An example is the is the categories of people being optimistic, pessimistic, and the little thought of realistic. There will always be opposing sides and it is near impossible to say which is correct.
ReplyDeleteThe article "A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" was a difficult read that once understood is very insightful in the way Patrick Deneen believes the Catholic religion is going progress in the future. He discussed namely two different types of Catholics and brings in a third.
As a self-proclaimed "cafeteria Catholic" and a daughter of one I do not feel as though the religious sect is doomed to end. Within this sect I would not consider myself or my family as extreme liberals in every Church teaching for we are very conservative in some. A great example of this is how open my family is to birth control usage but we are all very against abortions. To be a liberal Catholic is a very broad term for the category because some are more against the teaching than others they share the category with.
The second category mentioned was conservative Catholicism. These are the followers who are believers in everything the Church officials state as true. To me, I imagine these people as the Jehovah Witnesses who believe their message is the one true belief and share it with all who will listen. This is not a bad thing but can cause many problems for themselves. In this age, I feel the number of hardcore conservative Catholics is declining and there are more and more cafeteria Catholics emerging.
Erin, it was nice to read your reaction to the article. Being a "cafeteria Catholic" myself, I really enjoyed seeing another person's affirmations of what I believe. You had some great opinions and expressed yourself very well. Great job with the blog!
DeleteErin, I never knew that there was a such thing as a "cafeteria catholic".....ya learn something new everyday! Overall, great analysis on Patrick Deneen's article.
DeleteI remember the first time I went to church in my dad's hometown. It was a Lutheran Church. I was in complete shock when they didn't have the Eucharist. I was so used to receiving the Body and Blood of Christ at our Catholic Church that I thought they must have forgotten. After that, I learned that there are more religions than just Catholicism. My dad, obviously, is a Lutheran, but he still attends Mass with us at our Catholic Church each Sunday. I find it quite interesting that there are also different types of the Catholic religion: liberal and conservative, or democratic and republican.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to lie, I read the article over and over, yet I still don't quite grasp the entire thing, but here goes.
Patrick Deneen, a conservative Catholic, is convinced that liberal Catholicism is heading on a straight path to extinction. He believes that conservative is where things are at. I would have to disagree with him. I myself am a liberal Catholic; I have a different vision for some of the Catholic teachings, but I do agree with a lot of the beliefs. For example, I am completely pro-life, but I also don't find anything wrong with using protection inside of marriage.
I believe that more young people are turning to the liberal side of things. We have similar opinions with that of the conservatives, but the Church teachings are not made for today's society and we want to make our voices heard. I think the Catholic Church is stuck in the 1900's. I also believe that more of the older congregation is conservative.
I would have to agree with Deneen when he compared popes to political parties. I think he was right to consider Pope Francis a Democrat and Pope John Paul II as a Republican. I think that's why young people especially can relate to Pope Francis. He isn't afraid to say things or act upon his words. I believe Pope Francis is one of greatest things to happen to our faith because of these simple words: "Who am I to judge." He's exactly right, and I think that that phrase can be used today. Obviously some of us are liberals and others are conservatives, but we should accept each other, despite our differences.
Natalie, I like how you start off your blog by explaining a personal experience at a Lutheran Church. I feel that it is a great way to grab the attention of the audience, and give people a way to relate to your opinion. I also didn't totally understand the article. I think that our opinions are slightly different, but there is nothing wrong with that. It was good that you quoted Pope Francis to make your point about how bold he actually is. Good job!
DeleteWow, Natalie! All this time I've known you and your family, and I never knew that about your dad! I didn't know that they don't receive Eucharist. Is that the only difference in their mass? I love how you threw you're experience in there. Nice touch!
DeleteWhen I read "A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" by Patrick Deneen, I didn’t know what hit me. I thought that the article was rather intriguing, yet pretty challenging to comprehend. Deneen definitely said a few things that I have never heard of before I read the article. I think it was necessary to critically read the article over a few times because it seemed that each time, I learned something new that I missed the time before.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, Deneen explained that there were different groups and kinds of Catholics. Deneen states that there are liberal and conservative Catholics. I didn’t know if I was reading the correct article at this point. It sounded like nonsense that there were diverse types of Catholics. We live in a small town where everyone is the same “type” of Catholic. That is just the way that I grew up. I was aware that there were many Catholics that live in our town, but I never thought that it was weird because that was just the way things were.
Politics were a major part of “A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching” by Patrick Deneen. I was totally unaware that politics and Catholicism were related. He states that Liberal Catholicism is basically done. There will be no future for it. I enjoyed how Deneen religious figures such as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. He classified Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI as honorary Republicans. He also classified Pope Francis as a Democrat. I agree with what side of Catholicism he put each of them on. This is because I feel that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI sent messages and made statements in a much less bold way that Pope Francis did.
As Deneen explained the two kinds of Catholics, I would say that I am a “conservative Catholic.” This is because I do agree with his idea that Liberal Catholicism is not going to exist in the future. That is not definitely saying that it won’t, I just don’t believe that it will. Even though I feel that I am leaning more towards the conservative side, I don’t think that people who support and stand up for the liberal side of the situation should be ridiculed. Everyone has the right to have their own beliefs. There is not one person that is the same, therefore not many people will have the same beliefs.
Drew, I liked the angle you took with the blog. I had no clue which side you were defending until the last paragraph, which I feel was a strong approach. I also agree with the way Deneen categorized Pope Francis, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI. The only thing I disagree with you on is that liberal Catholicism will eventually die out. I feel like more people will come to the conclusion that not everything the Church says is true, such as gay marriage.
DeleteOverall, I thought you did a great job at defending your opinion.
Drew, I really enjoyed reading this. I especially loved your first two paragraphs and agreed with them 100%. Natalie, I understand what you are saying about liberal Catholicism, but I'm not sure I agree. It seems like the whole gay marriage situation is starting to die down a little bit, so maybe everything will be okay after all!
DeleteGrowing up, I attended two different churches. My parents, divorced, attended two different churches. My father was a Methodist, and my mother is a Catholic. Because of this upbringing, I am proud to say that I am a "cafeteria Catholic". I most certainly so not agree with some of the teachings of the Church, but most of them are things that I believe strongly in. Deenen's article was an interesting read, but not something I really enjoyed. Needless to say, we wouldn't really get along if we had a discussion about religion.
ReplyDeleteI, as a "cafeteria Catholic", pick and choose which parts of the faith I will follow. I go to church every week, go to confession, and do most of the things that a Catholic would. But, I will never choose to be anti-gay marriage. Who cares if two men or two women choose to be married? It doesn't affect me. I do not believe that homosexuality is correct; God didn't make us that way. But it is not my job to judge these people for choices they make. If they knew every bit of my life, I am sure that I have done things more horrendous than choosing to share love with a person of the same gender as me.
And I believe that many people are like this. The liberal Catholic group is not dying out. My mother, father, sisters, and many family members are exactly the same. Everyone picks and chooses the pieces of the Catholic faith that they like, and creates their own special relationship with God. Whether or not God is going to punish us for not attending weekly mass, but completely devoting our time in faith in other ways will be discovered only when we reach the pearly gates. People like liberal Catholicism.
However, it is easy to see why people are drawn to the conservative side. Every single thing is laid out for you, you just have to follow what you are told. This is how the older generation was raised. I know my grandparents have instilled much of it in their grandchildren, yet with most of our parents being liberal, sometimes things get a bit interesting. Conservative Catholicism is not likely to die out, nor is liberal. Sometimes, the numbers will fluctuate, but my opinion is that each will continue on.
Radical Catholicism is not really my thing. I don't like how these people believe that the Church needs to be revamped because the world is changing. Yes, sometimes things need to change, but we shouldn't overhaul the whole basis of our faith just so that a few people can think it is better suited to our times. The Catholic faith has done fine so far.
Well, there's my opinions. I really think that while there is some cause for debate amongst our faith, there really is no need to debate it like Deenen does. Our faith is our own business. God doesn't want us telling other people that their way of worshipping is wrong and ours is right. For all we know, God is shaking his head at us right now wondering how in the world we got so confused with our faith. However, it was interesting to learn that people really are concerned with these things. I definitely learned a lot from this blog.
Wait. Everyone paid attention in church today, right? The second reading strikes me a direct rebuke of Deneen’s position. Maybe.
ReplyDelete“Now when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with any brilliance of oratory or wise argument to announce to you the mystery of God. I was resolved that the only knowledge I would have while I was with you was knowledge of Jesus, and of him as the crucified Christ. I came among you in weakness, in fear and great trembling and what I spoke and proclaimed was not meant to convince by philosophical argument, but to demonstrate the convincing power of the Spirit, so that your faith should depend not on human wisdom but on the power of God.”
See that? Paul says, look folks, I am not all that smart. This is not about me and my fancy words. It’s about introducing you to the faith in terms of experience, in terms of knowing God.
Deneen and all his pointy-headed academic friends seem to be blowing past the old lady in the pew and interpreting the message with 10-dollar words. And maybe they are missing something. I don’t know. I guess you can interpret it two ways.
Faith and the church are not ABOUT worldly things. It’s not about reading God’s words and seeing what they mean about abortion, the war in Iraq or gay marriage. That’s us saddling the faith with political intent and we should stop.
The other interpretation is that faith is about everything. Abortion. Gay marriage. The war in Iraq. But it’s not my place or yours to interpret that. It’s for the church as an institution. We are the sheep. They are the shepards. They are the leaders. We are the led. You don’t get to be a cafeteria Catholic, taking what you want and leaving the rest. The faith is about liberation through limits.
These views are in real tension. If you lean toward the former, and that you can interpret and analyze for yourself, is there any limit? If you disagree with the church about contraception or going to mass every Sunday, can you disagree about abortion?
On the other side, if you believe that you just ask your pastor what to think about Obamacare or the war in Iraq or contraception, how much independence ar you willing to concede? How would we ever reign in bad ideas? The church’s views on certain things have changed over the years. Largely because people disagreed and pushed the issue.
Which brings us back to the main point. Deneen fears that liberal Catholics (both Republicans and Democrats can qualify, by the way) will be so corrupted by the culture that they will be led astray and depart from the church in such profound ways that they will be, functionally, un-Catholic even if they keep going to church.
Liberal Catholics, or even the less-radical conservatives, insist that they can bend the cultural curve and make the broader society more Catholic. The radicals think this is a fool’s game, and that rather than tinkering around the edges we should form our own intitutions (towns, schools, social groups, hospitals) and wait for the revolution to come.
I don’t want to reveal too much. But if I were a betting man I might put a tenner on the old ladies.
The challenge, though, is whether their grandkids will follow their lead. What limits are you willing to accept? Which ones should you accept? What if your parish priest offers a political position with which you disagree? What if the pope does? What if he does it ex cathedra and speaks with the power of infallibility. (Not everything the pope says counts as infallible, you know. If he says Skittles are better than Snickers bars, that’s his opinion. And all right-thinking people would know him to be wrong. But when he speaks on issues of doctrine, disagreeing with him makes you un-Catholic in a certain way.)
SM
"A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" was a challenging article to read. I struggled to fully comprehend everything that Patrick J. Deneen was trying to say. Being completely honest, I probably read the article 5 or 6 times already.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up, I considered Catholics as being just that, Catholic. I never really categorized the different types of Catholicism. Deneen described Catholics as "liberal" or "conservative." Which faith is better? That may be a trick question because there truly is not a right answer to it. Almost everyone in my neighborhood is Catholic, and we all walk to Church on Sunday together. When Mr. MacDonald talked to our class about our faith, I thought it was crazy that our area is one of the most religious places in the United States. Everyone, well almost everyone, is Catholic and goes to Church on the weekends. That is just the way it is in our area, but in other cities, it is not like that.
Deneen believes that liberal Catholicism will gradually disappear. However, I consider my family as being liberal Catholics. We believe in God, the Creator, while following the teachings of the Church. However, I do not know every saint's name or their feast day. I cannot rattle off the name of every Pope that has ever lived. I cannot recite whole passages from the Bible word for word. However, I do not consider myself as being a bad Catholic. I worship the Lord and live with good morals.
Radicals, on the other hand, think our nation is a "deeply flawed project." Deneen thinks these conservatives are the future of Catholicism. I cannot say that I agree with Deneen's points. This article gave me a lot of time to reflect on certain ideas that I have never considered before.
While reading this, I actually grew sort of angry. My initial thought was, "Maybe Patrick Deneen should spend less time dividing Catholicism, and more time living the faith." After all, we do not have the power to decide which type of Catholicism is better. People waste their time worrying about things that really do not matter. Everyone's relationship with God is different. I do not think I should interfere with other's beliefs and tell them how to live their faith. I may be a liberal Catholic, and Patrick Deneen may look down on me, but I will continue to place God above all else.
Sam, I too struggled when reading the article as well. Although, I do think I did get something out of it. I think my family is also 'liberal' Catholics. Also, I like the point that you made about how Patrick Deneen should spend more time 'living the faith.' I just never thought that Catholicism was divided like that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete