I don't really have a reaction to the decrease in numbers per se. I'm sure there's an exciting story behind the numbers, but I really don't savor the idea of reading the study. Personally, I try to remind myself that I need to be a better Catholic and that if I was more devout then more people would convert as a consequence. I also have to present the faith to my children in every moment, mainly through my actions and "sometimes using words" as St. Francis said. Actually, the Orthodox priest, Father Seraphim Rose, went even further and taught that, "If we would live our faith more deeply, we would need to speak of it less." I think Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike could benefit from following this maxim in regards to the numbers in this Pew Study and speculation of why Catholic Bishops hold the views on immigration that they do.
Furthermore, I don't think everybody in the Catholic church is getting much out of it. As an example of this, Andrew Sullivan just posted a "bite my pillow" rant from someone who left the Catholic Church for some Episcopalian weak tea:
In the past six months, the diocese of Minneapolis Saint Paul has also eliminated a lay preaching program that brought trained, diverse voices to supplement the preaching of priests -- particularly in under served rural areas. In addition, they've banned communal services of reconciliation. We expect more of the same when the new, even more conservative bishop-in-waiting takes over in May.
My friend was up there about 3 years ago. He said that diocese needed a good scrubbin'. Anyway, the rant continues...
The conclave that Wills had such high hopes for elected Benedict XVI, a gifted teacher who doesn't appear to have any friends among ideas that emerged after the Counter Reformation. At least for the next few decades, the group of bishops appointed by John Paul II will maintain the outmoded system of seminary education and will allow reactionary leadership to be self-perpetuating. I wonder what Wills would say today about the prospects for change? I suspect the hierarchy will be content to continue losing non-conservative Catholics in the U.S. if they're replaced by Hispanics; see this week's Pew survey. Conservative positions on liturgy, faith and morals will make it easier for Benedict to reunify with the Orthodox and the Society of St. Pius X and to compete with Islam in Africa; I don't think he cares overly much about ecumenism with the Protestant denominations represented by the World Council of Churches or with the Jews, and he appears to see Islam as an adversary.
I've been worshipping in an Episcopal parish for the last two years. When my Catholic friends ask me what I would need to see to come back, I usually answer: women at the altars; gays and lesbians worshipping openly with their children in the pews; and everyone gets invited to Communion. Vatican II theology and ecclesiology are alive and well among the Episcopalians, but I don't expect to see it emerge again in the Catholic Church in my lifetime (I'm 51).
I couldn't suppress a chuckle after finishing. The reasons this person left are probably a lot of the same reasons that I signed up. The great "scandal" to this person is leadership by "reactionaries", i.e., leaders faithful to the traditions of the Church. Obviously this person doesn't understand Vatican II and probably should start with Lumen Gentium for some serious discussion of Catholic ecclesiology.
I feel bad for this person, but not for the Mystical Body of Christ which, like other bodies, might need to shed a few pounds of dead weight now and again.
I've also met more than a few Catholics that have been where this person was at before he or she left and who took a different turn. They decided to study why the Catholic Church teaches what it does about issues such as homosexuality and the male priesthood and what is important for our salvation, not how to make everybody feel comfortable. As a result, these folks became more committed, not less. Others like this Sullivan reader don't want to do this, they'd rather see the Church as not living up to their standards. For this reason also I'm not so keen on throwing blame at "the bishops" specifically, although as I said earlier, we Catholics could all be doing a better job.
All very good points. However, I'm not sure we should be so quick to celebrate the departure of what you call "dead weight." These are souls that put their salvation in jeopardy by leaving the Church. Rather than celebrate, we should mourn their decision to leave and pray for their return.
ReplyDeleteWhat we shouldn't do, of course, is dilute the faith in an effort to keep everyone happy. The Anglicans tried that and look where it has taken them. We really need better religious education so people will, as you say, understand why the Church does what it does.
I'm not celebrating this departure, just analyzing. Maybe it's wrong for us to call them "dead weight" lest our concern for them be downplayed.
ReplyDeleteIt is hopefully a benefit to their souls that they leave for a time, like St. Paul talks about turning people "over to Satan" (I Cor 5, I Tim. 1:20). I'm not so sure those who stay but dissent aren't in far greater peril.
I know a great priest who left during the confusing 1960's. He came back to his priesthood many years later, and he came back to his priesthood "with a vengeance" you might say, ready to serve God's people and to ignore the ants at the picnic.