JD, Great e-mail today, as always. On the synodal effort: I believe the universal Church does not include the laity in near the same proportion as does the Catholic Church in the US. In the US we have parish councils, finance councils, school advisory boards, non-profit boards, hospital boards, foundation boards and all kinds of structures where lay voices are widely heard. This is not the case in lots of other places around the world, so perhaps inviting the Clergy to include the laity through the synod means more outside the US than it does inside the US. Perhaps we should instead look at what problem Pope Francis is trying to solve through the synod, and then see how much that problem needs attention in the US construct, rather than just saying we are missing the mark on a percentage basis.
The intended synodal process, at least in the U.S., has clearly failed. In my own diocese, there was, as far as I can tell, not a single word about it from the bishop or from two successive parish priests: no communications, no events, no surveys or polls. Nothing.
Even if there are some other Pittsburgh-like diocesan results, doesn't such a minimal response call into question the validity of (almost) any conclusions drawn by the Vatican staff administering this process?
As former Episcopalian, I rolled my eyes when the "process" was being announced, since exactly this type of "listening" is considered (at least by Episcopalians) to be a hallmark of that ecclesial community. In practice, it is often manipulative and the outcomes preordained.
And yet. I do consider what I take to be Francis' intent and purpose to be correct: the Church's posture before it's Lord is, indeed, one of listening, or it should be. That means expecting to hear and discern God's Word to the world today and joining our action to His sovereign action to accomplish His will.
That kind of being hearers-and-doers of the Word doesn't seem to be happening...although I acknowledge that so much of such hearing and doing will, almost by definition, be hidden from our eyes and cloaked from our awareness.
I would love to see some analysis of the rapid emergence of classical education in parochial schools, the tension between new charter-like classical schools in dioceses vs. the impulse to convert existing schools to that model, the less-than-universal acceptance of the classical model by ordinaries, and the questions/tensions classical education raises vis-a-vis the simultaneous push for diverse voices and perspectives in curricula.
I may or may not know of a diocese where there is a verbal/behind-the-scenes moritorium on new/converted classical schools because of all of this tension.
"Here’s what I’m hoping you’ll put in the comments — as we come out of the slowness of August, and pick up with coverage about all manner of things, would you kindly note in the comments some of the themes, issues, challenges, and successes you see emerging in the life of the Church, which The Pillar might shed some light upon with careful and thorough reporting? I’d be most grateful."
It's hard for me to say, as The Pillar is far more connected and aware of what is happening in the Church than I am. If I may offer one suggestion though, the Eucharistic Revival has been going in the US for a couple months. That's not a lot of time, but I'd be curious to hear about what dioceses have been up to across the country for it. We can all agree that devotion to the Eucharist among the faithful is extremely important both for ourselves and the Church as a whole.
I will pray for the author of the Atlantic rosary article to become a great saint, which is simultaneously the best and worst thing to wish for someone (having sores licked by a dog and dying in prison abandoned by everyone sounds like par for the course to me).
What are parishes doing to respond to demographic changes? Many parishes have the "two parish" model where there's the mainstream English parish then also a separate Spanish language community. Is anything being done to foster integration? Where are immigrants being welcomed as brothers & sisters in Christ as opposed to merely clients of the parish's ministries? Is there real cross-cultural conversation going on anywhere? What parishes are finding ways to benefit from having multiple cultural expressions of the same faith? How can other parishes learn from those parishes?
A lot of this was the topic of my MA TESOL thesis but I did it at a secular university so there wasn't a lot of opportunity to explore it from an explicitly Catholic perspective.
“the sacramental rosary isn’t just a spiritual weapon but one that comes with physical ammunition.”
This reminds me of an evening rosary at my house few months ago, when our 2-year old began using her rosary as a scourge, whipping her brother and sister. We probably should've put her to bed earlier that evening.
If I remember correctly, only Joe Biden has weaponized the rosary. In 2005 he said the next time a republican said he wasn’t Catholic he would shove his rosary down their throat.
"Now, don’t get me wrong. I think the views of men and women over 60 who attend Mass are important. In fact, I think we ought to consider a bit more often the tradition of Anna and Simeon in the temple, instead of writing off older parishioners with derisive cracks about boomers, or “Karen from the parish council” memes. In fact, I think it’s ironic that young people who love tradition are often cavalier about the possibility that our elders have something to say. The 1970s were not a pinnacle of Western civilization or of the Christian intellectual life — but the personal, hard-won wisdom that comes from a lifetime of Chritian discipleship is worth hearing, especially if it comes from people who kept the faith when the world (and often the Church) was turning on its head."
I would appreciate in-depth coverage of the generation gap you describe. I consider the 1970s to be the nadir of human civilization. I agree that we should respect the wisdom that comes from a lifetime of faithful Christian discipleship, but I was formed at a parish that dissented from the teachings of the Church in both liturgy and theology and ecclesiology, so I have little patience for the (lack of) wisdom that comes from a lifetime of unfaithful Christian discipleship. I have, like so many in my cohort, had to become self-trained in sniffing out books, universities, religious orders, moral theologians that claim to be offering wisdom for Christian discipleship but do not conform to the magisterial teaching of the Church, do not have an imprimatur/nihil obstat (and would find my objection on those grounds quite laughable), but are lauded by some as the foremost authorities, and therefore I am subjected to their heterodoxy in order to receive credit for a class or while listening to their hymns, in spite of the fact that the claims they are making are matters of open debate in the Church in an era when Francis is unwriting the magisterium of his predecessors. In other words, it is a perspective on Vatican II that will (hopefully) not outlast the generation that lived through it, who censure those that disagree with the hermeneutic of that perspective and its attendant claims about liturgy, ecclesiology, or moral theology, but I am being cajoled to give greater deference to their perspective, which was imposed upon me from a young age? When exactly do they have to surrender to the fact that what they taught, what they advocated for, was not correct or faithful or consistent with the Catechism or the Council or the CDF? When will they have to reconcile their perspective on Vatican II with the papacy (and prefecture and CCC) of the emeritus Benedict whom they scorn? "How long, O Lord, how long?" is my lament. I would appreciate reading an explainer about how the gap could be reconciled, since it means loving in charity those without whom what formation I had would not have been possible, even if it was partly malformation, however well-intentioned. It's not the stuff of comboxes; it's real relationships over a lifetime: sisters who held me as a newborn and also rejected their religious habit and whose orders promote strands of theology that contradict the faith; priests who taught me about the sacrarium in the sacristy and also advocate for the teaching on celibacy to be remanded; professors whose courses I was eager to take and who also advocate for a right to abortion. Is it cavalier to be wary of those faithful Catholics who were responsible for turning the world and the Church on its head? Who is failing to listen in this scenario- me or the people whose homilies and writings and coursework I have endured for decades, because they are published, they are tenured, and they comprise a demographic majority? I was born in 1980, a year that most of my peers that ought to have been born did not survive, due to selective birthing (I read The Pillar's sobering report about that this past summer with a cold chill in my spine). Who was listening to their cry for justice? I am part of a generation that was silenced. But by all means, fratelli tutti, hakuna matata, etc.
As someone who attends a TLM, I’m always interested in coverage in relation to TC & it’s implementation, etc. especially with the canon law perspective y’all bring to the table.
How about a look at the ways the permanent diaconate is being implemented in dioceses around the US and the world? My husband is a deacon here in the diocese of Portland, Oregon and he often comments on this even being something that differs between parishes according to the preferences of the priests. Maybe get into the history of the diaconate from the early Church ,how the diaconate is often the “forgotten” clergy, why married men are generally permanent deacons whereas priests in the Roman tradition are celibate, the different ways a deacon fulfills his vocations as head of a family and cleric, interviews with men in these different walks of life with questions about their journey through discernment and formation along with their struggles and successes. I would recommend contacting deacon Joseph Machalak of the archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis. See an article he recently wrote here: https://www.the-deacon.com/2022/08/15/embracing-the-hiddenness-of-the-diaconate/
No surprise there. There was no process to reach out to all Catholics which means the bishops didn't want to. Until there are some prescriptive guidelines for effective, ongoing lay involvement there won't be. The princes of the Church prefer their private lane to maintain the appearance of hidden wisdom and simple uncertainty about what their new role would be.
St Roch is my favorite church for Mass in Paris. Trivia for Revolutionary War nerds... it's the site of Marquis de Lafayette's wedding.
JD, Great e-mail today, as always. On the synodal effort: I believe the universal Church does not include the laity in near the same proportion as does the Catholic Church in the US. In the US we have parish councils, finance councils, school advisory boards, non-profit boards, hospital boards, foundation boards and all kinds of structures where lay voices are widely heard. This is not the case in lots of other places around the world, so perhaps inviting the Clergy to include the laity through the synod means more outside the US than it does inside the US. Perhaps we should instead look at what problem Pope Francis is trying to solve through the synod, and then see how much that problem needs attention in the US construct, rather than just saying we are missing the mark on a percentage basis.
The intended synodal process, at least in the U.S., has clearly failed. In my own diocese, there was, as far as I can tell, not a single word about it from the bishop or from two successive parish priests: no communications, no events, no surveys or polls. Nothing.
Even if there are some other Pittsburgh-like diocesan results, doesn't such a minimal response call into question the validity of (almost) any conclusions drawn by the Vatican staff administering this process?
As former Episcopalian, I rolled my eyes when the "process" was being announced, since exactly this type of "listening" is considered (at least by Episcopalians) to be a hallmark of that ecclesial community. In practice, it is often manipulative and the outcomes preordained.
And yet. I do consider what I take to be Francis' intent and purpose to be correct: the Church's posture before it's Lord is, indeed, one of listening, or it should be. That means expecting to hear and discern God's Word to the world today and joining our action to His sovereign action to accomplish His will.
That kind of being hearers-and-doers of the Word doesn't seem to be happening...although I acknowledge that so much of such hearing and doing will, almost by definition, be hidden from our eyes and cloaked from our awareness.
I wonder what Francis will make of all this.
What sort of stories were the pythons attracted to? Drama, comedy, or perhaps the Gospels? ("by their tales")
I would love to see some analysis of the rapid emergence of classical education in parochial schools, the tension between new charter-like classical schools in dioceses vs. the impulse to convert existing schools to that model, the less-than-universal acceptance of the classical model by ordinaries, and the questions/tensions classical education raises vis-a-vis the simultaneous push for diverse voices and perspectives in curricula.
I may or may not know of a diocese where there is a verbal/behind-the-scenes moritorium on new/converted classical schools because of all of this tension.
Another thing about The Atlantic's article is that it appeared on August 15, the Feast of the Assumption. Apparently, irony is lost on its editors.
"Here’s what I’m hoping you’ll put in the comments — as we come out of the slowness of August, and pick up with coverage about all manner of things, would you kindly note in the comments some of the themes, issues, challenges, and successes you see emerging in the life of the Church, which The Pillar might shed some light upon with careful and thorough reporting? I’d be most grateful."
It's hard for me to say, as The Pillar is far more connected and aware of what is happening in the Church than I am. If I may offer one suggestion though, the Eucharistic Revival has been going in the US for a couple months. That's not a lot of time, but I'd be curious to hear about what dioceses have been up to across the country for it. We can all agree that devotion to the Eucharist among the faithful is extremely important both for ourselves and the Church as a whole.
St Roch "his prayers effected miracles" the word is - Affected. Retired English teacher.
I will pray for the author of the Atlantic rosary article to become a great saint, which is simultaneously the best and worst thing to wish for someone (having sores licked by a dog and dying in prison abandoned by everyone sounds like par for the course to me).
Immigration.
What are parishes doing to respond to demographic changes? Many parishes have the "two parish" model where there's the mainstream English parish then also a separate Spanish language community. Is anything being done to foster integration? Where are immigrants being welcomed as brothers & sisters in Christ as opposed to merely clients of the parish's ministries? Is there real cross-cultural conversation going on anywhere? What parishes are finding ways to benefit from having multiple cultural expressions of the same faith? How can other parishes learn from those parishes?
A lot of this was the topic of my MA TESOL thesis but I did it at a secular university so there wasn't a lot of opportunity to explore it from an explicitly Catholic perspective.
“the sacramental rosary isn’t just a spiritual weapon but one that comes with physical ammunition.”
This reminds me of an evening rosary at my house few months ago, when our 2-year old began using her rosary as a scourge, whipping her brother and sister. We probably should've put her to bed earlier that evening.
If I remember correctly, only Joe Biden has weaponized the rosary. In 2005 he said the next time a republican said he wasn’t Catholic he would shove his rosary down their throat.
"Now, don’t get me wrong. I think the views of men and women over 60 who attend Mass are important. In fact, I think we ought to consider a bit more often the tradition of Anna and Simeon in the temple, instead of writing off older parishioners with derisive cracks about boomers, or “Karen from the parish council” memes. In fact, I think it’s ironic that young people who love tradition are often cavalier about the possibility that our elders have something to say. The 1970s were not a pinnacle of Western civilization or of the Christian intellectual life — but the personal, hard-won wisdom that comes from a lifetime of Chritian discipleship is worth hearing, especially if it comes from people who kept the faith when the world (and often the Church) was turning on its head."
I would appreciate in-depth coverage of the generation gap you describe. I consider the 1970s to be the nadir of human civilization. I agree that we should respect the wisdom that comes from a lifetime of faithful Christian discipleship, but I was formed at a parish that dissented from the teachings of the Church in both liturgy and theology and ecclesiology, so I have little patience for the (lack of) wisdom that comes from a lifetime of unfaithful Christian discipleship. I have, like so many in my cohort, had to become self-trained in sniffing out books, universities, religious orders, moral theologians that claim to be offering wisdom for Christian discipleship but do not conform to the magisterial teaching of the Church, do not have an imprimatur/nihil obstat (and would find my objection on those grounds quite laughable), but are lauded by some as the foremost authorities, and therefore I am subjected to their heterodoxy in order to receive credit for a class or while listening to their hymns, in spite of the fact that the claims they are making are matters of open debate in the Church in an era when Francis is unwriting the magisterium of his predecessors. In other words, it is a perspective on Vatican II that will (hopefully) not outlast the generation that lived through it, who censure those that disagree with the hermeneutic of that perspective and its attendant claims about liturgy, ecclesiology, or moral theology, but I am being cajoled to give greater deference to their perspective, which was imposed upon me from a young age? When exactly do they have to surrender to the fact that what they taught, what they advocated for, was not correct or faithful or consistent with the Catechism or the Council or the CDF? When will they have to reconcile their perspective on Vatican II with the papacy (and prefecture and CCC) of the emeritus Benedict whom they scorn? "How long, O Lord, how long?" is my lament. I would appreciate reading an explainer about how the gap could be reconciled, since it means loving in charity those without whom what formation I had would not have been possible, even if it was partly malformation, however well-intentioned. It's not the stuff of comboxes; it's real relationships over a lifetime: sisters who held me as a newborn and also rejected their religious habit and whose orders promote strands of theology that contradict the faith; priests who taught me about the sacrarium in the sacristy and also advocate for the teaching on celibacy to be remanded; professors whose courses I was eager to take and who also advocate for a right to abortion. Is it cavalier to be wary of those faithful Catholics who were responsible for turning the world and the Church on its head? Who is failing to listen in this scenario- me or the people whose homilies and writings and coursework I have endured for decades, because they are published, they are tenured, and they comprise a demographic majority? I was born in 1980, a year that most of my peers that ought to have been born did not survive, due to selective birthing (I read The Pillar's sobering report about that this past summer with a cold chill in my spine). Who was listening to their cry for justice? I am part of a generation that was silenced. But by all means, fratelli tutti, hakuna matata, etc.
As someone who attends a TLM, I’m always interested in coverage in relation to TC & it’s implementation, etc. especially with the canon law perspective y’all bring to the table.
How about a look at the ways the permanent diaconate is being implemented in dioceses around the US and the world? My husband is a deacon here in the diocese of Portland, Oregon and he often comments on this even being something that differs between parishes according to the preferences of the priests. Maybe get into the history of the diaconate from the early Church ,how the diaconate is often the “forgotten” clergy, why married men are generally permanent deacons whereas priests in the Roman tradition are celibate, the different ways a deacon fulfills his vocations as head of a family and cleric, interviews with men in these different walks of life with questions about their journey through discernment and formation along with their struggles and successes. I would recommend contacting deacon Joseph Machalak of the archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis. See an article he recently wrote here: https://www.the-deacon.com/2022/08/15/embracing-the-hiddenness-of-the-diaconate/
No surprise there. There was no process to reach out to all Catholics which means the bishops didn't want to. Until there are some prescriptive guidelines for effective, ongoing lay involvement there won't be. The princes of the Church prefer their private lane to maintain the appearance of hidden wisdom and simple uncertainty about what their new role would be.