When we think of evangelization there is a danger that we think first of biggie-wow projects, committees, and Church-wide efforts. Surely these are needed. The Church at the highest levels needs to expand our outreach in all the new media and re-propose the Gospel in creative and ever-widening ways. The same is true at diocesan and parish levels, where coordinated, thoughtful and intentional efforts are made to expand the Kingdom of God.
But don’t miss the little and daily ways that evangelization must first take place.
Consider that evangelization begins:
When Catholics attend to their own conversion and seek to grow in holiness, wisdom and knowledge of God
When parents spend time praying with their children, reading them bible stories, the lives of the saints and explaining the Catechism.
When parents bring their children to Mass every Sunday without fail and make family prayer a priority.
When parents are seen to pray by their children, seen to go to confession, and seen to be devout and joyful at Mass.
When parents carefully monitor what their children are watching, listening to and viewing on the Internet and other media and both protect them from evil and explain to them why certain things are wrong and to be avoided.
When spouses pray together and instruct and admonish one another in wisdom made perfect.
When Catholics manifest joy to others about their faith and the sacraments they receive.
When Catholics are not ashamed to manifest aspects of the faith such as the sign of the Cross, grace at meals, religious art and symbols prominently displayed in their home, and, where possible at work.
When Catholics consider their own testimony so as to be able to articulate what God has done for them when people as them the reason for their faith.
When Catholics are known by others to refrain from gossip, sensuality, vanity and worldliness.
When Catholics are known for their love and respect for others and for their integrity.
When Catholics speak the truth in love and confidence and do not make easy compromises with the world.
When Catholics are known to be kind and gentle, yet clear about moral issues.
When Catholics are known to live devoutly, temperately and modestly.
When Catholics are generous to the poor and the needy.
When Catholics are serene and hopeful, yet zealous for God.
And, Oh, did I mention joy? Mother Teresa says Joy is a net of love by which you can catch souls. St Paul says, Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentle spirit be known to all. The Lord is near. (Phil 4:4-5)
There is nothing that gives more evidence of God in us to others than joy. Not a silly, running around, telling jokes kind of joy. But rather, a serene, confident and stable joy that the world did not give and the world cannot take away.
It is a joy that only God, and knowing God, can give. It is a joy that can mourn for this sinful world, but never lose its joy in the kingdom. It is a joy that manifests to others as enthusiasm and zeal for God and his truth. It is joy, God’s great joy. And it is the great net of evangelization.
There is probably nothing worse than a sour faced saint who looks like he just sucked a lemon, grouchy, anxious and unhappy.
And though these times are tough, remember, the Church is a bride, not a widow. The Kingdom of God is a wedding feast, not a funeral. Christ has conquered, and so we speak the truth to an increasingly unwilling world with joy and confidence, willing to suffer for it, yet never losing our joy.
So, we don’t have to wait for the parish evangelization committee to go up a high mountain, or to a far distant land, and bring back the plan. We can begin now. And if you can’t do all the things above, do one.
Looks like were all going to be “treated” to a new series on the Discovery Channel wherein British Physicist Stephen Hawking will ponder theological and philosophical questions. A rather strange thing for a scientist to do actually.
I have no doubt that Stephen Hawking is a fine, even a brilliant scientist and theoretical physicist. But science has a limit, a limit rightly imposed on itself, which explores the physical world using empirical and evidential models that do not go beyond the physically observable world. Scientists, even theoretical physicists, do well who recognize their sphere, their field. And most scientists are quite willing and happy to acknowledge the self defined world of the physical sciences.
Stephen Hawking however, while clutching the mantle of his scientific robes, has recently strayed beyond what science can say. In my opinion he he causes harm to science and also proves himself a poor philosopher to boot. He is free to philosophize of course like any human being, but he ought not cloak it as science and we ought not give any special weight to his philosophical and theological statements, fields in which he clearly has no proper training. When it comes to these fields he is just “some dude” sipping a beer and opining on the deep questions.
But, sadly we DO have to pay attention to him because so many in our world bow their heads with religious reverence as he speaks, and give a weight to his words on these matters that the words do not deserve.
Mr Hawking was recently interviewed in USA Today about his new series. I would like to excerpt the article here and make some comments of my own. As usual the article is in bold, black, italics, my comments are in plain text red. The full article can be read here: USA Today: Science Snapshot
“I recently published a book that asked if God created the universe. It caused something of a stir,” Hawking, 69, begins on the episode. (The “stir”, in fact, was religious leaders denouncing his book’s conclusion that God was unnecessary to the universe.)
Well, of course we shouldn’t expect USA Today to be sympathetic to “religious leaders,” but “denounce” is an unnecessarily provocative description. Why is our position not described as a “principled opposition” rooted in concerns that Mr. Hawking may be making conclusions that science really cannot make, and that he strays from science into philosophy? Or why was our position not described as an “unconvinced?” For, frankly Mr Hawking’s argument is not airtight or invincible. There are many, who find his premises faulty and his conclusions questionable.
But USA Today would rather just depict us as “denouncers” who shout angry things and throw rocks from the sidelines.
As for me, I love science and am very excited about the amazing discoveries of the past 200 years. But I do not expect science, which studies the physical world using empirical observation, to be able to conclude one way or another about God who is pure spirit. To some extent I think science can draw conclusions that there is a design to the universe, but I do not expect it to make definitive claims, one way or the other, as to the who exactly this designer is.
Is this to “denounce,” or is it, as I propose, to take a principled stand that the physical sciences are a careful discipline which study the material world? And that they ought not be invoked to take philosophical and theological stands on the existence of God or angels, or the soul, or anything non-material.
On the show, he takes viewers on a walk through humanity’s history of appraising our place in the universe, from Vikings facing down eclipses to the laws of modern cosmology, which explain the origin and structure of universe. “I believe the discovery of these laws is mankind’s greatest achievement,” he says.
So it would seem that Mr Hawking, in his series, sees ancient and modern belief in God as just some sort of way to “find my place in the universe,” as a mere anthropological projection of cosmology? Somehow we are seen as similar to the superstitious of Vikings and other ancients who feared eclipses and other things things they did not understand.
I suspect I am also to suppose that just like we would laugh at, or pity someone getting spooked by an eclipse, we should also laugh at, or pity those who believe in God? It would seem that I am also supposed to presume that modern cosmology has it all figured out, unlike the pitiable ancients?
Mr Hawking has said elsewhere that he thinks belief in God is just a coping mechanism for believers. Well of course that is one way to believe in God. But it is not why I believe in God. Nor is it why most people I know believe in God.
I believe in God because I have experienced his power and presence in my life. I believe in God because I see evidence for his existence in the things he has made, things that manifest both a first cause and evidence an intelligent and purposeful design. I believe in God because he is changing my life, and in the laboratory of my own life, I have tested his wisdom and Word and found them to be true.
I am not consciously obsessed with dying, nor do I need to be comforted and reassured in the face of it. Frankly my faith challenges, more than comforts me. My faith holds up a cross before me, not a pillow. There is surely some consolation in there being a “meaning to my life,” but Mr. Hawking, indeed every human being, seeks meaning.
Believers should not be demeaned and our faith simplified by equating us with spooked Vikings staring at an eclipse. The Roman Catholic Faith is a smart and thoughtful faith extending back 2000 years to Christ, and 5000 years further into Jewish antiquity. We are not the yahoos some like to think we are. We have a strong, lasting and profound theological and philosophical tradition. And these have served as an important foundation for the development of the natural sciences.
In a short, exclusive interview with USA TODAY, Hawking e-mailed his answers to why he is taking on religion to start off the show, and discussed his life and legacy. Here are his answers to some of the questions:
Q: First, we wonder if you could comment on why you are tackling the existence of God question?A: I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.
And I would answer that physical science cannot conclude one way or another on the existence of a purely spiritual Being. Science need have no opinion on whether God is “needed,” for it limits its scope to studying effects, and secondary causality. The primary cause of all things is a philosophical and theological pondering, for it exists before singularity, and thus lies beyond what science can currently measure. In other words, science is not equipped to answer the ultimate question of “why” things exist. It studies things that do exist, and can probe their secondary causes. But primary causality, the ultimate why of the existence of all things lies outside the system.
What Mr Hawking is doing here is not science at all, it is philosophy, and poor philosophy at that. For philosophy carefully distinguishes cause and effect. It also distinguishes primary causality from secondary causality. Even more, it distinguishes material, formal, efficient, and final causality. Mr Hawking would seem to gloss over all this, and thus portrays his amateur status as a philosopher. If you’re going to enter the world of philosophy you might at least brush up on terminology so as to have a reasonably thoughtful discussion with your interlocutors.
Q. What problems you are working on now, and what do you see as the big questions in theoretical physics?A: I’m working on the question, why is there something rather than nothing, why are the laws of physics what they are.
Well, stick the laws of physics please, because science is not well equipped to answer the ultimate question of why. Ultimate meaning and “why all this” it just not a physically measurable thing. It is not a question physical science can really answer. How do you physically measure meaning? What are the scales you weigh it in? Does meaning have physical weight? That said, at least he is describing his work as theoretical physics. But remember, physics is going to have “physical” limits and must limit itself to the physical, material world.
Q: What do you see as your legacy in science or for the people who have become enthusiastic about physics as a result of your work and writing?A: I think my most important discovery is the fundamental relation between gravity and thermodynamics (the study of how heat moves through matter) which gives a black hole a temperature and causes it to evaporate slowly.
Cool!
Essentially on “Is There A Creator?,” Hawking notes that on the sub-atomic scale, particles are seen in experiments to appear from nowhere. And since the Big Bang started out smaller than an atom, similarly the universe likely “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature,” he says. Nothing created the universe, so in his view there was no need for a creator. That is his explanation for “why there is something rather than nothing.”
Well, the philosophical and logical errors here are more numerous than there is time to explore.
Even scientifically I wonder how we define “nowhere.” It may be a true fact that we do not know where the particles come from or how they appear, but we cannot logically leap to the absolute conclusion that they come form “nowhere.”
To say that they come from nowhere is an a priori assumption. It is unproved that the particles come from nowhere. And how would we prove that something came from nowhere? It may be that we simply don’t understand where they came from or how.
And, even if we could reasonably prove that something came from nowhere, does that ipso facto mean that it did not exist before it came from nowhere?
I suppose, as a theologian I could proffer that it existed spiritually before it materialized? But of course physical science cannot measure the spiritual and cannot accept my theory or measure it. So it would seem to science that the particle came from nowhere. But that does not mean that it did come from nowhere, only that science cannot explain where it came from or how; at least not now.
For example, a blind man might theorize that raindrops on his head come from nowhere, because he cannot see their cause. But that does not prove they come from nowhere, only that he does not know where they come from or how.
“The series is all about satisfying our curiosity about the world,” Hendricks says. Rather than tackling science like classroom topics, the shows will ask questions and see what research has to say about them, he says, an inversion of the standard science show formula. “That is why we are starting with Stephen Hawking,” Hendricks adds. “We want to be asking the deepest questions we can, such as ‘Did God Create the Universe?”
A question which science can’t answer.
Frankly, save your time from watching this Hawking show. If you do watch it, please remember that Mr Hawking is free to wonder and theorize. But that is all it is, a theory. And remember too that he is wandering as he wonders. He is wandering beyond the proper limits of his discipline. While he may be a fine physicist, but that does make him a good philosopher, any more than it makes him a good car mechanic. I would not want him to work on my car any more than I want to give weight to his amateurish philosophical ponderings. He is free to make them, but they are poorly set forth, based on poor philosophical foundations and logical flaws. Do not be fooled by his lab coat.
In a recent post on the ministry of priests, there were a few comments that reflected both frustration and pain over the fact that a loved one had been in the hospital and, though the priest was called, he either never came or did not come at once. To be sure, it is lamentable that any priest would receive a request for a visit and do nothing in response to it. The Church as a whole, and pastors in particular, have obligations to the faithful who are seriously ill, especially if they are in danger of death. That said, there are very real difficulties that priests face in responding immediately and personally to all requests. In this post I would like to ponder some of the pertinent issues involved in sick calls, especially to the hospitalized.
Perhaps it is best to begin with a mini-catechesis on the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.
By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests, the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ. (Catechism # 1499).
Scripture teaches that the sick are to be anointed by priests – Jesus sent the apostles forth two by two to proclaim the kingdom. The following description is given of their actions: So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. (Mk 6:12-13). We also read, Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters [i.e. “priests”] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (James 5:14-15).
The Sacrament of the Sick is given to baptized Catholics who are seriously ill. Thus, a person with an ordinary virus, flu or injury is not usually anointed unless such illness or injury has a serious nature due to other pre-existing situations. Since most surgeries are presumed to involve serious maladies and involve significant risk, those scheduled for surgery (especially when general anesthesia is used) ought to be anointed before the surgery. A person is usually anointed only once in the course of an illness or injury. However those suffering from illnesses of a long duration or due to advancing age may be anointed periodically and especially if their condition takes a turn for the worse.
Children under the age of seven are not anointed. This is because the sacrament is related to the Sacrament of Confession and is designed to be a remedy against temptations and the effects of sin. Children under the age of seven are usually not presumed to have sufficient use of reason to be considered responsible for sins committed and hence have no need of this sacrament.
Those who receive this sacrament ought also to have recourse to confession if it can reasonably be offered and celebrated. While confession is not strictly required, anointing and confession both related to the problem of sin. Anointing is not just celebrated with the idea of physical cure in mind, but of spiritual strengthening and the avoidance of temptation that often comes with illness. Hence, confession and anointing are integrally related.
In the past, many often waited to the point of death before requesting this sacrament of the priests of the Church. Pastoral care today however emphasizes that this sacrament should be offered long before the final stages of dying set in. When physical illness of a serious or chronic nature sets in the sacrament should be administered sooner rather than later. Likewise, it is a good idea to celebrate the sacrament before surgery takes place. The Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is meant foremost to help us experience healing and assist us to live gracefully with our illnesses, and not merely as a Sacrament that prepares us to die.
The purpose of the sacrament – One gift to be hoped for in this sacrament is the complete recovery of health. This is sometimes experienced. Miraculous cures are surely a sign of the power of the risen Lord and they were promised as a sign of the reign of God (cf. Mk 16:18). And yet this is not all that is meant by the “healing” that is given and experienced in this sacrament. The word “healing” however involves more than just the notion of cure. In his own day Jesus did not heal everyone. Christ also taught of the inevitability of suffering and the need to remain faithful: If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me (Lk. 9:23). St. Paul too experienced the call to faithful endurance as he prayed for a cure of his own illness: Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor. 12:9-10). Hence the healing that this sacrament offers is more often the grace to endure suffering with holiness, and faith. Hence, a grace of this sacrament is one of strengthening, peace and courage to overcome the difficulties that go with the condition of serious illness or the frailty of old age. This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death. (Catechism # 1590)
Especially to be noted in the mini-catechesis above is that the anointing of the sick is not primarily a sacrament for emergencies and should not be delayed until death is imminent, unless this cannot be avoided. There are certain circumstances that require an emergency administration of the sacrament, such as in the aftermath of a serious accident or when one is suddenly stricken. However, as a general practice, anointing of the sick ought to be a more routine aspect of the lives of the chronically ill and the aged, or of those who have entered the various stages of serious illnesses. If death seems to be certainly approaching, one ought to be anointed well before the final stages, and surely before unconsciousness ensues. In no case should a family wait “for the last moment” to summon the priest. This is a Sacrament for the living, not merely for those on the very threshold of death. Those who are scheduled for surgery ought to be anointed before entering the hospital, preferably at the parish, if this can be arranged.
The goal is for every Catholic to be “up-to-date” on their Sacraments long before death or the danger of death ensues, or even the advent of sudden and unexpected death. Of every Catholic who faces death, whether sudden, or at the end of a long illness, we ought to be able to say they have very recently received Holy Communion, and that confession has been celebrated with a reasonable period prior to death. Further those who have not died suddenly and unexpectedly, ought to have been anointed at some time significantly prior to death. In such cases there is no emergency need to summon the priest, for the ordinary pastoral care has already been provided. Emergency anointing ought be reserved for those who are suddenly and unexpectedly stricken, or for those who are in accidents.
And that leads us to the concerns that some have expressed that a priest was sought, and no priest came, or did not come soon.
There are a number of factors that affect the availability of the parish priest. And while these factors do not excuse a complete lack of pastoral care, they ought to be considered as we look to a solution to the problem. These factors include:
There are far fewer priests than years ago. Until about 25 years ago, most parishes had more than one priest. Many larger parishes which had as many as four or five priests, back in the 1960s, have only one priest now, and that priest has many, many duties.
Fewer hospitals have assigned and full time chaplains. Here in DC only the largest hospital centers have regular and full-time chaplains. The smaller hospitals and nursing homes depend on local parishes for pastoral care.
Most Catholics no longer go to neighborhood hospitals near the parish. Rather they are assigned to hospitals that specialize in their issues. For example, in my own parish, I may have parishioners in as many as 6 or 7 different hospitals spread all throughout the area (Providence, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Southern Maryland, PG Hospital, Adventist Hospital, Holy Cross, Washington Hospital Center, Children’s Hospital, Veterans, and so forth). Some of my parishioners are taken as far away as Baltimore. Regular visits to hospitalized members may not be possible when they are in such varied locations. Pastors often need to depend on clergy more local to the hospital in question. This leads to concerns that “my pastor never came and saw me.” But some parishioners simply do not realize how unrealistic this is for pastors, often without assisting clergy, with dozens of parishioners in as many as half a dozen different and often distant hospitals.
Pastors and priests also have serious duties at the parish which cannot always be dropped at a moment’s notice. A pastor may get an urgent call to come at once, yet he is just getting ready to celebrate a wedding. He cannot simply say to the couple they will have to have their wedding another day. Calls may come in as well in the middle of a Sunday Mass, or other significant function where a priest cannot reasonably dash off. A priest may also be teaching a class or bible study involving thirty or more people and it may not be reasonable for him to rush out in the middle of a class. He may be completely away from the parish teaching or filling in for another priest. It is simply not possible for a parish priest to be 100% available at every moment for a possible sick call, even an emergency. Sometimes the best he can do is to ask a parish staff member or the hospital to find another priest. It is not always right to allow the urgent to wholly eclipse the important.
Towards a solution. The care of the sick is important and reasonable urgencies need to be addressed by the Church. What are some of the things that can be done to realistically address the needs of Catholics given the factors seen above?
Large hospital centers should have full time chaplains if this is possible. This is especially true if the hospital has a shock and trauma unit that routinely receives accident victims and those suddenly stricken. The chaplain would also need to a coordinate with local parishes to cover any gaps caused by his day off or vacation. Here in Washington, we are often able to depend on priests from religious orders. Other dioceses are less blessed with options.
If a full time chaplain really cannot be found, the parishes near the larger hospitals need to develop a carefully coordinated plan to cover the hospitals and field emergencies. The plan should make sure that gaps are properly covered and emergency calls can be quickly handled. Further, parishioners and hospital staffs should be well aware of how to contact the priest on duty.
Smaller hospitals and nursing homes still need coverage from the local parishes. The diocese should have a carefully crafted plan on who covers them and when. Emergency clergy numbers for each hospital and nursing home should be easily available to all the priests and staff of the parishes in each diocese; for it often happens that a brother priest near the hospital will need to be contacted by a priest or staff member from across town who cannot reasonably make a visit.
Some teaching on the nature of a true sacramental emergency needs to be made to both the faithful and to hospital staffs. When death is clearly imminent we usually have an emergency. However, just because some one has gone to an emergency room does not mean that death is imminent, and that a priest is needed at once. Sometimes it is fine to wait for the next day when a priest routinely visits. Even when death is imminent, it is sometimes the case that a priest gave sacraments just the day before. It is not necessary for the priest to return and be there at the moment of death, when a person has been receiving ordinary pastoral care given to those who are seriously ill. It is sufficient in such cases that the person has recently received the sacraments and there is no reason to summon the priest to come at once or in the middle of the night. True sacramental emergencies usually occur for those who are suddenly and unexpectedly stricken or who are in an accident and are, for these reasons, in immediate danger of death.
Parish priests should well instruct their staff how to field emergency calls, assess their importance, and know options to pursue if the parish priest cannot be reasonably reached. Families should not simply be told, a priest cannot be found, they must be helped to find a priest in an authentically urgent situation.
To the degree possible, hospital staffs should also be able to know how to contact a priest quickly. Their phone lists should be up to date and include several options.
The faithful may have to accept that a priest will not always be found in time. In such cases they ought to remember that God does not reject any who call on him. And, though anointing is surely helpful, it is not absolutely necessary for salvation. Even confession in dying moments should not be thought of as magic. If a person seeks a priest and a priest cannot be reasonably found in time, it suffices for the person to make an act of contrition – no one who calls on the Lord will he ever reject. If a person is unconscious, a priest saying absolution over them, will only have effect if they had some contrition and openness to receive the sacraments prior to the unconscious state. Even when a priest rushes he does not always get there in time. In such cases, we have to trust in God.
Again, an important goal for every Catholic is to be up to date on their sacraments and in a state of grace. Sacraments are to be part of ordinary pastoral care and an ordinary part of the life of a Catholic. They are not to be merely postponed to the moment of death.
It is surely an added grief when a priest cannot be found in cases of true emergency or when proper pastoral care is not reasonably extended to the chronically ill. And while it may be an explanation that parish priests are sometimes overwhelmed, it is not an excuse. Parishes and dioceses need to work together with the faithful to see that the sick and the dying are properly cared for, that emergencies are covered, and that the faithful are properly instructed on the nature of the sacraments and how to secure the ministry of a priest when such needs arise.
As always, I am interested in your experiences in this regard. It is most helpful if you can suggest how the Church might better help in such matters.
The cities of the Northeast and upper Midwest were once teeming with Catholics. The city centers featured many and thriving Catholic parishes of various ethnic derivations. Catholics were uptown, down town and all around town. Some of the blocks in the older Chicago neighborhoods would even feature several parishes: there was the Polish Parish, the Irish, the German, and Italian, each of them little cities within themselves. Consider a description of old Chicago and other Catholic cities of the Northeast, by John McGreevy in his Book, Parish Boundaries which I summarize:
Virtually all the Catholic immigrant groups were within two generations of immigration, and all placed enormous financial, social, and cultural weight on the parish church as an organizer of local life. A Detroit study found 70% of Catholics claiming to attend services once a week, as opposed to 33% of the city’s white Protestants, and 12% of the city’s Jews….
The Catholic churches whether they were Polish, Italian, Portuguese, or Irish, simply dominated the life and activities of the community. The Catholic world, supervised by priests was disciplined and local. Many parishes sponsored enormous neighborhood carnivals each year (with local politicians making appearances and local businesses donating supplies).
Most parishes also contained a large number of formal organizations – including youth groups, mother’s clubs, parish choirs, and fraternal organizations – each with a priest moderator, the requisite fundraisers and group masses. Parish sports teams for even the youngest boys shaped parish identity, with fierce rivalries developing in Catholic sports leagues.
The dense social networks centered themselves around an institutional structure of enormous magnitude. Virtually every parish in the northern cities included a church (often of remarkable scale), a parochial school, a convent, a rectory and often ancillary gymnasiums or auditoriums. Even hostile observers professed admiration for the marvelous organization and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. [e.g. Holy Family Church in Chicago with its massive school next door, more buildings are behind].
Brooklyn alone contained on hundred and twenty-nine parishes and over one hundred Catholic elementary schools. In New York city more generally forty-five orders of religious men lived. Nuns managed twenty-five hospitals…schools enrolled 214,000 students. This list of summer camps, colleges and universities , retreat centers, retirement homes, seminaries and orphanages was daunting.
For all Euro-American Catholic groups, neighborhood, parish, and religion were constantly intertwined…Small statues of Mary or local saints appeared in neighborhood yards, while crosses and religious artifacts decorated individual rooms. Catholic parishes routinely sponsored parades and processions through the streets of the parish.
Catholic leaders leaders deliberately created a Catholic counterpart for virtually every secular organization. The assumption was that the parish must make every effort to become the real center of attraction in the lives of the parishioners, it must become the hub around which a large number of their interests revolve. [McGreevy, pp. 13-28]
Decline – We are well aware and have discussed on this blog frequently that many of these once thriving centers of Catholicism are in decline. Parishes and schools are closing in large numbers. The dramatic decline in Mass attendance from numbers near or above 70% down to our current 27% is part of the explanation. But another part of the explanation in the migration of Catholics out of the cities and out of the Northeast.
The first of the great migrations took place after the Second World War when Catholic moved in large numbers to the newly created and growing suburbs. They moved from uptown and downtown to “out of town.” The once great churches of the city center grew gradually more empty and less vital.
The initial experience in the suburbs was similar: large parishes, large schools, large buildings, all packed to the gills, and many activities. But suburban life was less tightly knit and ethnic ties were also being lost in those days in the great melting pot of the American experience. In a very subtle, but steady way, the cohesiveness of Catholics and parish life was becoming less a dominant force. Slowly Catholics ventured out of the Catholic “Ghetto” and sought wider connections and approval outside the Catholic world. The election of John F. Kennedy both symbolized and furthered this trend.
Then in successive waves, the sexual revolution, and the over all cultural revolution of the late 1960s caught Catholics and the Church unprepared. As secularism has grown and eroded the influence faith once had, even many of the flourishing suburban parishes of the post-war era are now much smaller and far less vital.
The second of the great migrations is occurring right now as Catholics, in large numbers, have left the “uptowns,” “downtowns” and “just out of towns” of the northeast and are headed “low down” to the south, and the Southeast. A quote from a recent CARA blog illustrates this point:
[Consider that], in 2001, the Archdiocese of Atlanta had more than 320,000 Catholics, 131 active diocesan priests, and 77 parishes (note in 1991, the Archdiocese had 176,000 Catholics and 65 parishes). Moving a decade ahead, the diocese now has 900,000 Catholics, 141 active diocesan priests, and 87 parishes. Thus, the number of Catholics increased by 181% in the last decade but the number priests only increased by 8% and the number of parishes by 13%. This means the number of Catholics per parish in the Archdiocese has grown from 4,156 in 2001 to 10,345 in 2011. Ten new parishes have been added to accommodate 580,000 additional Catholics. [1]
Now that is remarkable growth. And many cities of the South and Southwest are having similar experiences. As can be seen, the growth is so remarkable and so quick that it is difficult to keep up. Due to a shortage of priests and other resources, the usual approach of southern and southwestern dioceses is to build large churches that can seat well over 1000 and establish what is, in effect a mega church.
I have celebrated masses in the deep south, in some of these parishes, and the experience is quite amazing. One parish near Jacksonville, Fla, where I celebrated one Sunday, seated over 2200. It was a tasteful, in fact a very beautiful Church, but it was big, with a fan shaped main floor and a spacious balcony ringing three sides. The place was packed that morning, with three other masses scheduled and a vigil the night before, all filled or at least well attended. Forty-eight extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion came forward to assist with the distribution. The parking lot outside featured shuttle buses to get the farthest parkers back and forth. The pastor explained that this was the trend in the south. With few priests, parishes have to built big to get as many Catholics in at one time as possible and keep the number of masses manageable for the priests.
At one level it all seems very exciting to hear of booming Catholic Parishes that need parking shuttle buses. It reminds one of the massive and flourishing parishes that once filled the northeastern cities. But there are some concerns that go with these mega-parishes. It is articulated at the CARA blog:
[A] study, conducted by CARA, … finds that larger U.S. parishes tend to have lower rates of attendance, lower levels of sacramental activity per household, and less giving per registered household than what is reported in smaller parishes. [So], there appears to be a size limit at which the parish community begins to become less active and less giving. [2]
In other words, such parishes risk loosing personal contact with souls. And without personal contact and a sense of being an integral member of a community, it is easier for people to drift and fall away. Large numbers can hide steady erosion for a while but it would seem that the impersonal nature of large parishes allows the faithful to become disengaged. They can also hide behind the notion that “someone in this big parish will handle the trouble that the pastor is enunciating.” As impressive as large parishes are, it is clear from our experiences after the war, and now, that they can also become unraveled very quickly if no one feels essential.
The CARA blog concludes:
As we have shown in a previous post, there are not a lot of dioceses building new parishes in areas where the Catholic population moved and is growing strongly…..But a parish building boom will likely be needed in the U.S. Sun Belt in the 21st century….It may be time to ask, with great care as well, when and how do we open new parishes where they are needed? After moving, will Catholics always have a new Catholic home to “come home” to? [3]
I do not know what the perfect size for a parish is. And even if I say a number, vocations to the priesthood are simply going to be a factor. As for me, I have 900 registered families and about 550 on a Sunday morning. For me, this is a perfect number. It is large enough for us to be financially viable, indeed we do very well, money wise. It is also large enough that I can have a fairly diverse cadre of volunteers to accomplish needed tasks. Yet is small enough for one priest to handle and even can get to know many people well. It is small enough too that people know each other well and people are missed when the drift away. But this model cannot be sustained diocesan-wide. We just don’t have enough priests to staff enough parishes at this scale.
But, it would seem, that large parishes still need a small town feel and experience, according to the CARA study. It makes sense, otherwise, people get lost. So, small targeted groups that gather in large parishes are needed to provide the personal encounters so necessary in our Christian walk. Perhaps it is targeted Bible studies, fraternal organizations, mother’s groups, etc.
The great mega parishes of the 20th Century urban north had their day but collapsed quickly, for it would seem that their communal ties declined after the War, or were not as deep as they were thought to be. People left too quickly for us to conclude that urban and ethnic communities had ties that really bound them together after WWII. It would seem we were a 1000 miles wide, but only two inches thick. The large suburban parishes of the postwar suburban north and east have also struggled to keep Catholics tied in. Big looks great but it isn’t necessarily better. While it is true we cannot simply build lots of small parishes, we have to be creative and build communities within parishes wherein there is accountability and love, something personal and engaging, something which makes people experience that they are essential to the Lord and to the Church. Doin’ the uptown, low down, may not be the dance we want to recreate as the Church spreads (low down) to the south.
I am interested in your thoughts, especially if you are member of a large Catholic Parish.
Photo Credits:
Holy Family Church (Upper Right) from the Archdiocese of Chicago Archive,
Lower Left, Our Lady Queen of the Universe, Orlando, from the Website.
–
Here are some fond remembrances of going to Catholic School in Chicago:
We have today the very familiar miracle of the loaves and fishes. One is tempted to say, “Oh that one…and tune out.” But, if we allow it, the gospel today contains a very personal appeal from the Lord’s lips to your (my) ears: “There is no need to dismiss the crowds, give them some food yourself.”
Immediately all the objections swim through our minds, but be still, and let us allow the Lord to instruct us and apply this Gospel in five stages.
I. THE IMAGE THAT IS EXTOLLED – The text says, When Jesus heard of the death of John the Baptist, he withdrew in a boat to a deserted place by himself. The crowds heard of this and followed him on foot from their towns. When he disembarked and saw the vast crowd, his heart was moved with pity for them, and he cured their sick.
The text begins with a very sad note of the death of Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist. We should not simply dismiss the kind of human grief he must have experienced, and the text says he wants to go apart for a while, presumably to pray and grieve. It would seem, at the pinnacle of his public ministry, he could only get apart by going out on a boat, and so he does. The text is unclear how long he was out on the water, but it implies a short time.
Approaching the opposite shore Jesus sees a large crowd, and is moved with pity. He teaches them at great length and heals the sick. And here is the image that is extolled. If Jesus has allowed himself this moment of grief, he also shows that the way out of it is love and concern for others. For it is too easy for us, in our own grief, anger, sorrow, or anxiety to retreat, to hide away. As an immediate reaction this is understandable. But it is not a disposition we ought to maintain for long. For others have need, and even in our grief and our limits, we are still called to reach out. And that very reaching out, often contains our own healing too.
That we have needs, does not mean others stop having them. Jesus shows the courage and the love to still recognize the needs of others, even in his own grief. So he goes ashore and shares love with others.
II. THE ISSUE THAT IS EVADED – The text says, When it was evening, the disciples approached him and said, “This is a deserted place and it is already late; dismiss the crowds so that they can go to the villages and buy food for themselves.”
There is a human tendency, that when people are needy, we want them to go away, to disappear. Hence, the apostles, noticing the needy crowd, a crowd about to have a hunger problem, they want the crowd to go away before they become a problem.
We too, both individually and collectively, often desire the needy and poor to just disappear. If we see a beggar, we may cross the street, or refuse to look at him. If our caller ID indicates a troubled family member who may ask for money or want to talk a long time, we let the call go to voice mail. In society we tend to segregate the poor and needy. The “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome seeks to segregate the poor, the mentally handicapped and others to certain marginal sections of the city largely out of sight, and out of mind. The sick and the dying too are often relegated to nursing homes. Perhaps this is necessary for proper care, but the thought of an elderly relative living and dying in our homes is too much for many, even when it is possible. So, generally people go away to die.
Notice the threefold basis of the disciples evasion:
They are DESPAIRING – for they say, this is a deserted place and it is already late.
They are DISMISSIVE – for they want Jesus to dismiss the crowd, to send them away.
They are DETACHED – for instead of wanting to help, they want the crowd to go away and get food for themselves.
Yes, it is a sad human tendency to want to be rid of people who have problems. And so the disciples beg Jesus to send the increasingly troublesome crowd away. The Issue is evaded, rather than accepted as a shared problem to be solved together.
III. THE INSTRUCTION THAT ENSUES – Jesus said to them, “There is no need for them to go away; give them some food yourselves.”
Uh oh! This is starting to get personal. Jesus is not willing to keep this merely as a problem “they” have, he wants me to do something!
Yes, he rejects their premise by saying there is no need for them to go away. And he redirects plan by saying, give them something to eat yourselves.
Refusing to accept the presence of the poor and needy, is simply not a viable option for Jesus, or for us who would be his disciples. He wants and expects us to get started with a solution, a solution that includes both “them” and us. It looks like we are our brother’s keeper.
This is the instruction that ensues when the apostles, or when we, try to evade the issue.
IV. THE INSUFFICIENCY THAT IS EXPRESSED – the text says, But they said to him, “Five loaves and two fish are all we have here.”
But we can’t possibly pull this thing off, the needs are far too great! The Lord is not interested in our excuses, he just says, “Let’s get started.”
Observe two things about the five loaves and two fishes.
First, as John’s Gospel notes, (6:9), the loaves and fishes came from among the poor themselves. Hence this is not mere do-goodism. The teaching here is not to be a “limousine liberal” who rolls down the window and throws money to the poor, then goes back to his mansion. Neither is it a “we’re from the government and we’re here to help you” solution. For we should not do for others what they can reasonably do for themselves. Rather we ought to work with the poor, engaging them in what they do have, in the talents and leadership they do possess, and solve problems with them, rather than merely for them. There are loaves and fishes among even the poor, there are talents and resources to be included in the solution.
Secondly, wherever the loaves and fishes come from, they are not nothing, and the Lord expects all of us to be part of the solution. Simply telling God or, (these days), the government, to go and do something, is not a full or authentic Christian response.
Hence our complaints about meager resources do not impress the Lord who says, simply, bring them to me. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. And thus we go to the principle point.
V. THE IMMENSITY THAT IS EXPERIENCED – the text says, Then he said, “Bring them here to me, ” and he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the fragments left over— twelve wicker baskets full. Those who ate were about five thousand men, not counting women and children.
Now this story is so familiar that you and I are not shocked by the outcome. But no matter how many times we hear it, we still do not really accept it’s astonishing truth:
I can do all things in God who strengthens me (Phil 4:13)
All things are possible to him who believes (Mk 9:23)
For man it is impossible, but not with God, for all things are possible with God (Mk 10:27)
Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. (2 Cor 9:10)
Now take special note of that last quote, for this gospel is about more than caring for the poor, (and it is about that). But this Gospel is also about taking this world back for Christ.
We all know that this world is in an increasingly bad state: rampant secularism, moral relativism, and a Church with many self-inflicted wounds. This has all led to the fact that we have a real mess on our hands. And the problems are overwhelming: sexual confusion, the culture of death, the breakdown of marriage, compulsive sin, compulsive overspending, greed, insensitivity to the poor, deep and widespread addiction to pornography, drugs, and alcohol, abortion, widespread promiscuity, adultery, corruption, cynicism, low mass attendance and on an on.
The problems seem overwhelming and our resources seem so limited to turn back the tide. What will we ever do with only five loaves and two fishes?
Jesus says, bring them to me.
Yet again, the journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step. The conversion of the whole world, begins with me. As I look the huge problems before me, I (this means you) assess my loaves and fishes:
I work on my own conversion. For a holier world has to start with me. If I get holier, the world get’s holier.
I look to the poor I can serve, maybe with money maybe with talents, like tutoring, counseling etc. Maybe just with the time of listening.
I pick up the phone and call a family member I know is hurting.
I love my spouse and children.
I spend time properly raising my own children to know the Lord and seek his kingdom.
I exhort the weak in my own family, and with love, rebuke sin and encourage righteousness.
If I am a priest or religious, I faithfully live my vocation, and heroically call others to Christ by teaching and proclaiming the gospel without compromise.
If I am a young person I seek to devoutly prepare myself for a vocation to marriage, priesthood or religious life.
If I am older I seek to manifest wisdom and good example to those who are young.
If I am elderly, I seek to devoutly prepare myself for death, and to give good example in this, and to witness the desire for heaven.
I will pray for this world and attend mass faithfully, begging God’s mercy on this sin soaked world.
It is too easy to lament this world’s condition and, like the apostles, feel overwhelmed. Jesus just says, bring me what you have, and let’s get started. The conversion of the whole world will begin with me, with my meager loaves and fishes.
And Jesus will surely multiply them, he will not fail. Already there is renewal evident in the Church, through a faithful remnant willing to bring their loaves fishes, some of the things mentioned above and more besides. They are bringing them to Jesus and he is multiplying them. Renewal is happening, and signs of spring are evident in the Church.
There is an old saying that it is easier to wear slippers that to carpet the whole of the earth. Indeed it is. If it is a converted world you want start with yourself. Bring your loaves and fishes to Jesus, bring your slippers, and let’s get started. It begins with me.
This song says,
If I can help somebody, as I pass along,
If I can cheer somebody, with a word or song,
If I can show somebody, how they’re traveling wrong,
Then my living shall not be in vain.
If I can do my duty, as a good man ought,
If I can bring back beauty, to a world up wrought,
If I can spread love’s message, as the Master taught,
Then my living shall not be in vain.
In the Gospels Jesus says: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me, draws him.” (John 6:44) Now the Greek word here is ἑλκύσῃ (elkuse) which means “to draw or to drag” and the word always implies some sort of resistance. In a way, Jesus more than implies that all of us who do believe have offered some resistance, and the Father had to drag us along!
“Oh, not me!” you might say, “I have been a believer since my youth!” Well, get used to it, all of us are a “hard case” to God. Truth is, our flesh (our carnal “sin-nature”) does not want to believe, does not want to be told what to do. God, working through others has to drag us along. It is true, some of us are harder cases than others but all of us are still in the category “hard case.” We can be very stubborn, willful, and stiff necked. We can also rationalize very easily and convince ourselves that sin is no big deal and even not sin at all.
Of us, God says this through the Prophet Isaiah: For I know how stubborn you are; the sinews of your neck are iron, your forehead is bronze (Is 48:4). In other words, God says to us, I know that you are stubborn. Like iron, you are hardheaded. Like bronze, and nothing gets through your thick skull. Are we a hard case? You betcha….
Yes, indeed we have to be dragged along by God and our carnal nature resists. So, if you’ve come to Jesus, thank the Father, he had to drag you and me here! And, like wandering sheep, he often has to go out and drag us back. “No one can come to me,” says Jesus, “Unless the Father draws (drags!) him.” Again, if you have faith, thank the Father! You might say we have a “drug problem.” The problem is that we have to be “drug along” at every stage of our lives.
There is an old Internet standard you may have read elsewhere that reflects this need to be “drug”
I had a drug problem when I was young: I was drug to church on Sunday morning. I was drug to church for weddings and funerals. I was drug to family reunions and community socials no matter the weather. I was drug by my ears when I was disrespectful to adults. I was also drug to the woodshed when I disobeyed my parents, told a lie, brought home a bad report card, did not speak with respect, spoke ill of the teacher or the preacher. Or if I didn’t put forth my best effort in everything that was asked of me. I was drug to the kitchen sink to have my mouth washed out with soap if I uttered a profane four letter word. I was drug out to pull weeds in mom’s garden and flower beds and to do my chores. I was drug to the homes of family, friends, and neighbors to help out some poor soul who had no one to mow the yard, repair the clothesline or chop some fire wood. And if my mother had ever known that I took a single dime as a tip for this kindness, she would have drug me back to the wood shed. Those drugs are still in my veins; and they affect my behavior in everything I do, say, and think. They are stronger than cocaine, crack, or heroin, and if today’s children had this kind of drug problem, America might be a better place today.
Here’s a gospel song by Kurt Carr that describes how God has to hold us close not only because we are stubborn but also because, sometimes we despair:
When I was a young priest I used to bring communion to an elderly woman who would often puzzle over what on earth a priest would do on days other than Sunday. “You must be rather bored” she’d often say. “Oh, not exactly!” I would retort. “Well, what can you possibly have to do after you say Mass?” “Well, of course I am here visiting you!” “Well, that just takes a few minutes” she’d say. “Well, I do have few other things to do this week:”
The other 15 sick calls I have through the week,
the daily visits to the school,
the evening appointments for marriage prep., marriage counseling, meetings with spiritual directees,
Weekly RCIA instructions,
Weekly Bible Study,
Hospital calls,
Funeral on Wednesday,
Sermon prep,
I have to remember to prepare of class notes for the Adult Education class on Sunday,
2pm Staff meeting,
10:00 am Saturday Parish Council,
Finance Council meeting Thursday,
Youth group meeting Friday night,
School staff meeting Friday at 3:30pm
Meeting with CCD teachers to discuss curriculum changes,
Boiler contractor wants to discuss water treatment
Gotta remember to call cleaning supply vendor regarding his proposal.
Looks like the diocesan meeting was cancelled (whew!) but rescheduled for next week (whew!),
The Synder’s want to schedule a house blessing,
The interfaith network is a requesting a clergy meeting for next Tuesday
Mr Evans has planned a meeting of the evangelization planning committee and I have to call and confirm that I can be there briefly to discuss the walking strategy on Wednesday evening before Bible Study.
I should probably mention that there are often walk up appointments at the rectory requesting to see the priest,
15 – 20 Phone messages a day to be returned
And then there’s those moments where a staff member sticks her head in the door and says, “Oh by the Father, the school staff is upset at the way the Ladies Guild left the stove on again and the principle wants to talk with you about it before the staff meeting.” “Oh, and Father? That strange man is back in the church again and he’s scaring the ladies in the rosary group. Could you go over and take a look?….And, by the way Father, remember to call Mrs. Deale who wants to start Eucharistic Adoration in the parish and wants you to preach more on it and attend an organizational meeting next Tuesday…..”
Oh, I forgot to mention the evening Wedding this Saturday and that I make a daily holy hour and say Mass each day.
“Ah, yes,” I said to her: “Not much to do, really.” 🙂
And this description I gave her was all back in the days before cell phones, e-mail, and blogging! But its all good; just sometimes too much of a good thing! Yet I wouldn’t have it any other way. And truth be told, we priests are busy, but not so much busier than most people. I think of my brothers who work all day and then come home to homes full of kids and ten thousand, thousand things to do each week. Their wives too, have lists that are endless, and I’ll bet you do as well. Life is full, but also fulfilling, if we find some boundaries, and love what we do by God’s grace.
All this to introduce a very good video that depicts the week of a parish priest. It is a very good production which I hope you’ll enjoy as much as I. The life of a priest is rich, and varied. But please understand that, from time to time when you call, we might not be at our desk waiting to answer the phone. The vineyard beckons!
I wonder if it’s just me? Perhaps I have a sensitive conscience. But cheating has always surprised and deeply bothered me. When I ask people about it today, some agree, but many also shrug and say, it has always gone on. OK, I wasn’t born yesterday. I know and remember that some kids cheated on tests etc. But I don’t remember it being common, and I can certainly say that I did not cheat, and most of the kids I knew did not cheat. Frankly, I am too scared to cheat at things, and I am a terrible liar.
But consider some excerpts from an article by Bill O’Reilly in yesterday’s Washington Examiner wherein he details how, it would seem, that cheating is now quite a widespread phenomenon. He also ponders some reasons that cheating and other forms of lying are on the increase. As usual, the remarks of the author are in black, bold, italics, my remarks are in plain text red.
Ask any attorney or judge, and they will tell you that lying under oath is now the rule, not the exception, in the nation’s courtrooms.
In addition, the national cheating epidemic has exploded. A Georgia investigation alleges systematic cheating occurred at 44 public schools over a 10-year period. But it’s not the kids who were caught. No, the state says at least 178 teachers and principals did the deeds. It seems the remarkable improvements in student scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests were fraudulent. Educators doctored the tests in order to make their schools look good. They have all been fired.
While I do not know all the specifics about this Georgia case, I am convinced that some people justify cheating by cynically viewing the whole system as corrupt or unfair from the get-go. Thus, since things are “unfair,” it is not wrong to game the system. At least this is how I hear some people talk today, “It’s OK to cheat on my taxes since the Government takes too much anyway and they make the tax code so complicated that I can’t be bothered with it.” Well, perhaps both things are true, but of course there are legitimate ways to influence public policy short of cheating. But some say, why be bothered with a long term project like that? Just cook the books.
The key point is that the cheater justifies his behavior by cynically regarding the situation he faces as unjust. Now he can not only cheat, but even feel like a righteous dude as he does so. Perhaps some of the teachers resented Federal and State education standards, “No Child Left Behind” benchmarks etc. Perhaps they think that such things are biased against minorities, or that testing is an overrated tool, or that the bureaucrats who call for testing know nothing of education and are just corrupt themselves. Therefore I am have a right to cook the books. After all I’m just trying to protect people’s jobs and keep the funding going, and I’m only lying to a bunch of evil people with questionable political motives anyway….to heck with them! Or so the thinking goes.
I do not say this is case with everyone, in the Georgia scandal but it is not hard to imagine the thinking of our cynical culture seeping into the scenario.
Lying and cheating almost always come down to betrayal and are most often driven by selfishness. America has become a nation obsessed with immediate gratification. …. it’s a free-for-all of getting what you want as quickly as possible. Lying and cheating are considered by many to be useful tools on the road to accomplishment.
Yes, this would certainly seem to be another factor. There’s a kind of entitlement attitude that I shouldn’t have to wait or work hard or earn what I have. I should just be given it. Thus, tests and other hurdles are regarded, not just with impatience, but also with a kind of outrage. The outrage says, “Who or what is this keeping me from what is mine? Why should I have to qualify or jump thought hoops or wait for what I am entitled to?”
Thus, tests and qualifications, earned credentials, the paying of legitimate fees or taxes, and demonstrating one’s bona fides are all considered unreasonable incursions or delays from what is rightfully mine anyway. I want what I want, and I want it now, and thus I have every right to go around the system, and get what is mine.
Public schools have embraced secularism with a vengeance; therefore, Moses and his 10 Commandments have been banished.
Yes, the idea that God is watching or that we will have to answer to God is largely gone from our culture. I remember that, even though I wasn’t a very spiritual child, I was very powerfully motivated by the thought that God saw and knew everything I was doing. God was just on the radar and I had to deal with him.
I am not sure most young people grow up with this today in our secular culture. God has been “kicked to the curb.” Thus, if I get away with something, I really have gotten away with it. Or so the secular thinking goes. That God knows and I will have to answer to him for what I do would hardly seem to enter the mind of most moderns imbued with a secular, rather than a sacramental understanding of reality.
There are, of course, good people who understand that honesty is indeed the best policy if you want to live a worthwhile life. But their numbers are dwindling. In fact, a recent study out of the University of Connecticut says that an astounding 95 percent of high school students have admitted to cheating in the past year. Wow! I just know it wasn’t anything near this high when I was in school.
For a variety of reasons, our society now embraces and empowers scoundrels… In the 1960s, it was: “If it feels good, do it.” Today, it is: “If it looks good, steal it.” Or: “If it sounds good, say it.” Many of the moral boundaries that once elevated this country have collapsed.
Yes, our entertainment glorifies rouges, scoundrels, gangers, and a lot of bad behaviors. It’s the anti-authority thing and the “don’t tell me what to do” syndrome set to music and cinematic glory.
The “heros” live on the periphery and gain hero status by flaunting the norms and engaging in often lawless practices. The premise of most of this glorification is a deeply cynical view that the whole “system” is corrupt.
It will be granted that there are problematic aspects and hypocrisies in any society that need attention. But deep cynicism that there are any rules and norms to be observed has gripped increasing numbers who thereby rationalize their dishonesty and lawlessness as a kind of righteousness.
Too easily and uncritically we lionize those who flaunt or tweak the system, as we vicariously vent our own frustrations through their antics. “Yeah! Take that!” we tell “the man” as our hero flaunts and games the system and makes “the man” look foolish. But all the while we feed our cynicism that anyone has a right to the honest truth, to legitimate obedience, to legitimate taxes, fees and so forth. Then in arrogant self righteousness many can even congratulate themselves for cheating, stealing and lying. And not only can we personally adopt this attitude, but society as a whole can and does, increasingly, adopt it.
If society does not hold us responsible for deceit, why should we hold ourselves responsible? That’s a tough question to answer when students see their teachers cooking the books….
Here is a “classic” film from 1984 in the cynical genre I mentioned. It is Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Throughout the movie he lies, he cheats, he steals, he’s dishonest, and he’s “our hero.” The school secretary calls him “a righteous dude.” And of course all the authorities are cynically represented as unreasonable buffoons who deserve to be cheated against, and lied to. Please excuse the vulgarities, especially at the end, but I could not find a trailer without them.
I have celebrated masses in the deep south, in some of these parishes, and the experience is quite amazing. One parish near Jacksonville, Fla, where I celebrated one Sunday, seated over 2200. It was a tasteful, in fact a very beautiful Church, but it was big, with a fan shaped main floor and a spacious balcony ringing three sides. The place was packed that morning, with three other masses scheduled and a vigil the night before, all filled or at least well attended. Forty-eight extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion came forward to assist with the distribution. The parking lot outside featured shuttle buses to get the farthest parkers back and forth. The pastor explained that this was the trend in the south. With few priests, parishes have to built big to get as many Catholics in at one time as possible and keep the number of masses manageable for the priests.