I've always been fascinated by Dorothy Day. She was a very traditional Catholic, loved the pre-Vatican II Mass and didn't like modern, hippy-type priests manipulating the Mass in a creative way. Yet she was a radical progressive in striving to serve the poor. Because of this she was labeled a "communist" by many in and outside of the Church.
I came across a website that is promoting her cause to be name a saint in the church. You can look at it HERE.
There is a school of thought amongst modern "liturgists" that the liturgy prior to the council did not form Catholics to be concerned about the poor. I don't think one could say this. Certainly the pre-Vatican II Church including her liturgy inspired thousands upon thousands to join religious orders and the priesthood. Many of these orders served the poor in the most specific ways and educated poor children who now are rich because of it. Because these religious didn't make a lot of money from the Catholic schools they staff, tuition was low and affordable.
The pre-Vatican II Church and her liturgy also inspired many lay apostolates and many of these to take care of the poor.
The post-Vatican II Church is inspiring the laity to do the same today in terms of the poor and needy. But for some reason, the post-Vatican II Church and her liturgy is not inspiring the same level of radical commitment to religious orders and the priesthood. Is it just cultural or is it something more endemic within the post-Vatican II Church and her liturgy? Just wondering.
27 comments:
OMG! She had two common law marriages, an abortion, was an advocate of birth control, and an anarchist. Give me a break.
So, Pinanv525, should we then take away the title and name of Paul, I mean Saul? And what about Augustine? Your puritan, Calvinistic tendencies are showing forth.
FR,I understand what you are saying and would never argue that a sinner cannot become a Saint, nor that God cannot use the worst of us for His purposes. However, Dorothy Day continued to advocate views which were clearly in conflict with Church teaching through her whole life. She was involved in left-wing groups which, while ostensibly advocating for the "poor" were aggeressively anti-Church. She was basically a "cafeteria Catholic", something I have heard you and Fr. Justin scold the flock about in homilies on a number of occasions.
This is emblematic of exactly the problems we have in the Church today, a group of "progressive" politically activist "sorta" Catholics who see the Church as primarily an agent of social and political change. They do not embrace many of the Church's teachings, will never do so, but remain within to attempt radical change.
Now, about the poor...the poor should be provided for...and are, especially in this country where their standard of living is comparatively high by world standards. The Catholic Church, probably above all other entities, has ministered to the poor around the world by tremendous gifts of time, talent, and treasure. The Church has nothing for which to apologize.
Progressives and liberals in this country have enshrined the "poor" as some kind of mythic icon to which countless treasure has been scarificed. They are the new version of Rousseau's "noble savage," supposedly representing some elemental innocence and morality, though where the evidence for this is to be found escapes me. This country, in particular, has given up freedoms, industry, enterprise, morality, the family, and education through an egalitarian levelling of all standards and morals in a misguided effort raise the "poor" to some vaguely defined level they will never attain. As Durant, in tracing our problems to the French Revolution, characterized the welfare state, "...the welfare state as a compensatory protection of the simple poor against the clever rich, all capped with a semi-religious faith in the infinite perfectability of mankind."
We would do well to exegete, once again, Mark 14:7, where Jesus clearly places worship and praise of Him above any social cause, particularly the poor.
So, the Church continues to smile upon those within her walls who support social and political organizations who hate her and would use any means to bring about her downfall. This is why I believe Day is an unfortunate choice for praise given today's political realities. This is certainly not to speak against her eternal salvation or the inadvertent good she may have done. And, if the Church should agree to her beatification, I will have to yield to the Church's superior wisdom...and go to Confession for having my tongue firmly planted in my cheek when I wrote that. Of all the available Day's who may merit praise, I prefer Doris.
Getting back to your question Father, I think the reason the post-Vatican II Church has not inspired religious vocations as energetically as the preconciliar Church has more to do with its application, including what children are taught in Catholic schools. I am a child of the rupture and I think a couple of anecdotes suffice to provide examples:
I can remember Mass being serious and solemn, then suddenly it was "celebration time". I can remember going to weddings that were pretty serious affairs, and a couple of years later, the priests treating brides and grooms like they had just won a trip on the Dating Game. Early in my Catholic education, we were told inspiring stories of saints who sacrificed all to serve the poor. After the rupture, we were told stories about secular heroes "fighting poverty". Suddenly we were celebrating "Earth Day" at school and doing public service activities like walking through our economically downward neighborhood holding "Save the Earth" pickets and picking up papers on the sidewalk. It was especially confusing to watch hippies on TV destroying everything at the 68 Democratic convention and then going to school to hear Sister Hipster (habit long gone) praising hippies and all their causes.
Somehow religious life just didn't fit in to the picture.
I believe what I wrote goes hand in glove with Robert's comments. It is the obsession with being "engaged," not with God but with some social cause or other, in a word, "the people"...symbolized by versus populum rather than ad orientum. Belief and faith certainly imply service, but we got our priorities screwed up somewhere along the way.
She was a very traditional Catholic, loved the pre-Vatican II Mass . . . . . Yet she was a radical progressive in striving to serve the poor.
That "yet" here is somewhat ironic, considering that the pre-Vatican II Church---inspired by the only Mass their was then---conducted a range of deeply Catholic charitable activities beyond compare in their scope with those now.
Henry, you get the point of my comment. As you probably know, there are many today who say that the reformed Mass and the reforms of Vatican II have made the Church more conscious of the poor and serving them. That the pre-Vatican II Church and liturgy hindered that and was too other-worldly. I think and know that that is a lie especially when you look at the Church and her concern for the poor which didn't just come about since Vatican II.
Frajm asks: "But for some reason, the post-Vatican II Church and her liturgy is not inspiring the same level of radical commitment to religious orders and the priesthood. Is it just cultural or is it something more endemic within the post-Vatican II Church and her liturgy?"
It is Cultural. What did the Church expect to happen when it changed it focus from the Four Final Things to Social Justice? Rich, Poor, Healthy, Sickly, etc etc, doesn't matter. Take up your Cross and follow me. If one man eats Caviar and another Mac-N-Cheese matters not a wit, be happy with where God leads you. The Poor probably need less saving than the rich.
To summarize Pinan: Paul/Saul had a change of heart and behaved differently. 'Sr' Dorothy Day became more radical.
The disconnect in my opinion is that she sets the poor as a separate class of creature, not just economically. They are treated as unable to make correct decisions and blames people who benefit from making the correct decisions as if they stole the fruit from the poor. This is understandable in a very narrow sense, but is self serving.
Teachings on social justice are very thin ice. They almost always leap into specifics of economics and behaviour that are simply incorrect. This is a significant hazard for the Church, for when the policies based on the teachings of social justice ala Dorthy Day and those with similar beliefs, fail as they always do, people will naturally question if any of the other, vastly more complex, teachings are true. This is being played out right now in Africa and south Asia where people are rapidly converting from Christianity to other faiths and economic systems because these alternatives free them from the cycle of poverty our version of charity has inflicted on them.
So when you here a religious person speaking and pressing for social justice ask yourself this question: would you want this person running your household budget? Would you let them balance your cheque book?
rcg
If we believe that Jesus is at the very center of everything that motivates us to act, then our actions should reflect Him in all that we do socially, politically, & in our personal lives as well. Can this be said about Dorothy Day (and many others who serve the poor) no matter her zeal, passion, care or legitimate concerns for the disenfranchised. This is THE litmus test for all of us - priests & Church-based programs included. I for one have seen way too many acts of corporal mercy done in the name of social justice & far too few done in the name of Jesus. As good as it all is & as much as it all is needed, it would does us well to remember the words of Jesus to His disciples after the woman with the alabaster box poured the perfume on His feet (Matthew 26: 11-13). As we strive to live out the Gospel, may we remember that Jesus, His life & His teachings are at the very center of our actions. Otherwise our acts, though well-intended, do not mirror Him, but are merely reflections of ourselves & our understanding of the world & its needs. -pgal
pgal,you are making my point with the same story from Matthew instead of Mark. We are certainly in agreement.
I am new to this marvelous blog and am, with some exceptions of course, very impressed with its content and resulting discussions. Some questions and observations: (1) The phrase, “social justice” is somewhat irksome to me – why not simply speak of “justice,” for all justice is social, like all sin is social; (2) The Church’s mission is the salvation of souls; (3) The beatitudes were directed to you and me, not to government; (4) I don’t know enough about Dorothy Day to comment, but I suspect pinanv525 has nailed it. Also, I have read statistics about how liberals, who favor stealing from some to help others, are far less generous with their own funds to charities than are conservatives; (5) How do Catholic voters, laity and clergy, justify their “ends justifies the means” approach to “serving” the common good?” They share in condoning and promoting intrinsic evils like abortion and homosexual acts, in exchange for a laundry list of ineffective promises and programs which serve mostly to keep the poor, Blacks and Whites, in slavery on the government plantation? They are treated like racetrack greyhounds forever chasing the elusive rabbit.
I think you can use whatever words you like for social justice, which means caring for the poor. Dorothy Day had one way of doing it and responded to it out of our very traditional Latin Mass experience. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta had another way of doing it and she also spoke to power around the world about the right to life.
We also have a large body of papal social teachings contained in encyclicals. While the times change, the principles usually do not.
The Church cannot declare, though, that any one way of solving social problems, i.e. war, hunger, poverty, abortion, etc is the one and only way and in morality there are very few absolutes. That's true of the 10 commandments--Thou shalt not kill (Is that true in all instances?) No, one can kill in self-defense and in a just war. One can also allow an "indirect" abortion if the intention is to treat something else--i.e. take chemo-therapy for a life-threatening cancer. The intention is not to harm the baby, but to cure the mother. The mother though could choose to forgo the treatment until the baby comes, or she could follow medical advice knowing what might happen indirectly and which was not intended. So morality is very complex and so is "social justice."
pin,
You said, "However, Dorothy Day continued to advocate views which were clearly in conflict with Church teaching through her whole life. "
Could you elaborate?
The attacks on the Church's (and God's) preferential option for the poor are b-e-g-i-n-n-i-n-g to sound just a little too "Tradition, Family, Property" for a good Catholic blog . . .
Next will we hear of the "need" for a monarchy or a "nobility" of elites to imbue the rest of us vassals and serfs with a proper understanding of wealth?
If you want to understand Social Justice as the Church teaches it, purchase:
"The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, a unique, unprecedented document in the history of the Church, serves as a tool to inspire and guide the faithful, who are faced with moral and pastoral challenges daily. It is divided into five sections: an introduction, three parts, and a conclusion entitled "For a Civilization of Love." The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is a must-have resource for leaders of social ministry at the diocesan and parish level as well as those in religious education, schools, and youth and young adult ministry.
Well,Ignotus/Maurin, There is nothing wrong with Tradition, Family,Property...or which of the three do you feel most guilty about? We know you don't like tradition...unless you think your glib and obligatory parroting of Church Dogma has us fooled. You sound like the lib protestants who used to taunt Southern Baptists with,"but, the Bible says..." in a nyah, nyah, nyah tone. What is it you do not like about Family? Could it be your anger at Mama and Daddy that you never got over that has created your neurotic need for an antagonist? Property...well, all you "progressives" hate private property because that is a sign of industry, determination, and wealth. Do you really think it is the widow's mite that has supported the Catholic Church all these many eons? Please. I chuckle at you people who love the golden egg but hate the goose that laid it.
I'm glad the Church compendium says "social doctrine." Social justice is just a garbage code word for anarchy, egalitarianism, and anti-Church, anti-American drivel spouted by anthology philosophers and two-bit campus cruising Marxists like yourself. Don't you have a Mass to prepare for somewhere?
Maybe we should also exegete this business about God's "preferential option for the poor," as well. The poor are often used in both OT and NT as an analogy to the poor in spirit, (who may be rich, or poor, or somewhere in between). The poor man is used as a type of Christ because he is without earthly possessions ("my Kingdom is not of this world"), not because he is financially destitute...there is a difference. A number of Jesus' disciples and apostles were well off by the standards of their own day...tax collectors, businessmen, physicians, etc. When Jesus says to "sell all you have and give it to the poor," He was not recommending that as an imperative for all wealthy people, rather, He was speaking paradoxically about the difficulty of letting go of our earthly ties and possessions in order to focus on piritual matters like salvation. Again, Mark 14:7 and Matthew 26 remind us that Christology is prior to social work. Belief is primary, from which worship and praise follow and, finally, service. The early Church was not a collection of hippies living in communes, wearing rags, and eating mushrooms and other desert floor detritus. The Church was, and has always been,supported by the wealth of those who love and serve Her. Many wealthy Christians died and suffered horrible tortures, and I dare say probably more so than your vaunted and mythic "poor." After all, the poor are no threat to the powers and principalities, but the monied and wealthy believers are indeed a threat. So, think Christology, think theological common sense. Jesus often spoke eschatologically...counselling behaviors and sacrifices that indicate not only the impossibility of our abiding by them, but the blessedness of a world redeemed by Him where one day, through no thanks to the Catholic Worker, the Little Red Book, Das Kapital, or Adam Smith, or the poor, we may all live in the world outlined in the Beatitudes.
The Church's Social Doctrine is about Social Justice.
The exegesis of the Church's preferential option for the poor has been done, authoritatively. It is found the The Compendium.
I am not glib in "parroting" the Church's teaching. I relish it and want to share with you the Good news She teaches.
If knowing and following the Church's Social Doctrine makes me a "two-bit campus cruising Marxist" then I am in good company. We call that company The Popes and Bishops who gave us the Social Doctrine and the Saints who lived it.
And "the poor" who were picked up by Teresa of Calcutta, baptized by Francis Xavier, taught by John Bosco, cared for by Katherine Drexel were neither "vaunted" nor "mythic."
Seems to me you have the guilt here.
Ignotus, you have a reading comprehension problem.
I have observed too much focus on the financially poor at the expense of seeing those who experience a poverty of love from others.
I have observed people so focused on the good work of giving handouts to the financially destitute that they fail to see others who are are also crying out for help.
Blessed Teresa progressed beyond the fiancially poor to also speaking up for those starving for love.
The poor come in so many varieties.
Too much work done in the service of 'social justice' misses the mark, and ends up being done in the service of the 'ego'. Jesus is simply used as a pretty cloak, or book jacket.
If you read the Compendium sections on "subsidiarity," you will find a view of balance there which supports everything I have said. It is a matter of both priorities and perspective.
From Evangelium Vitae:
"The church has always defended the right to private property, teaching at the same time that this right is not absolute. Pope Leo XIII wrote: "How must one's possessions be used? The human being should not consider material possessions as his or her own, but as common to all." The Second Vatican Council stated: "Of its nature private property also has a social function, based on the law of the common purpose of goods." (#30)
"The human being is the primary route that the church must travel to fulfill its mission." (#53)
From Solicitudo Rei Socialis
"The Church well knows that no temporal achievement is to be identified with the Kingdom of God, but that all such achievements simply reflect and in a sense anticipate the glory of the Kingdom, the Kingdom which we await at the end of history, when the Lord will come again. But that expectation can never be an excuse for lack of concern for people in their concrete personal situations and in their social, national and international life, since the former is conditioned by the latter, especially today." (#48)
From Populorum Progressio
"If someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (1 Jn 3:17). It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess anything towards persons in need. To quote Saint Ambrose:
"You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich." (#23)
So, what's your point?
How much should we give the poor? Has it ever been quantified? Two more questions: if the poor demand their possessions how do we know they are not demanding someone else's? And should we give without regard to the next person in need?
I wonder if we are totally missing the point. Consider the Rite of Healing. If the person was not cured of the disease is it because he not worthy, or is rite and belief a sham?
Or is the gift of healing and relief from poverty a spiritual matter, unquantifiable?
rcg
Ignotus appears to be somewhat fond of Communism/Socialism as a solution to poverty and other social problems. The Catechism clearly condemns, by name, "socialism and communism." The issue is: at what point does a government become unacceptably one or the other? The Vatican/Rome, being historically and administratively European,has always been a bit too comfortable with Socialism. This is probably inadvertent...like the frog in warm water who goes to sleep while the pot gradually increases to boiling.
As a newbie, I sometimes get lost in navigating the blog and wrote this regarding the process for choosing bishops. Oddly enough, I believe it fits here anyhow.
The “good old boy” network mentioned by Fr. Ignotus has created the disaster the “American” episcopacy has become. Things have been looking up, but oh so slowly. However, democracy and “campaigns” would be just as disastrous or more so where looks and slick rhetoric could result in the election of a charlatan.
If having bishops faithful to the Magisterium is the goal, the Vatican, with some exceptions, has certainly failed the vetting process. Political liberalism and theological heterodoxy pretty well go together. For example, half of our children are conservative and still practice their faith, while the politically liberal half does not. I don’t think our situation is unique.
I won’t name names, but one need only look at those bishops who teach by word, silence or action that we should not be “one issue” voters – i.e. anti-abortion. Their “social justice” laundry list lumps intrinsically evil choices, evil under any and all circumstances, along with issues open to prudential judgment. In the last Presidential election, around 100 bishops issued statements or letters (consistent with Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles,” to counter the quadrennial equivocation of the USCCB “Faithful Citizenship” documents (too few bishops and too late). Google it and read it, especially the “Note Bene.” I submit that “proportionate reasons” has a specific meaning in moral theology, more so than words like “other reasons,” “serious reasons” and “grave reasons.”
Archbishop John J. Meyers expresses it well: "Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for the most pro-abortion candidate. Now, that wasn’t too complicated to state clearly was it?
Sadly, my guess is that approximately 80% of our priests and bishops, in knee jerk fashion, vote for, aid and abet liberal politicians largely responsible for the moral decline of our laws, culture and even our Catholic church in America. Pope Leo XIII, etc., must be turning over in their graves.
Hopefully, the Vatican with the help of the Holy Spirit and many prayers will bless our diocese of Savannah with a holy orthodox bishop.
One might be justified in suspecting that Peter (pebble) Maurin is an avid camp follower who voted for the Abortionist in Chief and shed tears of joy while attending his inauguration. While his hero inexorably pushes us more deeply into the pit of Socialism, does Maurin hate the murders of the innocent while continuing to love and admire the murderer and his “Catholic” cohort? Are babies’ deaths an acceptable price for advancing the “common good,” intrinsic evils and all? Is Maurin comfortable with his hero’s substitution of freedom of worship to replace our Constitutional right of freedom of religion?
As an historian of pedantic intellect is he incapable of learning the lessons of history when it comes to the disastrous results of his favorite isms? Maurin reminds me of the guy who went into a bar, saw the six o’clock news showing a guy threatening to jump to his death. After much insistence, the bartender accepted his bet that the guy wouldn’t jump. He jumped. The bartender said he couldn’t take his money because he had seen an earlier broadcast and knew the guy jumped. The patron said he had seen it also but didn’t think the guy would jump again.
Holy Scripture requires an authoritative interpreter, the Church, and apparently the Encyclicals need protection from Maurin’s sola-scriptura-verse-slinging approach of Maurin. Perhaps he inadvertently overlooked #38 of Christifideles Laici and #15 of Rerum Novarum. As for the latter he might well believe that we lesser mortals need to be controlled by his merry band of intellectual elites. Oh yes, don’t dismiss #1885 of the CCC. Even after Maurin’s hero made it clear that a single-payer system was his goal, the USCCB, pandering to Pelosi etc., ignored the doctrine of subsidiarity.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Maurin were to assure us of his orthodoxy.
Excuse me, I forgot that there’s the Church founded upon Peter (large rock) and an American Catholic Church which has devolved with political expediency as its foundation. Question: What percentage of the USCCB’s income comes from Uncle Sam? I’ve heard 67%; is that true?
How long will it be before Maurin becomes the postulator for Ted Kennedy’s official canonization?
Post a Comment