Why is this? Because all of them are producing vocations that far outreach what is normally accomplished in parish settings today.
In these communities, there are no lukewarm or tepid members; all of them are highly motivated, deeply spiritual and submit to the legitimate authority of the Magisterium in the areas of faith, morals and canon law. These groups are not progressive in any area except for the fact they have come together outside of parish structures and have lay structures of leadership and authority which is progressive. As well, they could well be called progressives when it comes to the Liturgy, except of course for those communities built around the EF Mass.
In fact, if a liberal liturgical Catholic didn't not know the sentiments of most charismatic Catholics, they would love the way they celebrate Mass and their prayer meetings. But once these liberals found out how conservative charismatics are in terms of dogma and morals, they'd think twice about going back.
The same is true of Episcopalians. Very high Episcopalians celebrate a form of their Liturgy that appears more Catholic than even the EF Mass and they celebrate it splendidly; therefore one would think that they are orthodox when it comes to doctrine and morals, but think again, many would have no problem with same sex marriage, female priests and being pro-choice. Orthodox Christians discovering this would not return to their highly conservative liturgy.
In pre-Vatican II times, a part from large families, we had a structure of Catholic schools staffed primarily by sisters. These sisters brought a charism to our Catholic schools which is now absent without them. These sisters promoted vocations not only to their own orders but to the priesthood and they prayed for these too.
Prior to the Council there were no distinctions among Catholics except based upon fidelity. There weren't liberal and conservative categories; you were either a strong Catholic, tepid Catholic or a bad Catholic.
VAtican II divided Catholics into two categories, Pre-Vatican II Catholics which meant "not with it" although at one time they were not marginalized in such an insidious way. And Vatican II Catholics who progressively accepted all the changes and went beyond them in a progressive way. These Catholics were the "with it" group. This group was very much into lay empowerment and developed a disdain for the categories of laity and clergy with clergy having the authority and the laity having to "pay, pray and obey" as it was derogatorily described. You can see the agenda there that has found its zenith today in progressive Catholics who want a Church of their own making, made in their own image.
Liberal progressive Catholics don't produce vocations to the priesthood or religious life or there are negligible statistics concerning vocations that come from liberal, progressive Catholic communities, even intentional communities.
However, those intentional communities that are doctrinally and morally conservative, meaning they accept what the Church teaches in these areas are the one producing vocations even though their liturgies might appear progressive.
Parishes, though, that have a mix of Catholics are not producing vocations as these once did.
That will be a later topic.
6 comments:
I submit that these "groups", whether their nature be conservative or progressive, have in common strong masculine clergy as Shepherds. That may have more to do with their vocation numbers than anything else. Far too many Diocesean Priests that I have been exposed to, even if personally Pious and Orthodox men, are timid and prone to avoid confrontation. They are more like fish than Fishers of Men.
Mercifully I wonder if the Heterodox Clergy intuitively stay away from any such groups, progressive or conservative, as they hold a natural tendency towards a belief that standing out from the flock is bahhhhhhh-ad.
I think I just had my light bulb moment.
If you want men to be attracted to Priestly vocation they must be exposed to strong role models, and not closeted Homosexuals reationalizing why Obama's not such a bad President after all. Likewise Female Religious. If we want women to be attracted to that vocation they need to be exposed to "brides of Christ" and not a bunch of old women who look like spinsters. It's no different than a parent providing a good role model for that vocation.
A rough calculation indicates that, if the whole U.S. Catholic Church produced seminarians as the same rate as my local Latin Mass community, then the country could have a half million seminarians. Whereas in reality there are less than 5 thousand U.S. seminarians. So our EF community apparently is producing seminarians at 100 times the rate of the Catholic Church as a whole.
Of course, ours is an "intentional" community in which the whole Catholic faith is openly taught and believed with no reservations, with large families that welcome vocations. But I wonder whether an equal reason--for the "when we're all priests" mentality among the altar boys in the sacristy--is that the EF priest plays the most manly role that most boys are likely to encounter on a regular basis.
But Henry, how does that make the Altar Girls feel? Don't they feel marginalized? Sub-human almost?
As we say in Georgia: "You Suh!! Ah tamplin' upon their rats!!
Templar, what's an "altar girl"? Seriously, it's hard for me to visualize an acolyte wearing a veil. On the thurifer, a veil could be downright dangerous, might catch on fire and and the whole church could go up in flames. Surely best to drop the whole topic?
More authentic Catholic identity = more vocations in the sacerdotal and consecrated life.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Henry, I wish I was in your Parish.
Post a Comment