This is an interesting discussion on why "Millennials" (those born between 1980 and 2000) are leaving the Church and the denominations in droves.
As far as Catholics are concerned, I'm not sure that there has been any good sociological studies. One can only make conjecture. My conjecture is:
1. Millennial Catholics were brought up by parents my age now (60ish) who are cusp Catholics with a good recollection of pre-Vatican II Catholicism and the liberation of post Vatican II Catholicism and the diminishment of the clarity of what the Church is. They are also victims of poor, poor, poor religious education and spiritual formation in the Church and in the home. The have bought into a false egalitarianism concerning religion and no religion and either believe that no one goes to heaven or everyone does. It doesn't matter what faith you have in other words. It is a garnishment to life and nothing more and nothing less.
2. I'm not sure about the perception of the Church being anti-gay. I don't think anyone hears too many homilies today concerning sin or damnation or exclusion of people, but I could be wrong. But this might play a part for some Catholics leaving the Church or stop going.
3. Women's issues in the Church don't seem that important to this age group. In fact no issues do. If religion is but a garnishment like some parsley on your plate, who cares, take it or leave it.
4. I just think there is a great deal of ambivalence toward religion, its communal nature and its emphasis on doing good and avoiding evil since evil appears to be good to so many today. If you can kill your unborn child without guilt and with state approbation, how can that be bad? And now some young people are shooting perfect strangers jogging outside in the back for fun. What's the difference?
So my bottom line is that Catholics who leave see Catholicism and any religion as garnishment, as parsley on the plate of food served them. It is unimportant because either no one goes to an after life or if there is an afterlife, there is only heaven to which everyone goes. Why have a third party spoiling the fun.
33 comments:
This:
"They are also victims of poor, poor, poor religious education and spiritual formation in the Church and in the home."
I'm of the X generation. I can tell you I was very poorly catechized. My mother was single parent and had no influence other than taking me to Mass and CCD. Catholic High School helped. The first time I ever heard abortion was wrong was at Catholic High School. I didn't know what a Catechism was until well after college. I didn't understand the Trinity, the Eucharist, Sacred Tradition. I only thought, "Be good and help others."
All of the above and more. We live in an age of unbelief.
The only sovereign is the self...
"Habits of the Heart" by Robert Bellah, et al, is one of the best sociological studies of what has been happening in our culture for the last two or three generations. What has been happening is INDIVIDUALISM.
The word "individualism" did not appear in the OED until 1835, and it came from de Toqueville.
In a 1986 presentation, "Individualism and Commitment in American Life," Bellah quoted Alexis de Toqueville: "Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look out after itself."
As this tendency grows, he wrote,
"there are more and more people who though neither rich nor powerful enough to have much hold over others, have gained or kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine that their whole destiny is in their hands."
The emergence of individualism is not a Catholic thing. Rather, it is a cultural phenomenon, impacting any group or organization that is based on a commitment to a community. The Church is such an entity, and we, along with groups across the cultural spectrum, have suffered the effects of individualism.
Young people see no need for community. They feel no obligation to a community, they expect little from a community.
In such a milieu, it is not surprising that they leave the community par excellence, Church.
Here's the link to Bellah's 1986 presentation at UC Santa Barbara:
http://www.robertbellah.com/lectures_4.htm
I'm always glad when I can agree with Pater. To his analysis add the influence of John Stuart Mill--his approach leads to the relegation or religion to the individual rather than the communal, and the rise in material wealth of the 20th century. For us moderns, the computer/internet is God. I pray to him and he has books, pizza, streaming video, sex, and anything else I want delivered to me.
Once again, Ignotus comes to the front revealing his true preferences.
Robert Bellah was a member of the American Communist Party, investigated by the FBI on several occasions, and a known atheist/agnostic. He denounces "individualism" in favor of Marxist collectivism, and views and analyzes religion strictly from an anthropological/sociological viewpoint. Just so you folks will know what you are being referred to.
There is an individualism called "freedom" which emphasizes independence, drive, self-reliance, industry, duty, faith and loyalty. This individualism believes in self-defense, a strong and law abiding government and military, family, community, and the Church. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that except that the Left hates it.
There is also "isolationism," which I understand to be what Ignotus is trying to lump with healthy individualism But, Ignotus is a Leftist and probably hates America as much as Nobama.
Gene you comment was interesting and worthy of exploring but derails by the gratuitous insult to Father Ignotus by him being a leftist who hates America. Is there proof of this and do we call the FBI and do we really need to use names in referring to the President. I'm old enough to remember that we as Americans respect the presidency and the one who holds the office until he either can not run anymore or is voted out of office. Do we need to call him names while in office. Is this Christian, Catholic?
Fr, It is no insult to Ignotus to refer to him as something he has never denied and when he continues to offer, consistently, material and references that only confirm what one has surmised based upon his own behavior.
There is a limit to everything. I neither respect nor support this President because he neither represents nor upholds the founding principles and Constitution of this country. There is a long political tradition in this nation of satirizing, criticizing, and poking fun at politicians, including the President. Anything I say is mild compared to what the Left said about Bush and Reagan and Cheney while they were in office. Yes, we need to call him names while he is in office and, no, I do not believe political disagreement and lampooning are un Christian or un Catholic.
Yes, Gene, but this is my blog and no place for political insults or partisan politics nor name calling. I'm a priest who wants his blog to remain a vehicle for constructive dialogue and critque done respectfully even with people with whom we disagree. Insulting language will be censored unless something gets by me when I have multiple comments to post.
You'd better talk to Anonymous, then. And, what about your buddy and colleague Ignotus dripping sarcasm and veiled insults. hey, he called me a bully! Maybe you two can discuss it over lunch...tell Ignotus not to order the flambe'.
Fr.McDonald...."There you go again"...over and over and over and over with the lame, tiresome, meaningless "warnings" to Gene. If I were in your spot, I would have pulled the plug on his crude, rude, pompous b*** LONG ago.
I was an atheist and a Communist. Now I'm Catholic. I think that gives me a unique perspective, but my history doesn't negate my analysis of Catholic issues.
I'm glad to see Fr. K's comment -- individualism is a problem. I think there are certain aspects of collectivism from which we can learn. For example, I think we are called to be responsible for other people's well-being. We are called to a radical love for those outside ourselves. Unlike leftist political philosophy, we approach this through the prism of the love of God. Still, I agree with the Pope when he says that this altruism, that is inherently against self interest and anti-evolutionary at its base, is a step along the part that leads to God. By engaging in this activity, people can understand that materialism is pointless in itself and come to know the true reason for charity. Until they do, the action is our common ground, so why not meet there?
Most Millennials are actually the grandkids of the 60's generation. They are the first generation that couldn't even look to their grandparents to see good examples of proper Christian living. It was their grandparents who tried to change the church and lived with New Age values. They received coloring book and collage catechesis at CCD, and newagey values (or no values) at home.
It is no wonder why many of these young people see no value in the faith. They have never truly lived it.
Thoughts on "individualism" from Cardinal Francis George:
“Individualism is an American virtue,” the Cardinal said. “There are a lot of good things about individualism. But in the United States, the biggest obstacle to the Church is individualism.”
This is also Bellah's approach.
From Bellah's NYTimes obit: "Reared in the Presbyterian Church, Professor Bellah belonged to an Episcopalian congregation in recent years."
Bellah died 30 July this year.
It surprises me not at all that Bellah was Episcopalian. It is the academic country club...filled with unbelievers, homosexuals priests, lesbian priests, and every other kind of weirdness. Please...
Ignotus, Christ addressed the individual in every encounter. His teachings were indicative of a highly individualistic "ethic" which called individuals out of their regular lives, accustomed activities, and communities to follow him. Salvation is presented as an individual challenge, a call to repentance and sanctification addressed specifically to the individual. It is the same for Paul...he deals with a very individual conflict within the person and within himself. The NT Church is an ecclesia, a community of individuals who are called out of their regular lives to follow Him.
It is not "individualism" that is the problem, it is isolationism, a kind of solipcism that has arisen within the technological society that has robbed us of our true individuality and driven us inside ourselves. The biggest obstacle to the Church is unbelief, brought about by a culture that has robbed us of all individuality and herded us toward the collective of uniformity, egalitarianism, and control. Belief in Christ and devotion to Him allows our true individuality to emerge and grow within the Church, our true Mother. The Cardinal got it wrong.
There's an old liberal, hippie saying that goes: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS." Attaboy Gene.
Pin/Gene said: "Ignotus, Christ addressed the individual in every encounter"
Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus said to his disciples,...
PLURAL
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them,...
PLURAL
John 1:38
Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked...
PLURAL
John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said...
PLURAL
Matthew 8:10
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him...
PLURAL
Matthew 9:4
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?...
PLURAL
No, Pin/Gene, Jesus, in every encounter, did not address the individual.
Anonymous, You have never read a theology book, have you?
Ignotus, I cannot believe you are that...well...Fr. won't let me say it. It is like this, sometimes you say things that make you appear much less intelligent than I know you must be.
I took courses in Christian ethics (a dubious designation). One of the first statements we encountered was that "Jesus taught a highly individualistic ethic which makes it difficult to form any ethical "system" based upon his teachings." Renowned theologians such as Karl Barth and Jacques Ellul indicate this, as well, and Church historian Wilhelm Pauck and NT scholar Leander Keck point out the same thing.
Your simple minded parade of pronouns only indicates that there was more than one INDIVIDUAL being addressed by Christ.
Also, it is the call to salvation that is addressed to the individual, not any particular conversation, as you again misrepresent and prevaricate. Even the Sacraments of the Church have an individual orientation...else why Confession, Baptism, Last Rites, ordination, etc.
Please, your cute "proof texting" and catty responses are worthy of a fourteen year old girl.
Father, at 9:52 and 10:34 you very politely and reasonably asked for more respectful dialoging from a person who continually crosses the line. He was unapologetic and noncompliant. This has been going on for years. Isn't it (past) time to deal with this behavior more strongly? "Time out" for any one of us who speaks disrespectfully? It is SO very off-putting on a Catholic Christian blog. Your posts are very interesting and informative--you deserve better.
Thank you.
Pin/Gene says: ""Jesus taught a highly individualistic ethic which makes it difficult to form any ethical "system" based upon his teachings."
Dr. Germaine Grisez says, "A fourth volume [of his magnum opus, "The Way of the Lord Jesus - A Moral Theology for Today's Catholics"], titled "Clerical and Consecrated Service and Life", will provide a systematic, professional ethics for celibate clerics and members of religious institutes. Several chapters have been drafted and will soon be available on this website."
"...systematic, professional ethics..."
Dr. Grisez was for thirty years—from 1 July 1979 to 30 June 2009—Germain Grisez was the Most Rev. Harry J. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Lordy, lordy, a call for sanctions. Why don't you read what I say rather than fuss about the delivery...
Ignotus, Many people have attempted to build a Christian ethic on the sayings of Jesus. This guy's will just be another one. None of them have turned out to well and most have been forgotten, I read several in grad school. The consensus among my professors at major grad schools of religion, and of a number of well-known theologians, is that these efforts are largely a waste of time. Jesus teachings and sayings do not lend themselves to systematic ethics. Most of these works end by being a composite of Jesus' teachings and a superimposed philosophical ethic of some description.
Christ's imperatives to us have to do with following the will of God and preparing for His coming Kingdom. When we talk about the freedom of the Holy Spirit, we immediately limit ethics in the human sphere and from human initiative.
Why don't you actually engage in theological dialogue rather than just tossing out unrelated quotes and catty girlie girl remarks?
Ah, you misrepresent Grisez. I just read a review of his book and it looks really good and like something I would read. It actually appears to be a book on Catholic moral dogma and ethics within the Magisterium, which he strongly supports. There is a humongous difference in that and a "Christian ethic" in the Biblical theological sense. You need to pay attention to what you read.
I have only been able to read this interesting thread this evening. Pater (at 7:38 a.m.) quotes Robert Bellah et. al’s book “Habits of the Heart.” Gene (at 9:37 a.m.) then urges readers to dismiss this book because Bellah was a member of the American Communist Party while an undergraduate (BTW Jacques Ellul, cited by Gene at 2:55 p.m., was a “Christian anarchist” – just so you know). I am not quite sure how many Aristotelian logical fallacies are at work here (apart from the argument by association directed at Pater, that is), but it is more than one. Perhaps Anon. 5 could help us out with that.
Here I will only note two points. First, Bellah’s own story is more complicated, and his life cannot be summed up, and dismissed, by “He was once a Marxist” (So was Thomist philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre by the way). Here is the NYT obituary for Bellah:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/us/robert-bellah-sociologist-of-religion-who-mapped-the-american-soul-dies-at-86.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Second, there are_four_other co-authors of the book. My colleagues and I have worked on joint projects in the areas of professionalism and vocation with another of them, William Sullivan, formerly of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and now Executive Director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American legal System’s Project “Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers.” I will let you into a secret: We are not Communists.
I detect substantial agreement among Pater, Anon. 5, and Marc, for example, on this issue of individualism. Gene seems to disagree.
I put this forward just as an hypothesis to help explain, at least partly, what may be going on here: Gene, unless I am mistaken, all the theologians you cite are Protestant theologians. Protestantism is known for its emphasis on the individual. Indeed, according to many, it is a major taproot of modern individualism. But we are Catholics and our tradition is different, laying great emphasis upon community and the common good. Am I on to something here? That said, I like your notion of “true individualism” nurtured within the womb of Holy Mother Church.
If you begin with unbelief as your premise, as Bellah does, what do you expect your conclusions and inferences will be?
Ellul has been CALLED a Christian anarchist. He was not an anarchist of any sort, rather an orthodox Calvinist theologian. He was keen on emphasizing the distinction between human initiative and God's sovereignty.
The theologians I cite are all Biblical scholars and studied by prots andCatholics alike. Several of them were professors in major University Divinity schools where Catholics and prots sought theiology degrees. Their scholarship transcends denominational boundaries.
I will not re-iterate about individualism other than to say that there is a difference between Bellah's individualism and what I wrote. Again, Bellah is a collectivist and his findings will serve those purposes.
Pin/Gene - I do not misrepresent Grisez. The quote - that his work will provide a "...systematic, professional ethic..." is from his own website. www.twotlj.org.
Your assertion that an ethical system cannot be based on the teaching of Jesus is simply wrong. Grisez, and many other moral theologians, have done just that.
"Habits of the Heart" is not based on a premise of unbelief. In "Habits" and in his other works and talks, he speaks of religion as one part of what underpins peoples' values and behaviours.
An example: http://www.robertbellah.com/lectures_5.htm
It is incorrect to say that "Habits of the Heart" is based on a premise of unbelief.
Gene:
On Bellah: Once again, let me point out that there are four co-authors. Have you investigated their beliefs? Were they once members of the Communist Party? As one review of the book I read says, it is difficult to know who was responsible for writing which parts of the book. As for Bellah himself the book appeared forty years after his membership of the Communist Party as an undergraduate. The NYT obituary notes that he was reared as a Presbyterian but became Episcopalian later in life. All this suggests to me that the book needs to be examined on its own terms, not dismissed out of hand because of youthful mistakes by one of the authors – the more so as Jacques Ellul, whom you cite with approval, also flirted with Marxism, among others, before he became a professing Christian. BTW Wikipedia says this about Ellul (I do not have time to find a better source for you):
"Ellul identified himself as a Christian Anarchist. For him, this meant that nation-states should neither be praised nor feared, but merely ignored. To him, human government is irrelevant in that the law contained in Scripture is sufficient and exclusive. That is, being a Christian means pledging absolute allegiance to Christ, which makes other laws redundant at best or counter to the Law of God. Despite the initial attraction of some evangelicals to his thinking because of his high view of Biblical texts (i.e., generally eschewing the historical-critical method), this position alienated some conservative Protestants. Later, he would attract a following among adherents of more ethically-compatible traditions such as the Anabaptists and the house church movement. Similar political ideas to Ellul's appear in the writings of a corresponding friend of his, the American William Stringfellow, and long-time admirer Vernard Eller, author of Christian Anarchy. Ellul identified the State and political power as the Beast in the Book of Revelation.
Jacques Ellul discusses anarchy on a few pages in The Ethics of Freedom and in more detail within his later work, Anarchy & Christianity.. Although he does admit that anarchy does not seem to be a direct expression of Christian freedom, he concludes that the absolute power he sees within the current (as of 1991) nation-state can only be responded to with an absolute negative position (i.e. anarchy). He states that his intention is not to establish an anarchist society or the total destruction of the state. His initial point in Anarchy & Christianity is that he is led toward anarchy by his commitment to an absolute rejection of violence. However, Ellul does not entertain the idea that all Christians in all places and all times will refrain from violence. Rather, he insisted that violence could not be reconciled with the God of Love, and thus, true freedom. A Christian that chooses the path of violence must admit that he or she is abandoning the path of freedom and committing to the way of necessity."
It is not that this is necessarily an unrespectable position to take. But I am naturally led to the question: Given the esteem in which you apparently hold Ellul, will you now consider renouncing the violence of the state and become a pacifist? I believe this is the sort of move you made in inferring Pater Ignotus’s views from his advocacy of Bellah et al’s book? You see the problem, I hope.
That is an accurate representation of Ellul. We read virtually all of his major works in college and grad school, but I did not remember him referring to himself as a "Christian anarchist." LOL! I'd sooner call him a radical Calvinist. It is not his theology...Barth is the better theologian...that is Ellul's important message...it is his cultural analysis found primarily in , "The Technological Society," "Propaganda," and "The New Demons." I do not agree with Ellul's pacifism or any absolute pacifism. There are times when Christians must take up arms or resort to violence, as in self-defense. I do not hold Ellul in particularly high esteem as a theologian, but his social analysis is spot on, in my opinion.
The index of "Habits of the Heart" includes, under the word "Religion," forty-nine entries. A number of these are references to multiple page entries. The section of the index under "Religion" is the second or third longest entry in the index.
There are also index entries for individual denominations.
Other index entries include: "Bible," "Old Testament," "New Testament," "Biblical tradition in American culture," "Church," "Book of Common Prayer," "Christianity," "Civil Rights movement, religious participation in," etc. etc.
The idea that "Habits of the Heart" is based on a premise of unbelief is simply false.
Ignotus, Again you miss the point regarding Grisez. A "professional ethic" drawing from CFhristian principles or a gloss on Christ's teachings is not a Christian ethic.
Look, when I say "ethic," I am referring to a systematic, philosophical ethical system...like Spinoza, Kant, or JS Mill...that is internally consistent, logically compelling, and comprehensive. I do not mean some handy moral guide/compendium or a book of morals and dogma.
Such a philosophical ethical system cannot be built upon the sayings of Jesus without borrowing heavily from other rationalist systems. That is not what Grisez is trying to do, anyway.
As one of my professors, Wilhelm Pauck, put it, "God's will cannot be pressed between the pages of an ethics book...not even Holy Scripture can confine it." You can probably look up Pasuck in Wikipedia, too.
Post a Comment