Skip to main content

Church Challenges

How to move forward? Oswald Sobrino at Catholic Analysis explores how Hispanic Catholics struggle with the Catholic Church they find in America. Part of the problem, he says, is in the way we handle the Bible:
[Hispanics] find the Protestant preacher always talking about the Bible in a way that is quite different from the typical American Catholic homily. The Protestant evangelical likes to "dig" into the Bible and tie different parts of the Bible together. It is even routine in Southern Baptist churches to hear the preacher refer to the original Greek in his sermons. Contrast this approach with the typical American Catholic homily: begin with a non-biblical anecdote about sports or some other secular event or with a sentimental story, then draw platitudes from the lectionary readings. It is a mediocre exercise that challenges no one: neither the preacher nor the audience. Instead of digging to give the people something solid to fascinate them with Scripture, we are left with vague exhortation reminiscent of some sort of self-help therapy. The preaching has to change. Struggling immigrants want spiritual power, not suburban pap.
Catholics are, in the mass, reflective and introspective of what is in their hearts. Protestants are, by their nature, aggressively searching with their heads. Sola Scriptura and all that. No church is all head or all heart, but the balance in a Catholic Church tends towards a greater proportion of the experience being one of deep listening. There is heart in Protestant churches too, but there the balance is more on seeking and thinking. The sort of experience that the Sobrino seeks is more likely to be found in a prayer group or a book club of some sort. I think the homily is not always what it could be, and I too would support some of the deeper readings he seeks. But I am aware that the mass is for everyone with a capital "E." Mass is not just for the smart. The homily is also not the heart of the Mass; the Eucharist is. I think, historically, that this need to reach everyone is why the Catholic church has always used what is sometimes derisively referred to as "bells and smells." Historically, in many places and many times, quite a few of the people attending the Mass could not read or write. How do you reach them? Bells, smells, statues, garments, ceremony, etc. I think Catholics still do that quite well. Times have changed, however, and a few more challenging homilies would not hurt. For those still not satisfied, I suggest a reading group. For myself, the big thing that I wonder about is this: Why isn't Religious Commitment more aggressively advertised? In the newspaper, on the radio, and heck yeah, on the internet? I think a few good campaigns could create quite a tonic. The Nuns and Monks who did so much of the Church's good work in the past are a shadow of their former selves. A lot of teachers in Catholic schools are not even Catholic, they're hired guns. It's not like young people no longer seek to commit themselves in a passionate way to the betterment of the society they find themselves in. Where is the Dorothy Day of our time? The monasteries and nunneries emptied themselves out in the 1960s and 1970s and they are sloowly begining to come back. Most of the nuns you see today, if you see them at all, are old or from non Western countries. There's nothing wrong with those people - we need those people! - but why can't we produce them in large numbers anymore? A healthy conservative society begins with the creation of conservative culture. The seats of power follow the culture, they do not lead it. An increased birth rate would allow families to joyfully give a son or a daughter over for the betterment of society. It used to be a very proud thing to do! And each one of those is capable of doing so much good, teaching and setting an example. Imagine all the hoopla and chaos of the next anti globalization riot channeled under responsible leadership and directed towards programs for children, the poor, and the elderly. Imagine someone with Naomi Kein's charisma in the ads. That's how I think we move forward.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi