In an article by John L. Allen Jr. with Maureen O’Connell an assistant professor of theology at Fordham University titled Young theologians today face ‘paranoia,’ new Fordham prof says
Asserting that church leaders are today attempting to return the church to a “culture one” model, Davidson said that because the socio-economic status of American Catholics is not in decline and because “laity are not willing to grant control” to the hierarchy, “the percentage of Catholics who are culture one will continue to decline.”
If older liberal Catholics are over-represented in reform groups such as Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful, Davidson said, younger conservative Catholics are equally over-represented among new priests, seminarians, and even theologians.
Speaking specifically about theologians, Davidson said that a growing tendency for younger theologians to reflect a “culture one” mentality reflects “a larger pattern of separation between the laity and the leaders of the institutional church.”
O’Connell largely agreed, saying that one distinguishing feature of her generation of theologians is that it came of age in an era of a “near-total disconnect between a culture one hierarchy and a culture two laity.”
Facing that situation, O’Connell said, many younger theologians today feel a need to try to be of pastoral service to the church – working with disparate movements such as Voice of the Faithful, the Focolare and Sant’Egidio, for example, or writing for non-specialized audiences outside the academy. Those activities, she said, represent an attempt to “fill in the pastoral gaps.”
In that light, O’Connell proposed that amid today’s tensions over Catholic identity, perhaps a defining characteristic of what constitutes a “good Catholic theologian” ought to be what she called “pedagogical excellence” – meaning a commitment to teaching and formation.
I don’t think I buy this “culture one” and “culture two” distinction as something defining younger Catholics. For me a good theologian, priest, member of the laity, etc would think in terms of the body of Christ. Certainly throughout history there has been emphasis on one part of the body of Christ over the other and at times unhealthy emphasis. Whether it is clericalism or the unfortunate laity against the “institutional church” – they are both errors. The last 40 years has placed too much emphasis on the laity while at the same time wiping out distinctions between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful. Ignoring ontological differences is not healthy and we should instead be seeing the glory in all parts of the mystical body of Christ and not playing off one part of the body against another. A sort of class warfare between the clergy and the laity. Of course St. Paul already saw this tendency in the early Church and preached against it. in 1st Corinthians 12:14-20
For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
As for “pedagogical excellence” that is of course required, but the most important commitment in theology is the commitment to truth in theology the “mother of sciences” and what St. Augustine described as “reasoning or discourse about the divinity.” Formation in error is not a real formation. Maureen O’Connell seems to have a dread of the younger seminarians, priests, etc, similar to Fr. Greeley who tries to dismiss them as “Young fogeys” and this “culture one” distinction is much the same in my opinion. I prefer a “culture of life” that requires everyone in the mystical body of Christ to fulfill their God given roles.
13 comments
I got into a discussion about the term ekklesia in Matt. 16:18 concerning whether Christ ever used it or not. As I was do some research on it (in which I found the term to be ubiquitous in the Septuagint and the NT letters, notwithstanding its omission from the other gospels), I realized that quibbling about the word “ekklesia” was beside the point. The emphasis would have been on “my Church.” This is what the more progressive types forget. The Church is not our church but Christ’s.
This is what happens when you only look at the church as a sociological group without considering Truth. Look at the definitions given for the two groups:
Culture One Catholicism – “a high emphasis on religious practice, clerical authority and doctrinal conformity”
Culture Two Catholicism – “emphasizing lay autonomy and the individual conscience”
Culture One is orthodox Catholicism, Culture Two is heterodox Catholicism. The job of the Church is to get as many people as possible into Culture One, not blend everything together to form Culture One and a Half – that’s what Episcopalians are for.
“The last 40 years has placed too much emphasis on the laity while at the same time wiping out distinctions between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful. Ignoring ontological differences is not healthy and we should instead be seeing the glory in all parts of the mystical body of Christ and not playing off one part of the body against another. A sort of class warfare between the clergy and the laity. Of course St. Paul already saw this tendency in the early Church and preached against it. in 1st Corinthians 12:14-20”
— excellent.
Totally agree with Joe’s comment above.
Here in the UK (and elsewhere I am sure) there is revived interest in ordained deacons. Done faithfully, this could help address the twin problems of over-burdeded priests and, worse, the attempt to cram the laity into the Sanctuary.
If lay people keep themselves busy as leaders in business, politics, the media, the arts, humanitarian work…then they won’t be so bored and confused as to want to lead in the liturgy–they can leave that to the ordained.
One Body. No confusion between its different members.
If older liberal Catholics are over-represented in reform groups such as Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful, Davidson said, younger conservative Catholics are equally over-represented among new priests, seminarians, and even theologians.
Nice try, but it misses the point. Aging dissenters in heterodox groups is an example of having an increasing share in a diminishing market. It’s the opposite with young orthodox priests. Frankly attempts to salvage the fogey’s reputation reminds one of Spinal Tap’s manager Ian pretending the band is fine:
Marty: “Last time Tap toured America, they were booked into 10,000-seat arenas and 15,000-seat venues. And it seems that now, on the current tour, they are being booked into 1,200-seat arenas, 1500-seat arenas. I was just wondering, does this mean the popularity of the group is waning?”
Ian: “Oh no. Not at all. I just think that their appeal is becoming more selective.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVahII-EIo& (at 8:10) 🙂
For the body does not consist of one member but of many
many members, yes, but still one body. put on the mind of Christ
I see what they are calling “Culture One” and “Culture Two” as human over-corrections. It is true that the pendulum swings, but not necessary to adjust by means of error.
What would happen if overemphasis on the divinity of Christ did not result in overemphasis on the humanity of Christ, but pulled us a tad to the left, while still in conformity with Church teaching? And vice-versa?
If, this time around, those young “fogeys” were to reintroduce the good that has been lost without tearing down the growth (there has been growth as well as error)of post-Vatican II, what a wonder that would be!
Who knows how old the Church is, really? We could just be in the toddler stage, for all we know. Still standing up and falling down all the time. Does this mean we will always stand up and fall down? Or could it be that next time we stand, we will have learned balance? There is always hope.
I am studying moral theology myself although I am not a ‘young fogey’ but I am so very tired of “Jesus never really said this or that’. In fact I heard that just this morning when Father said that the church no longer teaches that we need to aim for perfection.
Baloney.
The teachings have NOT changed!
There is no grace in the liberal agenda that creates its own view of a Christ as the protestants do and thus the corrupted orders and the ‘progressive’ parishes and dioceses are in dire straits. Hopefully the ‘young fogeys’ will save the day with the TRUTH.
For Our Lord IS the Way, the Truth and the Life.
“Hopefully the ‘young fogeys’ will save the day with the TRUTH.
For Our Lord IS the Way, the Truth and the Life.”
Amen! I pray that they will.
The aged hippies need to go – in the ground or repent of the damage they have caused the Church with their relativistic philosophies, or just do the honest thing and leave the Church. And, there is no need for qualifiers like “liberal” or “conservative”. “Catholic” will do just fine. That is, if a person configures himself to Christ and conforms to Church teaching, then “Catholic” is all one needs to identify oneself. Bottom line, the martyrs of any age died because they slavishly clung to the Faith in an uncompromising way. When I hear politicians say “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but…”, I think of any number of Christians who refused to burn incense to the Emperor, or conform to the national “church” in England during the persecutions, or Ukrainian Catholics who suffered the annihilation of their Church yet endured, hidden and faithful while so many belonging to the state church cooperated with the communists and persecuted their brethren. Those same “personally opposed” politicians should be ashamed to call themselves Catholics. They put themselves in the company of saints but they behave and speak like demons. It is one thing to slip honestly then seek forgiveness while trying to live the Faith, but another thing entirely to willfully and obstinately perdure in sin and insist the Church should conform to the age.
Isn’t it true that the heterodoxy of the Catholic Theological Society of America was instrumental in the creation of the more conservative Fellowship of Catholic Scholars?
http://www.catholicscholars.org/
Isn’t it true that the heterodoxy of the Catholic Theological Society of America was instrumental in the creation of the more conservative Fellowship of Catholic Scholars?
Don’t know, is it? I looked at their site and they fully affirm Vatican II. Usually when we look at so-called conservative Catholic groups we don’t raise eyebrows until the JPII bashing starts. I don’t have the time to go through their quarterly archives, so I would need more to go on.
I’m sympathetic to what many are saying here, but I wonder if her address is really being read right…or at least fully (and I wasn’t at CTSA to hear it, I haven’t been there in years. To respond to some comments above, I think CTSA has both “liberal” and more “conservative” members).
O’Connell is bringing up a huge issue that deserves more attention–that Catholic theologians in the USA really have two communities of accountability, the academy and the Church. If you embrace a basic scholastic approach, that can be fine…except, as she says, often you are trying to “prove your theological mettle” to academics who are not trained in theology, indeed, find the subject entirely suspect (note the Harvard debate on requiring not even theology, but religious studies in their general education curriculum. The prejudice was rampant but not surprising). So you try to use language they “get.” However, that language usually isn’t part of how bishops are trained, if they have an STL or ecclesiastical equivalent at all. So they wrinkle their brows. It’s not an impossible situation, but it is sticky in a way I don’t think most people realize.
My two cents.