Yes to 1! This is near and dear to me, as I am a cradle Catholic but really found my faith at MIT. MIT would be an interesting profile to start. When I was there 20 years ago, we had (and now just speaking about *on campus* activities in the MIT chapel) daily mass opportunities a couple times a week, weekly confession *and* exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, three (!) Sunday masses, and weekly faith-building talks with free dinners, attended by 30-40 people. A small group of us also prayed morning and evening prayers from the Liturgy of the Hours. We did not have a Neumann center, but rather (as I understand it) an endowment that supported our student organization (which was one of the biggest "clubs" on campus). https://www.tcc.mit.edu/. I realize now how privileged we were, but at the time I didn't know that this wasn't normal for a mid-sized university.
JD, Great e-mail today, as always. On the synodal effort: I believe the universal Church does not include the laity in near the same proportion as does the Catholic Church in the US. In the US we have parish councils, finance councils, school advisory boards, non-profit boards, hospital boards, foundation boards and all kinds of structures where lay voices are widely heard. This is not the case in lots of other places around the world, so perhaps inviting the Clergy to include the laity through the synod means more outside the US than it does inside the US. Perhaps we should instead look at what problem Pope Francis is trying to solve through the synod, and then see how much that problem needs attention in the US construct, rather than just saying we are missing the mark on a percentage basis.
The intended synodal process, at least in the U.S., has clearly failed. In my own diocese, there was, as far as I can tell, not a single word about it from the bishop or from two successive parish priests: no communications, no events, no surveys or polls. Nothing.
Even if there are some other Pittsburgh-like diocesan results, doesn't such a minimal response call into question the validity of (almost) any conclusions drawn by the Vatican staff administering this process?
As former Episcopalian, I rolled my eyes when the "process" was being announced, since exactly this type of "listening" is considered (at least by Episcopalians) to be a hallmark of that ecclesial community. In practice, it is often manipulative and the outcomes preordained.
And yet. I do consider what I take to be Francis' intent and purpose to be correct: the Church's posture before it's Lord is, indeed, one of listening, or it should be. That means expecting to hear and discern God's Word to the world today and joining our action to His sovereign action to accomplish His will.
That kind of being hearers-and-doers of the Word doesn't seem to be happening...although I acknowledge that so much of such hearing and doing will, almost by definition, be hidden from our eyes and cloaked from our awareness.
Same for my diocese. I don’t recall reading, hearing, or being invited to contribute a single syllable. The only reason I knew things occurred at the diocesan level is because Pillar reported it to be so. I’m a registered, active, regularly-attending diocesan newspaper-and-social media-reading parishioner and don’t recall one instance of reading about anything to do with the synod.
I would love to see some analysis of the rapid emergence of classical education in parochial schools, the tension between new charter-like classical schools in dioceses vs. the impulse to convert existing schools to that model, the less-than-universal acceptance of the classical model by ordinaries, and the questions/tensions classical education raises vis-a-vis the simultaneous push for diverse voices and perspectives in curricula.
I may or may not know of a diocese where there is a verbal/behind-the-scenes moritorium on new/converted classical schools because of all of this tension.
"Here’s what I’m hoping you’ll put in the comments — as we come out of the slowness of August, and pick up with coverage about all manner of things, would you kindly note in the comments some of the themes, issues, challenges, and successes you see emerging in the life of the Church, which The Pillar might shed some light upon with careful and thorough reporting? I’d be most grateful."
It's hard for me to say, as The Pillar is far more connected and aware of what is happening in the Church than I am. If I may offer one suggestion though, the Eucharistic Revival has been going in the US for a couple months. That's not a lot of time, but I'd be curious to hear about what dioceses have been up to across the country for it. We can all agree that devotion to the Eucharist among the faithful is extremely important both for ourselves and the Church as a whole.
I'm no English teacher, but I think it's effected. That's why I used it. Because the prayers brought about the miracles, they did not influence or change the miracles.
These are so tricky because RAVEN is all predicated on "usually." Affect is usually a verb, but I can say that with a flat affect. Effect is usually a noun, but I can effect change through this conversation. Or I can affect a change. Tricky!
If God was going to heal someone and St. Roch's prayers changed how that healing happened, then St. Roch affected the miracle.
The miracle presumably had a good effect on the sick person's life.
But if God was not going to heal someone and St. Roch convinced him to, if the miracle was not a thing until St. Roch made it a thing, then in this case St. Roch effected the miracle.
Affect is a verb, to change something. Effect is the noun, that change, or a verb, to make something happen in the first place.
Affect and effect are each both a noun and a verb but one is more common than the other. Affect (v.) is common. Affect (n.) is uncommon. Effect (n.) is common. Effect (v.) is uncommon; it means to bring something about so this is fine.
I will pray for the author of the Atlantic rosary article to become a great saint, which is simultaneously the best and worst thing to wish for someone (having sores licked by a dog and dying in prison abandoned by everyone sounds like par for the course to me).
What are parishes doing to respond to demographic changes? Many parishes have the "two parish" model where there's the mainstream English parish then also a separate Spanish language community. Is anything being done to foster integration? Where are immigrants being welcomed as brothers & sisters in Christ as opposed to merely clients of the parish's ministries? Is there real cross-cultural conversation going on anywhere? What parishes are finding ways to benefit from having multiple cultural expressions of the same faith? How can other parishes learn from those parishes?
A lot of this was the topic of my MA TESOL thesis but I did it at a secular university so there wasn't a lot of opportunity to explore it from an explicitly Catholic perspective.
An add on to this- how is our “split model” different/similar to the historical model (at least as seen in the US) where different groups just built whole different churches (German/Irish/etc).
yeah! that's a super interesting thing as well. The national churches generally served as (a) a place of comfort and familiarity for immigrants adjusting to a strange land and (b) a vehicle for assimilation into mainstream American culture. Things are different now largely for two reasons. One, we have a different idea of culture, and we don't necessarily agree with our (great-)grandparents' ideas of abandoning their heritage culture, and two, Spanish-language parishes and parish programs serve people from myriad different cultures. German speakers largely came from Germany; Spanish speakers come from Mexico, Honduras, Argentina, and other countries (plus Puerto Rico), which all have distinct cultures.
National parishes were controversial as early as the 1930s. It's very normal for third-generation immigrants (grandchildren of the immigrants themselves) to mostly lose any markers of the culture of origin and become part of the culture in which they reside. This is (more or less) universally true among immigrants to and from anywhere. If the Catholic faith is strongly associated with the culture of origin, then the Catholic faith ends up lost with the rest of the cultural markers (e.g. language).
So any outreach to immigrants needs to respect their culture of origin while also helping their children to see the faith as a universal thing, not as only an aspect of their culture of origin.
Quote from my MA thesis; this incident made me smile because I can totally imagine this happening:
The emotional importance of the national parishes should not be underestimated. When non-Italian priests were appointed to the historically Italian Our Lady of Good Counsel in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in the early 1930s—an explicit attempt at Americanizing the parish—parishioners locked their pastor in the rectory and refused to allow the new priests to enter (Matovina, 1999).
I know about this first hand. After we built a new church building a few years back, the diocese sent us a new priest who decided that we should reach out to all the new immigrants in the area and start a Spanish Ministry. Everyone thought that this was a great idea. We welcomed our new Spanish speaking members with open arms and great zeal. About 8 years later, I had to leave said church because said priest no longer offered convenient English masses. I had been a member of said church for over 20 years. In about 5 years , the church will be Spanish only.
inter-cultural work is hard! there has to be authentic welcoming of the newcomers without neglecting the people who were there before, and that's a genuinely difficult thing to balance, even with all the resources in the world. When a critical mass of newcomers become part of the parish, their cultures of origin and their experiences as immigrants are going to have an effect on the culture of the parish, and cultural change is hard. It's also tricky for parish leadership to effectively navigate which changes are beneficial, neutral, and detrimental, and therefore which changes to foster, tolerate, and avoid -- especially since most parish leaders (pastors, DREs, etc.) are not themselves bicultural, and cultural heritage is such an intimate (and therefore sensitive) thing, which not everyone experiences in the same way.
We were not neglected, we were pushed out. The new members that we had welcomed with opened arms made it very clear that we were no longer wanted. Imagine bringing a lovely bouquet of roses for a Corpus Christi altar and they were thrown aside because I was white. Hey Mary, that is discrimination. The priest, although white and USA born, loved the new members, berated white people at mass, and was frankly Anti American. Imagine a priest pushing the English speaking Knights of Columbus away - only to try to start up a Spanish speaking Knights of Columbus.
Hey Mary, that is discrimination. If I knew that I would be pushed out, I would not have given money to build a new church. There is nothing to smile about. Obviously, you have never been discriminated against. This is my county. My grandparents were immigrants. They were thrilled to become American citizens. They learned the English language.. They wanted to fit in. Not my experience with the new immigrants. When they came, we offered English as a second language courses. None came. Frankly, most seem to be here for welfare. They go back and forth as they need funds.
“the sacramental rosary isn’t just a spiritual weapon but one that comes with physical ammunition.”
This reminds me of an evening rosary at my house few months ago, when our 2-year old began using her rosary as a scourge, whipping her brother and sister. We probably should've put her to bed earlier that evening.
If I remember correctly, only Joe Biden has weaponized the rosary. In 2005 he said the next time a republican said he wasn’t Catholic he would shove his rosary down their throat.
Reminds me of that early 2000s movie Saved! in which one of the main characters throws her Bible at another character while yelling "I am full of the love of Christ!"
"Now, don’t get me wrong. I think the views of men and women over 60 who attend Mass are important. In fact, I think we ought to consider a bit more often the tradition of Anna and Simeon in the temple, instead of writing off older parishioners with derisive cracks about boomers, or “Karen from the parish council” memes. In fact, I think it’s ironic that young people who love tradition are often cavalier about the possibility that our elders have something to say. The 1970s were not a pinnacle of Western civilization or of the Christian intellectual life — but the personal, hard-won wisdom that comes from a lifetime of Chritian discipleship is worth hearing, especially if it comes from people who kept the faith when the world (and often the Church) was turning on its head."
I would appreciate in-depth coverage of the generation gap you describe. I consider the 1970s to be the nadir of human civilization. I agree that we should respect the wisdom that comes from a lifetime of faithful Christian discipleship, but I was formed at a parish that dissented from the teachings of the Church in both liturgy and theology and ecclesiology, so I have little patience for the (lack of) wisdom that comes from a lifetime of unfaithful Christian discipleship. I have, like so many in my cohort, had to become self-trained in sniffing out books, universities, religious orders, moral theologians that claim to be offering wisdom for Christian discipleship but do not conform to the magisterial teaching of the Church, do not have an imprimatur/nihil obstat (and would find my objection on those grounds quite laughable), but are lauded by some as the foremost authorities, and therefore I am subjected to their heterodoxy in order to receive credit for a class or while listening to their hymns, in spite of the fact that the claims they are making are matters of open debate in the Church in an era when Francis is unwriting the magisterium of his predecessors. In other words, it is a perspective on Vatican II that will (hopefully) not outlast the generation that lived through it, who censure those that disagree with the hermeneutic of that perspective and its attendant claims about liturgy, ecclesiology, or moral theology, but I am being cajoled to give greater deference to their perspective, which was imposed upon me from a young age? When exactly do they have to surrender to the fact that what they taught, what they advocated for, was not correct or faithful or consistent with the Catechism or the Council or the CDF? When will they have to reconcile their perspective on Vatican II with the papacy (and prefecture and CCC) of the emeritus Benedict whom they scorn? "How long, O Lord, how long?" is my lament. I would appreciate reading an explainer about how the gap could be reconciled, since it means loving in charity those without whom what formation I had would not have been possible, even if it was partly malformation, however well-intentioned. It's not the stuff of comboxes; it's real relationships over a lifetime: sisters who held me as a newborn and also rejected their religious habit and whose orders promote strands of theology that contradict the faith; priests who taught me about the sacrarium in the sacristy and also advocate for the teaching on celibacy to be remanded; professors whose courses I was eager to take and who also advocate for a right to abortion. Is it cavalier to be wary of those faithful Catholics who were responsible for turning the world and the Church on its head? Who is failing to listen in this scenario- me or the people whose homilies and writings and coursework I have endured for decades, because they are published, they are tenured, and they comprise a demographic majority? I was born in 1980, a year that most of my peers that ought to have been born did not survive, due to selective birthing (I read The Pillar's sobering report about that this past summer with a cold chill in my spine). Who was listening to their cry for justice? I am part of a generation that was silenced. But by all means, fratelli tutti, hakuna matata, etc.
I'm probably from the same cohort as you, and was deeply failed catechetically by the Church - Dr. Suess-themed confirmation retreats, etc.
My only point is those failures don't mean every person of that generation has nothing to offer, or should be written off without any consideration - consider that the great majority of our generation have abandoned the faith altogether.
Well, then perhaps a report on what that generation does have to offer the Church? What will be their legacy? What of their output will be of inestimable value in the future? What authors from that era deserve a fair hearing and considered study?
I remember a young pro-life leader saying we ought to write down the oral history of the movement before the leaders of that generation have died. The civil rights era was a living thing to them (MLK; Chavez; picket and go to jail is how it's done). It is probably different from what you are thinking about but maybe we should think as hagiographers of the next century would; we know hardly anything about this person of legend (name of some boomer) because she wrote no textbooks, taught no classes, stories about her were handed down but they sound fake and exaggerated.
I believe Monica M. Miller authored her book, Abandoned: Untold Stories of the Abortion Wars with that thought in mind. Too many people don't know about the courageous actions of the Rose rescues in the early days of the movement. I do believe that the peaceful witness of the 40 Days for Life movement has made all the difference in effecting change in a way that the Rose rescues did not, but I still admire Monica for her courage. There are a great many pro-life civil rights leaders who died without witnessing the repeal of Roe, but who sacrificed tremendously for that outcome, and they have recently been celebrated for their sacrifice; so you are right to want to capture the oral histories of the heroes still living before they pass away.
As someone who attends a TLM, I’m always interested in coverage in relation to TC & it’s implementation, etc. especially with the canon law perspective y’all bring to the table.
How about a look at the ways the permanent diaconate is being implemented in dioceses around the US and the world? My husband is a deacon here in the diocese of Portland, Oregon and he often comments on this even being something that differs between parishes according to the preferences of the priests. Maybe get into the history of the diaconate from the early Church ,how the diaconate is often the “forgotten” clergy, why married men are generally permanent deacons whereas priests in the Roman tradition are celibate, the different ways a deacon fulfills his vocations as head of a family and cleric, interviews with men in these different walks of life with questions about their journey through discernment and formation along with their struggles and successes. I would recommend contacting deacon Joseph Machalak of the archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis. See an article he recently wrote here: https://www.the-deacon.com/2022/08/15/embracing-the-hiddenness-of-the-diaconate/
Yes to 1! This is near and dear to me, as I am a cradle Catholic but really found my faith at MIT. MIT would be an interesting profile to start. When I was there 20 years ago, we had (and now just speaking about *on campus* activities in the MIT chapel) daily mass opportunities a couple times a week, weekly confession *and* exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, three (!) Sunday masses, and weekly faith-building talks with free dinners, attended by 30-40 people. A small group of us also prayed morning and evening prayers from the Liturgy of the Hours. We did not have a Neumann center, but rather (as I understand it) an endowment that supported our student organization (which was one of the biggest "clubs" on campus). https://www.tcc.mit.edu/. I realize now how privileged we were, but at the time I didn't know that this wasn't normal for a mid-sized university.
St Roch is my favorite church for Mass in Paris. Trivia for Revolutionary War nerds... it's the site of Marquis de Lafayette's wedding.
cool.
JD, Great e-mail today, as always. On the synodal effort: I believe the universal Church does not include the laity in near the same proportion as does the Catholic Church in the US. In the US we have parish councils, finance councils, school advisory boards, non-profit boards, hospital boards, foundation boards and all kinds of structures where lay voices are widely heard. This is not the case in lots of other places around the world, so perhaps inviting the Clergy to include the laity through the synod means more outside the US than it does inside the US. Perhaps we should instead look at what problem Pope Francis is trying to solve through the synod, and then see how much that problem needs attention in the US construct, rather than just saying we are missing the mark on a percentage basis.
That might be true. We ARE missing his mark, and so is Europe, but we don't yet have a lot of numbers from elsewhere.
Althought later today, I hope, we'll have an interview about the synod in another place, and I think it will elucidate that point.
The intended synodal process, at least in the U.S., has clearly failed. In my own diocese, there was, as far as I can tell, not a single word about it from the bishop or from two successive parish priests: no communications, no events, no surveys or polls. Nothing.
Even if there are some other Pittsburgh-like diocesan results, doesn't such a minimal response call into question the validity of (almost) any conclusions drawn by the Vatican staff administering this process?
As former Episcopalian, I rolled my eyes when the "process" was being announced, since exactly this type of "listening" is considered (at least by Episcopalians) to be a hallmark of that ecclesial community. In practice, it is often manipulative and the outcomes preordained.
And yet. I do consider what I take to be Francis' intent and purpose to be correct: the Church's posture before it's Lord is, indeed, one of listening, or it should be. That means expecting to hear and discern God's Word to the world today and joining our action to His sovereign action to accomplish His will.
That kind of being hearers-and-doers of the Word doesn't seem to be happening...although I acknowledge that so much of such hearing and doing will, almost by definition, be hidden from our eyes and cloaked from our awareness.
I wonder what Francis will make of all this.
Same for my diocese. I don’t recall reading, hearing, or being invited to contribute a single syllable. The only reason I knew things occurred at the diocesan level is because Pillar reported it to be so. I’m a registered, active, regularly-attending diocesan newspaper-and-social media-reading parishioner and don’t recall one instance of reading about anything to do with the synod.
What sort of stories were the pythons attracted to? Drama, comedy, or perhaps the Gospels? ("by their tales")
Egads! How embarrassing!
I have never met anyone besides my Greek grandfather who said "egads."
I would love to see some analysis of the rapid emergence of classical education in parochial schools, the tension between new charter-like classical schools in dioceses vs. the impulse to convert existing schools to that model, the less-than-universal acceptance of the classical model by ordinaries, and the questions/tensions classical education raises vis-a-vis the simultaneous push for diverse voices and perspectives in curricula.
I may or may not know of a diocese where there is a verbal/behind-the-scenes moritorium on new/converted classical schools because of all of this tension.
I second this!
Third
This is a big thing by me too! What’s going on…?
We use a Catholic classical model—at home.
How about just starting to read the lives of the Saints each day at Catholic schools. Kids love biographies!
Another thing about The Atlantic's article is that it appeared on August 15, the Feast of the Assumption. Apparently, irony is lost on its editors.
"Here’s what I’m hoping you’ll put in the comments — as we come out of the slowness of August, and pick up with coverage about all manner of things, would you kindly note in the comments some of the themes, issues, challenges, and successes you see emerging in the life of the Church, which The Pillar might shed some light upon with careful and thorough reporting? I’d be most grateful."
It's hard for me to say, as The Pillar is far more connected and aware of what is happening in the Church than I am. If I may offer one suggestion though, the Eucharistic Revival has been going in the US for a couple months. That's not a lot of time, but I'd be curious to hear about what dioceses have been up to across the country for it. We can all agree that devotion to the Eucharist among the faithful is extremely important both for ourselves and the Church as a whole.
St Roch "his prayers effected miracles" the word is - Affected. Retired English teacher.
I'm no English teacher, but I think it's effected. That's why I used it. Because the prayers brought about the miracles, they did not influence or change the miracles.
Simple pneumonic: RAVEN Remember Affect is a Verb Effect is a Noun. The prayers affected (action) the miracles. Way off topic though ;-)
These are so tricky because RAVEN is all predicated on "usually." Affect is usually a verb, but I can say that with a flat affect. Effect is usually a noun, but I can effect change through this conversation. Or I can affect a change. Tricky!
Yep
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/affect-vs-effect-usage-difference
Nope, JD is right here.
If God was going to heal someone and St. Roch's prayers changed how that healing happened, then St. Roch affected the miracle.
The miracle presumably had a good effect on the sick person's life.
But if God was not going to heal someone and St. Roch convinced him to, if the miracle was not a thing until St. Roch made it a thing, then in this case St. Roch effected the miracle.
Affect is a verb, to change something. Effect is the noun, that change, or a verb, to make something happen in the first place.
ESL teacher & nerd here.
Affect and effect are each both a noun and a verb but one is more common than the other. Affect (v.) is common. Affect (n.) is uncommon. Effect (n.) is common. Effect (v.) is uncommon; it means to bring something about so this is fine.
"Effect" can also be used as a verb for "brought into being."
bingo.
When you realize you incorrectly corrected, an effect will be effected: your affect will be affected.
: - )
I will pray for the author of the Atlantic rosary article to become a great saint, which is simultaneously the best and worst thing to wish for someone (having sores licked by a dog and dying in prison abandoned by everyone sounds like par for the course to me).
Immigration.
What are parishes doing to respond to demographic changes? Many parishes have the "two parish" model where there's the mainstream English parish then also a separate Spanish language community. Is anything being done to foster integration? Where are immigrants being welcomed as brothers & sisters in Christ as opposed to merely clients of the parish's ministries? Is there real cross-cultural conversation going on anywhere? What parishes are finding ways to benefit from having multiple cultural expressions of the same faith? How can other parishes learn from those parishes?
A lot of this was the topic of my MA TESOL thesis but I did it at a secular university so there wasn't a lot of opportunity to explore it from an explicitly Catholic perspective.
An add on to this- how is our “split model” different/similar to the historical model (at least as seen in the US) where different groups just built whole different churches (German/Irish/etc).
yeah! that's a super interesting thing as well. The national churches generally served as (a) a place of comfort and familiarity for immigrants adjusting to a strange land and (b) a vehicle for assimilation into mainstream American culture. Things are different now largely for two reasons. One, we have a different idea of culture, and we don't necessarily agree with our (great-)grandparents' ideas of abandoning their heritage culture, and two, Spanish-language parishes and parish programs serve people from myriad different cultures. German speakers largely came from Germany; Spanish speakers come from Mexico, Honduras, Argentina, and other countries (plus Puerto Rico), which all have distinct cultures.
National parishes were controversial as early as the 1930s. It's very normal for third-generation immigrants (grandchildren of the immigrants themselves) to mostly lose any markers of the culture of origin and become part of the culture in which they reside. This is (more or less) universally true among immigrants to and from anywhere. If the Catholic faith is strongly associated with the culture of origin, then the Catholic faith ends up lost with the rest of the cultural markers (e.g. language).
So any outreach to immigrants needs to respect their culture of origin while also helping their children to see the faith as a universal thing, not as only an aspect of their culture of origin.
Quote from my MA thesis; this incident made me smile because I can totally imagine this happening:
The emotional importance of the national parishes should not be underestimated. When non-Italian priests were appointed to the historically Italian Our Lady of Good Counsel in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in the early 1930s—an explicit attempt at Americanizing the parish—parishioners locked their pastor in the rectory and refused to allow the new priests to enter (Matovina, 1999).
I know about this first hand. After we built a new church building a few years back, the diocese sent us a new priest who decided that we should reach out to all the new immigrants in the area and start a Spanish Ministry. Everyone thought that this was a great idea. We welcomed our new Spanish speaking members with open arms and great zeal. About 8 years later, I had to leave said church because said priest no longer offered convenient English masses. I had been a member of said church for over 20 years. In about 5 years , the church will be Spanish only.
inter-cultural work is hard! there has to be authentic welcoming of the newcomers without neglecting the people who were there before, and that's a genuinely difficult thing to balance, even with all the resources in the world. When a critical mass of newcomers become part of the parish, their cultures of origin and their experiences as immigrants are going to have an effect on the culture of the parish, and cultural change is hard. It's also tricky for parish leadership to effectively navigate which changes are beneficial, neutral, and detrimental, and therefore which changes to foster, tolerate, and avoid -- especially since most parish leaders (pastors, DREs, etc.) are not themselves bicultural, and cultural heritage is such an intimate (and therefore sensitive) thing, which not everyone experiences in the same way.
We were not neglected, we were pushed out. The new members that we had welcomed with opened arms made it very clear that we were no longer wanted. Imagine bringing a lovely bouquet of roses for a Corpus Christi altar and they were thrown aside because I was white. Hey Mary, that is discrimination. The priest, although white and USA born, loved the new members, berated white people at mass, and was frankly Anti American. Imagine a priest pushing the English speaking Knights of Columbus away - only to try to start up a Spanish speaking Knights of Columbus.
Hey Mary, that is discrimination. If I knew that I would be pushed out, I would not have given money to build a new church. There is nothing to smile about. Obviously, you have never been discriminated against. This is my county. My grandparents were immigrants. They were thrilled to become American citizens. They learned the English language.. They wanted to fit in. Not my experience with the new immigrants. When they came, we offered English as a second language courses. None came. Frankly, most seem to be here for welfare. They go back and forth as they need funds.
“the sacramental rosary isn’t just a spiritual weapon but one that comes with physical ammunition.”
This reminds me of an evening rosary at my house few months ago, when our 2-year old began using her rosary as a scourge, whipping her brother and sister. We probably should've put her to bed earlier that evening.
We've definitely been there in the Flynn household.
If I remember correctly, only Joe Biden has weaponized the rosary. In 2005 he said the next time a republican said he wasn’t Catholic he would shove his rosary down their throat.
Ha! 😁
Sure enough and I wonder how that is working out for him https://www.deseret.com/2005/10/25/19919037/don-t-say-demos-lack-faith-biden-says (I would have pasted the Snopes link but they were checking on a crass mutation of the quote.)
Reminds me of that early 2000s movie Saved! in which one of the main characters throws her Bible at another character while yelling "I am full of the love of Christ!"
"Now, don’t get me wrong. I think the views of men and women over 60 who attend Mass are important. In fact, I think we ought to consider a bit more often the tradition of Anna and Simeon in the temple, instead of writing off older parishioners with derisive cracks about boomers, or “Karen from the parish council” memes. In fact, I think it’s ironic that young people who love tradition are often cavalier about the possibility that our elders have something to say. The 1970s were not a pinnacle of Western civilization or of the Christian intellectual life — but the personal, hard-won wisdom that comes from a lifetime of Chritian discipleship is worth hearing, especially if it comes from people who kept the faith when the world (and often the Church) was turning on its head."
I would appreciate in-depth coverage of the generation gap you describe. I consider the 1970s to be the nadir of human civilization. I agree that we should respect the wisdom that comes from a lifetime of faithful Christian discipleship, but I was formed at a parish that dissented from the teachings of the Church in both liturgy and theology and ecclesiology, so I have little patience for the (lack of) wisdom that comes from a lifetime of unfaithful Christian discipleship. I have, like so many in my cohort, had to become self-trained in sniffing out books, universities, religious orders, moral theologians that claim to be offering wisdom for Christian discipleship but do not conform to the magisterial teaching of the Church, do not have an imprimatur/nihil obstat (and would find my objection on those grounds quite laughable), but are lauded by some as the foremost authorities, and therefore I am subjected to their heterodoxy in order to receive credit for a class or while listening to their hymns, in spite of the fact that the claims they are making are matters of open debate in the Church in an era when Francis is unwriting the magisterium of his predecessors. In other words, it is a perspective on Vatican II that will (hopefully) not outlast the generation that lived through it, who censure those that disagree with the hermeneutic of that perspective and its attendant claims about liturgy, ecclesiology, or moral theology, but I am being cajoled to give greater deference to their perspective, which was imposed upon me from a young age? When exactly do they have to surrender to the fact that what they taught, what they advocated for, was not correct or faithful or consistent with the Catechism or the Council or the CDF? When will they have to reconcile their perspective on Vatican II with the papacy (and prefecture and CCC) of the emeritus Benedict whom they scorn? "How long, O Lord, how long?" is my lament. I would appreciate reading an explainer about how the gap could be reconciled, since it means loving in charity those without whom what formation I had would not have been possible, even if it was partly malformation, however well-intentioned. It's not the stuff of comboxes; it's real relationships over a lifetime: sisters who held me as a newborn and also rejected their religious habit and whose orders promote strands of theology that contradict the faith; priests who taught me about the sacrarium in the sacristy and also advocate for the teaching on celibacy to be remanded; professors whose courses I was eager to take and who also advocate for a right to abortion. Is it cavalier to be wary of those faithful Catholics who were responsible for turning the world and the Church on its head? Who is failing to listen in this scenario- me or the people whose homilies and writings and coursework I have endured for decades, because they are published, they are tenured, and they comprise a demographic majority? I was born in 1980, a year that most of my peers that ought to have been born did not survive, due to selective birthing (I read The Pillar's sobering report about that this past summer with a cold chill in my spine). Who was listening to their cry for justice? I am part of a generation that was silenced. But by all means, fratelli tutti, hakuna matata, etc.
I'm probably from the same cohort as you, and was deeply failed catechetically by the Church - Dr. Suess-themed confirmation retreats, etc.
My only point is those failures don't mean every person of that generation has nothing to offer, or should be written off without any consideration - consider that the great majority of our generation have abandoned the faith altogether.
Well, then perhaps a report on what that generation does have to offer the Church? What will be their legacy? What of their output will be of inestimable value in the future? What authors from that era deserve a fair hearing and considered study?
I remember a young pro-life leader saying we ought to write down the oral history of the movement before the leaders of that generation have died. The civil rights era was a living thing to them (MLK; Chavez; picket and go to jail is how it's done). It is probably different from what you are thinking about but maybe we should think as hagiographers of the next century would; we know hardly anything about this person of legend (name of some boomer) because she wrote no textbooks, taught no classes, stories about her were handed down but they sound fake and exaggerated.
I believe Monica M. Miller authored her book, Abandoned: Untold Stories of the Abortion Wars with that thought in mind. Too many people don't know about the courageous actions of the Rose rescues in the early days of the movement. I do believe that the peaceful witness of the 40 Days for Life movement has made all the difference in effecting change in a way that the Rose rescues did not, but I still admire Monica for her courage. There are a great many pro-life civil rights leaders who died without witnessing the repeal of Roe, but who sacrificed tremendously for that outcome, and they have recently been celebrated for their sacrifice; so you are right to want to capture the oral histories of the heroes still living before they pass away.
As someone who attends a TLM, I’m always interested in coverage in relation to TC & it’s implementation, etc. especially with the canon law perspective y’all bring to the table.
How about a look at the ways the permanent diaconate is being implemented in dioceses around the US and the world? My husband is a deacon here in the diocese of Portland, Oregon and he often comments on this even being something that differs between parishes according to the preferences of the priests. Maybe get into the history of the diaconate from the early Church ,how the diaconate is often the “forgotten” clergy, why married men are generally permanent deacons whereas priests in the Roman tradition are celibate, the different ways a deacon fulfills his vocations as head of a family and cleric, interviews with men in these different walks of life with questions about their journey through discernment and formation along with their struggles and successes. I would recommend contacting deacon Joseph Machalak of the archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis. See an article he recently wrote here: https://www.the-deacon.com/2022/08/15/embracing-the-hiddenness-of-the-diaconate/