There's definitely a very strange thing going on in the Church in Europe and North America. After our middle/upper-class environments got turned into theological/philosophical/cultural/faith wastelands by the stronger arm of the post-50's generations, in the latter half of the 90's people started noticing the sprouting of young reactionaries. Now there's whole books out about them. I'm one of them.

Now the picture is very strange. The older parents and younger grandparents today haven't changed too much--still the same old suspicion of authority, same old confidence in the goodness of individual freedoms, with a smaller number of vocal dissidents among them. But the younger folks are split into two incredibly disparate groups. Let's face it: most (so I gather) are completely jaded to questions of God, faith, religion, and so on. Go to any secular college campus and take polls. Irreligion rules within the generation to rule the world of the near future. Postmodernism may have powerful enemies (I know; my university employs lots of them) but for the time being, it is king.

But then there is the minority group, those kiddies like me, who, for whatever reason (and it's mysterious to everybody), rolled down the other side of the hill and landed in the bosom of the Church, the Body of Christ. And boy, did they ever. Some of us are so stuffed full of orthodoxy it's coming out of our ears. The knights of the previous generation's destructive regiment howl against us. "They'll ruin everything we worked so hard to build!" some of them say. Otherwise it's, "They'll kill themselves in the effort."

Now, there is a lot that might happen as a result of this split. It's so dramatic that there is no real telling what could happen. But in any case, save for a miracle, I would not predict a truly religious renewal in the forseeable future. Moreover, as wonderful and grace-filled as the vigorous young Catholcs are, I have some concerns. And these concerns do not come from just my observations of others. They come from whatever limited self-awareness I can scrape.

• Too many times the orthodoxy doesn't have a firm foundation. That is a big problem. People can have the same opinions--belief in God, loyalty to the Church, and importance of practice--but these opinions can grow out of very different types of soil. If an orthodoxy does not have a vigorous and firm human root, and is permeable and able to breathe freely in the open atmosphere, then not only can it calcify into ideology, but it can be used as a psychological defense mechanism--a bludgeon. I've read and heard it pretty often said that younger folks are attracted to the Church because it offers stability in a world were none seems possible. That's all well and good, but if orthodoxy makes its home in that position, then it becomes a danger to the Church and to those outside of the Church, not to mention the poor soul himself. Don't get me wrong--I'm very, very "ecclesiocentric;" the idea of a Church-less love of Christ is absurd.

  But some orthodox-types out there need something bigger and more human and more immanent for their orthodoxy to rest on, or else it just becomes a handicap and a glass-celing to holiness.

• Going from there, lots of orthodox-types also happen to be jerks. (Did I mention that everything I write here is, in various degrees, self-referencing?) I'm a little worried about some seminaries. I mean, it is a little like raising an animal in captivity and letting them out into the wild. I had to have my butt kicked once or twice (or more), not for being orthodox, but for not being able to cope in what is, practically speaking, a post-Christian world. If you can't cope; if you can't be creative enough to try and effect a harmonious meeting of orthodoxy and mundania; then maybe you should sit yourself down and become a student of the human heart.

• I think there might be too much triumphalism/Jansenism/"bootstraps heresy"/semi-Pelagianism in some quarters of my little generational phenomena. Incidentally--and correct me if I'm wrong--but isn't that business just the worst enemy of Catholic evanglism there ever was? I mean, if you're not willing to ask yourself, every moment of your life, whether you would be a Catholic were it not for the gratuitousness of God, and X number of details over which you had no control--then how are you going to speak to the heart of someone outside of the flock who might not have had your 'advantages'? Are they just nasty sinners?

Which leads me to my major point. We need a broad, accessible, foundational understanding of irreligion. The fears, desires, structures of thought, unshakable cultural foundations that lead a kid to say, "God doesn't exist," or "It doesn't matter whether God exists," or "God exists but is inaccessible." Now psychology might be a fine discipline, but it tends to chalk these things up to factors that the Shepherd has no sway over. I don't buy that. Philosophy, on the other hand, that studies the glue between "I" and "world" and "God," never ceases to open doors for action. Like I said, we need a discipline of the human heart; not patterns but motivations. In any case, the evangelical spirit should always move about with the conviction that Christ alone knows the deepest desires of the human heart, and these subsist within his Church; but at present, there are a lot of barriers between the Catholic and the irrligious post-modern. I think we've erected some of those barriers, and we have to step very, very carefully in this strange, brave new world. So many of the old strategies don't work anymore.

-- anon (ymous@god.bess), April 16, 2004

Answers

Very insightful.

No foundation: that is why we need a solid apologetic, a good philosophy, and preachers who will fearlessly proclaim solid Catholic doctrine. Come for the stability stay for the truth!

Jerks: The conservative mind must be followed by a compasionate heart. We cannot just grab the Church with our minds, we must embrace her in prayer. Then Jesus Christ can grow in us the gift of charity.

It's all me: If we are obedient then we must be obedient to the command of humility. Again, taking up the prayerlife of the Church we have embraced will heal this too.

The final solution is, of course, the same as it has always been. Radical devotion to Jesus Christ. Only Christ can reach the heart of the irreligious, we must pray always that he can use us to do so.

And, yes, we must have a deep understanding of irreligion. Only by understanding the darkness can we dare to plunge into it and bring it light. May the Lord Jesus Christ transform us into the Salt of the Earth and the Light of the World. (and, Lord start with this triumphalistic jerk, me.)

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.

The philosophy taught in college philo. class all seemed to be going out with the premises it went in with -- circular and dry.

The (neo-)pagens may be a hope -- the do believe in something beyond science and beyond simple existance. It is an easier step from there to Christianity than from athist to Christian. But most have 2 reasons for doing so: hatred of Christianity, and Feminism -- which the Church is not getting behind. It may take a protestant path to save their souls or to get them in the Christian community. All too often the Jerks have hit them so often that they are now alergic to a Christian approaching them. Pity, but often so.

There is much in the bible for the ones that do not believe. One I know followed money and had enough life to get it -- and found that he was not happy. At that point he could be talked to.

Troubles in life, well we all have them. And during troubled times the person considers changing their ways, and is open to conversion. There is a lot of practical wisdom in the bible, and good attitudes.

I have made suggestions and still do not think that I have really answered you. I hope that I have helped in at least a small way.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

I am taking this as a 'let's think about counversion' routine. Your other insights must find someone else to resonate with.

Just living a good life does sometimes convert another. Not often, not often enought. We all blunder, we all fall. As in Norstrella by Cordwainer Smith, the difference between believer and non- is often just a bit more hope, a bit better happiness on the average. This does not always shine through enough to be a convincing arguement.

Likewise, I do know people who will play 'trap the door2door missionary', and basically treat such as anyone would treat a persistant telemarketer -- and for the same reasons.

I would like some insight into how to successfully convert others. And I understand that much of that is converting (me/ourselves) -- changed by penance into better people.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.

Hi Anon thankyou your passion and zeal is uplifitng I really enjoyed your thoughts. Im not so sure though about philosophy "opening doors" more like philosophy removes the doors altogether for me, removes all barriers to anything but "argument", argument which finds itself only chasing its tail. After the intial excitment with philosophy I find myself struggling to work out where my own position lies in regards to the challenges subjectivism/relativism lays down. Trying to bit off more than my ol brain can handle.

I find myself distancing myself from the term orthodox in the narrowest sense- the plural nature of our heritage says to me that the current BS liberal/conservative divide says more about human nature of "us and them" than it does about the orthodoxy of either sterotype. Im sick of people trying to slip their politcal ideologies into something as precious as our faith. The Church has always been big enough for us all IMHO its the mindset of the diseenter ie how open to corecction they are which is the key not their stumble from grace itself... ALthough I worry more about the church herself and others than my own soul, which perhaps says more for my lack of faith than anything else!

Skoobouy I would like to ask a question about what "masculinity" means to you and its role in selction of the priesthood and your opinion about what being a man of God, being a father -being a shepard to Gods flock requires in terms of leadership qualities. Is physical training or hard physical work part of your duties as a seminarian? Do you think it should be?Ive been thinking about this lately as a consatnt perception perhaps justified of outsiders view of priests is often very unflattering in terms of the typical male rolemodel that society has always admired: Strong, decisive, upright, uncompromising etc. I will reflect on this myself as I proably am not articulating my concerns on this issue very well, or maybe Im just a bit old fashioned.

Anyway gota log out but to me humility and humbleness in everything are so important and you humble us all. Thankyou and God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Hi!

This was a great thread. I really enjoyed it the first time. I'm bumping it and adding my two-cents.

Anon,

I agree with you, but I also with Kiwi. IMO, secularism includes all opposition to being catholic that you mentioned. It's been around for ages, and it won't die any time soon. There are always schools of philosophy that will argue for rational self-interest. On the one hand, it's really appealing since it seemingly justifies itself and the philosopher. On the other hand, it can get selfish quick. Rhetoric is the oldest game around. Knowing rules can let one break them secretly. Argue for Love, Truth, and Hope and don't do it for any other reason. But most of all, do it for Love.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 25, 2004.