George Weigel's A New Take On Modern Catholic History"

[Cat]

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/02/a-new-take-on-modern-catholic-history/george-weigel

I am curious to know what others, especially Catholics who consider themselves adherents of Traditional Catholicism, think of this column (and the comments following).

I’ll start out by saying, “Hooray for Mr. Weigel!” As an ex-Evangelical Protestant, I think that Mr. Weigel’s article is right on. IMO, “Evangelical Catholicism” will be the Catholicism under which Christians are re-united into One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The attitudes and practices of the “Evangelical Catholic Church” are one of the main reasons why I even became interested in studying the Catholic Church and why I eventually converted.

I first came across Mr. Weigel when I watched his documentary on the life of Pope John Paul II. I have watched that wonderful video over and over, dozens of times. I love the way it is written and filmed. IMO, this video is an example of the type of “action” that can and should be done by Catholics in this Evangelical era (although “videos” are now out of date, and nowadays, it should probably be a youtube video that can be viewed on an iphone. Who knows what the next technological breakthrough will be, but the Catholic Church needs to be part of it, assuming that it is not evil.).

I hope that this thread will stay charitable. The comments following Mr. Weigel’s article seem quite contentious at times.

Isn’t it funny? I was an Evangelical Protestant, and now I’m an Evangelical Catholic!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I don’t generally use the “traditionalist” label, but here’s my thoughts.

I think Weigel is right in saying we have entered a new phase of Church history and that this new phase has significant roots in the pontificate of Leo XIII. I think we can legitimately see a continuous authentic reform stretching from Leo who set the trajectory to Vatican II itself, and then to John Paul II and Benedict XVI who completed the reform’s implementation and combated the excesses and misinterpretations of it. The Church is just now entering a new, post-reform phase in which anything might happen. I hope it will be a period distinguished by powerful evangelism, as the term “Evangelical Catholicism” seems to imply.

What I’m a little uncomfortable with is Weigel’s idea that “Counter-Reformation Catholicism” no longer “works”, that it has ended and given way to a new kind of Catholicism.

What if the Fathers of the Church had decided that Apostolic Christianity no longer “worked” and consciously set out to invent something new? What if Medieval Catholics took that attitude towards that Catholicism of the Fathers, or Counter-Reformation era Catholics to Medieval Catholicism? It would legitimately have been seen as a rupture, as a rejection of the past and the new creation of a literally artificial Catholicism.

At each of the major previous phases Weigel mentions, the Church was not rejecting the Catholicism of past generations but seeking to preserve it and to authentically interpret and apply it in their own time. The changes that took place to define each era either happened gradually and more or less accidentally, or as an effort to root out error with greater clarity of teaching, to return to the “Mass of the Fathers”, etc. Divine providence and grace guided the Church through nineteen hundred rocky but ultimately successful years as Catholics made their main priority the preservation and promotion of Apostolic Tradition.

To some extent the changes of the twentieth century can be viewed in the same light, through what Pope Benedict has called the hermeneutic of continuity as opposed to the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture. Viewed in this way the modern reform has been a matter of preserving and applying Apostolic Tradition in continuity with and as a fruit of the Spirit-guided development of the Church over two millennia.

George Weigel may ultimately view it this way and may merely be expressing himself poorly. I wonder if he would backtrack or refine his statements in a positive way if pushed to name concrete aspects of “Counter-Reformation Catholicism” that no longer “work.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t generally use the “traditionalist” label, but here’s my thoughts.

I think Weigel is right in saying we have entered a new phase of Church history and that this new phase has significant roots in the pontificate of Leo XIII. I think we can legitimately see a continuous authentic reform stretching from Leo who set the trajectory to Vatican II itself, and then to John Paul II and Benedict XVI who completed the reform’s implementation and combated the excesses and misinterpretations of it. The Church is just now entering a new, post-reform phase in which anything might happen. I hope it will be a period distinguished by powerful evangelism, as the term “Evangelical Catholicism” seems to imply.

What I’m a little uncomfortable with is Weigel’s idea that “Counter-Reformation Catholicism” no longer “works”, that it has ended and given way to a new kind of Catholicism.

What if the Fathers of the Church had decided that Apostolic Christianity no longer “worked” and consciously set out to invent something new? What if Medieval Catholics took that attitude towards that Catholicism of the Fathers, or Counter-Reformation era Catholics to Medieval Catholicism? It would legitimately have been seen as a rupture, as a rejection of the past and the new creation of a literally artificial Catholicism.

At each of the major previous phases Weigel mentions, the Church was not rejecting the Catholicism of past generations but seeking to preserve it and to authentically interpret and apply it in their own time. The changes that took place to define each era either happened gradually and more or less accidentally, or as an effort to root out error with greater clarity of teaching, to return to the “Mass of the Fathers”, etc. Divine providence and grace guided the Church through nineteen hundred rocky but ultimately successful years as Catholics made their main priority the preservation and promotion of Apostolic Tradition.

To some extent the changes of the twentieth century can be viewed in the same light, through what Pope Benedict has called the hermeneutic of continuity as opposed to the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture. Viewed in this way the modern reform has been a matter of preserving and applying Apostolic Tradition in continuity with and as a fruit of the Spirit-guided development of the Church over two millennia.

George Weigel may ultimately view it this way and may merely be expressing himself poorly. I wonder if he would backtrack or refine his statements in a positive way if pushed to name concrete aspects of “Counter-Reformation Catholicism” that no longer “work.”

While your post is dead on in terms of asking the proper questions in order to guide how Mr. Weigel’s view needs to be interpreted, after reading the article, it appears to me, at least, that what he is saying is that the Church ought to move from a reactive or defensive position brought about in response to the Reformation towards one of creative leadership in moving beyond modern issues. This is very much in line with faith and trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church towards its intended end which cannot be served by merely reacting apologetically to outside challenges, but must set its own course and not stray from it because of external distractions. In other words, we must not allow ourselves to succumb to the notion that it is outside factors that will determine the course for the Church. In this, I believe, he is absolutely correct.

What you are saying, it seems to me, is that the Church needs to maintain an integrity to its original mission and Spirit. With this I also agree because that is the “lifeblood” of the Church and will sustain it through to achieving its final end, which is one determined, not by human beings, but God himself, but not in reaction to modern day challenges. The Holy Spirit in the Church will set the course and will do so quite independent of modern challenges. My “suspicion” (although that is a very weak word for it) is that we will all be astonished and awed, especially the secularists.

 

[tominrichmond]

I thought the article was ridiculous.

Weigel spends a lot of time trotting out the usual canards about the alleged “bad old days” which is nothing other than a slander against our Fathers. Yet curiously he also points out how strong and healthy the Church was in those same “bad old days,” i.e., lots of vocations, conversions, unity within the Church.

His prescriptions/descriptions of “evangelical” Catholicism are in the main a description of what Catholicism was before the disaster of Vatican II and its aftermath.

His invocation of Leo XIII is truly bizarre and ahistorical. Leo was a devout opponent of liberalism and Americanism. Just read Libertas Praestantissimum (catholictradition.org/Encyclicals/libertas.htm)(one nugget: Liberals “follow in the footsteps of Satan”). To attempt to portray him as some type of precursor to the revolutionaries who have devastated the Church in the last 45 years is absolutely groundless. Moreover, this evolutionary notion (Weigel’s own terminology!) ignores that Leo was preceded by Bl. Pius IX, a devoted anti-Modernist and opponent of modern liberalism, and was followed by St. Pius X, author of the anti-modernist documents Pascendi and Lamentabili!

No, nice try, perhaps, but you can’t find the kind of neo-modernism espoused by Weigel and his associates in the pre-conciliar Church.

Much more could be said (like about why we need to further “prefix” the Faith, especially with a word, “Evangelical,” that is associated primarily with a specific variety of American Protestantism) but trying to keep it brief.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/02/a-new-take-on-modern-catholic-history/george-weigel

I am curious to know what others, especially Catholics who consider themselves adherents of Traditional Catholicism, think of this column (and the comments following).

I’ll start out by saying, “Hooray for Mr. Weigel!” As an ex-Evangelical Protestant, I think that Mr. Weigel’s article is right on. IMO, “Evangelical Catholicism” will be the Catholicism under which Christians are re-united into One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The attitudes and practices of the “Evangelical Catholic Church” are one of the main reasons why I even became interested in studying the Catholic Church and why I eventually converted.

I first came across Mr. Weigel when I watched his documentary on the life of Pope John Paul II. I have watched that wonderful video over and over, dozens of times. I love the way it is written and filmed. IMO, this video is an example of the type of “action” that can and should be done by Catholics in this Evangelical era (although “videos” are now out of date, and nowadays, it should probably be a youtube video that can be viewed on an iphone. Who knows what the next technological breakthrough will be, but the Catholic Church needs to be part of it, assuming that it is not evil.).

I hope that this thread will stay charitable. The comments following Mr. Weigel’s article seem quite contentious at times.

Isn’t it funny? I was an Evangelical Protestant, and now I’m an Evangelical Catholic!

I do agree we need as Catholics at this time in history to be evangelizing and spreading our faith and bringing our faith to the world, which is going to be hard because the world is becoming very hostile towards Christianity, especially toward Catholics and especially the youth of today. I will tell you the anti-Christian, anti-Catholic sentiments, thoughts and sayings spread by youth today are extremely horrid, just horrid.

As far as the article my only thing is I can’t help but wonder when people start asking the Catholic church to change and try new ways are they asking the church to turn away from its Catholic identity, to start being more like the world, to toss away the things of the historic church that have always seen it through the attacks it faced. I agree we need to be using more of the things given to us in spreading our faith, like the technology of today but maybe if we spent more time living out our Catholic faith, saying the rosary, going to confession, daily mass, Holy Hour and more and by being a witness in that way, showing our Catholic identity we would begin to win souls back. It won’t be easy because the world is seeing us as the enemy but God will guide us. Sometimes I think the world is just waiting for the Catholic church to change and become more modern just so it can say, see look the Catholic church isn’t as strong as it says. I, also can’t help but wonder if it isn’t the lukewarmness and the changes of the last 40 years that caused so many to already to have left the church. I know I have had some people tell me that is why they left.

I do agree that we do need to be evangelical or gospel-centered, showing love to the world while saying no to the world but I hate to see us lose any more of our Catholic traditions and identity. We just need to be Catholic, of the Catholic church that has survived through all the other hard times and good times that came and went. We need to maintain our Catholicism. As I have read of historic Catholic saints and families I think Catholics have always gone out into the world to spread the gospel. The Church itself has always been evangelical, on a mission to spread the gospel.

Perhaps why fewer and fewer Catholics show their faith is because they have progressed into the modern world a little too much and are kept a little too busy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I thought the article was ridiculous.

I am not clear we even read the same article.

How was it ”ridiculous" without adding your own “bad old days” twist to it? What do you think he is talking about here:

*Counter-Reformation Catholicism “worked,” as recently as the 1950s in America, because the ambient public culture helped transmit the faith, especially in intensely Catholic environments like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Milwaukee and so forth. But those days are long gone. The twenty-first-century **cultural air *is toxic, anti-biblical, Christophobic. It teaches the soul-withering notion that to do things “my way” is the summit of human aspiration and the very definition of maturity. And it regards those who hold firm to biblical religion and its moral teachings as idiots at best, irrational bigots at worst.

Clearly, he is saying the air of secularism, the “cultural air” of the ast century after the 1950s is toxic, but the antidote is not to fight that “soul-withering” state under terms set by it, but by moving the game onto our own turf set by the Holy Spirit.

I suggest rereading the article, but if you can show I am the one completely misconceiving it, have a go.

 

[tafan]

I am a big fan of George Weigel, but after reading the article in first things, his editorial a couple of weeks ago in the WSJ, and hearing him on the radio with this topic, I must admit to being confused as to his point. I will have to read the book for more information.

While I would agree that the Church is transitioning to a new phase, from the counter-reformation church, and I would agree that the reform started with Leo XIII, I am not for sure I am in agreement with his description of the evangelical Catholic church that is now upon us.

As to his ten features, I will not take it as far as tominrichmond and say it is ridiculous; I understand tominrichmond’s point. To the extent that there is an implication by Weigel is that these 10 features of the Evangelical Church were missing in the counter-reformation church, it comes across as quite an insult to our ancestors in faith. Weigel is normally more thoughtful than that.

I need to read the book.

 

[YoungTradCath]

but by moving the game onto our own turf set by the Holy Spirit.

But what does that even mean? That sounds like a nice platitude, but what does it mean strategically?

I want to see position papers and strategic outlines, I want to see documents that say what we are going to do when we are going to do it and how we are going to do it, I want to see things in ABC123 format. I want to see the Vatican Press Office (or whatever) start to be extremely aggressive with Catholic news in such a way that it is practically impossible to confuse the Church’s message. I want to see the same at the diocesan level with public relations persons. At some point we have to stop talking in nebulosities and bring concrete action forward, or at least examples of concrete action. Otherwise we will ever be stuck in the realm of thinking about things.

I am skeptical of Mr. Weigel’s article for the same reason I am skeptical of self-help books: they don’t say anything substantive. They revel in the cloudy paradise of self-created airheadedness. That is not to say Mr. Weigel is wrong or factually incorrect–where he does present facts. It is just to say we need to move on, finally.

 

[johnnyc176]

But what does that even mean? That sounds like a nice platitude, but what does it mean strategically?

I want to see position papers and strategic outlines, I want to see documents that say what we are going to do when we are going to do it and how we are going to do it, I want to see things in ABC123 format. I want to see the Vatican Press Office (or whatever) start to be extremely aggressive with Catholic news in such a way that it is practically impossible to confuse the Church’s message. I want to see the same at the diocesan level with public relations persons. At some point we have to stop talking in nebulosities and bring concrete action forward, or at least examples of concrete action. Otherwise we will ever be stuck in the realm of thinking about things.

I am skeptical of Mr. Weigel’s article for the same reason I am skeptical of self-help books: they don’t say anything substantive. They revel in the cloudy paradise of self-created airheadedness. That is not to say Mr. Weigel is wrong or factually incorrect–where he does present facts. It is just to say we need to move on, finally.

Excellent post.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

But what does that even mean? That sounds like a nice platitude, but what does it mean strategically?

I want to see position papers and strategic outlines, I want to see documents that say what we are going to do when we are going to do it and how we are going to do it, I want to see things in ABC123 format. I want to see the Vatican Press Office (or whatever) start to be extremely aggressive with Catholic news in such a way that it is practically impossible to confuse the Church’s message. I want to see the same at the diocesan level with public relations persons. At some point we have to stop talking in nebulosities and bring concrete action forward, or at least examples of concrete action. Otherwise we will ever be stuck in the realm of thinking about things.

I am skeptical of Mr. Weigel’s article for the same reason I am skeptical of self-help books: they don’t say anything substantive. They revel in the cloudy paradise of self-created airheadedness. That is not to say Mr. Weigel is wrong or factually incorrect–where he does present facts. It is just to say we need to move on, finally.

agree

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, of course.

Peter and the Apostles said exactly that to the Holy Spirit at Pentecost:

“What do the fires on the top of our heads mean strategically speaking? We want to see position papers and strategic outlines. We want to see documents that say what we are going to do when we are going to do it and how we are going to do it. We want to see things in ABC123 format.”

Yep, that is the distinct impression their response left to us.

But what does that even mean? That sounds like a nice platitude, but what does it mean strategically?

I want to see position papers and strategic outlines, I want to see documents that say what we are going to do when we are going to do it and how we are going to do it, I want to see things in ABC123 format. I want to see the Vatican Press Office (or whatever) start to be extremely aggressive with Catholic news in such a way that it is practically impossible to confuse the Church’s message. I want to see the same at the diocesan level with public relations persons. At some point we have to stop talking in nebulosities and bring concrete action forward, or at least examples of concrete action. Otherwise we will ever be stuck in the realm of thinking about things.

I am skeptical of Mr. Weigel’s article for the same reason I am skeptical of self-help books: they don’t say anything substantive. They revel in the cloudy paradise of self-created airheadedness. That is not to say Mr. Weigel is wrong or factually incorrect–where he does present facts. It is just to say we need to move on, finally.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes, of course.

Peter and the Apostles said exactly that to the Holy Spirit at Pentecost:

“What do the fires on the top of our heads mean strategically speaking? We want to see position papers and strategic outlines. We want to see documents that say what we are going to do when we are going to do it and how we are going to do it. We want to see things in ABC123 format.”

Yep, that is the distinct impression their response left to us.

If I say something like what I have said so far here, I am told to allow things to happen in God’s time. If I say God will take care of it, I am told to get some fire in my soul. It’s rather like when you go to a psychiatrist: they will always find something wrong with you according to some arcane metric. If you aren’t depressed, you must! be hyperactive. And so on.

---

Clearly, the Apostles did put things in motion. They didn’t have the political and material apparatus that the Church now has, so they were rather more disorganized than we are now, but they did stuff.

At some point we have to apply our ideas, start to take real action, rather than simply keep talking about it over and over and over. There is a value to the spiritual side of things, and to the academic side, no doubt. Without that, there would be no need to take action in the first place, or our action would be uncoordinated and without a goal. But we have a goal, we have the competence to start taking action, so when are we going to do that? When are we going to commit our time and resources wholesale to this new evangelization thing which, up to this point, seems to be more of a theoretical and spiritual exercise than anything else?

This Year of Faith seems to be a gentle prod on the part of the Pope to get things going.

If we don’t start soon, it is like we are eternally stuck in a corporate board meeting discussing our inspirations and preliminary ideas without actually putting things into action. In the end, that is useless.

 

[cothrige]

Isn’t it funny? I was an Evangelical Protestant, and now I’m an Evangelical Catholic!

I am curious. What exactly is an “Evangelical Catholic” and how is it different than being a Catholic? What does an “Evangelical Catholic” believe that I as a Catholic do not? What does one do that I do not?

 

[Cat]

I am curious. What exactly is an “Evangelical Catholic” and how is it different than being a Catholic? What does an “Evangelical Catholic” believe that I as a Catholic do not? What does one do that I do not?

Have you read the article in my link? I think that will answer your questions.

I’m using the phrase “Evangelical Catholic” that Mr. Weigel uses in his article. It’s not “official.” And did you notice the smiley face after the sentence–that means that I’m being just a little “tongue-in-cheek.”

But here’s my answer to your questions. I believe what you believe–what any Catholic is supposed to believe. But I would say that Evangelicalism focuses on obedience and ACTION, not just words or feelings. Evangelicalism is about “doing.” When I was in the Evangelical Protestant churches, we worked very hard and focused on obeying Christ’s Great Commission. I think that an Evangelical Catholic would do the same–work hard to obey the Great Commission.

 

[OraLabora]

Have you read the article in my link? I think that will answer your questions.

I’m using the phrase “Evangelical Catholic” that Mr. Weigel uses in his article. It’s not “official.” And did you notice the smiley face after the sentence–that means that I’m being just a little “tongue-in-cheek.”

But here’s my answer to your questions. I believe what you believe–what any Catholic is supposed to believe. But I would say that Evangelicalism focuses on obedience and ACTION, not just words or feelings. Evangelicalism is about “doing.” When I was in the Evangelical Protestant churches, we worked very hard and focused on obeying Christ’s Great Commission. I think that an Evangelical Catholic would do the same–work hard to obey the Great Commission.

Evangelization has always been alive and well in Catholicism in particular with the religious orders and communities and missionaries.

However in Catholicism “evangelization” has always been in fact about “doing” and much less about “saying” (i.e. proselytizing). “Evangelical Christians” often confuse evangelization with proselytization.

For Benedictines it is about living a life according to the Gospels and letting that life itself be the beacon of of evangelization; go to a monk for spiritual assistance or on a retreat at a monastery, and regardless of your beliefs you will neither be proselytized nor judged. For religious like Mother Teresa, evangelization meant living the Gospel among the poor, giving them aid and comfort, and expecting nothing in return (i.e. no expectation of conversion of those they aid). No quid pro quo. It’s a slower process, I think, than the more flamboyant proselytization often seen among Evangelical Christians.

The latter does seem to be somewhat effective; the former is rather more discreet. I can tell you though, anecdotally in my case, I was being actively courted by the proselytizing Protestants when I was an atheist (I had been brought up in the Church and had rejected Catholicism), but it was the more discreet call of Catholicism that won me back. Nobody tried to “convert” me to Catholicism. Its richness was all it took (and in particular Gregorian chant making me hunger for a liturgical Church, and one that transcended the personality of whatever particular pastor was flavour of the month; my Evangelical friends church hopped when a pastor was replaced with one they liked less). It was also a bunch of other little things. Like why, for instance, in the movies, when someone was praying in the face of disaster, it was often a Hail Mary. Or like actually reading the Bible and finding the inconsistencies in my Evangelical friend’s proof-texted notions of what they thought the Bible said (one of my Evangelical friends was converted from Catholicism… and was particularly rabid about my conversion to Catholicism and fond of quoting the Bible to show me why Catholicism was wrong and why he wondered if “Catholics could be saved”).

In fact nothing turns me off like overt proselytizing.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

…

But here’s my answer to your questions. I believe what you believe–what any Catholic is supposed to believe. But I would say that Evangelicalism focuses on obedience and ACTION, not just words or feelings. Evangelicalism is about “doing.” When I was in the Evangelical Protestant churches, we worked very hard and focused on obeying Christ’s Great Commission. I think that an Evangelical Catholic would do the same–work hard to obey the Great Commission.

This kind of confuses me because one thing I believe I learned as an ex-evangelical protestant was faith alone, not action, not even necessarily obedience. All my many years there I was told I didn’t have to DO, whatever. I will admit I did hear frequent talk of following the great commission but it was usually on the radio or television and it usually just meant handing out pamphlets or asking people if they knew if they were saved or not and leading them to a prayer of accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior. I use to think there has to be more than just believing. There has to be action

Upon returning to the Catholic church I have found the true action: the soup kitchens, the hospitals, the nursing homes, the teaching sisters, the charity organizations, the missionaries, the schools, the laity that spend time every day praying the rosary for the many needs of the church and the world. I could just go on and on, so that is why I find it strange you would say an evangelical Catholic would work hard when I guess I see many, many Catholics working very hard already and through their action they are obeying the great commission. Maybe not so much with words but with their actions, so I agree we need action but that is already required of all Catholics.

*The works of mercy are charitable actions motivated by Christian love by which we help our neighbor obtain what he or she needs spiritually and materially. Instructing, advising, consoling and comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently.

The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. The works of mercy are not optional but are absolutely essential to living the Christian life of holiness and goodness. (CCC2447)*

 

[clem456]

I agree with the thrust of his article as long as evangelism does not focus on “success”, and focuses on being authentically Catholic. While I write this I look at my crucifix and am reminded that being with Christ requires radical self giving without regard to numbers or the agreement of the public. If we can be who God wants us to be, God will take care of the rest, but it might not be a glittering success in human terms. Possibly Weigel’s article has a little too much of this tone, but maybe I am misreading.

This is why I really appreciated JP2’s pontificate. He showed the world the power of a life dwelling in Christ, even when he could no longer do anything. And Benedict’s as well, to renounce the office and live a life of prayer.

 

[tafan]

But here’s my answer to your questions. I believe what you believe–what any Catholic is supposed to believe. But I would say that Evangelicalism focuses on obedience and ACTION, not just words or feelings. Evangelicalism is about “doing.” When I was in the Evangelical Protestant churches, we worked very hard and focused on obeying Christ’s Great Commission. I think that an Evangelical Catholic would do the same–work hard to obey the Great Commission.

Stating this definition, which I would say is somewhat inline with Weigel, and at the same time saying it is new; this illustrates the problem I have with Weigel’s article. The implication that this is a new thing, is an insult to our Catholic ancestors.

Weigel’s first point is that it requires a personal relationship with Christ. Well, I happen to be in possession of my great-aunt’s religious poetry, written in her own hand, it is one of my prized possessions. I can assure you, anyone who would have written what she did had a very personal relationship with Christ. But the implication is that this is a new thing for Catholics.

I agree with Weigel that the Church has been going through a reform/transition and I agree with him it largely started with Leo XIII. I do not think I agree with his characterization of this new Catholic, the other aspects of his timing, etc.

But as I said earlier, I have not yet read the book; and I would like to do so before making a final judgment.

 

[cothrige]

Have you read the article in my link? I think that will answer your questions.

Yes, I read it, but it never gave any real indication of what was intended. That seemed to be taken for granted. There was some implied negative definition in what it was not, i.e. counter-reformation Catholic, but that does little to give real information.

I’m using the phrase “Evangelical Catholic” that Mr. Weigel uses in his article. It’s not “official.” And did you notice the smiley face after the sentence–that means that I’m being just a little “tongue-in-cheek.”

Okay, but obviously he was not being tongue-in-cheek and so had something concrete in mind. Since you posted the link and espoused a similar viewpoint you seemed a natural person to ask. I suppose I could email Mr. Weigel, but that seemed sort of a strange thing to do given it was linked to on this discussion forum.

But here’s my answer to your questions. I believe what you believe–what any Catholic is supposed to believe. But I would say that Evangelicalism focuses on obedience and ACTION, not just words or feelings. Evangelicalism is about “doing.” When I was in the Evangelical Protestant churches, we worked very hard and focused on obeying Christ’s Great Commission. I think that an Evangelical Catholic would do the same–work hard to obey the Great Commission.

That seems an odd defintion. Catholicism has always been evangelical in the sense of looking to action. Just go read about the great saints of the Church and you will see one after another person who has spent their entire lives drawing others to the faith and teaching the Gospel. The Great Commision is hardly ignored or given lip service among Catholics. Just look at the pope. Nothing much more Catholic than that, and yet his office is incredibly evangelical. I can’t imagine doing much more than a pope does to draw people to Christ.

I will concede though that between Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism there does exsit a distinct difference in style. But, to be very honest, while I would say Catholicism is by its nature very Evangelical those who actually bear that name seem much less so, and certainly don’t seem to fit your definition. At least that goes for those I know, and I know a lot living here in the rather deep South. They don’t go door to door or anything. Rather, they are just well known for being very, very vocal about their beliefs (which are usually very odd things involving the rapture and the evils of science and evolution) and equally vocal in their criticisms of other people’s beliefs when they are different. Having to work next to a professed Evangelical can be extremely trying, and having done so I will say that there have been many times that I have witnessed bad blood and angry words over the constant stream of commentary about religion they hurl at all those around them. I have doubts that those techniques are anything I would want to see emulated in the Catholic Church. Sharing the faith is one thing, but castigating everyone else around us about how wrong they are and ceaselessly going on and on about the superiority of our beliefs is another thing altogether.

 

[YoungTradCath]

To give Cat’s points the benefit of the doubt (I usually don’t =p), I believe this “evangelical Catholicism” term is simply a fruit the natural, human tendency to give things names. It might not “officially” exist, but there is a something that Cat and Mr. Weigel need to represent with words, and the latter has chosen the phrase “evangelical Catholicism” to express this something.

I really don’t see the issue here. Half the time we are expected to not know anything about the Faith, the other half of the time we’re antagonized for not speaking as if we’re the Cardinal Prefect of the CDF.

If you want to criticize the actual content of what is meant by the phrase, fine, but arguing over the phrase itself seems kind of unfruitful.