The Church in Crisis Is Like The Light of a Dying Star

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When has the Church not been in crisis? As I sit here and scan my knowledge of world history, it seems you could say there’s been a crisis in every era.

Joseph packed up the house and fled to Egypt. The apostles hid for fear of the Jews. The ancient Romans weren’t big fans of early Christians.

There were invasions from Vandals, Visigoths, Huns, Muslims, and Mongols.

There were centuries of European geo-politics laced with assassinations, unholy alliances, and warfare, the Reformation, various Plagues and famines, two world wars…

There’s been corruption and abuse from within the highest ranks of the Magisterium, and the list goes on.

I doubt the removal of communion rails will bring the downfall. But what do I know?
 
Another thing: I think back to my parents’ and grandparents’ experiences, back into the early-20th century, pre- and post-V2

They grew up in a Catholic immigrant community with unbreakable bonds to their church/Church. It was the center of community life. The whole of the people were as devout as you could imagine for the “good ol’ days.”

And yet they told of alcohol abuse, domestic violence, violence and fights, racism and prejudice.

So what do we expect?
 
From what I read of the Catholic blogosphere, there seems to be an edge of pride, as in a sense of thinking, thank God I’m not like one of these. I am not referring to the author of the linked article, I am not familiar with him, but specifically to other bloggers. The bloggers themselves may not be too bad but it’s the commenters that especially exude this arrogance.

It’s quite off putting.
 
That may exist, but maybe would be best to save for a thread that started from one of those posts then?

At least to avoid talking past each other.

(PS I totally agree, I think there’s arrogance and pride found on all ‘sides’ of these sorts of debates, all over the internet, and it’s off-putting wherever it’s found.)
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Found this a well written article and wanted to share.
Click to expand...
Tbh I found it contrary to one of the most fundamental aspects of Christianity - the divine commission to preach the gospel. The idea that we should hunger down “marrying within the tribe” and cast off the souls who can’t be reached while waiting for the apocalypse is fundamentally repugnant to the ethos of the gospels.

Rather than the Roman Empire, a better comparison might be the French Revolution and the religious, moral and social collapse which followed. If OnePeterFive think things are at the lowest now then they really need to read more history. Still, as Fr George Rutler put it: whenever the Church experiences a breakdown she also experiences a break through.

The Church is not for the few but for the many and the role of every baptised is to work for the salvation of the world not to write it off as a lost cause. Somebody who knew and lived this was St Jean Vianney (himself a product of the revolution) who also knew far better than anyone today what it was like to work in a spiritual wasteland but who also approached this task with a limitless love for the souls others were only too keen to leave behind.
 
With all due respect I don’t think you got the point.

To compare our times to the French revolution and other crises is a bit wrongheaded as just when that was happening, when the Bolshevik revolution was happening, when the empire was falling, people could always look back and say ‘well at least it’s not this or that! That was a real disaster!’
 
on_the_hill said:
There were centuries of European geo-politics laced with assassinations, unholy alliances, and warfare, the Reformation, various Plagues and famines, two world wars…
Click to expand...
Religion in general is extremely resilient. To the dismay of atheists.
Take Russia: after over 70 years of communism, most people reverted to the Orthodox Church as if nothing had happened.
 
InThePew said:
Tbh I found it contrary to one of the most fundamental aspects of Christianity - the divine commission to preach the gospel. The idea that we should hunger down “marrying within the tribe” and cast off the souls who can’t be reached while waiting for the apocalypse is fundamentally repugnant to the ethos of the gospels.
Click to expand...
I agree with another poster that I think you missed the point of the article.

The author wasn’t arguing that we should stop preaching. Rather, he was suggesting that our preaching will become more clear and fruitful when we stop sending mixed messages to the world – and preaching starts in the family, with our own children. When he suggests marrying fellow Catholics, the clear rationale (to my eyes) is that children who grow up in households where one parent doesn’t practice the faith, are much less likely to believe in the religion of the other parent, or even consider it worth learning about. The example of the non-believing parent is a constant gentle nudge towards spiritual apathy. AKA “If my Dad thinks religion is stupid superstition, why shouldn’t I?”

Suggesting that practicing Catholics marry other practicing Catholics is eminently reasonable and has nothing to do with ceasing to preach but rather with keeping ourselves spiritually healthy enough to preach well. Paul advocated for it in 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.

Even beyond children, a spouse who shares your passionate love for Christ and encourages and strengthens you in your walk with God, will surely make you a better preacher than a spouse who sows seeds of doubt in your mind, grumbles that you go to Sunday Mass or want to contribute your resources to the Church, and constantly wears you down defending your own beliefs and values, wasting your time and emotional and spiritual energy that could have been otherwise put to the service of people actually open to receiving the spiritual gifts God wants to give through you.

And so on. When Dreher suggests that the Church overall will be healthier when those who only attend Mass out of habit stop attending, he’s not suggesting he doesn’t care about their souls. Of course he’s hoping they’ll eventually come back. But he’s suggesting that if a person isn’t already internally living in accordance with true Catholic faith or belief, but deludes themselves that they’re spiritually secure because they go through certain external motions out of mere cultural habit, then losing that habit (and consequently ceasing to attend Mass) may help them look at what they actually believe for the first time in a long time. And honest realization of the actual state of our soul is far more important than mere external presence in a physical church building. Someone who deludes themselves that they’re an “alright Catholic”, but is actually just going through cultural motions with no internal life of love or faith, is in more danger (and puts others in more danger) than someone who at least knows they’re far from the Church so is unsettled in their heart and aware that they need to make a change.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think Father missed the point of the article. I pretty much saw the same things in it that he did.

I think this is a case of an article that confirms the world view of a certain set of people who are, for whatever reason, annoyed at Catholics they don’t think are “good enough” Catholics.
Those who have this view for whatever reason are going to like the article.
Those of us who have a more expansive view of who “belongs” in the Church are not going to like it.

I am happy to see clergy taking the more expansive view. I like the big tent, even if it includes many imperfect people, and even if it includes people who get on my nerves.
 
Except the Church is not a dying star. The light of the Church shines bright and strong through the secular landscape
 
MNathaniel said:
…he was suggesting that our preaching will become more clear and fruitful when we stop sending mixed messages to the world…
Click to expand...
I think this gets at the core of what the author was saying. Summarizing the article and readers who agree as simply slamming ‘not good enough Catholics’ is a step beyond what the text implies and pretty uncharitable to those who agree. Saying it’s confirming a world view that isn’t expansive implies closed mindedness. There’s value in having an open mind, but not to the point of ambivalence towards fundamental truth.
 
Last edited:
I was a bit amused (not bemused0 by the line near the opening: “The number of Catholics on the books in the world is around 1.2 billion, but the number of people who actually practice the faith? I’d be surprised if it were more than a tenth of that. (And some people I’ve talked to say they think I’m being overly generous with that estimate.)”

Talk about an overabundance of myopia.

The Catholic Church is not the sum of Catholics in Europe and North America.

Even in the US, better than 20% attend Mass each week (and I am not saying this is good - just saying); and granted that in Europe, some areas are below 5%; but the church is growing and vibrant in, among other areas, Africa - and growing elsewhere, often in spite of severe persecution.

Anyone upset about the status of the Church needs to go back and read chapter 6 of John’s Gospel, and specifically verses 60 to the end of the chapter. Then go about doing what Christ called us to - and in the words that St. Francis apparently never said, “Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words.”
 
otjm said:
Then go about doing what Christ called us to - and in the words that St. Francis apparently never said, “Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words.”
Click to expand...
Correct. He never said that. In addition I read recently about the Greek terms used in that passage about preaching the Gospel to the nations. The Greek term used implies actual teaching and preaching, which does mean words are necessary.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
The Greek term used implies actual teaching and preaching, which does mean words are necessary.
Click to expand...
However, it is also highly possible that the command of teaching and preaching was more narrow, to the Apostles and those selected by them.

We all have a duty to live a life that reflects our faith and belief, and there are untold numbers of stories of people converting or renewing their faith based on the example of others - as opposed to the words of others.
 
Last edited:
Who’s speaking of rods? I’m speaking of words. Nonetheless the examples you speak of have one caveat: they took place in a culture wherein Christians were persecuted in extreme ways, or in cultures that had become Christian to a large extent. Nowadays how many are converted by the nice guy down the street?
 
StudentMI said:
To compare our times to the French revolution and other crises is a bit wrongheaded as just when that was happening, when the Bolshevik revolution was happening, when the empire was falling, people could always look back and say ‘well at least it’s not this or that!
Click to expand...
It’s not about saying that things have been worse before (although they certainly have) but rather that these times of crises have, if anything, actually been the most fruitful. This wasn’t because a small remnant of the faithful few hunkered down, walling themselves off from the world, but instead because the increased need prompted a greater zeal for evangelisation.
MNathaniel said:
The author wasn’t arguing that we should stop preaching.
Click to expand...
Actually he was when he says: I’m not saying their souls don’t matter, I’m saying their souls can’t be reached
MNathaniel said:
When he suggests marrying fellow Catholics, the clear rationale (to my eyes) is that children who grow up in households where one parent doesn’t practice the faith, are much less likely to believe in the religion of the other parent, or even consider it worth learning about.
Click to expand...
If anything, I like to think that I’m proof to the contrary! I know many non-Catholics who are wonderfully supportive of their spouses faith and, in some cases, even go to mass with the family. Really what Skojec is advocating is a “Church of the few” - effectively a closed community which is focussed on taking care of itself rather than on reaching out to those outside of it. That’s not to say that such a community isn’t interested in evangelising but only on its terms, expecting those who wish to join to come to them. That however is the very antithesis of the divine commission. We’re not called to do this because it’s easy and if anything it’s not supposed to be easy nor should be expect our message to be favourably received but just because it’s difficult isn’t a reason to not do it; Ars was “Siberia out of season” when Jean Vianney went there but nonetheless he persevered.

Where there is no faith, out faith and you will find faith. yes, we’re called to preach “fundamental truth” but we’re never going to do that if we think that we’re somehow superior to anyone else. Rather, we evangelisation best when we’re most mindful of our own sinfulness and our own need for God because it’s then that we best reflect His love and His mercy which we want others to come to know. that’s not to say that they don’t need to know “fundamental truth” but this is a truth which is grounded, first and foremost in love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top