Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
Michael Voris, an orthodox but astringent Catholic commentator, has sparked controversy; Patrick Archbold has a good summary of the story so far here, and his post provides a good jumping off point for what's been on my mind. Actually it's been on my mind for a while, because Voris is merely the latest person to encourage Catholics to abandon parishes at the first whisper of liturgical abuse or bad praxis, a strategy I find remarkably unhelpful. "What is so wrong about that?" asks Patrick.
Well, here's what's wrong with it. For sake of argument, while acknowledging that these terms are imprecise, this post will denominate as “conservatives” those who are orthodox in their doctrinal views and liturgical tastes, and as “liberals” those who like silly 70s nonsense—liturgical dance, guitars, David Haas, etc. Conservatives find liberal approaches to liturgy grating, and that’s understandable. But every time a conservative throws in the towel and leaves a liberal parish, s/he makes it even harder for the remaining conservatives to fix the problems.
Do those advocating leaving liberal parishes not understand how parishes get that way in the first place? If all the conservatives leave Parish X, who do you suppose will be handling that parish’s RCIA program, its liturgy committee, its musical choices, etc.? "Shall we use chant or soporific hymnody"—how do you suppose that vote will go if the conservatives flee the parish? It’s all well and good to say “well, the pastor should be making the decisions”; I agree, but in the real world, laypeople are involved in many parishes' decisionmaking process, and when conservative laypeople leave, they abandon those posts to liberal laypeople.
To come at it from another angle, ask yourself this: How can you expect many parishes in a given area to develop a stable group of the faithful wanting the EF Mass (as Summorum Pontificum puts it) if all the folks in that area who want the EF voluntarily concentrate into a single parish? I fail to see how any of that helps the cause.
Well, depending on what the cause is, that is, which brings us to another problem with the "abandon ship" strategy: It's fundamentally egocentric (unless there are children involved, which I concede makes for a different situation). It assumes that the problem is that you will be exposed to well-meaning yet borderline heretical nonsense rather than that well-meaning yet borderline heretical nonsense is being preached. Or to take my last example from above, is your goal the instauration of Catholic liturgy, including the routine and reverent celebration of the EF in every parish—or is it just that you want to hear it?
All that is accomplished is, in the short term, to make it harder for those who remain to resist daffy ideas, and thus, in the long run, to cede another parish to the "liberal agenda" (so to speak). You want to know why a parish moves its tabernacle out of sight and out of mind? It's because the people who might have said "stop" abandoned ship before the discussion was had. The end result of the "abandon ship" strategy is a few very conservative parishes in a sea of very liberal parishes. And on which shore (if that doesn't torturously mix the metaphor) do you suppose new converts will wash up? Doesn’t it occur to the "abandon ship" folks that these converts will imbibe poison dressed up as fine wine? Doesn't it concern them? If you think “liberal Catholicism” is fundamentally defective, as Voris does (and for the record, I tend to agree with him to an extent), how does it help our brethren if conservatives retreat to our keeps of a few conservative parishes, abandoning new converts to be hoovered up by the liberal parishes? We are to be our brethren's keepers. We are to be concerned about what happens when an innocent would-be convert shows up on the door of a parish whose RCIA program borders on the heretical because all the orthodox catechists fled the parish rather than suffer through one more awful David Haas Mass.
Voris’ remedy—"abandon ship"—is a recipe for polarization and, ultimately, schism. What's more, it's is actually damaging to the agenda that he supports, which is a broader return to orthodoxy.
Our RSS feed
Mahayana, or hinayana Catholicism
You state the case wrongly by saying "first whisper", and it seems unnecessarily tendentious to do so. Also "abandon ship" doesn't mean leaving the Barque of Peter, as you seem to hint these people might be going to the SSPX or whatever.
Firstly, this is unfair because he intimates no such thing, and second, it's _never_ a whisper, it's always shouted and ultimately, it really does worm its way into everything, and already has in most cases in the real world.
The calculus that you seem to ignore is very simple, and you can judge from history that it's completely effective: liberal parishes will ultimately schism (like a Flieger) or just die off (like most of them have to date), having cut themselves from the vine. Orthodox ones will flourish - and produce orthodox vocations, and by the grace of God maybe will produce more orthodox Bishops.
It is orthodox Bishops that will have the responsibility of "fixing" the liberal deformations by exercising their office.
We see precisely the same thing in the resurgence of orthodox religious life. The religious are the canaries in the coal mine.
Voris is basically looking at the historical trueism of the Church and saying "yeah, this is what we have to do." Pope Benedict mentioned it as the "smaller, more pure" Church, which was always, through history, a stepping stone to a greater evangelization.
God will inspire those of his flock to find the deeper truth. Just like he did me, as a revert. The liberals lost me, until I realized I had been lied to about what the Church is - but by the grace of God and through the intercession of the Saints, I also knew not to stop looking for the Truth, which I found and to which I will cling to the end of the race.
You state the case wrongly by
Voris' exact words were: "If you find yourself at Mass on Easter Sunday and the priest so even much as breathes a word about earth day, throw nothing in the collection plate, finish your sunday obligation, and resign from that parish on monday." If anything, I understated how much of a hair trigger he proposed.
I hinted at no such thing. I am aware that some have claimed that Voris urged people to leave the Church; he didn't. He urged people to stop working to fix problems in their parishes and instead their parishes—and "abandon ship" seems an appropriate and concise figure of speech.
The goal is to forestall that unhappy future by recapturing "liberal" parishes.
Yes and no. It depends whether you mean that the bishops alone have that responsibility; it is also our responsibility, a point that Voris himself makes at the end of the very video we're talking about.
Interesting post, Simon.
Interesting post, Simon.
Simon, The question of
Simon,
The question of whether to stay in or leave a parish where the pastor and much of the congretation is "liberal" requires the consideration of many factors. First,though, we have to define our terms.
Instead of "liberal" and "conservative," let's use heterodox and orthodox. I know faithful, non-dissenting Catholics whom might get characterized as "liberal" because, for example, they favor "social justice" considerations over others. In my opinion they are mistaken in many of their judgement calls, but they are nevertheless faithful to the magesterium of the Church. In my experience with "liberals," however, the truly orthodox are a minority. Conversely, there are some "conservatives" who are actually heterodox, ignoring the Church's teachings on just war and torture. In my experience, though, most such conservatives are open to reconsidering their positions when clearly confronted with the Church's teachings.
So getting back to the question at hand. One consideration is the relative numbers of orthodox and heterodox in the parish. If the orthodox are greatly outnumbered (and out of favor with the pastor), they will not be able to influence CCD or the RCIA or anything else of substance. Another consideration is the fervor and militantancy of the heretics -- especially the pastor. A third is the state of one's own faith. A recent convert or revert (or anybody for that matter) has to make sure that his own faith is on solid footing and that he has a strong network of support around him. Otherwise he might get swept away in the tide. One also has to account for the state of his family. My first obligation as a father is to look after the salvation of my children's souls. Great damage can be done to the sensibilities of children in a heterodox parish. (I know, it happened to me growing up).
Another consideration is the state of one's diocese. In my diocese (and others I am aware of), solid, orthodox priests tend to get shunted off to the poorest parishes (no doubt to make sure they don't offend any wealthy donors in the suburban parishes). I belong to such a poor parish. A number of families have fled to it as a safe haven in which to raise our children. If we returned to our geograpic parishes, the grim reaper of the gods of bean counting would waste little time in coming to close the parish down. That would be a great loss.
Finally, one has to make a judgment call about the tide of history. The infections of dissent and complacency have spread wide and deep and have festered a long time. This leaves us with a hard but necessary decision to make. Do we try to save the limb but risk the patient, or do we amputate? I suspect this is the most fundamental issue at hand.
Michael, there's much to
Michael, there's much to agree with in that. So far as terms are concerned, I have some anxiety about using "liberal" and "conservative" because those terms are so freighted. Yet at the same time, heterodox and orthodox don't quite cover the same ground: Some of the most doctrinally heterodox Catholics I know are conservative about liturgy, and I wanted a broader term. At the same time, as I've hinted, I entirely agree with your point that the terms I chose have severe limitations. I also agree with everything in your third paragraph, and the consideration of children was precisely the point I intended to reserve in my parenthetical about situations involving children. Parents are in a radically different situation because they must worry about what their children are soaking up. You and I know heretical or dissenting nonsense when we hear it, but our children may not.
Perhaps because I am relatively new or relatively optimistic, or perhaps because my own parish is in relatively good shape (some things I disagree with, but staffed with great and Godly people who are open to dialogue on the issues that trouble me), and more free for not having young children any more, but I prefer to stay and fix the things that I see as problematic.
Yes, "liberal" and
Yes, "liberal" and "conservative" are very freighted. I haven't seen an ideal set of terms.
Perhaps I am not so optimistic - or rather, I have a different optimism. I anticipate that a great portion of the Catholic Church in America will either collapse or go into open, formal scism at some point in the not too distant future. From the statistics I have seen, for example, over 70% of the (so-called) Catholics who actually go to mass every Sunday dissent on the issue of contraception. A large, perhaps as large, number of clergy and even bishops are in the same boat (and that boat is NOT the Ark of Peter). This situation is unsustainable. I have read that Venerable Pope John Paul II was very concerned that a large portion of the Church in America would break away, which explains why he was not as strict in many instances as some of the hard-core "conservatives" would have liked. In any event, something somewhere at some time is going to have to give.
The state of the world, including our country, is such that persecution of faithful Catholics is increasing in number and severity. The world is going to demand that we bow down to the emperor -- or else. The issue of "gay marriage" is a looming candidate. The dissenting 70% (80, 90%?) will bow down and then, goaded by their own guilt, turn on the faithful who will not. There won't be much dialog then.
All that being said, the Blessed Mother at Fatima promised that, in the end, Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. God will give the faithful the graces they need to persevere and even rejoice that we are being persecuted.
Getting back to Mr. Voris, I view his stridency as a call to clarity. Faithful Catholics need to see things without sugar coating them. Heresy is heresy, no matter how "nice" the person who adheres to it. We are called to love the sinner and (really, really) hate the sin. Often, "tough love" is in order. We are the Church Militant and militancy is called for. In the multi-front war for the salvation of souls there is often the need for such stridency -- as well as needs for other approaches. (It was both some very tough love and very tender love that led to my own reversion.) My complaint with Mr. Vorris is the disrespectful tone he often takes when addressing the bishops directly. He lets his anger (an understandable, if not always helpful, anger in my view) get the better of him. Yes, a given bishop may be a raving heretic, but he is still a bishop, a successor to the Apostles. Our best approach is to go over his head and appeal directly to the Queen of Apostles.