The Catholic ghetto

While voluntary or intentional communities may have some inherent problems, I can understand why Catholic laity might wish to move to a place near a Catholic institution (such as Christendom College) or monastery (such as Clear Creek). (Is there anything similar to Shenandoah Shores in Santa Paula, CA?) It is easy to be dismissive of such communities as being sheltered and parochial. Catholics who do not exercise hospitality and the social virtues towards a perceived outsider merely because he is not Catholic rightly deserve censure, but I do not believe this is a flaw of Catholics who join such communities. Being part of a real cult, on the other hand, is cause for greater concern, but I am talking about Catholics who move to a location because of its reputed orthodoxy, not Catholics who join an ecclesial movement or some organization and form a "parallel church."

Many do so first of all because they wish to raise families in wholesome, orthodox parishes and environments. Secondly they wish to live with other Catholics with the same desires, and have Catholic friends. I believe the cultivation of friendships with other Catholics is something neglected by most American Catholics today, who are more likely to rely on the associations made primarily on similarity of interests and on the basis of a shared workplace and so on. Other than the elderly, few regularly socialize with fellow parishioners. Or so it seems here in the Bay Area.

Today, I was thinking about this point again, that Catholics should be networking not for themselves, but also for the sake of their children. When the time for the children to marry comes, it will be easier to find a Catholic spouse if such a network is large and wide, rather than small and limited, as it is for most American Catholics. Given the nature of marriage, a shared understanding of sex roles is as important as having the same religion. How can a happy marriage be possible between a Catholic traditionalist male and a Catholic "feminist," even if he acquiesces to the demands of feminism? Mark T. Mitchell's latest should be a reminder that even if people share a commitment to relocalization and strengthening community, a community cannot be possible without shared mores, including those governing men as men and women as women. A laissez-faire attitude regarding personal stances towards patriarchy and feminism can last only so long, since eventually a community must mix with itself by giving its children in marriage to one another, if it is to have a single identity. A large city or polity can better tolerate communities with different mores within its boundaries, especially if political power is exercised by a few and it does not aim at the common good, but only at the good of individuals and families. I believe that in smaller polities, though, different mores will lead to conflict, and possibly physical division of the community or separation.