While driving back to Oakdale, I switched to Immaculate Heart Radio (1230 AM in that part of , California) for the benefit of my mother and her friend, but they ended up taking a nap instead. Since it was Labor Day, Catholic Answers aired a special pre-recorded program on Catholic Literary Giants (mp3) and rebroadcast the episode (mp3) with Gregory Jeffrey about providing financial support for the Church and its place in lay spirituality. He is the author of Why Enough is Never Enough: Overcoming Worries about Money. It may be that American Catholics do not contribute enough to the Church, in comparison with their Protestant counterparts. This criticism may be more appropriate of your typical suburban-dwelling Catholics, who have just two or three children. How much financial planning is necessary, especially for "big-ticket expenses" like houses and college?
Lay American Catholics should certainly be learning to cultivate a spirit of sacrifice and discerning what they can do without. But making financial contributions to support the parish or diocese is not a proper substitute for participating in parish life, learning about the Faith and sharing it with others. I also disagree with him regarding giving bishops the benefit of the doubt when it comes to diocesan programs. If one has good reason to criticize certain programs, one should communicate this to the bishop, as is his right and duty.
A priest told me once that one could specify how donations were to be used, and that a pastor was obligated to respect the wishes of the benefactor. Is this also true of bishops? We do have an obligation to provide a living for bishops and priests. But giving money for programs that give a poor education or even worse, spread heterodoxy? I disagree with Mr. Jeffrey who seems to think the professionalization of the works of mercy is generally a good trend for the Church. Then there is the ideal he promotes: taking 10% off the top for God. Our Lord should be the priority -- is it right though to give without first determining how much needs in order to provide for one's obligations? In a contracting economy, Americans need to learn to save more and to rebuild the network of the extended family in order to render assistance to one another. (And then re-build local communities.) I do not think being thrifty and saving -- being prudential in that respect -- goes against the supposed injunction of Matthew 6:34. What do the Church Fathers say?
Unfortunately American wage slaves cannot take a pay cut in return for working less hours so that they can spend more time with their families and parish communities.
The American Church is primarily an immigrant Church, and it may have been better if it had remained in the mission stage. Immigrants tend to form communities -- this sort of cultural life and solidarity may have been laudable and even necessary, there was also the pressure to assimilate in certain areas. Alas, what sort of American culture was adopted? Escaping poverty and aspiring to a more affluent way of life may be an understandable human desire, but it isn't the same as the desire to join a political community for the sake of becoming one with the people. How many Catholic immigrants adopted the specific mores and culture of a place rather than becoming good "Americans" in a general and vague sense (the historical beginnings of the proposition nation ideology)? But at least they understood the importance of learning English! Were Catholics more likely to assimilate to a historical community in the South than in the North?
While there are problems confronting the Church in the West as a whole, I think there are also problems that are specific to the Churches in places that are dominated by the immigrant experience coupled with multicultural/multiethnic mixing. Hence, the American Church has certain issues peculiar to it that are not to be found in the Churches of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, for example. (Although as Canada becomes more wedded to the cult of multiculturalism the Church there may be starting to be affected by the same problems.) And yet our bishops tend to ignore the question of proper assimilation in favor of multiculturalism combined with the proposition nation.
What is a proper label for this post? The American Church? The Church in the U.S.? Or the Churches in the U.S.? American bishops may have memories of a parish or "home" but how many of them are really rooted to a place and its people? Are bishops whose family never assimilated properly to some American people qualified to dictate national policy regarding immigration and the like? What part do Catholics moving around the country play in the destruction of local communities and cultures?
I suspect bishops are not transferred to other sees in Ibero-America, but stay in their country of origin, and even though they may have a shared language. (But local cultures probably differ to some degree.) This is certainly true of Europe, where the languages and cultures are different. But has this ever been the case in the united States, where the states are supposed to be sovereign and the local cultures were arguably different at the time of independence?
More info:
A review of the book at National Catholic Register.
Legatus
Misc:
Oxygen
No comments:
Post a Comment