The Election of Bishops

CWR Dispatch: The McCarrick Report and the choosing of bishops by Russell Shaw
If the Vatican has no problem allowing Chinese communists to have a central role in choosing bishops, what rational objection could it possibly have to letting faithful Catholics merely observe the process?

I am not proposing direct popular election of bishops, which would be a mistake in several ways.

It would be a mistake now as Roman Catholic churches are not ordered in such a way to allow that this be done well.

I only suggest that the clergy and people of a diocese have a role in proposing and vetting candidates as a routine part of the selection process. Besides helping to head off mistakes, doing so would encourage the emergence of supporting testimony on behalf of worthy individuals.

I would add: 1. No transferring of bishops. 2. No transferring of pastors without sufficient cause. Let communities know those who are put in leadership positions over them and be in a position to judge.
How Catholic parishes can be stable (and small) enough that members know those being recommended for ordination is a problem Roman Catholics need to be considering.

It's Not So Easy

In urban mass population centers, as anywhere else, it’s going to take more than “Hi” and “How are you doing?” Community is not formed overnight nor through superficial interaction, and meaningful interaction takes more than simple personal contact. There must be observation of the other, acting for the other, “judging,” and the development of trust.

CWR Dispatch: Forming virtual communities in viral times by Russell Shaw
In an odd way, the pandemic is—or at least can be—a community-forming event.

Added:
Academics should be the last (but ideologues are the very last) to be lecturing others about "us" and "community." Why is there selfishness? Why is there a lack of solidarity? And what details did Gilkey gloss over or ignore in his narrative? Was there any informal (or even formal) means of discipline by the interned community to police itself?

“The thin polish of easy morality” and our present crisis by Dr. Randall B. Smith
What does it mean when a crisis brings out our worst qualities, rather than our best?

Langdon Gilkey: Shantung Compound: The Story of Men and Women Under Pressure

Two by Russell Shaw on Spiritual Direction

Understanding the Place of Spiritual Direction
Why Not Spiritual Direction

A Post-Constantinian Crisis

Post by Crisis Magazine.

The decline in numbers is not solely a Latin phenomenon, alas.

Russell Shaw on Factions in the Church

The Loss of the Immigrant Church

J.F. Powers and the missing Catholic subculture by Russell Shaw
Catholicism was once "a natural part of the cityscape" in Chicago and other U.S. cities

Until it was pushed out through a form of ethnic cleansing initiated by WASP elites, if we accept the thesis of E. Michael Jones.

There is a new immigrant Church now, but it's not white.

Russell Shaw Responds to His Critics

CWR: My response to criticisms and questions regarding "American Church"

Conceding the rightness of the liberal viewpoint - "Yes, America has moved ahead on some fronts—racial justice and women’s rights are notable instances."

Others are willing enough to grant the truth of that, but fault me for not championing their preferred understanding of the historic roots of the present situation. Apparently I’m to be faulted for not lining up with their side (whichever it happens to be) in a long-running quarrel between two opposed groups of Catholic intellectuals arguing very different positions in regard to the American founding.

One group (David Schindler is an exemplary figure) sees something radically at odds with Catholicism in the philosophical-theological premises of the founders who, after all, were men of the Enlightenment with more than a dash of Deism flowing in their veins. An interviewer for a conservative blog expresses this by citing Leo XIII in support of the proposition that the founders’ liberalism is flat-out incompatible with natural law. But others (call them the John Courtney Murray-Michael Novak School) hold that the founders were operating, albeit unknowingly, within a profoundly Catholic tradition. In an oddly equivocal column on my book, George Weigel argues that Catholics should now busy themselves filling in the natural law foundations of the admirable democratic system they built.

No doubt about it, this is an interesting debate, but it’s not one I saw—or see—any particular reason to enter into in American Church. My thesis, as I’ve said, is much simpler: Uncritical Catholic assimilation into American secular culture as it is today is a grave threat to the faith and one we need to address with no further delay. Time enough to argue later about the founders and the American founding.

The question of the founding and the resulting narrative is important, though, if we are to understand how Catholics have assimilated. It's not just the push to be "secular" (which can be a vague descriptor) but the adoption of a certain mindset or culture, not one that necessariliy belonged to all of the Founding Fathers. What is the origin of the worldview that competes with Catholicism in its adherents, and in what ways is it erroneous? What if the "two opposed groups of Catholic intellectuals" are wrong and Mr. Shaw does not offer a viable alternative to either?

George Weigel Reviews Russell Shaw

U.S. Catholics: Overly Assimilated?

And seems to give the nationalist, neo-Yankee proposition-nation view as the basis of his critique (which would not be surprising given his reputation as a theo-con):

To read the history of the Catholic Church in the United States as a centuries-long struggle for assimilation and acceptance certainly sheds light on one dynamic in the development of the Church in America. Yet too close a focus on the question, “Is it possible to be a good Catholic and a good American?” is to argue the question of Catholicism and America on the other guy’s turf. Once, the “other guy” challenging Catholics’ patriotic credentials was militant Protestantism; now, the other guy is militant secularism. To play on the other guy’s turf, however, is to concede at the outset that the other guy sets the terms of debate: “We (militant Protestants/militant secularists) know what it means to be a good American; you (Catholics) have to prove yourselves to us.”

That’s not the game, however. It wasn’t really the game from 1776 through the 1960 presidential campaign—when militant Protestantism was the aggressor—and it isn’t the game today. The real game involves different, deeper questions: “Who best understands the nature of the American experiment in ordered liberty, and who can best give a persuasive defense of the first liberty, which is religious freedom?”

The nineteenth-century U.S. bishops and intellectuals whose enthusiasm for American democracy Russell Shaw now views skeptically (and, yes, they did go over the top on occasion) did get one crucial point right: the American founders “built better than they knew,” i.e., the founders designed a democratic republic for which they couldn’t provide a durable moral and philosophical defense. But the long-despised (and now despised-again) Catholics could: Catholics could (and can) give a robust, compelling account of American democracy and its commitments to ordered liberty.

Mid–twentieth-century Catholic scholars like historian Theodore Maynard and theologian John Courtney Murray picked up this theme and made it central to their reading of U.S. Catholic history. Murray presciently warned that, if Catholicism didn’t fill the cultural vacuum being created by a dying mainline Protestantism, the “noble, many-storied mansion of democracy [may] be dismantled, leveled to the dimensions of a flat majoritarianism, which is no mansion but a barn, perhaps even a tool shed in which the weapons of tyranny may be forged.”

Related:
Religious freedom and the need to wake up by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

Article on Russell Shaw

and his book...

Author calls for US 'Catholic subculture' to regain identity by Carl Bunderson

A New Book from Russell Shaw

I am curious as to how Russell Shaw understands American identity and relates it to the assimilation of Catholic immigrants in his new book American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America, but I don't think there will be any surprises for me.

New: "American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America"
Is the problem with American Catholics - America?

Three Pertaining to the Lay Vocation

Begun on November 14.

Russell Shaw on the laity, again - his moneymaker: The Council and the Laity. "The teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning the laity was an enormous and lasting achievement. But there is much work to do."

Vatican II and the forerunners to the council, various theologians and saints, attempted to restore a better understanding of the Christian vocation, re-emphasizing the universal call to holiness. But I would argue that the council was incomplete, in so far as it did not grapple with questions appropriate to politics. Would it have been possible to do so? Such a treatment should be left to the wise and learned. But with the realization that the scale of contemporary "polities" is too large, the Church could have focused more on rebuilding community at the local level, rather than engaging governments to redirect "national policy" in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching. An elaboration of general principles is not enough, one must apply them properly, and in order to do that one must have an adequate grasp of their particulars, their causes and perhaps their histories.

If participation in the life of the community is a central part to the lay vocation, then perhaps the Orthodox and the Protestants have Catholics beat and we should be learning from them.

I would claim that much of the loss in the West of the understanding of the lay vocation is tied to the growth of the modern state, the rise of wage slavery, the loss or deliberate destruction of communities. Man (and now women) have been increasingly dispossessed of their natural roles within a community; or, their awareness of these roles has been obliterated through bad culture or the lack of proper formation.

As Shaw points out, Lumen Gentium reminds us that Catholics are called to act in the secular world for the salvation of others. What is the "secular world" but the "temporal" or "natural" political community? We should be witnessing to Christ and living out [the order of] charity in our political communities (and I don't mean with a vague reference to the nation-state, but rather, the local community, and maybe the state). (We should keep in mind the distinction between the political community and the "world" which is rightly derided by our Lord. They are not the same thing. The city of man is not identical to the civitas.)

Despite the constant propaganda about [American] freedom and democracy (put forth even by the bishops), there has been a loss of true citizenship. We are blind to  our current state of subservience, possessing little economic or political freedom (at the national level). Those Christians who lived under other regimes may have had a better understanding of the lay vocation - living with others in community, carrying out their responsibilities to others in charity, and so on, despite having no share in public office.  It is true that the lay vocation is not identical to citizenship, as defined by Aristotle. But for men, the lay vocation does require the exercise of the same virtues proper to the citizen, even if it does not include the same duties: prudence and ordering his affairs and that of his family, cooperating with other men for the sake of the group, and so on. To the extent that men must be concerned with and care for the community, they will need the political virtues; even more if they are engaged in decision-making about the well-being of the community.

There can be no subsidiarity (or recovery of the common good) unless men are willing and able to do this at the local level, going beyond what our impoverished Uhmerican understanding of citizenship requires.

Charity brings about the diffusion of the good. Not just the obvious corporal and spiritual works of mercy, but whatever action within the community that is ordered to the good of others can be sanctified through God's grace. In the Politics, Aristotle defines the perfect community as that which supplies for all the necessities of the good life, and it includes civic friendship. We are accustomed to liberal modes of thinking and to living in aggregate, an arrangement that is not scaled humanely, and so often we think of friendship as being merely one good among the others. We aim for a healthy "life balance," so that our relationships with family and friends are not diminished because of concerns for career and the like. But the common good is really the good life of the whole; living well with others. All other things which the civitas creates or makes possible is ordered to the good of the members.

The private good of the members is not the same as the social good (the good of friendship, community, etc.) but the common good is more than the sum of the private good of the members of the community, and the community exists for the sharing of higher goods. It is the good of the group as a whole, which includes the social good as its foremost manifestation, the members living well with one another. It also includes the sharing or communication of the other goods, which should be directed by the desire to live well with others, or love. In the polis, Aristotle's complete or perfect community, we are able to achieve [temporal or natural]  happiness, securing not only the necessities for survival, but the social good and other goods, leisure, the fine arts, and learning.

We should not [need to] pursue private goods at the expense of friendship, but rather we should do so in concert with others so that we can share those goods with them. "To be a friend is to share," a lesson we may have learned in kindergarten. The civitas may have a division of labor, with the resulting exchange of necessities or products being regulated by justice, but we are oblivious that we should be acting not only for our own benefit but for the benefit of others. Why? Because we have a weak sense of the group and of civic friendship. For instance, that which is aimed at intellectual perfection (scientiae, the products of art, and so on) is not merely for the elite, but should benefit all in some way. (The truths studied in theology and the liberal arts can be transmitted to the community through preaching by an educated clergy)

The natural inclination to the social life finds its fulfillment in civic friendship, and civic friendship (or charity) urges us to work for the perfection of each other. This inclination is naturally met through families joining one another in community, leading to natural affection for the other members, which is developed through civic friendship or sublimated through caritas. In sum, we naturally band together, associate not because  we seek help or benefit from others, but because we are drawn to living with others. One could even claim that cooperation and the division of labor is a consequence of living with others, as everyone in the group seeks to improve the lot of themselves and of the group.

Political communities, like religious communities, are schools of charity for Christians. For those who are not yet united to God, political communities can nonetheless still be schools of love and friendship, the way for us to practice loving others well. The political community is the pinnacle of natural friendship, and so those who aspire to be statesmen or to be practically wise must be cognizant of the conditions that are necessary to bring this about, and this includes the role of culture and group identity. Friendship is not a happy by-product of successful politics; it is one of its aims. One might even say that the first concern of men is the good of the group - what is my group? How do I preserve it and work for its welfare? Who is included in my group and who is not? The outsider is not automatically the object of hatred or enmity, but such distinctions are necessary for following the order of charity.

As lay people striving to rebuild the local community, we need to relearn the primacy of civic friendship, and start from the  beginning, with men and their families networking with each other, rather than presuming that community (or mutual solidarity) exists. We may be aware of some of the trials and problems of living with others through our families, but life is not supposed to be free from difficulties, and these difficulties are occasions for us to grow in grace and holiness through the exercise of caritas.

And Russell Shaw is at it again..

Riding his hobbyhorse, inveighing against the Catholic ghetto - of course, he relies upon his understanding of Opus Dei's teachings about the [lay] Christian vocation and his stance is understandable if incorrect. Culture and Evangelization (via Rod Dreher).

Some home-school their children to avoid the sex education imposed in schools. Some have given up on television and take great pains to police internet use. Still others have made the radical move of quitting big cities and their suburbs in favor of smaller, more tradition-minded and culturally homogeneous communities making fewer assaults on their eyes, ears, and morals. (Thomas Monaghan’s Ave Maria, Florida is a high-profile prototype of this.)

Meanwhile, the infrastructure of a new Catholic subculture has begun to emerge. It can be seen in a handful of proudly orthodox Catholic colleges and universities, media ventures like the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) and rapidly expanding Catholic radio stations, a growing number of websites and periodicals and a few publishing houses, and organizations and movements dedicated to promoting Catholic spirituality—especially, a spirituality of the laity. In other cases, older Catholic institutions and programs have begun taking steps to reaffirm their Catholic idenity. Often, these things happen with encouragement from a new generation of bishops and priests who have gotten the message and taken it to heart.

This is all to the good—up to a point. But note that when I speak of the desirability of a new Catholic subculture, I do not mean a self-regarding, inward-looking ghetto. Unfortunately, signs of such a thing already can be glimpsed here and there. They seem likely to spread if steps are not taken to discourage that from happening.

Here is where the new evangelization comes in. It provides rationale and motivation for Catholics to set their sights on something far better than a Catholic ghetto—the creation of a new, dynamic American Catholic subculture specifically designed to be a source of creative energy for preaching the gospel far and wide, with particular attention to former Catholics and nominal Catholics who are teetering on the brink.

The work of evangelizing (as a work of love of neighbor) must be inserted within the order of charity and not as seen as a goal that outweighs all others. What must be the first priority is the recovery of communal life in the form of local parish. There is no real  (sub-)culture without a community; what Shaw calls a subculture is rather misleading, since he is attributing it to certain institutions and mass media companies that seem to have a wide influence. The scale is all wrong.

Can Catholics show others what it means to be Christian and be a means of attracting them to God? Yes, but I think a convincing Christian witness requires that they live in community with other Christians, and not as individuals who have embraced the modern American lifestyle. Hence, his recommendations for the lay vocation are off because his doesn't grasp the socio-political problems that affect these United States. Any discussion of the lay vocation requires a good moral theology that (1) includes the ordo caritatis and (2) incorporates a good elaboration of the science of politics - a recovery and development of medieval political theology.

A Surprising Piece from Russell Shaw?

From what I have read by him on Opus Dei and the laity, is one correct in judging that this may reflect a change in his thinking: Recovering a Catholic Subculture? Probably not. The Catholic ghetto, the loss of which he laments, is not the actual physical neighborhood, but the various institutions and associations that had a strong Catholic identity, schools and universisties, mass media and publishing companies, and movements (Opus Dei) and organizations:

In recent years the pendulum has started swinging the other way. Signs of a revived Catholic subculture can be seen in such things as new, proudly orthodox colleges and universities, media ventures like EWTN and Catholic radio, a growing number of websites and a handful of publishing houses, and organizations and movements that work to promote a dynamic Catholic spirituality -- especially an authentic spirituality for the laity. These coexist side by side with individual parishes, even whole dioceses, that have gotten the message and taken it to heart.

(via First Things--see the comments there)

Claims about OD

In previous posts (such as this one) I've mentioned the claims made by supporters and members of Opus Dei regarding its spirituality and its novelty/originality. One example is this piece by Russell Shaw.