I gave a talk recently about vocation and life in the seminary, to a group of people mainly in their 60s and 70s. One of the questions that often comes up with people of this age is whether the present generation of seminarians is more conservative than in the past. My answer is to say that these categories (‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’; ‘traditional’ or ‘progressive’) don’t apply any more.
If you are trying to define yourself against other members of your church or religion, then these kinds of categories, however crude, might be necessary. But the key moment of self-definition for young Catholics today is simply whether to continue calling themselves Catholic or not; whether to deepen their Christian faith, or to reject it.
In a thoroughly secular culture, where friends, colleagues, and even family members are formed by secular values, the decision to hold onto a Catholic identity is the crucial one. Having made that radical decision, these young Catholics, quite naturally, want to deepen their interest Catholic teaching, in Catholic worship, in Catholic morality, etc. This is why they seem ‘conservative’. But they’re not really — they are simply Catholic.
Here is my sociological take on all this: Most older Catholics, say in their 60s or 70s, grew up secure in their Christian identity, with a culture that for the most part supported and reaffirmed that identity. The challenge for them was to get out of the ghetto and into the world; to become immersed in a secular culture they hardly knew, in order to influence and enlighten it. The secularisation of religion was perhaps a necessary part of this movement outwards.
But if you grow up in a culture almost completely devoid of any Christian influences, as young people do today, then the challenge for you is to find a Christian identity and lifestyle that will guide and sustain you. This is not about retreating into the ghetto or turning the clock back. It is first of all a matter of preserving your Christian roots, and nourishing your own faith. And then it’s about building up the self-confidence that allows you to engage with the secular culture from which you come (and which you never actually left).
This is why, it seems to me, the priority for young Catholics today is to create a strong Catholic identity and Catholic culture for themselves — which then allows them to dialogue with their peers and engage with the wider culture. They might seem to be conservative, but they are simply trying to be Catholic.
Remember that in darker ages it was the monks who made the best missionaries; it was those who stepped ‘inside’ and showed so much concern for the liturgy and the tradition who were then the ones with the courage to step ‘outside’ and embrace the world.
[After drafting this post I came across an article by John Allen entitled 'The next generation of Catholic leaders'. We seem to be thinking along similar lines...]
Brilliant post! As a young Catholic I have to agree with what you say. Though many may class me as ‘Conservative’ or a ‘Traditionalist’, these titles I have never sought after. Rather, it has always been a striving for this Catholic identity which in my opinion, has been somewhat blurred over the last 40 years, not helped by the increasingly secularisation of society.
I think we have a generation of young Catholics truly wanting to be Catholic in its fullness. Not to be focused merely on externals, but many want to associate with what has always been typically Catholic, such as praying for the Pope, praying with Mary, devotions, Latin, good liturgy. All of these don’t serve as a means to an end, but rather signify the young Catholics desire to be truly alive and faithful according to the tradition of the Church. In such times of upheaval and change, many want to root their lives in the Rock: the Church of Christ.
These are certainly interesting times. God bless Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning!
Benedicite.
Totally agree!
Sorry to be resurrecting old posts! But there was a wonderful quote I read recently from Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza which offers a somewhat different approach to the problem of the validity of liberal/conservative language:
‘I seek to intervene in the contest over who has the right and authority to define and claim biblical religions. Without question, fundamentalist right-wing patriarchal elements often have the financial and institutional hegemony to do so. Moreover, while some feminists relinquish religion as hopelessly patriarchal, the Right claims the power to name and define the ‘true’ nature of biblical religions over and against liberation theologies. In such a context of struggle over the power of naming, the question is often asked of me: ‘Why don’t you just leave the church if you don’t agree with the church’s [i.e., the speaker’s] opinion and teaching?’ However, to seriously entertain the question already concedes the power of naming to the reactionary forces insofar as it recognises their ownership of biblical religions. I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not argue that feminists must remain members of biblical religions and churches that they experience as oppressive and dehumanising. Rather, I argue that those of us who have experienced the liberating power of religion must claim this power as our own estate and inheritance.’
What are your thoughts Stephen?
(I thought you might like to know that you were the priest in Dollis Hill when I was at Our Lady of Grace! I heard you were into academic theology so I thought I’d google you. Great to see priests blogging theology, especially stuff like Sartre, etc)
Michael O’Connell
Nice to hear from you Michael – I have very fond memories of Dollis Hill. There is too much for me to comment on quickly in this quotation from Schussler-Fiorenza, especially when I don’t know the context; I’ll see if any other readers have any replies. I am all for experiencing ‘the liberating power of religion’…
Thanks for the post. I had a conversation with a friend recently on the topic, and it raised another question:
Can we say theat the Chrurch has liberalised or become more traditionalist over the years?
Say for example that a new Pope was elected who made the decision that all priests could marry / that contraception could be used by married couples. Would we say that the Church would then be more ‘liberal’? Or as you say in the post, just Catholic.
Thanks
Sorry to burst in with a long quotation Stephen, I thought about making a few points but she put it better than I could!
Miriam makes an interesting point. For the liberal, it seems that Catholicism has been for some time under the jurisdiction of those in whose interest it is to define Catholicism in such a way, and that it is possible to reimagine Catholicism in different terms, using different resources from scripture and tradition. For the conservative, Catholicism indicates a certain body of tradition, unchangeable truths, ‘core revelation’ handed down under the authority of the bishops.
It seems like there may be an aporia in the logic of the conservative on this one. In your example Miriam the conservative/traditionalist sort of has to deny that it is even possible for a pope to ‘change the rules’ on these issues (indeed, I think Benedict/JP said once ‘I don’t have the authority to ordain women), because that would allow for tradition to fundamentally change- its just not in their ecclesiology. And they have affirmed their stances on issues of Catholic social teaching with appeal to tradition, ‘in continuity with it’ etc.
But equally, the conservative has to affirm the authority of the bishops in interpreting scripture/tradition. So if that were to happen (some council of encyclical were to say that contraception was ok) they would maybe also have to go along with it. otherwise, i guess they would be heretics.
maybe this is actually a really dumb point but I just thought of it now.