I've read this February 29th Los Angeles Times editorial written by Michael McGough, the Times' senior editorial writer, three times now and am still uncertain why, exactly, he wrote it. But, hey, at least it provides me with an opportunity for some mild sarcasm and mention of a couple of books that did have a reason for being written:
A colleague and fellow cradle Catholic once told me about a revealing
conversation with her parish priest. When she had described an
acquaintance as an "ex-Catholic," the priest objected. There were no
ex-Catholics, he said, only bad Catholics.
I wonder what he would have made of this factoid from the Pew Forum's new "religious landscape survey"
of the United States: Overall, 31.4% of U.S. adults say that they were
raised Catholic, but only 23.9% of adults identify with the Catholic
Church.
I think the priest would say, without any hesitation whatsoever: "There are a lot of bad Catholics out there." And, frankly, if it takes a Pew poll to help someone figure that out, they need to either stop reading the L.A. Times or stop writing for it.
Here's what I make of it as a Catholic whose life spans the pre- and
post-Vatican II church: As the church in the United States became less
Roman and more catholic (with a small c), it became easier for
Catholics to leave the faith of their fathers and embrace the faith of
their spouses, co-workers or golf buddies.
It must have also made it easier for them to leave the logical thinking and writing of their fathers and embrace the vague ramblings of their "catholic" golf buddies. But, to be fair, McGough is onto something. So let's try to put it into plain English: As Catholics became less Catholic—that is, less observant of Catholic doctrine and practice—they became more like their non-Catholic neighbors. Brilliant.
There is much talk, especially among politically conservative
Catholics, about liberal "anti-Catholicism." But generations of
American Catholics were inculcated with what can only be called
anti-Protestantism.
Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense: when a group of people is generally disliked, even attacked, by the predominant culture, they tend to be less than affectionate regarding that culture. This is not to defend Protestant bashing, or to make light of how nasty things sometimes were between Catholics and non-Catholics prior to Vatican II, but McGough's insinuation that "pre-Vatican II" Catholicism in America was essentially about being anti-Protestant strikes me as both simplistic and self-serving. (Here would have been a good place for McGough to ponder why it was that some Catholics were so desperate to be liked and accepted by the predominate Protestant culture. And to ask, "How has that worked out so far? Any problems to speak of?" Just a thought.)
Even worse, McGough labels as "rad trads" those "radical traditionalist Catholics who cheer Pope Benedict
XVI when he says Mass facing the altar instead of the congregation and
unmothballs the jeweled miters of his pre-Vatican II predecessors." Does this mean, for example, that Ignatius Press is "rad trad" because it publishes books such as Turning Towards the Lord, as well as Ratzinger's The Spirit of the Liturgy? Perhaps McGough is unaware that most radical traditionalists have little or no affection for Joseph Ratzinger, not to mention Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, and other Ressourcement theologians whose books are published by Ignatius Press (as well as by others). Equally cognitively-confused is his brief take on Vatican II, which concludes with the remark, "Why be a Catholic if you're no longer sure that it's the 'one true church'?" Has McGough read Lumen Gentium, chapter 8? Or has he been too busy playing golf with his buddies?
After having chastised "pre-Vatican II" Catholics for being anti-Protestant, McGough laments that many "conservative Catholics" get along so well with Evangelicals when it comes to "hot button" issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Finally, after quoting Richard McBrien/Thomas Groome—"Catholicism [is] a rich, multifaceted reality that cannot be contained by any single doctrine or institutional element"—he concludes:
And yet, according to Pew's statistics, many cradle Catholics are
rejecting that reality. Whether you blame guitar-strumming liberal
priests or antiabortion Catholics who cozy up to Southern Baptists,
Catholicism isn't as exclusive or as aloof as it used to be. It may,
however, be more Christian.
Huh? Which means...what? Granted, McGough is onto something with his discussion of Catholic culture and Catholic identity. It's unfortunate that in trying to make sense of it he keeps hitting his tee shots into the woods and his recovery shots into the sand traps. Otherwise, par for the course for the L.A. Times.
Not many of us consider our baptismal "birthday" as the most significant day in our lives. Yet what could be more important
than receiving the sacrament that Jesus said was necessary for our salvation?
