Yesterday was Memorial Day, so some reflection on the state of the nation is in order. I offer for your review and comment the speech of Archbishop Charles Chaput to the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars last fall. It is not, in my view, a jeremiad, but the closely related form of biblical speech, a lamentation. While Chaput’s doctrinal commitments are always in line with Church teaching, his rhetorical style and sensibilities, in my view, are distinctly American–and in particular, deeply indebted to the American Puritans.
In this speech, as he has in other speeches in the past, Chaput invokes the Puritan founders of this nation–in particular, John Winthrop’s “Modell of Christan Charity.” We have, in his view, declined in our religious commitments, our commitment to the common good since that time. Many people would say the same thing. It is sad, but not surprising–it’s been nearly 500 years.
What is surprising, however, is the degree to which the idea of moral (and with it political) decline animated the spirit of religious leaders much closer in time to Winthrop’s “Modell.” The second generation of Puritan divines, distressed at the comparative lack of religious dedication in their peers, devoted a significant part of their sermonizing to castigating those who were falling away and lamenting the loss. For the Puritans, the loss of faith in God meant the loss in success in the country. For this “new Israel,” the twin blessings of fidelity to God and material prosperity were deeply intertwined.
Moreover, how many are there, that were born under the covenant as they grew up to years of discretion, doe not endeavor to prepare themselves to take hold on the Lords Covenant, but are such that if they should be put upon renewing their Covenant, they would but profane the holy Covenant. Some of them are grossly ignorant, others are of a scandalous conversation. Drunkards, Swearers, Sabbath breakers, disobedient to Parents, Lascivious, Theeves, Lyars. Such whilst they so continue be put upon mocking God, by they will be his Covenant Servants?
–Increase Mather, Renewal of Covenant the great Duty incumbent upon decaying or distressed Churches (Boston: J.F., 1677).
In his magisterial writings on the Puritans, Perry Miller calls into question whether the decline was as sharp and steep as the sermonizers made it out to be. He also points out, and I think this is important, that what they see as decline may simply be difference. The hazy line between medieval thought and modernity can be drawn around the time of the second generation; Winthrop’s “Modell” embodied a medieval, corporatist view of society, whereas by the end of Increase Mather’s long life, that world was gone.
So here are my questions/comments
1. Are Chaput and others constructing their own myth of modern Catholic decline–with the late forties and fifties being the “Winthrop” generation and he and they being the equivalent of Increase Mather and his cohort? Does that myth reflect reality? Ought one to consider the defects of Catholic intellectual life and culture at that time as well as its benefits (I think about John Tracy Ellis and his article ab9ut Catholic intellectual life)? The Puritans, as it happened, were wrong about both the political and religious decline of the nation. Scholars of American religious history have shown, for example the great infusion of faith in the country came long after they were dead, in the form of immigrants and revivals. The early Puritans wouldn’t have much liked the later religiosity–but it was religiosity nonetheless.
2. Are we, like the second generation Puritans, at the end of age, and the beginning of another one? I think the invention of the computer and the internet is about as big a revolution as the invention of the printing press, myself.
3. The American Puritan notion of decline was connected with New England’s particular “chosenness” by God, and the intertwining of material blessings and spiritual fidelity. While we deeply love our country, it seems to me that Catholics as such cannot endorse the Puritan view of American exceptionalism in an unqualified way. The word “Catholic” means universal.
4. Is there anything specifically “Catholic” about the myth of decline –or the myth of progress, for that matter? Nations may rise, nations may fall. Individuals may progress or devolve. But do we have any reason in our theological anthropology to think that human nature is getting better or worse as a whole over time?
Good post and even better questions.
I’m a skeptic on the notion that generations possess broad comparative qualities of moral goodness. Given changing leadership, I suspect it’s more a matter of inspiration in various qualities. The Great Generation indeed made great sacrifices, but they and their leader (FDR) had issues. Say what you want about the 60’s, but relatively fewer youth were involved with lynching American blacks.
To illustrate, the Rites of Christian Initiation suggest that the rituals of Lent provide a time “… to uncover, then heal all that is weak, defective, or sinful in the hearts of the elect; to bring out, then strengthen all that is upright, strong, and good.”
It seems that it is an easier task to produce a laundry list of sins, and lament that someone’s parents or grandparents did it better. Coming from a rather dysfunctional family, my own take is that Archbishop Chaput sounds more like my whiny elders than the insightful leader the present-day situation demands.
The difficult task–something less suited to the speaker circuit–is to collaborate with others on an accurate diagnosis: to indeed uncover the weaknesses of the age, but also to bring out and strengthen the good.
My questions in turn: does the archbishop practice what he preaches? Does he take those “small” steps? Or has he become a product of the age? A Fulton Sheen wannabe attending to speaking engagements with his name headlining the affair?
I’ll concede that I’m not familiar with the Denver archdiocese, except from afar. I know there’s an initiative to strengthen marriages there. But that episode about the child of lesbian parents: it seems illustrative that Archbishop Chaput’s modus operandi is to erase all of “what’s gone strange.” Good luck with that.
People in power have always had the pseudo-privilege of insulation. They don’t have to see, hear, or interact with anyone they don’t want to. The real work of the Gospel is not to be found in the small things a bishop does: a talk here, an edict there. How church communities address the very real issues in their midst: that is where the real fulcrum happens.
To give the prelate a nod, yes: history does inform us. A critical approach to history? Absolutely. But sometimes, it’s even smaller and simpler. Shaking a person’s hand, affirming the good one sees in their life, and inviting them to come to church with you. People like Archbishop Chaput sometimes give the impression they are entitled to it all: respect, regard, and a full set of pews. But a false sense of entitlement has held back American Catholicism for the better part of the last four decades. My suggestion is to read Ad Gentes, and look for ways to apply it locally–much better than a hand-wringing Puritan.
Todd, I believe that you have responded to the article with great perception. I certainly agree with all that Cathleen and you have written.
It seems to me that there is a great discrepancy between what the Church officially states: (encyclicals, Vatican II documents, pastoral letters, etc.), and the actual practices of the Church. Archbishop Chaput is perhaps a (and I liked your term a ” Fulton Sheen” wanna be), but he doesn’t possess the “Sheen Shine” — the charisma.
More than that, as I visit other Catholic websites, in other English-speaking nations, I see that trying to re-evangelize the nation (Canada, Australia, Ireland) are also major concerns. People in these nations are looking for much the same thing as Americans are—and they are NOT finding it in their arch/bishops and cardinals. The real issues in church communities are not even permitted to be discussed—never mind attempting to solve the problems. The laity are being reduced more and more into becoming ‘passive observers’ and nothing more.
The majority of the young people are not coming to church and their parents and grandparents are also absenting themselves as well. Personal concern, personal interaction by the chief pastor of each diocese is sadly lacking.
And yes, as you stated, “people in power have always the pseudo-privilege of insulation.” The actual practice of the Church SHOULD BE—WELCOMING, MEETING people, really LISTENING to what they are saying, WORKING with them to come to a realization of what needs to be done and RESPONDING POSITIVELY, and QUICKLY to any changes indicated by the people.
As you stated so well, hand-wringing and moaning about the ’sins of the times’ is as easy as pie. It takes dedication, personal effort, hard work and real humility (on the Archbishop’s part) to bring the Gospel message to the people in the 21st Century.
Prof. Kaveny – will add to the excellent comments of Todd. Understand your interesting parallel or comparison of two periods on both American and Catholic history but here is where I think the comparison breaks down: - Chaput has aggressivley spoken out – both in published books and in the speaking tours. But he seems to reinforce the “reform of the reform” desires of many in Rome/curia. Question that is more interesting to me than comparison to the Puritans – how does Chaput and his behavior equate to the great US bishops of the 19th century? Do you really think that England, Gibbons, Carroll and Chaput would have agreed? In fact, Rome eventually called US Catholicism “Americanism”; condemned it, and tried to dismantle that direction of the US church. Chaput seems to play a Roman mouthpiece - one thing that seems incongruous about Chaput – he is native American and yet aligns himself not with the minority opinion, not with the marginalized, but basically conforms his catholic talk along the lines of a Republican. This appears to be the antithesis of the Puritans and the society they lived in? - Todd asks a question about his diocese – look at his auxiliary bishop, his comments (about as conservative as one can get without declaring oneself a member of the SSPX; he dismantled the seminary; re-established per his ideology) - in fact, if he is like the Puritans in anything it is that his “ideology” probably can be compared to Puritanism as an ideology. - unlike the Puritans, doubt that Chaput will leave much a legacy except for those who have been alienated by his aggressive use of personal power.
What Todd said.
Chaput laments how politics is driven by lobbying, polling and money, but the Bishops sure are willing to get their hands dirty when it comes to civil rights for gays or health care.
For me, it was downhill from the part about how back in the good ol’ days “gay” meant “happy.” His version of history is a shiny-happy fantasy that plays into some dangerous hands. He notes the profound anti-Catholic sentiment in America’s Reformation-inspired founding and development. What he doesn’t get is that feeling persists just as strongly in contemporary evangelical fundamentalism. They share his view of the past, decry our current lack of moral grounding and long for a public sphere more reflective of religious values. The difference is that when they get their god-informed government, it’s not gonna have a lot of room for those Papists. Bogeyman fantasies of sharia law scare me far less than the reality of Rick Warren.
Read Full Article »