|
Published: March 25, 2007
Why is California So Weird?
It's not entirely our fault.
By Christopher Zehnder
Everyone, I imagine, has heard the old joke about God picking up the United States by Maine and Florida, shaking it, and dislodging all that is not nailed down so that it fell to California. It is a tedious, because a well-worn, piece of work. Nevertheless, it conveys a good deal of truth.
That truth is, California is a weird place. This truth became apparent to me after living “abroad” (in Virginia and Connecticut) for some years. Outside California, I discovered at least the vestiges of older American things, of warm, human things; the richness of life that is the fruit of cultural rootedness. Of course, the modern brashness, characteristic of L.A., was in these places also; but one could more readily escape it. One could, as it were, retreat into a walled garden and smell the still fragrant, though decaying, scent of an older, more human time.
I think every native Californian at some time in his life should live “abroad” --- that is, outside California --- if only to realize that the world is not California (though it seems to be fast becoming it.) I also helps the Californian see that others see the state as it really is. Returning to California in 1992, and to the relatively “conservative” Antelope Valley, my changed eyes and expectations were assaulted by the clothing styles (tailored to the bizarre), the lack of clothing (appealing to other passions), and the unrestrained, “let it all hang out” public behavior. Compared to where I had lived, California seemed a creation of the moment, and that moment hardly the most civilized in American history.
It is American history, however, that gives one the clue to California weirdness. After all, one cannot blame it on Fray Junípero Serra and the Franciscan missionaries; and though the Mexican period of California history was characterized by opera buffa wars between the North and the South, it was not particularly weird. The weirdness really began to show itself in that epoch that has left its enduring mark on California culture: the Gold Rush.
Hordes of men hungry for gold descended on the sleepy Hispanic region beginning in the late 1840s. After braving considerable dangers by land and sea, they threw California into a cultural maelstrom. The population expansion was astounding. San Francisco, for instance, went from a small 500 inhabitants in 1848 to 40,000 in 1850. The rapid increase of a population gathered pell-mell into the Bay city led to a rapid increase in saloons, brothels, and crime. The last could only be put down by vigilante action. The former --- well, wasn't assailed with the same zeal.
San Francisco’s experience was repeated in hundreds of small towns (with names such as Murderer’s Gulch, Delirium Tremens, Whiskey Diggings, Hangtown, and You Bet) that mushroomed across what in only two years after the discovery of gold became the sovereign state of California. The combined effect of avarice and readily available, bought sex had macerating effects on morality. As one commentator of the period said, in California, “human character crumbled and vanished like dead leaves.”
California never settled down after the Gold Rush; instead, it has experienced a series of speculative “booms,” from silk worms to cotton, to citrus, to oil, to real estate, to whatever's next. California has been a place where people come more to “make it” than to make a home. Thus, it has suffered from a shifting, transient population, which builds only for today’s profit and, with the French king, says après moi, le déluge.
So, divine agency has never been needed to shake the rootless to California. They came of their own accord. But, it is important to remember, they came from elsewhere. They did not spring from our alkaline soil nor were they spontaneously generated in our limpid air.
The United States --- at least, the northern tier of states --- have always had their share of weird folk. Before the War Between the States, New England and upstate New York were crawling with strange sects and utopian movements that advocated everything from vegetarianism, to socialism, to anarchism, to free love, to spiritism. The revival style of Aimee Semple McPherson did not arise without precedent in Los Angeles; it had its even more lurid progenitors in the revival meetings of early nineteenth century America. And one cannot forget the cancerous proliferation of sects that has characterized U.S. Christian history. All these phenomena were prevalent enough to be the objects of comment by German Catholic writers of the late nineteenth century. In an 1889 pamphlet, The Question of Nationality, Anton H. Walburg of Cincinnati said the American society of his day was marked by sectarianism, extreme individualism, and even divorce and free love.
An example of a free-love advocate was Moses Harman of the National Liberal League. Harman published his free love and anarchist journal Lucifer, not out of San Francisco or Los Angeles, but Valley Falls, Kansas in the late nineteenth century. Free love journals were common enough at the time to induce Congress to pass the Comstock Act in 1873, prohibiting the sending of obscene mail through the mail system.
Bizarre communities, anarchists, free love advocates, cultic religious groups, and other strange manifestations of human culture found a ready home in California and still do. The reason, I think, is our historical rootlessness. California is not so much an historical phenomenon as a recurring novelty. It is a place ready made for those who want to escape tradition, religious strictures, and even natural imperatives. California is not so much a community of interconnected persons as a collection of individuals who want nothing less than to be bound in duty to anyone or anything.
Radical Individualism is at the heart of California culture. But it is precisely this that makes California a peculiarly American phenomenon. If California is individualistic, it is because the Anglo-American culture from whence it sprang is individualistic. California is the United States shorn of the culture they have inherited from Europe, from Christendom --- the culture that day by day becomes more and more irrelevant, not only in this but in all the states.
If the rest of the country thinks California weird, let them remember that she is merely their offspring. She both bears the marks of her parent and is an earnest of the nation's future. As California is, so shall all become.
Let our sister states regard this, and tremble.
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 4:36 AM By Chuck
Perhaps you Catholic readers do not know Mr Zehnder has been editing this website for the last two weeks. Mr Zehnder and Mr. Grimm are traitors who hate europeans, Both Catholic and Protestant. To blame California's woes on Eurpopean Americans especially since they are paying the bill is CLASSIC communism. And that is exacly what Zehnder is. Notice how Zehnder never examines California's historic vote for annexation from Mexican TYRANNY!!!~ If this is what Catholics can expect from this website, this will be my last post. Although Zehndrer is a much better writer than his clod colleagues. Rabid and Lostello. This site is about as Catholic as Santa Anna is a friend to Texas. See Ya Zehnder
|
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 9:12 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Chuck seems to know a lot about us, myself and Messrs. Grimm and Lickona --- his unedited post had information about our educational background, which I thought irrelevant and so deleted. I wonder if I know Chuck?
It is characteristic of posters like Chuck that they attack a position by calling it names. If he read my essay, he would have noted that I do not hate Europeans. In fact, I think I made it clear that I respect European culture. And I noted that California's weirdness did not arise from the Fray Junipero and the Franciscan missionaries. Yes, dear Chuck, Spaniards are Europeans.
I had not known that the Hispanic and Indian majority in California in 1848 were asked to vote to join the United States. I had heard that California annexation had something to do with a war of conquest and a treaty called Guadalupe Hidalgo. It is true that some Californios, such as General Vallejo, wanted either independence or annexation to the U.S. But many others did not. In fact, in Southern California, my region of this glorious state, a few battles were fought to drive the Americans out.
But Chuck is probably referring to the Anglo minority and the Bear Flag Revolt. Of course, the great bulk of these Anglos entered California illegally --- but that's all right, I suppose, under Manifest Destiny. Of course, I don't know if Chuck holds to Manifest Destiny, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
But it's hard to know more about Chuck than that he has a nasty spleen. The reader will note that Chuck does not meet argument with argument; he does not dispute particular evidence with evidence. He just throws around terms, which of which he obviously doesn't know the meaning, like "communism."
|
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 9:15 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Chuck,
In past posts, I've tried to respond to you with arguments to counter your assertions. If you have reasons with which to respond, please offer them. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. You, however, don't want to discuss but to rend and tear. So, it is with little sadness that I read of your departure.
You call my "colleagues" "clods." But, Chuck, you caricature yourself in your responses, which make you appear silly and ignorant. In fact, you do a disservice to whatever position you hold. That is unfortunate.
|
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 9:16 AM By Jeff Culbreath
Dear Mr. Zehnder,
I've spent some time "abroad" as well, and while your observations are not unfounded, the California that has emerged beyond LA and the Bay Area requires a little more nuance. The northern counties, in particular, have a much higher degree of settledness and a healthy sense of place. The central valley ended up as a destination for people who wanted to settle permanently, and the valley today is populated by many families who have been here for five and six generations.
Is there hope for California? I think we are at a crossroads. There is still hope, but it is also possible that California politics and culture will make life impossible for traditional Christians and we will see a very large exodus. In the meantime I am pleased to report that one does not have to leave California to find rooted communities that still have some sense of history and a relatively stable identity.
|
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 9:37 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Culbreath,
Thank you for your correction. I grew up in the greater Los Angeles area; I was born in Pomona, lived the first 12 years of my life in Diamond Bar, and then my family moved out to San Bernardino County. What I described in my essay is what I experienced. One's experience is always limited. Too, I could be suffering from from the disappointed lover syndrome.
I understand what you are talking about, regarding, at least, the Central Valley. My family and I live in the Tehachapi Valley, in the last pass through the Sierra Nevada, about 40 miles from Bakersfield. What you said about settledness has been true about Tehachapi and the Bakersfield area to some degree, until very recently. In the last three years we have undergone a big growth spurt as a result of the latest real estate boom. And it's changing us.
I have pointed out in the past (though not on this web site) that interior California is not like the Bay Area or Los Angeles. But it seems to be coming more like them. I suppose what I was pointing to is a principle at the heart of California culture, against which settled communities have little chance of survival unless those communities can muster some will and effective political power. But our souls are shot through with the culture and we stagger. Can we recover? I certainly hope we can, but I am not sanguine.
I think, though, that because economic imperatives have played such a predominant role in California history, California has always suffered from cultural instability, even where stability has been present. "Making it" has been too much with us. One sees this in Jack London's "Valley of the Moon," which is a paen to the small farm. It is a beautiful vision he presents, but the "making it" spirit is too much there.
What we need is the Faith and the culture it has created. Without it, we're doomed.
|
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 10:00 AM By Jeff Culbreath
Dear Mr. Zehnder,
Thank you for the reply. Your family history is similar to my own in some respects. I was born in Santa Barbara to native Californians and before the age of 12 lived in San Bernardino, Lompoc, and Desert Hot Springs. I like Santa Barbara County because it, too, has a prominent Catholic heritage and an Old World cultural flavor.
Of course you are correct about the transformation of our valley communities due to the housing boom. It isn't pretty. But, as I mentioned, there are lots of little towns that seem to be holding out against the "making it" mentality. I'm thinking of places like Gustine, the Portuguese Catholic enclave in Merced County, or my own town of Orland, a conservative community of midwestern transplants that makes Podunk Kansas look like Beverly Hills. (And I mean that as a compliment.)
|
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 5:47 PM By Gregorian
Christopher,
Let me suggest the "rootedness" you saw Back East was age -- old buildings, old families, old stone walls, old houses, old battlefields, etc. Small bits of regional culture there may be there, but I think the whole country worships at the altar of modernity and novelty. Fortunately, as Catholics, we are rooted in traditions 2000 years old, older when you consider our Jewish foundation. So it really doesn't matter where we live. There's no Heaven on earth. It's the culture we bring to our towns that matters most.
|
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 5:49 PM By Ernie Grimm
For the record, I love Europeans. I also love non-Europeans. I even love commentator Chuck. And I'll pray that God grant him peace.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:12 PM By janet
When my Dad retired from the Air Force he decided to settle permanently in California. He was a native Californian, born in Santa Barbara and had family here.
I remember as a child whenever we would move and pull into our new neighborhood, all us kids would stand in front of the moving van and wait as all the children from the neighborhood would come running to meet us. The new neighbors would invite us over for dinner since our cooking utensils were all packed away.
Not so in the California experience. Us kids stood in front of the moving van waiting...and waiting...to no avail. No one invited us over for dinner. All the neighbors would do is to peek out their windows at us, but not one of them approached us.
I think this story is a perfect example of the California experience. How many of us know our next door neighbors? How many of us are good neighbors ourselves?
Sadly, it's gotten to the point that I'm suspicious whenever someone IS friendly as more often than not, they are just "networking" in an effort to sell me something.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:31 AM By kenney
I think the author is, respectfully, myopic. California is so big and diverse that it defies such simplistic reasoning. What attracts people to the coast is different than what attracts people to the inland empire. I have lived in the South in a town of 20,000 people and spent just as much time sitting in traffic due to poor planning. What sets California apart is that they (we) rebel against hypocrisy...in the gov't, in the Church , in society. Don't believe me? Explain annulments, priest abuse and why pot is illegal but booze is not. See? Someday, Cal will be the first shining star in a real new world. Have faith!!!
|
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:50 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet,
Your experience has been somewhat similar to mine. One thing I noticed about California after visiting while living "abroad" was that folk were not that friendly. In New England I found people reserved but not unfriendly; and when our child would cry in Mass there was nary a reaction. But when we visited California and went to Mass --- when our child would begin to cry (and we were always quick to take him out) we would get nasty looks and under-the-breath comments. I found the same reaction, however, in the Washington, D.C. area --- another rootless place and (arguably) just as insane as California.
I've read that Americans move on the average every five years. Just from experience, it seems the California average is probably something like 2.5 years. When one is semi-nomadic, I suppose, he is not likely to try to go outside his normal social circle to make friends. That might be investing too much in a place.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:57 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Gregorian,
What you say about what I saw back East is accurate, I think. But, coming from California, it was still a new world (or old world?) discovery for me. All the states and, indeed, the world are becoming California.
I would disagree with you, however, when you say, it does not matter where we live, if by that you mean that settledness is not important. We have a Catholic culture but because we are immersed in a non- and even anti-Catholic culture, the effects of the Catholic culture slowly slough away. Settledness provides the means by which the Faith can be incarnated in a locality and a people. After all, there never has been a "Catholic Culture" as such, but Catholic cultures that find their common inspiration and definition in the Catholic faith.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:24 AM By Jeff Culbreath
With respect to friendliness, my impressions - as a 4th generation Californian - are precisely the opposite. Both my time in NE Pennsylvania and Long Island NY left me pining for the friendliness of northern California. With the exception of small towns outside of Scranton, I found the people back east to be downright grouchy. One fellow even told me, "You want to leave California? Move to Denver. The people out here hate Californians."
|
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:55 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Culbreath,
That's interesting. Perhaps people were friendly to me because they never thought I was from California or elsewhere. For whatever reason, I was often mistaken for a Northeasterner.
My experience of California rudeness was in Los Angeles and the areas connected thereto. In my small town people have mostly been kind and friendly --- though that is changing with the influx of Angelenos. Perhaps since you came from a more rooted, less urban place, people were friendlier. Or maybe Northern Californians are just nicer people than us in the South.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:29 PM By Jeff Culbreath
I don't think anyone would have assumed I was from California if I hadn't told them. Many big-city Californians think I'm from the midwest. When I first moved to Sacramento at the tender age of 18 one girl said to me, "Are you, like, from Nebraska or somewhere?" Heh.
I think LA and the Bay Area can be characterized as unfriendly, even rude. Especially Berkeley. Sacramento is much better. Even downtown Sac is friendly by comparison. But the smaller cities and towns of California are, by and large, normal American communities where people wave at neighbors and are kind to strangers. I think perhaps the friendliness/rudeness divide tracks mostly along urban/rural or big city/small town lines.
|
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:51 AM By Gregorian
Christopher,
There is no place with a truly Catholic culture in the US. But we're free -- in fact, called -- to create one anywhere we go. I grew up in the Greater LA area, and we had no problem finding other Catholic families with whom to associate and create a Catholic community within the larger community. I've done the same where I live now. You seem to crave some kind of earthly utopia in which one need not work to create a Catholic culture, where people walk the streets saying Dominus vobiscum... et cum spiritu tuo. That doesn't exist on anywhere in the U.S. We all called to create it.
I spend a lot of time in Mexico, and I admire how ubiquitous expressions of faith are there. There are shrines to Our Lady of Guadalupe in most houses and businesses. I think that kind of permeation (rootedness, as you wouldsay) of the Faith into the fabric of a place is wonderful, but it isn't the Faith itself. In fact, I've witnessed a dangerous tendency in people down there to think that as long as you have the shrine, name your children after saints, and get them baptized, you're a good Catholic. No matter that you take part in massive corruption, or keep a mistress. "That's just how it is here," is their expression. The point is, the earth is a vail of tears. There are no perfect communities, and there are great challenges to the true practice of the faith in places such as Mexico that are 88% Catholic, and in places that are 90% non- and even anti-Catholic . What we have in the U.S. is the freedom to practice and promulgate the faith. And that is no small thing.
P.S. I know a few of the Angelenos who have invaded "your" Tehachapi Valley. Be nice to them.
|
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:26 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Gregorian,
I never suggested anything that even remotely suggests utopia. I never said we don't need to create a Catholic culture. Nothing I have written in any way suggests that. What I did say is that it is not irrelevant whether one's culture is Catholic or not.
However much we try to create a culture within the larger culture, we are not untouched by the larger culture. Indeed, we are to some degree --- and to a large degree --- formed by it. This is unavoidable. And if the culture is founded on false principles, we are influenced by false principles to the degree we are influenced by the larger culture.
Of course there are sinners in Catholic cultures. And hypocrites. But if a culture is truly formed by Catholic principles it has a principle of improvement that a non-Catholic culture does not. One might be a sinner, but he is better off if he knows that what he does is sinful than if he is confused about the fact. Or if he thinks that what is wrong is right.
|
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:10 PM By Gregorian
Christopher,
I confess to attempting to read between the lines of your columns and comments when I formed an opinion of you as a utopian. Forgive me. Will you at least grant me a romantic tendency in yourself toward small-town, agrarian idealism?
As for your middle paragraph, what right have we to expect anything other than persecution from the world? It's a vail of tears. The City of Man will always assail the City of God. But the culture we create in our families, social groups, and parishes should be, and I think is, more powerful than influence of the City of Man.
You missed the point of my Mexico bit. It's not just that there are sinners in Catholic cultures, it's that living within what we're calling the Catholic culture can very easily lead to a dumbing down of true Catholic principles within the hearts and minds of those living within the culture. The people become empty shells -- they look Catholic on the outside, they go to church, they baptize their kids, they have shrines, but there isn't much interior faith there. And they don't know any better, because the Catholic culture they're living in has become Catholicism itself in their minds. They think they're good Catholics because they're going through the motions. We who must live more deliberately in opposition to the secular culture we're immersed are in less danger of falling into that trap.
Another illustrative anecdote about the numbing quality of living in an overtly Catholic culture: my brother-in-law is a priest who studied in Rome in the 70s. One night in the seminary, a big argument broke out over whether it was morally wrong to cheat on school tests. The partisans broke down on national lines, all the Americans, who grew up in our non-Catholic culture, said it was absolutely wrong. All the Italians, even a couple of older priests, all of whom grew up in a Catholic culture, said there was nothing wrong with it and called the Americans puritanical and over-scrupulous.
|
Posted Friday, March 30, 2007 9:38 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Gregorian,
I grant your points about the dangers of living in a Catholic culture. But an analogous point could be made about being born into a Catholic family. Converts often have a more conscious grasp of their faith than do cradle Catholics; they are often more zealous, whereas cradle Catholics often take their religion for granted. But should argue from that that it is indifferent whether one grow up Catholic or not? Or that it is equal to have been raised in a Protestant family?
It is to be expected that in a culture where the vast majority of the people are Catholic that one is going to find a great deal of laxity amongst those professing the faith. It has always been like that just in the common parishes. But I would rather have a Church with many lax Catholics than a Church of the serious few. Why? Because, even though lax, they have the Faith as a principle of reform and so have a better chance for salvation. And, I would hazard to guess, that the number of serious Catholics in a Catholic culture would tend to be greater than the number of serious Catholics in a hostile culture.
Too, by testimony of Catholic commentators of the 19th century, living in the hostile American Protestant culture led to vast defections among Catholics. Granted, these were probably not the of the strongest, but wouldn't it be better that they be in the Church than without?
You are right that the city of man is always with us; but the implication of your statements is that it doesn't matter to Catholics whether the greater culture is imbued with the Faith. I think this implication false because it ignores the character of culture as second nature.
|
Posted Friday, March 30, 2007 9:49 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Gregorian,
Your Italian example turns on a virtue which is seen to be more characteristic of northern peoples than of Latins. I wonder if there had been Bavarians whether their reaction would have been different. I wonder, too, if the question were, "is a just wage one reached by consent of the parties alone," what the breakdown in terms of orthodoxy would have been. Even serious Catholics in the United States are not perfect in their moral attitudes. Whether they know it or not, they are influenced by their culture --- its rabid individualism, practical atheism, materialism, and unchecked hedonism.
Too, it is important to remember that any "Catholic" culture experienced today has been in sharp decline for a few centuries. And it is usually riddled by non-Catholic ideologies, as has been the case with Mexico. But I would rather have a decadent Catholic culture which encourages to laxity than an anti-Catholic culture which lures to apostasy. I stick with the old saw, "better a bad Catholic than a good Protestant."
|
Posted Friday, March 30, 2007 12:34 PM By Gregorian
Oh Christopher,
I'm shocked at you for resorting to old saws. Ted Kennedy is a bad Catholic. Is he better than Abraham Lincoln? That old saw ought to be hung in the tool shed and left there.
There's a lot to be discussed in terms of laxity vs. apostasy. Neither is good. You're arguing that laxity is the lesser of two evils. That's not a very inspiring argument for Catholic culture... but in one soul, you're right. Apostasy is worse. But Say 99% of St. Peter's parishioners are lax but still goes to church, and 50% of St. Paul's are apostates, but the other 50% serious catholics. Which parish is better off? And what of they hypocrisy of going to church habitually while persistently breaking the church's commandments, individually and en masse (i.e. culturally)? I think the word "lax" has an excuse built right into it. "They're good Catholics," it seems to say, "they're just a little lazy." I don't think that accurately defines the hypocrisy of the masses in culturally Catholic countries.
Re: the USA's hostility toward Catholicism, between 1850 and 1950, we had an astounding number of faithful Catholic universities all across the country. How did that happen with all the cultural hostility toward Catholicism? I hold that it's because religious freedom trumps cultural hostility. Of course the "spirit of Vatican II," (i.e. the intentional/diabolical misinterpretation of the council to mean out with the old, in with the new) ravaged those universities like a tornado tearing through a Kansas trailer park. But that spirit wasn't born in the United States. It was born in the culturally Catholic countries of Europe.
Ultimately, we're not that far apart here in our ideologies -- with the exception of your utopianism. (kidding.) You yearn for Catholic culture. I do too, But I think I've found/created it right here in the USA, among my family, my friends, my education, my parish, and my reading. I hope you have to.
|
Posted Friday, March 30, 2007 1:02 PM By Christopher Zehnder
I would defend the old saw. Abraham Lincoln might be a better man than Ted Kennedy (though some unreconstructed types might dispute this) but Ted Kennedy, being in the Church, is in an objectively better condition than Lincoln. Whether Kennedy takes advantage of that is another question. But when Kennedy dies, he has the possibility of last rites. Lincoln did not.
Another old saw: "hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue." Hypocrites at least acknowledge the moral law. I'd rather a man be a hypocrite adulterer than one who says, "I cheat on my wife and I see nothing wrong with it." If that were my only choice...
The only two alternatives are not the "fervent few in the midst of the pagan many" and the "lax many in a Catholic culture." There is a third: a Catholic culture that is always being reformed. The last seems to be the ideal set by the Church.
U.S. Catholic achievements pale in relation what medieval Europe produced and, even, what Spanish America produced from 1492 to 1811. Talk about universities, not to mention religious orders, missions, hospitals, etc. --- not to mention the many saints. These were made by Catholic culture.
And, finally, the Vatican II "spirit" had its 19th century U.S. progenitor: Archbishop John Ireland and (to a lesser extent) Cardinal Gibbons' Americanism.
|
Posted Friday, March 30, 2007 1:53 PM By Gregorian
We're opening an industrial-sized can of worms with this, but what the heck... Lincoln was baptized and known to be virtuous. Ted Kennedy is known to be a horrific public sinner (God help him).( And he's not likely to get last rites because Kennedys always die suddenly.) If we can see that, how much more clearly does God see it?
I propose a new saw: Be a good Catholic, and let God worry about the Protestants.
From my experience, the "Catholic" big shots in Mexico defend their adultery as "that's the way it is here" just as they go to church because "that's what we do here." There's no acknowledgment of the moral law there. Granted, they may be better off going to church habitually so that maybe the message will sink in. But then there's the question of mocking the sacraments and the Faith.
I agree with you about the ideal. It doesn't exist on earth.
Re: U.S. Catholic achievements, they were pretty remarkable for a less-than-200-year-old nation which, as you would say, had an anti-Catholic culture. The achievements of medieval Europe were indeed great, but they were achieved over a greater period of time and in a more favorable culture. I still maintain that our Catholic university system was the envy of the Catholic world around 1950. As for Spanish America, priests have never been rounded up and shot in the U.S. It's happened in the former Spanish America.
Pretty sure Ireland and Gibbons weren't at the council. There ideas may have been. Still, it was a 99% European Catholic event.
Question: Pope Benedict is trying to refocus on the Catholic cultures of Europe. Why do you think that is?
|
Posted Friday, March 30, 2007 4:36 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Gregorian,
You missed the word "objectively" when I wrote "Ted Kennedy, being in the Church, is in an objectively better condition than Lincoln." This must be true, unless you want to argue that membership in the Church is not in itself an objective good, the lack of which is a grave deficiency.
I believe you understood what I meant about Ireland and Gibbons. My point was that the U.S. Church had its native brand of heresy (which is very much like the "spirit of Vatican II"); it did not derive it from Europe.
Further, the Church hasn't been much persecuted in the U.S. because it has never been a threat to the prevailing society, as it was to the liberals in Latin America. The U.S. Church has not been a threat because it never challenged the prevailing liberalism. It built some nice universities, but it did not challeged the society. It was coopted by it. If we had really been Catholic in the U.S., who knows, but maybe we would have martyrs, as in Latin America.
I don't know the pope's mind. Do you? Perhaps he is focusing on Europe because he wants to return to its Catholic culture. By your reasoning, though, he should let Europe go.
Why? Because if Catholics are better off in a non-Catholic culture, then no one should try to create a Catholic culture except in one's own home and among one's neighbors. God forbid that we should convert the United States and then have a society of lax, hypocritical Catholics! It is better that we remain an unleavening remnant in a mass of unbelievers. This is your position, is it not?
Perhaps Pope Pius XI should have had as his motto, "instaurare omnia aliquid in Christo" -- "to restablish all things (to some degree) in Christ."
|
Posted Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:01 AM By Gregorian
No, my position is the opposite -- that we need be a leaven in this society, to have a great effect on it than it does on us. We're starting to go round in circles. Again I think you an I agree on far more than we disagree on. It's kind of coming down to our romantic yearnings: yours, as I understand it, for widespread Catholic culture, mine for a steadily growing Catholic culture within the framework of the religious freedom we enjoy in America. This will be my last posting -- I'm spending too much time on this -- but I will not begrudge you the last word. It's been fun.
|
Posted Saturday, March 31, 2007 4:15 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Gregorian,
Thanks, I always like having the last word. I've been an editor in the print media for too long.
I certainly hope I have romantic yearnings. No Catholic worth his salt is without them. The Faith is a romantic enterprise. After all, what is more unthinkable than union with God? What is more outlandish than God becoming man? What is more quixotic than the deification of man, as the Eastern Fathers call it?
I do not disagree that one needs to develop a Catholic culture in the midst of the prevailing post-Protestant one. Like Peter Maurin used to say, we need to be build a new culture in the shell of the old.
But this building is merely interim. It's goal is the Christianization, the Catholicization, if you will, of all society --- of mores, of laws, of institutions. The Faith is not a private affair but a public one; we are to convert "all nations" not just all individuals or, even, just all families. The goal in building a Catholic culture among Catholics always has, besides an interior orientation, an exterior one. We build our Catholic culture among ourselves as a means to establish the Faith among our neighbors. Catholics cannot rest content until all things are subjected to Christ --- families, the arts, science, philosophy, the laws, all human things.
And, I'll admit, it all won't be perfect. Often it will be far from it. But, better in the Church than out of it.
If this be romanticism; if this be utopianism, then the Church has always been romantic an utopian. Then Jesus was a romantic and a utopian. If I am a romantic and a utopian in this sense, then I'm in good company. To hell with palsied realism!
|
© California Catholic Daily 2007. All Rights Reserved.
|