David B. Speaks

[_MCB]

In other words, despite the appearance of a top-down authority structure, the Catholic Church has actually tended to be pretty anarchic and populist in its local implementation. It's not, by any means, a correlated monolith like the LDS Church. Ironically, despite its ostensible support for lay leadership, Vatican II actually ended up putting the brakes on much of this anarchic vitality.

It is true, the Catholic church is both top-down and bottom-up. Life at the parish level is more real than what happens in Rome. Even when the parish priest is Rome-acculturated like ours. Each parish is responsible for its own buildings, and sinks or swims on its own merits. The freedom of joining another parish if you don't like the one you are in adds to this. I wouldn't call it anarchy, because it works.

And , yes, the lack of priests encourages fuller participation of members of the parish. "FatherDoesItAll" doesn't exist any more. For example, RCIA, rather than individual catechesis in the rectory, just doesn't happen any more. Vatican II was not the principle reason for that, however, it was the lack of vocations for the priesthood.

[_madeleine]

In other words, despite the appearance of a top-down authority structure, the Catholic Church has actually tended to be pretty anarchic and populist in its local implementation. It's not, by any means, a correlated monolith like the LDS Church. Ironically, despite its ostensible support for lay leadership, Vatican II actually ended up putting the brakes on much of this anarchic vitality.

It is true, the Catholic church is both top-down and bottom-up. Life at the parish level is more real than what happens in Rome. Even when the parish priest is Rome-acculturated like ours. Each parish is responsible for its own buildings, and sinks or swims on its own merits. The freedom of joining another parish if you don't like the one you are in adds to this. I wouldn't call it anarchy, because it works.

And , yes, the lack of priests encourages fuller participation of members of the parish. "FatherDoesItAll" doesn't exist any more. For example, RCIA, rather than individual catechesis in the rectory, just doesn't happen any more. Vatican II was not the principle reason for that, however, it was the lack of vocations for the priesthood.

What MCB said.

The anarchy is a good part of what attracted me to Catholicism in the first place. Rome, as an authoritative arbitrator of all things Catholic, but not authoritarian. Every parish is different, in everything, from how coffee hour is run to the liturgy itself. I like a blend of old and new, English and Latin. Gregorian chants, children and adult choirs and incense. I miss those things when they aren't there.

I think a reading of Lumen Gentium would clarify much of the conversation. But I realize it is longgg, and Catholic.

[_CaliforniaKid]

That isn't what I've seen. I've seen the opposite, where "lay professionals" are running the day-to-day ministries of parishes. They often have theological degrees, but not always.

Also, the view on movements. Several "new" lay movements have risen and have been approved by the Vatican. It remains to be seen how long-lived they are, but there are a few that are thriving very well.

Maybe. Take a look, though, at the numbers Finke and Stark provide concerning religious in the US. The decline has been enormous. Laypeople may run the parishes, but there are a lot of services the Church used to provide (such as revivals and an enormous network of parochial schools) which it no longer has the staff for.

I agree that there may be some signs of revitalization, such as the charismatic movement. We'll see, I guess.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think a reading of Lumen Gentium would clarify much of the conversation. But I realize it is longgg, and Catholic.

I've read it.

[_madeleine]

That isn't what I've seen. I've seen the opposite, where "lay professionals" are running the day-to-day ministries of parishes. They often have theological degrees, but not always.

Also, the view on movements. Several "new" lay movements have risen and have been approved by the Vatican. It remains to be seen how long-lived they are, but there are a few that are thriving very well.

Maybe. Take a look, though, at the numbers Finke and Stark provide concerning religious in the US. The decline has been enormous. Laypeople may run the parishes, but there are a lot of services the Church used to provide (such as revivals and an enormous network of parochial schools) which it no longer has the staff for.

I agree that there may be some signs of revitalization, such as the charismatic movement. We'll see, I guess.

thanks, I'll take a read through it. It is true, vocations are down in the US and Europe. I know a couple of people who sought religious vocations, but didn't take permanent vows. They are both teaching in parishes, one is working on his doctorate in...theology. When he was teaching in our parish a lot of people showed up for adult RE. We were sad to see him go, but Catholics from outside of UT don't tend to stay here. We are a backwater in the Catholic world. The culture here is a hard adjustment and they miss living in a "Catholic city". I think the only exception to this is the Hispanic Catholics. :) They stay, and bring a deep faith, and an old Catholic culture.

As of late, our new priests come from outside the US. Mainly Mexico, Asia and Africa. I have wondered what they think about being assigned to Utah, of all places.

Anyway, all in all, it is change. But the Catholic Church has been through many, many changes. Iterations of itself, if you will. Catholic schools are important, especially in areas where education is not available or affordable. Everyone wants to rely on governments instead. State educations, bereft of anything spiritual. A whole other subject.

[_madeleine]

I think a reading of Lumen Gentium would clarify much of the conversation. But I realize it is longgg, and Catholic.

I've read it.

Something most Catholics can't say.

I think it defines well the top-down, bottom-up structure of the Catholic Church. Written at a time when the world was beginning to change very dramatically. The liberal theology of VII will see us through, are my own thoughts. Not that it isn't a struggle, but as a Catholic, I believe without question that the Holy Spirit is guiding us through. When an individual has difficult struggles, we can view it as God's cleansing fire. What seems insurmountable, and unsustainable, has at the end the place where God wants you to be. He pulls us through, and does not abandon us in our need. That is where Catholics turn and always have.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I noticed a remarkable post on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board:

I was contacted by Dana Pike who asked that I share the following email in this thread. My response was simply,

Quote
Dana, you yourself told me in your office that addressing those issues in the book raised some concerns in the department, though admittedly, you did not tell me the part about the Dean/Department Chair, which came from other sources in the plural. But as per your request, I'll post this information.

I believe honesty is the best policy.

Dear David,

A neighbor of mine (Cr** ********(**; have you communicated with her?) shared a link to your post on mormondialogue.org about Dan Peterson.
In the latter portion of this post you wrote:

"Recently, when BYU Religious Education professors such as David Seely and Dana Pike in the Deseret Book publication Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament even made mention of the fact that most biblical scholars believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that it is comprised of separate sources, these scholars were called into the Dean’s office and corrected for possibly destroying faith."

We are concerned about this statement, because it is completely false.

Since yesterday, Richard Holzapfel, David Seely, and I have communicated about your claim, to make sure one of us was not in the dark about something that had happened to another one of us. Not one of us was ever called in by our Chair, Dean, or any other administrator at BYU regarding anything we wrote in our book Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament. We are not sure how you came by the information you posted, but I/we would appreciate you posting a correction (especially since other people have responded to this particular part of your blog post, e.g., Kevin Barney).

A few thoughts/points:

1) The deleted name in Pike's message is, I'm pretty sure, the in real life name of MDD poster Calmoriah.

2) It looks like Pike is lying. David clearly says that he heard allusions from Pike himself about getting summoned to the Dean's office, plus he was told by *multiple* other people that the text was censored/criticized.

This is bizarre, if it's true. It sounds like the LDS authors are rebuked behind closed doors and then obliged to lie about getting rebuked. And why? Are there fears that this kind of censorship will be PR disaster? Does Pike not care that he got censored?

3) It seems clear that people at BYU--and perhaps higher up in the chain of authority--monitor the messageboards. Otherwise, why would Pike care what was said on MDD? I speculated elsewhere that Jerry Bradford and his "faction" worked to collect a dossier of Dan Peterson's online activities, and that this was passed around prior to his resignation. Plus, there is already good reason to believe that a dossier was created on David Bokovoy just before they put the kibbosh on his BYU employment bid. Thus, all things considered, I am willing to be that Pike is well aware of this dossier-creation, and that he is now crapping himself in fear that these sorts of comments will lead to his own roasting.

Just some random thoughts here, for what it's worth....

As for DB's defense of the MI, I also find it strange. I thought that David was uninterested in doing apologetics, and that one of the main reasons for this was because of the negative reputation that LDS apologetics has earned over the years. Well, if this is the reason, then surely a good deal of the blame has to be laid at the feet of "The Kingpin." But I know DB is friends with DCP, so I can understand why he might have difficulty laying everything out in a diplomatic way.

[_Kishkumen]

Just some random thoughts here, for what it's worth....

As for DB's defense of the MI, I also find it strange. I thought that David was uninterested in doing apologetics, and that one of the main reasons for this was because of the negative reputation that LDS apologetics has earned over the years. Well, if this is the reason, then surely a good deal of the blame has to be laid at the feet of "The Kingpin." But I know DB is friends with DCP, so I can understand why he might have difficulty laying everything out in a diplomatic way.

This is fascinating, Doctor. It seems like BYU is falling prey to the vagaries of life in the cyberage. On the one hand, you have faculty who are waging war against alleged heretics, apostates, and anti-Mormons, and on the other you have others combing the web, collecting creepy dossiers, or living in fear of the collection of them and hovering online to make sure they do not become the object of the wrong kind of interest. Will BYU start to impost strict restrictions on its faculty members regarding their online activities? Only time will tell.

[_Bob Loblaw]

This is fascinating, Doctor. It seems like BYU is falling prey to the vagaries of life in the cyberage. On the one hand, you have faculty who are waging war against alleged heretics, apostates, and anti-Mormons, and on the other you have others combing the web, collecting creepy dossiers, or living in fear of the collection of them and hovering online to make sure they do not become the object of the wrong kind of interest. Will BYU start to impost strict restrictions on its faculty members regarding their online activities? Only time will tell.

This isn't a recent development. BYU has been doing this for a long time. George Brimhall was forced to fire three professors for teaching evolution in 1911. Ernest Wilkinson used to pay students to attend classes and report on any subversive teachings. Cecilia Farr and David Knowlton were fired from BYU in 1993, respectively for supporting abortion rights and suggesting that the church do more to protect its missionaries in Latin American Studies. More recently, Eugene England finally gave in to pressure and took at job at UVU.

[_Cicero]

Scratch:

Now the Dean has also come out and told David to recant his story. I'm not sure what to make of it. David won't post his sources so at this point who knows whether Pike is lying or not. David may have got it wrong.