David B. Speaks

[_CaliforniaKid]

Do you think that applies to all denominations? I have a hard time making it work for, say, Roman Catholics, who have had a formally trained ministry for quite a while. For reasons that I can't yet set out, I think it might work better for Protestants. Has it, on the whole, been priests who have been subversive of Roman Catholic belief over the last hundred and fifty years?

The US Catholic Church has been in a dramatic decline since 1960. Only immigration from Latin America has kept it from total collapse. There are various reasons for this decline, but most of them have their roots in Vatican II, a Church Council in which an educated clergy tried to bring the Church into the twentieth century. One effect of the Council was to make membership in lay religious orders less attractive, so that the number of monks and nuns-- once the backbone of the American Church's leadership-- is greatly diminished, and leadership now falls to a small cadre of largely liberal, college-educated priests, of whom there aren't even enough to go around.

I wonder if Finke and Starke controlled for the effect of non-vocational higher education in general, as opposed to specifically theological higher education?

What do you mean by non-vocational?

[_madeleine]

I didn't know there was a problem with theological education. :-) I don't know about the huge gap between the laity and clergy, either. The deacon who catechized me in backwater of the Catholic world, Salt Lake City, is steeped in Communio. It remains, by and large, my approach to Catholicism as well. :-) And I am far from being a theologian!

More the problem, as I see it, are Protestant ideas, particularly Puritan, that seep in. bleh.

So, madeleine, is the perception that there is a problem more of a Protestant thing?

It is more complex, in my opinion. Two "isms" that are linked together, pluralism and relativism. Catholicism is neither one, but both have had a major influence on Protestantism. Add in secularism, which as MCB touched on in regards to non-Catholic areas, has a major influence especially in "Catholic countries".

"Modern theology", is largely accepted by Protestant churches, and has had its proponents (both lay and clergy) in Catholicism. Pluralism and relativism is something of an a priori. Most of the priests that have been censured fall into this group, though there are a few SSPX are in there.

"Liberal theology", as the answer to modern theology, which heavily incorporates Vatican II as a vision of what it is meant to be. Vatican II falls here.

"Traditionalists", who view Vatican II as opening the door to the Protestantization of Catholicism, especially in regards to liturgy (hand holding Our Father, liturgical dancers, mantillas gone, etc...a long list.) SSPX is squarely, here.

Then there are cultures. Could be argued that Catholic countries south of the border have remained blissfully unaware of Vatican II. There are strong modern Saints from these areas. Msgr. Oscar Romero, for instance, who was no modern theologian. He defines what it means to be a Catholic and resist secularism, pluralism and relativism.

At the center, Rome, which JPII and BXVI have been populating (in terms of Curia) with liberal theologists, more then modern or traditionalists. Pope Benedict being one of the liberal theologians. Though Pope Benedict has made concessions, allowing the Extraordinary form of Mass, which the Traditionalists view as "told you so".

Is the Catholic Church splitting? No, it won't. Faithful may, and do, drain away (so to speak). Pope Paul VI prophesied:

"What strikes me when I think of the Catholic world is that within Catholicism there seems sometimes to predominate a non-Catholic way of thinking, and it can happen that this non-Catholic thought within Catholicism will tomorrow become the stronger. But it will never represent the thought of the Church. It is necessary that a small flock subsist, no matter how small it might be."

Even one Bishop, with a few disciples of Christ left, is still the church subsisting. It may come to that. Who knows.

Non-Catholic thinking can be pluralistic, relativistic, puritan, denominational, even secular. There is a lot of puritan thought in Mormonism, which is no surprise seeing that it arose out of, among many things, 19th century American Protestantism. Christianity in the USA, on the whole, has a strong puritan influence. Evangelicals also emerging from 19th century American Protestantism. Mormons are much more relativistic than Evangelicals.

American Catholics, in my opinion, cross the whole spectrum. Some are puritan, some are denominational. By and large ,the "cafeteria Catholics" are pluralists and relativists, extending into secularists. Protestant churches have accepted, for a greater part, the modern theologies based on these "isms". The Catholic Church has not.

[_MCB]

^ Agreed. Catholicism is tolerant of diversity, but the core does not change.

[_sock puppet]

Or is it just part of the territory, that when one studies ancient text in inevitably follows he or she will acquire simultaneously that edgy apologetic bent?

You phrase that as a question? Or are you asking an apologist to tell you why that often happens?

Yes. I am asking. And seek an answer, from apologist or anyone else. It seems David B.'s comments presume you can't get ancient text scholarship except from edgy apologists. I don't understand why that would be.

[_Chap]

Do you think that applies to all denominations? I have a hard time making it work for, say, Roman Catholics, who have had a formally trained ministry for quite a while. For reasons that I can't yet set out, I think it might work better for Protestants. Has it, on the whole, been priests who have been subversive of Roman Catholic belief over the last hundred and fifty years?

The US Catholic Church has been in a dramatic decline since 1960. Only immigration from Latin America has kept it from total collapse. There are various reasons for this decline, but most of them have their roots in Vatican II, a Church Council in which an educated clergy tried to bring the Church into the twentieth century. ...

But the Roman Catholic church had a trained, and indeed 'educated' clergy long, long before the 1960s. I have no horse in this race, but I think some Catholics might object to your use of a value-concealing temporal expression in referring to the changes introduced by Vatican II. Yes, I know a Pope started it ...

I wonder if Finke and Starke controlled for the effect of non-vocational higher education in general, as opposed to specifically theological higher education?

What do you mean by non-vocational?

Not dentistry, or computer science, for instance. More generally, humanistic subjects that most people who take them never apply directly in earning a living - such as philosophy, history, literature and so on.

[_lulu]

I have no horse in this race, but I think some Catholics might object to your use of a value-concealing temporal expression in referring to the changes introduced by Vatican II.

From what I've picked up from secondary sources, this is Finke & Stark's conclusion. Vatican II was an intelectual movement that did not resonate with the US Catholic in the pew.

If I'd bought a Kindle, I'd have downloaded the book by now.

[_RayAgostini]

Yes. I am asking. And seek an answer, from apologist or anyone else. It seems David B.'s comments presume you can't get ancient text scholarship except from edgy apologists. I don't understand why that would be.

I'm not sure that was David's argument, to start with. But as to why there should be reservations about, for want of a better phrase, "ultimate authority" biblical scholarship - the be all and end all, I think Bill Hamblin gives good reasons:

Here I part company with David a bit. I don't think there should be any required "orthodoxy" regarding documentary hypothesis or New Testament higher criticism. While I understand them, I am not a true believer in any particular theory. I'm an agnostic on these theories. (Historians in general tend to be very skeptical of such literary theories, especially since there is no empirical evidence for any of them, as with most biblical theories.) On the other hand, I think anyone who wants to do biblical scholarship needs to understand them. (The paradox here is that I'm much more skeptical about biblical critical theory than the biblical critics themselves, who claim skepticism while parroting the current orthodoxy.)

I also distinguish between historical-critical methods--which are universal in all historical-related fields--and critical theories, such as the documentary hypothesis. The DH is one critical theory of the Old Testament derived from the use of historical-critical method, but it is by no means actually demonstrable. It makes sense of a lot of characteristics of the Old Testament, but by no means makes sense of everything. Furthermore, I suspect the reality is far more complicated than biblical scholars have guessed. Furthermore, given the nature of the sociology of knowledge in the modern academy, contemporary theories such as JEDP are due for a major shake-up. (One does not get tenure by agreeing with the scholars of past generations.) (It is interesting to note that the self-description of the editorializers of the Book of Mormon reflect precisely the type of editing that is often posited to have occurred in the Bible. That ancient scripture went through a complex editorial process as found in the Book of Mormon is consistent with modern theory, but radically inconsistent with biblical theory of the early 19th century.)

Another thing to note is that there is a wide range of opinions and interpretations of current biblical theory. There is simply not a consensus among scholars. Which sections were put in by which editor, what is the date of the editors, etc. are all widely debated. Look at the minimalist controversies if you want to see some of the fissure lines.

Finally, I'm not sure if the documentary hypothesis, etc. is really of much value to the ordinary student who is not majoring in a ANE related field. I've looked at textbooks on the Old Testament, for example, that spend over 50% of their time talking about the various theories of the Old Testament, instead of actually reading the text. It's really quite amazing. What is important to me is the text and its meaning, not whether a particular verse was added by a redactor, or if J dates from the ninth century or is post-exilic. I've been to many sessions in the Society for Biblical Literature which are devoted entirely to arguing about theories of the text, rather than actually reading the text.

[_CaliforniaKid]

But the Roman Catholic church had a trained, and indeed 'educated' clergy long, long before the 1960s.

That's true, but until Vatican II the church's day-to-day governance was largely in the hands of (uneducated) lay religious. The erosion of this administrative force decidedly shifted the balance of church governance to the seminary-educated clergy. Not that I'm saying this is the only factor; there were others. I highly recommend Finke/Stark's chapter on Catholic decline. But I don't think think Catholicism entirely bucks the trend.

On the subject of bucking the trend through lay religious movements, it's actually quite interesting that the Catholic Church has survived as a major world religion for as long as it has. Most churches undergo major liberalization and decline long before they can achieve such dominance. Of course, some of that is due to the monopoly the Catholics managed to achieve over medieval Europe through force of arms. But in more recent history, the Church's vitality has been largely due to its unique solution to the breakaway-sect problem. Rather than simply telling the sectarians not to let the door hit them on their way out, as most other churches do, the Catholic Church since about the twelfth century has been absorbing them as lay sub-sects of the larger Church. So even though the hierarchical church itself isn't all that healthy, these absorbed lay movements have given it considerable vitality at the ground-level. 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.

I have no horse in this race, but I think some Catholics might object to your use of a value-concealing temporal expression in referring to the changes introduced by Vatican II. Yes, I know a Pope started it ...

I'm not sure what this means.

[_CaliforniaKid]

If I'd bought a Kindle, I'd have downloaded the book by now.

You can get a Kindle Reader for your PC. I don't own a Kindle, but I like the format, so I own a number of Kindle books which I read on my laptop.

[Guest]

That's true, but until Vatican II the church's day-to-day governance was largely in the hands of (uneducated) lay religious. The erosion of this administrative force decidedly shifted the balance of church governance to the seminary-educated clergy. Not that I'm saying this is the only factor; there were others. I highly recommend Finke/Stark's chapter on Catholic decline. But I don't think think Catholicism entirely bucks the trend.

Ironically, despite its ostensible support for lay leadership, Vatican II actually ended up putting the brakes on much of this anarchic vitality.

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.

As an example, for a while I was participating in Communion and Liberation. They have an annual gathering in Rimini, Italy that draws ~500K people.

I agree with you on your point about enculturation, which, has always been the approach of the Catholic Church. Christianize cultures, which allows for the culture itself to be what it is, just turn it to Christ. It is why Catholicism is so diverse. The various devotions that are specific to a culture spread as the people migrate. Catholic Italians have given Catholic Americans a great love for the Italian Saints, such as St. Francis. Which in turn has influenced American culture itself. From Protestant hymns, that have been modified by Mormons, to the Nativity scene that people put up at Christmas. Newer in the USA are the devotions to Our Lady of Guadalupe, which is growing. At the heart, we're all Catholic.