#270: Can Our Churches Grow?

EXCERPT: Among all the reasons why parish numbers across the country are shrinking (once we adjust for demographic shifts and integration), one central fact stands out: parish life itself has changed.

Fifty years ago, many Catholics participated mainly out of guilt, fear, obligation, or duty. Catholics feared Hellfire if they fail to comply with the church's rules and regulations. In this sense Catholicism was radically unlike Protestant churches. Protestant congregations were “voluntary associations.” Their behavior resembled many clubs, non-profit organizations, community groups and charitable societies. But Catholicism was still a “command institution,” where behavior was more like the military, or one’s place of employment, or citizenship itself -- after all, Catholics were born into Catholicism, while Protestants generally chose their church. The difference was like night and day.

All that has changed. Now guilt, fear, obligation, and duty have little hold of most Catholics' Participation. People go if they want to, not because they fear punishment for staying home. So now Catholics treat their parish more like Protestants always have -- and the attendance numbers have followed suit. Whereas Catholics used to out-attend Protestants three to one, the figures are nearly identical now. It’s not night and day anymore.

But one difference remains: Protestant churches have long experience operating as voluntary associations, so their leaders have learned about motivating members. Catholic churches have no such history. Our clergy knows that the old system doesn't work anymore, but they haven't had long to develop the new one. And no organization can thrive if leaders cannot motivate members.

What's to be done? Our church needs to find new methods for attracting and retaining members. And guess where we should look to find them?

#269: Benedict Goes Outside the Box—Part 2

EXCERPT: Beyond the “Market” Idol. A major debate is brewing among American commentators over the central question: is Benedict XVI pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist? A timely, even urgent question, with "big government" fears fueling outbursts across America. Yet the question is so badly framed, it is nearly beside the point.

Benedict is neither pro- nor anti-capitalist–just as he is neither pro- nor anti-big government. For him, both free enterprise and government are just means to an end, mere instruments of human development. Neither has absolute value. Insofar as they promote "integral human development" (IHD), they are good. Insofar as they impede IHD, they are bad.

Remember, the root of papal social encyclicals since 1891 is the "social question": Will modern market economies produce the "liberty, equality, and fraternity" we expect in modern democracies? In 21st century global language, that becomes: Can markets produce IHD on their own?

In Chapter 3 of his new encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), entitled "Fraternity, Economic Development, and Civil Society," Benedict argues that the market cannot solve all social problems unless it is "directed to the common good.” He wants justice applied "to every phase of economic activity," which will require a "spirit of gratuitousness" that recognizes all our resources as God's gifts calling us to greater charity. This requires the ethical interaction of politics; only then will economics and politics be partners in building the true solidarity he seeks:

"A person-based and community-oriented cultural process of world-wide integration that is open to transcendence."

It is difficult to imagine any U.S. politician setting such a goal!

#268: Benedict Goes Outside the Box

EXCERPT: Benedict XVI’s new social encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” ("Charity in Truth") largely confirms and updates previous Catholic social teachings, without breaking dramatic new ground. But he does so in a way that greatly surprised me.

Modern Catholic social doctrine has been largely shaped by papal encyclicals, beginning with Leo XIII’s "Rerum Novarum" ("Of New Things," 1891) and continuing with major contributions by Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John-Paul II.

Rerum Novarum launched this modern era in Catholicism's worldview by focusing the Church's attention on "the social question." This phrase, a household word among thinkers and leaders between 1870 and 1914, questioned the circumstances in which Europe’s newly-emerged working classes were laboring and living. Those raising "the social question" -- including Pope Leo XIII -- wondered why the emergence of competitive market societies (modern capitalism) had not produced the "liberty, equality, fraternity" expected of modern democracies. With Rerum Novarum, the Catholic Church joined forces with those who believed that social reforms and political intervention might be required to correct the injustices of "unbridled capitalism."

Paul VI: Prophet of Globalization. Papal encyclicals after 1891 amplified or updated Rerum Novarum, but Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio (1967) attempted a more radical project: Totally re-framing the social question in light of the new global era emerging in the 1960s due to decolonization, air transportation, mass media, and multinational corporations.

While American politics was still obsessing over tensions between capitalist West and communist East, Pope Paul was already focused on relations between the rich North and the poor South, and he re-set the social question on a new basis: development. "Development," he famously said, "is the new name for peace."

Paul did not use the term "globalization," but his vision of an emerging new world order scared off many readers, so that Populorum Progressio has languished in a neglected state, even as globalization itself has blossomed into a dominant force in our social, political, and economic lives.

Benedict's surprise move is to refocus attention squarely on Populorum Progressio, even calling it "the Rerum Novarum of our time." In effect, this conservative pope, writing in the enormous wake of John-Paul II, has ironically cast himself as the champion of Paul VI’s world vision.

#267: With a Friend Like George...

EXCERPT:First, modern Catholic Social Doctrine has depended almost exclusively on papal encyclicals for its expression. Aside from the Vatican II documents themselves and occasional pastoral letters of Bishops’ conferences, the encyclical writings have set the agenda, direction, and boundaries of Catholic Social Doctrine since 1891.

Second, these documents are seldom the work of a single mind. The popes who signed them have employed researchers, ghost writers, editors, advisers, consultants, and a host of primary and secondary sources to develop these documents. They often read like they were composed by committee because, in effect, they were.

Third, once a Pope accepts a final draft and signs it, the document becomes his. He accepts responsibility for, and ownership of, its positions and even its language. It instantly becomes a part of his permanent historical legacy. So Caritas in Veritate is now part of the legacy of Benedict XVI, just like his two previous letters.

Fourth, papal encyclicals rarely make any claim to infallibility. So a Catholic may in good faith agree or disagree with specific positions. What you may not do is claim that they do not represent papal teaching. When you disagree with anything in a papal encyclical, you are disagreeing with the pope. You have a perfect right to do this—provided you do not pretend that you are not doing it!