|
Just a year ago, when it was edited by the late Michael Kelly
(who died in Iraq in the first weeks of the war), The Atlantic
could publish an article like David Brooks' "Kicking the Secularist
Habit," a bracing challenge to the regnant media stereotypes
about religious believers and their lives.
Now, alas, The Atlantic has reverted to promoting stereotypes,
this time with an assist from someone who ought to know better
--- Father Andrew Greeley.
In the January-February Atlantic, Greeley wrote a short
piece entitled "Young Fogeys." As its subtitle put it, the
article proposed that there was an "unusual clerical divide"
in the Catholic Church in America, a divide between "young
reactionaries" and "aging radicals."
Is a man a
'reactionary' because he believes his ordination has
configured him to Christ in a unique way, or because
he believes what the Catechism teaches, or because he
believes that he was ordained to pastoral authority
rather than to the dubious office of 'facilitator'?
|
Father Greeley's data --- and Father Greeley is never without
"data" --- "reveals a striking trend: a generation of conservative
young priests is on the rise in the U.S. Church." Moreover,
Greeley wrote, "these are newly ordained men who seem in many
ways intent on restoring the pre-Vatican II Church, and who,
reversing classic generational roles, define themselves in
direct opposition to the liberal priests who came of age in
the 1960s and 1970s."
It's a sadness that Father Greeley, who's rarely been reluctant
to challenge shibboleths and myths, couldn't resist the temptation
to stereotyping here.
To begin with, Andrew Greeley is far too intelligent to
believe that those familiar, shopworn "liberal/conservative"
categories shed much light on the reality of the Catholic
Church. If priests ordained since the mid-1980s show a greater
disposition to believe that what the Catholic Church teaches
to be the truth is, in fact, true, why does that make them
"conservative"? I should have thought it made them orthodox.
Or faithful. Or honest. Perhaps even admirable.
Then there's that bit about "restoring the pre-Vatican II
Church." A man ordained in 1985, 1990 or 1995 is very unlikely
to have experienced Going My Way Catholicism --- so how can
he want to "restore" what he never knew? It's far more likely
that that man had to fight his way through to a vibrant orthodoxy
after experiencing priestly defections, liturgical oddities
and contempt for tradition.
If he was in a seminary in the early 1980s, he was probably
given a hard time by those among his "formators" who thought
his quest for authentic Catholicism a form of mental illness.
As I've encountered them, the men Greeley's Atlantic article
categorizes as "young fogies" aren't trying to "restore" something;
they're trying to build the church of the new evangelization,
in response to the invitation of Pope John Paul II.
Father Greeley retails with alarm statistics from Catholic
University's Dean Hoge, who "reports that half the newly ordained
priests he encountered believe that a priest is fundamentally
different from a layperson --- that he is literally a man
apart." Greeley then notes that "these beliefs are strikingly
at odds with those of the predominantly liberal generation
of new priests [sociologists] studied in...1970." Those who
remember that the latter generation contributed mightily to
the greatest exodus from the priesthood since the Reformation
may not be so inclined to grieve.
At
the same time, what's truly wrongheaded here is the suggestion
that young priests convinced of the distinctiveness of their
vocation are somehow out-of-sync with Vatican II. That would
come as news as to the Council fathers who, in the Council's
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, taught that the common
priesthood of all the baptized and the ministerial priesthood
"differ essentially and not only in degree" [Lumen Gentium
10].
Can that teaching about difference breed clericalism? It
can, and it has. But in many of the young priests I know,
it has led to something quite different --- a conviction that
the ordained priesthood exists to strengthen and ennoble the
laity's vocation to sanctify the world.
Is a man a "reactionary" because he believes his ordination
has configured him to Christ in a unique way, or because he
believes what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches,
or because he believes that he was ordained to pastoral authority
rather than to the dubious office of "facilitator"? Please.
Do young priests need the counsel of their more experienced
fellow-priests? Undoubtedly. But they're rather unlikely to
take it from men who dismiss them as "young fogeys."
George Weigel is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public
Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
|