A thoughtful post over at The New Beginning struck a chord with me yesterday. Papa Bear writes:
Do we "pick and choose" our tradition? Or do we have to adopt what is lived by a community, with ties to the past, some history, and kept alive by the succession of generations? Or do we just have to accept what we have received from our family and from others? It would seem that tradition only exists where it is shared and lived and passed on to one's children ...What can be done about the "ugly duckling syndrome"? What if one is born into one community but is converted to the values and ideals of another? The obvious example is of a religious conversion, but there are "secular" analogues ... Or how about Californians who reject the life of the Uhmerican megapolis and yearn for something more agrarian?
Traditionalists often make the mistake of assuming that most everyone lacks community these days. That's true in certain respects, especially when compared to earlier generations, but I think most Americans still live among others who share their values and interests and cultural assumptions. They aren't really lonely. The average person has no shortage of relatives, friends, and neighbors with whom they share a fundamental worldview.
Rather, it's we traditionalists who lack community. Or many of us do, at any rate. Apart from the members of our own households, we live and work among cultural aliens, people with whom there is no possibility of forming anything but the most superficial relationships. Some of us are fortunate enough to worship with like-minded Christians on Sundays, but we often must travel long distances to get there. Generally speaking our relatives, neighbors, co-workers, customers, employers, fellow students, teachers, fellow members of civic organizations, political allies, and even our co-religionists are dissimilar in so many important ways that we feel ourselves to be complete strangers among them. Such is the price of refusing to "go with the flow". Such is the price of holding fast to unpopular truths and daring to actually live by them. Such is the price of embracing a tradition without a community.
We have explored this question before: to what extent is tradition even possible without community? I don't know. We are in uncharted waters here. The nature of tradition is that it is lived in community. If tradition without community is possible at all, it certainly isn't possible for very long. Paradoxically, the actual communities into which most of us are born are not interested in tradition, and in many ways are hostile to it. Such communities are in the process of shedding their unwanted Christian heritage and embracing the incoherent "values" of modernity. We do owe them something, because they are ours according to the flesh, and we should maintain our ties as best we can - but we can't breathe the toxic air of these communities any longer.
What, then, are traditionalists to do?
I have always maintained that the most rational thing to do is to form new communities. But that solution is much more difficult than it sounds. Tradition-minded Christians have a healthy attachment to place, for one thing, which is good and natural and something to be cultivated. It's right to love one's place, to labor for its betterment, to contribute to its personality, and to assimilate its memories into one's own character. Furthermore, serious Christians do not break off established relationships lightly, especially those which involve familial obligations. It's important for traditionalists to be present for relatives who need them, or who may need them in the future when facing illness and death; it's important for their children to know their grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins; it's important not to disrupt their children's friendships without necessity. Finally there is the matter of economics: few are prepared to risk leaving secure employment for something untried and untested. Leaving one's familiar place, no matter how culturally or religiously hostile, goes against the grain of traditionalist sensibilities.
But Our Lord did say, "And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."(Matt 19:29) This should challenge us: are we making idols of places and people? Are not God's people our people? And besides, the point of forming new communities is to give our progeny a more permanent home in which to practice the faith of their fathers. Despite my front porch sympathies, a Christian must leave room for the kind of radical conversion that once set the world on fire. There are indeed new Christian communities forming here and there, and some people are called to "leave house and brethren" behind for the sake of building these communities.
In the short run, however, what I see happening is the emergence of non-traditional "communities" for traditionalists. To give just one example, our children are home educated by means of a classical distance-learning program with students located all over the English-speaking world. The students have classes via telephone conference and the internet, and they keep in touch with each other in various ways online. They have already made great friends in similarly isolated circumstances. Many - perhaps most - of these students will attend one of a handful of conservative Catholic colleges, where they will continue these friendships and, in some cases, meet their future spouses. Although the graduates of these colleges live all over the world, they nevertheless form a tight-knit "community" of sorts. It's not the best arrangement, and it may not be sustainable in the long run, but for the time being it is making due.
For Catholics, a final point: this crisis is upon us because of the catastrophic failure of our clergy to teach the faith, pass on the traditions of the Church, and lead with authority. Every parish should be the center of a thriving, faithful, traditional community of Catholics. But the parishes are a shambles, and almost every diocese in this country is a spiritual wasteland. Prayer and fasting may be the only remedy.
Comments (41)
I don't know how relevant this is: I have people to my house every other month to sing hymns. (Nearly all are Protestants, though occasionally if my husband has a Catholic student who is interested, he is most welcome as well.) Most are home schooling families in the area. In December we go Christmas caroling in my immediate neighborhood--just to a handful of houses including my next-door neighbors, neighbors just across the street, etc. I always check ahead of time to try to find houses that will welcome being caroled to. Just occasionally we've gone to a house on impulse without calling ahead of time, but usually we have enough to sing to until we're cold and ready to go inside from people with whom I've checked.
The yearly caroling party combines both an intentional community based on shared values and interests (the carolers) and the immediate community of my own physical neighborhood (the carol-ees). It seems to work pretty well. A few of the carol-ees over the years have been people who, I know, would be uncomfortable hanging out with the carolers for any sustained period of time, but they like being sung to. I like to think it contributes color to the block.
Posted by Lydia | November 18, 2011 10:03 PM
Lydia, I think it's highly relevant and a good example of the kinds of things we should be striving for. You're very fortunate. Hymn singing and Christmas caroling are venerable traditions, and the fact that you are bringing it to your neighbors could be the start of something bigger. One question to consider: will it continue after you're gone? Is there a traditional, community mechanism in place to hand this down to the next generation?
I think, too, that Protestants have it a little better in the American context. Here in my town there are several bustling Protestant churches that have both continuity with earlier generations and a high degree of community. But they, too, are withering, some flirting with liberal theology and women pastors and such. Even the staunchest of these churches have a hard time retaining the youth, attempting to lure them back with "Christian rock" and other gimmicks.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 18, 2011 11:32 PM
Honestly, how hyperbolic are you being? Is it that bad?
Posted by Daniel | November 18, 2011 11:49 PM
Not hyperbolic in the least, I assure you.
Yes, it's that bad.
Exhibit A from today's news: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/11/crisis-what-crisis.html
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 18, 2011 11:55 PM
As an aside...
Tonight I went to see a musical at a local university performed by students. I don't know if I'm becoming a prude or if the culture really is decaying that badly, but I was uncomfortable by how many (15-20+) crude references and gestures they made. I don't remember the original being like that (and even heard people behind me say as much), and I wonder why they felt it necessary to add things so base. Did they thing audiences would react positively? Also, I wish I could see inter-generational data on how pornography has spread and influenced the public culture.
Also, how not to be branded as a killjoy for mentioning the possibility of "cultural decay?" Or worse, critiquing culture publicly? Have you heard of the TV show Dexter?
Posted by Daniel | November 18, 2011 11:57 PM
Daniel, I know exactly what you mean about the musical and have had many similar experiences myself. We got rid of television 15 years ago for this reason. There's precious little in the way of contemporary entertainment that has any redeeming value.
I've never heard of the television show "Dexter", but as for being branded a killjoy, please don't let that silence you! The reason they get away with this garbage is that not enough people say anything.
But of course it's never enough just to complain. Pursue the true, the good, and the beautiful in life, as I believe you are doing already, and it will be a scandal to the world.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 19, 2011 12:05 AM
To cultivate something, you have to define it first, so you've got an idea where to head for; to steal from a recent PJ Trifecta episode, when you look at the desert, what is the garden in your mind?
I'm not sure if popular culture is getting cruder in the "more obscene" sense, or just cruder in the "more obvious to even me" sense. The things my parents can convey are not different from the things my classmates say in profanity-laced screeds, just less obvious.
Posted by Foxfier | November 19, 2011 1:56 AM
No, this all sounds right. It is only the traditional and decent people who are alienated and have no community or sense of belonging in our culture. For example, the SWPLs and the gawker.com crowds are doing just fine. The SWPLs can get together in any city in America and get hammered on Pabst blue ribbon, say filthy ugly things about uneducated whites, watch Wes Anderson films, eat ethnic food, and argue passionately about whether the punk rock movement begins with iggy pop or the sex pistols. The gawker crowd can lol and omg over on youtube about the latest lady gaga viral win between random hookups and clubhops. The possibilities for shared value and meaning in modern America are endless.
The problem isn't a lack of shared values. It's that our shared values are in a free-fall. The culture is now dominated by the lowest common denominators. There are days when I just want to go live in a double wide in Montana and wait for the whole thing to come crashing down.
Posted by Untenured | November 19, 2011 1:11 PM
I'm afraid there's _not_ a mechanism for continuing the tradition after I'm gone, Jeff. The casual nature of it, I suppose, precludes that, as does that fact that none of the other carolers lives in my immediate neighborhood. (Though I suppose if I were gone some family might start doing it in their own neighborhood.)
This is our eleventh annual caroling party coming up, though, and I can only say that I plan to stick around for a while. I'll do my best to _be_ a tradition, or an institution, or something like that--still getting people to go caroling and sing hymns when I'm 80 years old. :-)
Untenured, just make sure that double-wide has Internet access. We'd hate not to see you around.
Posted by Lydia | November 19, 2011 3:44 PM
I think Christian traditionalists should look to religious Jews for an example of maintaining a strong tradition in an alien world. Generation after endless generation they continue to thrive. What are the keys to this success, and can they be coopted?
Also, is there something inherent in Christianity that tends to lend itself to being watered down by the mainstream?
I have only a few very vague ideas about all this, but I thought I would at least throw the questions out.
Posted by eli fironzelle | November 19, 2011 4:20 PM
One difference is the fact that Christianity is an inherently mission-oriented religion, whereas Judaism is not. This is really intrinsic to the theology of each religion. In both cases, it's a feature, not a bug. Christians can't just chop the Great Commission out of the Bible.
In the case of Christianity, however, much harm is done by the well-intentioned desire to be relevant and to change with the culture in order to reach one's own generation.
Posted by Lydia | November 19, 2011 5:19 PM
Untenured:
Yes, but those with higher standards still exist; they're just not engaged with the public culture as they once were. For example, instead of listening to one of a few local radio stations while driving (and sending an angry letter to the DJ when some norm was breached), they listen to custom programming on their iPods. In other words, they retreat to "gated communities" of culture.
Haha... Are you my long lost twin? :)
One place I find optimism: advertisers and the like can't keep pushing more and more depraved buttons. There has to be some limit, and once we breach that limit there will be some kind of tremendous, mass vomiting and a reseting of culture. How much longer can we all be obsessed with "friending" and "following" so-and-so on on Facebook and Twitter?
Posted by Daniel | November 19, 2011 5:49 PM
Lydia, our family has done similar caroling in our neighborhood. We have not managed it every year, so people don't get to assuming it will happen, which is a sine-qua-non of a custom. But even if we had done it every year, I don't think it will go anywhere. We have invested a huge amount of effort on trying to get a neighborhood watch going, and it sort of went on for a straggly year, but nothing we did really caught people's willingness to participate. Last year we put on a huge Autumn party just before Halloween, and I think we got all of 2 people added to the Watch group. People just don't really want to make the effort to turn the neighborhood into a living community.
I think the root causes of that are many, but the most critical of them are that these people don't share the same religion, nor blood, nor (usually) specific aspirations of political well-being, nor jobs. I think the only way to "solve" such a serious lack of basis for community is to intentionally begin to make neighborhoods out of people of like sense of the important things. If that means forming a brand new subdivision and instead of opening up opportunity to all, making it open only by direct invite, well so be it, I think that's probably worth the trade-offs.
Posted by Tony | November 19, 2011 6:21 PM
Probably illegal in most municipalities, unfortunately.
We have a neighborhood watch. I'm something of a free rider. I don't go to the meetings, but I do watch. :-) And I know who the "neighborhood watch guy" is and report to him anything odd that I see. He keeps the rest of us informed by e-mail. Although loose-knit, there is in this neighborhood something of a sense of pride. It's the sort of bourgeois thing that lots of people would look down on, but effective to some extent--the idea that we want to be "a nice neighborhood." We want things cleaned up, respectable, etc.
Some years ago there was some nasty graffiti sprayed on a neighbor's mailbox. We were notified by the neighborhood watch, people kept an eye out, and I believe eventually the kids responsible were indeed caught. I was talking later to the actual young man (a graduate student) who was renting the house, and I was rather shocked to find him downplay the incident. "Oh, well," he said, smiling a little, "I realize it's a big deal for ________[name of the neighborhood], but it's not such a big deal in the grand scheme of things." I heartily disagreed but don't remember if I told him so. I thought at the time, "He just doesn't get it," and attributed that to the fact that he was living here only transiently during graduate school. It's the broken window principle, really. Nasty graffiti taken lightly will be just the start.
Posted by Lydia | November 19, 2011 6:45 PM
Actually, I don't think it is. If I am a millionaire with a parcel of 1000 acres, and I lop off an acre to sell to Bob, that's legal. If I then lop off an acre to sell to Terry, that's legal too. No matter how many times it is and who I sell it to, it is not discriminatory if I am not: in business and refuse to sell to someone because they are different in race - religion - ethnicity - etc. If it's not a business to me, I can sell to anyone I like. My uncle had a farm outside of a northern city, and he carved out 4 parcels for 4 children. He could have carved off a number of additional parcels if he had wanted to, without running into any laws about it.
Posted by Tony | November 19, 2011 9:01 PM
Here is a point that I think is one of the most important of the article, Jeff:
No matter who you are, and how thoroughly self- and God-reliant you are, you need to have somewhere to fall back upon where the practices fit your perspective like a glove. Where you don't need to explain you love of X food, or Y music, or Z manner of speaking in idiom. A person can't be explaining himself ALL the time, sometimes he just needs to BE himself, where he doesn't need to have his guard up to prevent offending someone accidentally by being himself.
Naturally, this place is home. But in today's fractured world, even home can become atomized if you refuse to notice the centrifugal forces pulling it apart and counteract them with opposing effort. Therefore, no matter how innocent it is that your neighbor, your fellow worker, your parishioner and so on have customs wholly apart from yours, the sheer FACT of their being wholly apart means that you have to expend extra effort to even maintain your own customs, your traditions, your home. It is, therefore, a problem for each community, and derivatively a problem for society, that there be too many such centrifugal forces, too much plurality. Some is good, too much is damaging.
This reminds me of a thread Ed Feser posted a while back on music: too simple and unitary, and it is boring. Too complex and involved, and it is bewildering (even fails to be perceived as music at all at the extreme). What is needed is moderation and balance. Difference, but harmonizing difference. (Just to note in passing, these facts show, again - if we needed yet another reason - why a country has an absolute right to have laws and limits on immigration.)
With our diversity lauding elites, nobody wants to hear that too much diversity may run counter to fully realizing the common good. But it's true just the same. Which is not the same thing as proposing that "there ought to be a law against it." Not all ills can be cured by laws. But we can at least NOTE the problem, and have laws that permit that other forces within society be allowed to have a limiting effect on diversity.
Posted by Tony | November 19, 2011 9:30 PM
We are exiles in Babylon.
Posted by Jaz | November 19, 2011 11:23 PM
Yes, very well said, Tony. There needs to be a "home base" from which to do any kind of evangelism. We don't have that anymore. The Diocese of Sacramento with a million Catholics ought to be that "home base" for us, but instead we are served by a paltry 168 priests, 90 of whom are from other countries, and most of whom barely have a grasp of the faith themselves. We are mission territory sans the missionaries. There is no Catholic culture in this diocese anywhere except as it survives in the homes of a few scattered families.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 20, 2011 2:41 AM
Without traditions there can be no originality or deviance. The anonymity and social estrangement which seem peculiar to Western societies, are themselves forming a 'tradition of godless alienation'. In this context, Christians are considered, by the impious majority, to be deviants.
Posted by Alex | November 20, 2011 10:33 AM
As an afterthought to my previous comment: What Jeff and Tony seem to yearn for is a community that takes a religious view of civil obligation and in which public harmony is protected by the spirit of social continuity.
To realize these hopes might require the transformation of America into the kind of traditional European society that existed in the imagination of Joseph de Maistre.
Posted by Alex | November 20, 2011 11:31 AM
Alex, since I never experienced the sort of society you suggest, I can only say that if I am yearning for it, is is on account of general principles of human need rather than on account of any personal nostalgia. Further, I think the principles apply just as well to Jews, to Hindus, to Shintos and so on. Everyone needs a community where you are at home because you share common threads of common life: worship, belief, political perspective, language, food, music, and so on.
What we have here in this country is not merely the reality that traditional European culture is not shared, but that neither is there a shared Chinese culture, or Ghanian, or Mayan, or Sri Lankan...NO deeply shared culture is being participated in by the bulk of your neighbors living together. In some neighborhoods you cannot even initiate a practice of doing Christmas caroling: the Muslims and Jews will object, the Seventh Day Adventists and Puritans will take it as an insult, the Hindus don't even get the point, and so on.
Posted by Tony | November 20, 2011 12:19 PM
Just to throw my own two cents in here...
First off, someone mentioned the religious jews as an example. While they're a bit more extreme for obvious reasons, I would also suggest the Amish as a good example of a people who have some time-tested, interesting ideas about how to maintain a community.
That said, I think one problem is that Christians need to more properly embrace the new communication opportunities not only for maintaining tradition (or transplanting traditions to a new 'place', the internet). And I also think it's a mistake for Catholics (and I am one, bad one as I am) to look to their priests for tradition leadership. Some of this we have to do on our own.
And not just in a 'every year as this week or day' way. We need Christian game makers, Christian writers, Christian culture, period. And we also need to learn that Christian culture doesn't have to be the monotonous repetition of a bland Christian message over and over. I'm amazed at, at least from what I see, the fact that CS Lewis, Tolkien and others were able to create fiction suffused with Christian thought, but still fantastic - sci fi and fantasy - compared to nowadays.
Put shortly and hopefully more succinctly: tradition and culture opportunities abound. We just need to take advantage of them more. This will require thought and effort, but the opportunities are there.
Posted by Crude | November 20, 2011 5:59 PM
Granted, there is much we have to do on our own, and the failure of clergy is no excuse for the rest of us to do nothing. We generally get the kind of leaders we deserve. But it is the ministers of Christ through the Church who, by their labors and the blessing of God, make Christians in this world. You can't have Christian tradition or community without committed Christians in the first place. I am in fact surrounded by Catholics. However, most are poorly catechized (if catechized at all!) and ignorant of the basic tenets of their religion; few are morally challenged in their parishes beyond exhortations to warm fuzzies.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 21, 2011 12:10 AM
I agree that you can't have Christian tradition or community without committed Christians. On the other hand, I think there's a tendency to focus too much on catechization - very important, absolutely, but it seems to be overemphasized in these discussions. Or at least, I can't help but get the impression that people think catechization is important, and comes down to something like "knowing and committing to a list of various Church teachings, line by line".
Now, I'm the sort of guy who loves reading up on the history of the Catholic church, on contemplating Thomism, Aristotileanism, etc. And part of that is just my personal inclination, and also a belief that this is important to understand, that it adds some real intellectual and spiritual substance to my daily life and faith. I don't think most people are like this. Even a person who wants to be Catholic, who believes in God, may have trouble understanding why this kind of investment of time and mental energy is necessary. And I'd be willing to bet that if they felt pressured to learn, they'd simply get annoyed.
That's why I more and more think that an important move here is focusing on the culture. Or at least asking the question, "What options are available to us for catechizing the faithful but poorly catechized, or even introducing the basic tenets of Christianity to those who are unfamiliar with them?" And those options had better include taking advantage of modern communication, and there should at least be some glance towards producing - not engaging, producing - modern culture. It should also involve questions like, "How do we expose people to these teachings and ideas in a way that makes them want to learn more, or that makes them believe it's worth investing themselves more fully in?" I'm very worried that these kinds of conversations so often cash out to "What would be some new way to hound and aggravate Catholics who are not sufficiently Catholic?" or "What activities can the people who we already know and trust as loyal Catholics do together?"
To give one example of what I thought was a good attempt - the Manhattan Declaration group tried to get an iPhone app released. They were trying to find way to coordinate people through a very popular device. And I believe one reason this was very quickly squelched was because of a fear of how effective that could potentially be. Now, that's a far way from catechization, but you know what? It's a step in the right direction. More steps like that are necessary. Make Catholicism and Christianity accessible and presentable - and no, that doesn't mean Christian rock - and I think it will pay off.
What would you do to help people - Catholics and not - catechize themselves, or learn more about Catholicism? Here's one thing that surprises me: I can find a very active, updated wiki... for Mormons. Where's a Catholic equivalent? And access to the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an apt response.
Posted by Crude | November 21, 2011 3:27 AM
I'm a pessimist and believe that we're stuck with the social atomization and religious fissiparousness to which, it seems to me, the United States was bound to lead the way from the democratic principles on which it was founded.
Posted by Alex | November 21, 2011 3:32 AM
Alex,
But communities can be altered, and traditions can be made part of a new community. And even in the face of religious fissiparousness (hey, a new word!) common ground can be found. There are new ways to combat new challenges.
I'd agree that the old ways of binding a culture and community will no longer work. But I think there are new ways to achieve much the same thing, and that's where the focus needs to lie.
Posted by Crude | November 21, 2011 4:31 AM
What would you do to help people - Catholics and not - catechize themselves, or learn more about Catholicism? Here's one thing that surprises me: I can find a very active, updated wiki... for Mormons. Where's a Catholic equivalent? And access to the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an apt response.
Catholic.com comes to mind-- a wiki isn't really very suited for Catholicism, since it would be too easy to fill with misinformation. I LIKE the Catholic Encyclopedia, too-- even though it's as dry as dehydrated dust, and there's a jargon factor. Crowdsourcing has authenticity issues for a group as big as the Catholic Church.
The Church isn't oblivious to the need for community-- there's a very good chance that the Fish Fridays are coming back, for example. I know I've revived them in our home. The new Bishop in the Seattle area is very big on youth groups, and seems to actually be watching the basic religious education too. (Pet peeve of mine, since I have STILL never seen an on-dead-tree Catechism.)
Posted by Foxfier | November 21, 2011 11:08 AM
Youth groups, while possibly good for some homeschoolers, are otherwise highly detrimental to the community life of a parish. Most young people already have far too much time among their peers: they need family time, exposure to adults of all ages, more participation in the greater community.
A word of advice: keep LifeTeen far away from your parish if you can. Not only will the young people disappear from ordinary parish life, but LifeTeen will suck a fair number of adults into a state of permanent adolescence.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 21, 2011 11:30 AM
I don't know, teach my own children? Publish a couple of prayer books? Write for blogs? I think I've got a pretty thorough sidebar at Stony Creek Digest.
But you're missing the point. Teaching and evangelism are primarily the responsibilities of the hierarchy: that's just the nature of things. The laity can help but it can't replace an indifferent and ineffective clergy.
Let me tell you a story that illustrates the problem. I was once asked by a colleague at work, with whom I had been having discussions about religion, how to "get involved" in the Catholic Faith. Overjoyed, I gave him the number of a priest of F.S.S.P. and suggested that he make an appointment. Instead, the young man called his local parish, run by liberal Franciscans and known to be a hotbed of dissent and homosexual activism. How do laymen evangelize when they can't even direct prospective converts to their local parishes? I could tell you many more such stories. The nice lady who sold us the ranch was a convert to Catholicism and attended the parish here in town. I asked her when she had been confirmed, and she responded that she didn't think she had, and "what is confirmation anyway?" I go to confession to Novus Ordo priests and they routinely forget to assign a penance. Etc. I think I had better stop before I say something I regret. But you get the point. We're Catholics, we have an hierarchical Church: not much is going to change on the ground until the hierarchy decides it wants to be Catholic too.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 21, 2011 11:53 AM
Related food for thought:
Posted by Mike T | November 21, 2011 12:25 PM
Jeff,
No, Catholics absolutely cannot replace the clergy as clergy. But they absolutely can in large part replace the clergy as far as evangelism goes, and to a large degree even as teaching goes.
I sympathize with a lot of what you say, really. And I'd agree that what is needed is an overhaul of the Catholic clergy and institution as well. I simply think far more can be done than is being admitted to here.
That's a nice start. But surely there's more? Let me make clear: I'm not saying 'You, Jeff Culbreath, personally have to do more.' I'm saying, let's at least think of some ways to act, some avenues to explore. Let's see what options are available, even given things being in the state they are. How do you expand this culture you speak of? How do you make people more aware of it? How do you communicate it, particularly in this modern age?
Foxfier,
Clearly you couldn't just make an open wiki like the wikipedia and not expect it to be attacked. But think about it for a moment. How did mormons pull it off? Their faith isn't exactly monolithic. It's not as if the faith doesn't have quite a lot of detractors either. You can crowdsource while picking and choosing your crowd.
I like the Catholic Encyclopedia too. Just as I like Aquinas and Aristotle. But not everyone is like me. In fact, I'm pretty odd. We want to expand these traditional communities, don't we? We want to change the culture, surely? Then let's think in such terms. Let's not only identify problems, but start to think about how to solve those problems.
Posted by Crude | November 21, 2011 3:30 PM
Youth groups, while possibly good for some homeschoolers, are otherwise highly detrimental to the community life of a parish. Most young people already have far too much time among their peers: they need family time, exposure to adults of all ages, more participation in the greater community.
I doubt you'll find many 17 year olds who think a nine year old is their "peer." It's not a cure-all, it's an additional social option with education worked into it.
Clearly you couldn't just make an open wiki like the wikipedia and not expect it to be attacked. But think about it for a moment. How did mormons pull it off? Their faith isn't exactly monolithic. It's not as if the faith doesn't have quite a lot of detractors either. You can crowdsource while picking and choosing your crowd.
So, basically the Catholic Answers site...which already exists. And the huge collection of Catholic blogs-- Creative Minority Report, Jimmy Akin's site, The American Catholic, etc-- if you're going to insist that it not be "professional."
Posted by Foxfier | November 21, 2011 3:41 PM
Foxfier,
So, basically the Catholic Answers site...which already exists. And the huge collection of Catholic blogs-- Creative Minority Report, Jimmy Akin's site, The American Catholic, etc-- if you're going to insist that it not be "professional."
I was pretty active on the Catholic Answers forums for years, and I actually think it's a pretty good site in some ways. I'm also aware of a number of very great Catholic blogs - Mark Shea's, Ed Feser's, Jimmy Akin's, and a few more.
But no, I don't think this is "basically" the Catholic Answers site, unless you took what I said to mean "some, any kind of Catholic presence on the internet". Clearly that exists, from ewtn.com to newadvent.org (a personal favorite) to otherwise. The wiki was an example of something that would be effective but that does seem noticeably lacking. I mentioned the Manhattan Declaration iPhone attempts. I still think the wiki stands as a project suspiciously lacking for Catholics. I mean even the Orthodox have one.
Again, I'm not saying I have the solution to all the woes of traditional Catholics here. I'm suggesting ways to think about and approach these questions.
Posted by Crude | November 21, 2011 5:04 PM
Actually, I just found out that there apparently is a Catholic Wiki, so that's good! I can't attest to the quality of it, but it's out there. And I think something like that is an example of a great step towards changing the culture and building a community. Obviously it's nowhere near a sufficient step, but a step is a step.
Posted by Crude | November 21, 2011 5:06 PM
I posted a comment from a hotel lobby, and after submitting it a screen said it'd be held by an editor for review. Maybe it got lost in the inter-tubes? Dern...
Posted by Daniel | November 21, 2011 10:10 PM
Whoops, I just saw the comment below about the blog system holding comments. I need to be patient (but these discussions are just so exciting!). ;)
Me too. :)
Posted by Daniel | November 21, 2011 10:13 PM
Crude-
Effective at what? Giving information in an accessible way? Being a reliable reference source? Why, exactly, do you think that something must be in wiki format? (Remember that Wikipedia is simply a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, which has the goal of collecting information that is scattered widely from various sources; the Church, obviously, doesn't have that problem.)
But no, I don't think this is "basically" the Catholic Answers site, unless you took what I said to mean "some, any kind of Catholic presence on the internet".
Talk about faint praise...they have Q&A lists, longer explanations, link to the Catholic encyclopedia, have a selection of audio and video on various topics, have a collection of articles you can search, all from known orthodox sources, and if you want something other than the approved sources that you yourself suggested, there's the forums.
If you can't stand the Catholic Answers (original) encyclopedia, why not this (updated) one?
Posted by Foxfier | November 21, 2011 10:16 PM
Daniel, for some reason your comment ended up in the junk folder. Don't have any idea why. Anyway, you'll find it way upthread. Apologies!
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 21, 2011 10:17 PM
Foxfier,
As far as a wiki goes, providing information in an organized, accessible way, with the added goal of it being (ideally) constantly maintained to meet a variety of goals. Readability, clarity, etc.
Heh. Where did I say that something "must be in wiki format"? I listed it as one example of a way to better communicate (traditional) Catholicism, something that seemed at the time to be curiously lacking, and at least tried to imply that such a thing could be made a part of modern Catholic culture and even, perhaps - in some admittedly new way - tradition. I'm certainly not taking the tack here of "the reason it's hard to develop and protect Catholic traditions is we don't have a wiki".
First off, this isn't about me personally not being able to stand something. I already referenced Newadvent as a personal favorite. Truth be told, I enjoy reading the Catholic Encylopedia - heck, I'm lately getting the urge to dive into some Duns Scotus. I fully support these things and think it's great that we have them. I simply don't think they're sufficient, and I do think Catholics - particularly traditionalist Catholics - should be focusing on new ways to communicate and organize, and that this will also assist with the greater (in this thread) project of defending traditions, and developing communities.
What's your view on this? Do you think that everything on the communication and organization front is fine and no changes or innovations are needed or in need of discussing?
Posted by Crude | November 22, 2011 6:06 AM
What's your view on this? Do you think that everything on the communication and organization front is fine and no changes or innovations are needed or in need of discussing?
Changing the subject and false choice-- you keep talking about a lack of a Catholic wiki, thus I took you at your word and wanted to know why it had to be a wiki, given the weaknesses of that format.
Since you clarified to wanting something "organized, accessible...(ideally) constantly maintained... (towards the goals of) readability, clarity..." the question then becomes "what's wrong with Catholic Answers site?" (As well as the various other places-- blogs for more in-depth questions, perhaps.) Good heavens, one of my peeves with catholic.com is that they mickey mouse it!
(obviously, not going to reply for a while after this--- happy Thanksgiving, all!)
Posted by Foxfier | November 23, 2011 5:16 PM
foxfier,
I'll see your tense accusations and raise you "utter apathy".
Really, relax. You're coming across as wanting desperately to debate me or prove me wrong, despite my not really advocating much beyond brainstorming ways to better communicate traditional Catholicism, and to help add to and change modern culture, particularly online.
No, I brought up the apparent lack of a wiki as a potential example of one area that could be worked on, and defended why I thought it would be a good point of focus. You seem downright offended by the very suggestion for some reason, so I asked - alright, what areas do you think are open to improvement? How would you change or add to the task of communicating Catholicism or Catholic cuture? Or would you not change/add anything?
Drop wiki-talk altogether if you wish - as I said, even if it's a valid route for Catholics to focus on, it's not sufficient and there's plenty more that could or should or must be done. Or maybe not, in your view.
Posted by Crude | November 23, 2011 6:31 PM