(no subject)
I have a question to pose to all you historians out there: tell me if you think this is a solid, academically objective, or even a logically consistent way to end a social history of American Catholicism:
"American Catholics are living in a period of transition. One model of church is passing away and another is coming to life. Since the new has not yet replaced the old, conflict and division are very real problems. This became clear in the fall of 1979, when the new Pope, John Paul II, visited the United States. Everywhere he went during his week-long tour - Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Des Moines, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. - enthusiastic crowds welcomed him. A charismatic individual, he had become a genuine hero whom people wanted to see and touch. But, intellectually and spiritually, he was out of touch with many Catholics. He spoke to them like a headmaster to his schoolchildren, and each visit seemed to bring forth only another set of denuciations. At the United Nations he spoke out against war, materialism, and the arms race. Many Catholics applauded that. But, at other stops along the way, the list of denunciations grew. He spoke out against divorce, birth control, abortion, the ordination of women, married clergy, and homosexuality. . . No modifications were allowed and little pastoral sensitivity permitted. John Paul II was calling Catholics back to the old church and trying to restore uniformity and control. But it would no longer work. He could utter the command, but the Papacy had lost the ability to enforce it.
"The pontificate of John Paul II, which began in 1978, coincided with a conservative swing in religion. Among Catholics, the most notable evidence for this was the official investigation of theologians suspected of unorthodox teaching, the attempted suppression of books, a renaissance of sexophobia with its accompanying denunciation of artificial birth control, the suspension of priests and nuns who held public office, and a reassertion of male supremacy and clerical control. Such actions have hardened the lines of division in the church. Traditional Catholics welcomed them, while progressive Catholics denounced them. But the ways of the past will no longer work. A new spirit is alive in American Catholicism, and the twenty-first century belongs to it. . ."
- Jay Dolan, The American Catholic Experience
Here is what I see as logically inconsistent: while Dolan claims that JPII was "out of touch" with "many" American Catholics, he still acknowledges that Catholics thronged to meet him. What does that mean? If he was so "out of touch," why did so many American Catholics welcome him so enthusiastically?
Furthermore, it drives me crazy that Dolan applauds JPII's reaffirmation of the Church's moral teachings on issues that he, Dolan, happens to approve of (i.e., teachings on pacifism and social justice), while denouncing JPII's affirmation of the Church's moral teachings on issues that he doesn't approve of (i.e., teachings on homosexuality and abortion). So he, Dolan, becomes the measure by which we judge what the Pope is entitled to condemn and not condemn? (And if he honestly believes that JPII spoke to the people like a 'headmaster to his schoolchildren,' I have to wonder if he ever actually heard JPII speak!) I know that objectivity is impossible, but someone purporting to write a social history should at least strive for it, and such an assessment scarcely seems objective.
He accuses JPII of not being 'pastorally sensitive'? Has he read any of JPII's writings?? I've heard JPII accused of a lot of things, but being pastorally insensitive has never been one of them. Unbending in upholding the Church's moral teachings, yes; pastorally insensitive, no.
JPII was calling Catholics back to the "old Church"? Where is his evidence for that? Dolan makes a fallacious logical leap when he says that, in asserting the morally problematic nature of abortion, homosexual activity, divorce, etc., the Pope was also asserting a pre-Vatican II ecclesiology of "control and uniformity." Why does saying that abortion (etc.) is wrong mean you want to impose the hierarchal ecclesiological model of absolute authority on everyone? Furthermore, why does saying that abortion (etc.) is wrong mean this, but saying that nuclear war is wrong doesn't? Again, is Dolan asserting himself as the moral standard?
The problem with religious history is that everyone who does it is a revisionist. They want their history to suit their agenda, and they'll do all kinds of ridiculous contorting to make it fit. It's a shame that Dolan ended in such a questionable and eyebrow-rasing tone, because so much of his book had really great insights and excellent scholarship. But this kind of drivel just makes me sick to my stomach.
"American Catholics are living in a period of transition. One model of church is passing away and another is coming to life. Since the new has not yet replaced the old, conflict and division are very real problems. This became clear in the fall of 1979, when the new Pope, John Paul II, visited the United States. Everywhere he went during his week-long tour - Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Des Moines, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. - enthusiastic crowds welcomed him. A charismatic individual, he had become a genuine hero whom people wanted to see and touch. But, intellectually and spiritually, he was out of touch with many Catholics. He spoke to them like a headmaster to his schoolchildren, and each visit seemed to bring forth only another set of denuciations. At the United Nations he spoke out against war, materialism, and the arms race. Many Catholics applauded that. But, at other stops along the way, the list of denunciations grew. He spoke out against divorce, birth control, abortion, the ordination of women, married clergy, and homosexuality. . . No modifications were allowed and little pastoral sensitivity permitted. John Paul II was calling Catholics back to the old church and trying to restore uniformity and control. But it would no longer work. He could utter the command, but the Papacy had lost the ability to enforce it.
"The pontificate of John Paul II, which began in 1978, coincided with a conservative swing in religion. Among Catholics, the most notable evidence for this was the official investigation of theologians suspected of unorthodox teaching, the attempted suppression of books, a renaissance of sexophobia with its accompanying denunciation of artificial birth control, the suspension of priests and nuns who held public office, and a reassertion of male supremacy and clerical control. Such actions have hardened the lines of division in the church. Traditional Catholics welcomed them, while progressive Catholics denounced them. But the ways of the past will no longer work. A new spirit is alive in American Catholicism, and the twenty-first century belongs to it. . ."
- Jay Dolan, The American Catholic Experience
Here is what I see as logically inconsistent: while Dolan claims that JPII was "out of touch" with "many" American Catholics, he still acknowledges that Catholics thronged to meet him. What does that mean? If he was so "out of touch," why did so many American Catholics welcome him so enthusiastically?
Furthermore, it drives me crazy that Dolan applauds JPII's reaffirmation of the Church's moral teachings on issues that he, Dolan, happens to approve of (i.e., teachings on pacifism and social justice), while denouncing JPII's affirmation of the Church's moral teachings on issues that he doesn't approve of (i.e., teachings on homosexuality and abortion). So he, Dolan, becomes the measure by which we judge what the Pope is entitled to condemn and not condemn? (And if he honestly believes that JPII spoke to the people like a 'headmaster to his schoolchildren,' I have to wonder if he ever actually heard JPII speak!) I know that objectivity is impossible, but someone purporting to write a social history should at least strive for it, and such an assessment scarcely seems objective.
He accuses JPII of not being 'pastorally sensitive'? Has he read any of JPII's writings?? I've heard JPII accused of a lot of things, but being pastorally insensitive has never been one of them. Unbending in upholding the Church's moral teachings, yes; pastorally insensitive, no.
JPII was calling Catholics back to the "old Church"? Where is his evidence for that? Dolan makes a fallacious logical leap when he says that, in asserting the morally problematic nature of abortion, homosexual activity, divorce, etc., the Pope was also asserting a pre-Vatican II ecclesiology of "control and uniformity." Why does saying that abortion (etc.) is wrong mean you want to impose the hierarchal ecclesiological model of absolute authority on everyone? Furthermore, why does saying that abortion (etc.) is wrong mean this, but saying that nuclear war is wrong doesn't? Again, is Dolan asserting himself as the moral standard?
The problem with religious history is that everyone who does it is a revisionist. They want their history to suit their agenda, and they'll do all kinds of ridiculous contorting to make it fit. It's a shame that Dolan ended in such a questionable and eyebrow-rasing tone, because so much of his book had really great insights and excellent scholarship. But this kind of drivel just makes me sick to my stomach.