If that is religion, to hell with it. So say I.
David Brooks disagrees. In his column today (sorry, behind TimesSelect), he argues that the most successful Catholics -- indeed, the most successful people -- are religious believers who believe as little as they have to to be part of the club. Excerpt:
On the one hand, modern Catholics have retained many of the traditional patterns of their ancestors — high marriage rates, high family stability rates, low divorce rates. Catholic investors save a lot and favor low-risk investment portfolios. On the other hand, they have also become more individualistic, more future-oriented and less bound by neighborhood and extended family. They are now much better educated than their parents or grandparents, and much better educated than their family histories would lead you to predict.
More or less successfully, the children of white, ethnic, blue-collar neighborhoods have managed to adapt the Catholic communal heritage to the dynamism of a global economy. If this country was entirely Catholic, we wouldn’t be having a big debate over stagnant wages and low social mobility. The problems would scarcely exist. Populists and various politicians can talk about the prosperity-destroying menace of immigration and foreign trade. But modern Catholics have created a hybrid culture that trumps it.
Let's see how well the Catholic faith survives in any meaningful sense in these families over the next couple of generations. There's a reason why Jesus, as well as the Hebrew prophetic tradition, warns about the corrupting power of wealth and materialism. Personally, I'd rather be Christopher Hitchens than an instrumentalist squish.
UPDATE: Mirror of Justice has posted the entire Brooks column. To clarify a misapprehension that I think my pal Victor Morton has made in the combox thread, I don't deny that religion can have socially useful effects. It's perfectly normal to point that out. It's just that Brooks seems to be prescribing what has been called, in a Jewish context, "flexidoxy" . In other words, if I'm reading him right, he encourages a consumerist-utilitarian-instrumentalist approach to religion, with the telos being not a deeper relationship to God, but material success. The ideal Brooksian Catholic, then, would be the cultural Catholic who maintains ironic detachment from the rules and rituals of his religion, except insofar as they can be assimilated into his bourgeois lifestyle. The educational manifestation of this is any number of Catholic (and Protestant) institutions which sold out their religious identity for material success.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Cleveland, you are pathetically ignorant....I suggest you read anything written by Cardinal Pell of Australia." Joseph D'Hippolito Joseph, I get the feeling that all your debating is done with kids or on the Internet--you wouldn't last long in a face to face debate with a grown-up. As to Cardinal Pell, his view of today's hysteria over global warming (a sign of the emptiness of paganism), his willingness to call a spade a spade when it cones to Islamofascisim and his courageous condemnation of homosexuality, especially in the Church, make him one of my heroes. If you think he agrees with you on any of the points you and I disagree about, you should either quote him or just apologize.
Cleveland, whether he would agree or disagree with any of my points is an open question. Nevertheless, at least Cardinal Pell recognizes the threat of Islamic totalitarianism; JPII never did. You will have to prove to me that the late pope did so, and how he did so, because the evidence to the contrary is clear. Besides, Cleveland, calling me names is nothing but camouflage for your failure or refusal to read the links I posted.
"...at least Cardinal Pell recognizes the threat of Islamic totalitarianism; JPII never did. You will have to prove to me that the late pope did so, and how he did so, because the evidence to the contrary is clear." Joseph D'Hippolito
On Sept. 26, 1989, appealing to Muslims as "brothers in faith" regarding the situation in Lebanon where Christians were suffering, JP II said: "How can we believers, sons of the merciful God, our Creator, our Guide and our Judge, remain indifferent before an entire people that is dying under our very eyes?" So, contrary to what you may believe, he was no more afraid to confront Islam's dark side than he was to confront Socialism. Joseph, that quote took me 15 seconds to find; I'll bet there are more, but your mind is made up. So be it. All I ask is that you try to see what he was trying to do. JP II's way was not your way or my way, Joseph, but it was THE ONLY WAY if you and I ever hope for peace between Islam, Christianity et al.
Someday the persecution in the Mideast and the fighting must stop. To that end, JP II used diplomacy to lessen the hardship on Mideast Christians, while never demanding that you and I refrain from using force to protect ourselves as God gave us the ability to do so legitimately. JP II could have done more than caution and ask the president to refrain from the use of force--he could have said that such force would be "unjust", but he never did because he knew his limits as a man of God v. a man of secular rule (a point certain friends of ours on this blog like to forget :-)).
JP II made religious history by becoming the first leader of the Catholic Church to set foot inside a mosque. The entire world recognized it as his way; an attempt to bring Christianity and Islam closer together and lessen the persecution. He knew that the Islamofascist fringe would consider it an outrageous act of confrontation because it was the Umayyad Mosque in the Syrian capital of Damascus--the oldest stone mosque in the world, and containing the tomb of John the Baptist.
Cleveland, first of all, let me apologize for calling you "pathetically ignorant." I was angry about something else at the time and it was grossly unfair for me to take my anger out on you. Now, to the subject at hand. One isolated quote does not a committment make. I submit that JPII made a far greater (and more passionate) committment to fighting Communism than to fighting Islamic totalitarianism. That is to be expected; JPII knew the evil of Communism up close and knew how it affected his fellow Poles. Consequently, he was uniquely qualified to fight it -- more so than any of his predecessors during the previous 50 years, some of whom had extensive diplomatic experience. But the fact that he fought valiantly against Communism does not make him a valiant champion of Islam's victims. You said that JPII tried to lessen the hardship on Middle Eastern Christians. If so, then why did he forbid discussion of their plight, according to the quote from Renzo Guolo? Moreover, how specifically did his approach lessen their hardship? If you say that it made Arab dictators less likely to take their anger out on their Christian populations, then my accusation of appeasement still stands, for that is the definition of appeasement. Cleveland, you say that I've made up my mind. Well, my research (exemplified by my links) has made it up for me, as it were. As of yet, you have not addressed any of the specific issues and challenges that those links raise. Why are you afraid to read those links?
Joseph, I did not reference your links because they were not dispositive; they merely are restatements of your opinion without even one shred of proof that JP II was unconcerned about the persecution of Christians: Link 1 contains Muslim sentiments lamenting his death. So what did you expect? Link 2 is your own article in the Jerusalem Post saying Cardinal Martino is an appeaser. Again, so what? If I told you what I think about Martino, Rod would delete it. I find the man's statements abhorrent and find it difficult to be Christian towards him. So what? He didn't speak for JP II , as you know. The link also quotes one person--Guolo--saying JP II didn't want the persecution issue discussed. (I can't remember who it was that once said to me "One isolated quote does not a commitment make.") And then, in the next breath almost, you quote the Vatican decrying the persecution as forcefully as I've ever heard. Then you say: "Yet things in Rome seem to be changing. Civilita Cattolica, the official magazine of the Vatican secretary of state, published in October an article decrying Islam's 'warlike and conquering face' throughout history and criticizing the 'perpetual discrimination' Christians face in Muslim countries."
So whose side are you on, yours or mine?
Link 3 is another of your own articles, this time in favor of anticipated policy changes in the Vatican in view of Benedict's kick az and take names history. But still no proof of JP II's disregard for persecuted Christians. (That's because your flat wrong on that point, of course.) Link 4 is again one of your own articles proving nothing in re our disagreement. But, Joseph, that was one hell of a great piece. I WISH EVERYONE ON THIS BLOG COULD READ IT! ROD, PLEASE NOTE. Link 5 is a link to many articles--I didn't want to take all the time it would have taken to find the one article you had in mind. Link 6 was a rehash of your article in link 2. Joseph, you are a very good writer and a bull dog for your (our) cause regarding persecuted Christians in the Mideast. You're just selling JP II short. When you get to heaven, you can debate it with him.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.