A myth?

Joe Feuerherd on some "myths":

There is indeed "something else going on in our nation," and that, according to some Catholic writers is a revitalized "orthodoxy" among the Catholic young. Papal biographer George Weigel says they are at the forefront of an "authentic Catholic renewal" and author Colleen Carroll (The New Faithful) writes that "orthodoxy's appeal seems to be growing among young adults who have a disproportionate amount of cultural influence -- those who set trends and lead others in academic, artistic, and political circles."

A case of wishful thinking? At a Feb. 18 presentation on "Commitments and Concerns of Young Adult Catholics," Catholic University of America sociologist Dean Hoge painted a picture of 18-to-39-year-old American Catholics that shattered the myth of growing conservatism among this group. Not surprisingly, perhaps, only 22 percent of this age group agreed that it is "always morally wrong" to "engage in premarital sex," though nearly two-thirds of their elders (63 and older) said so. Only 10 percent of younger Catholics agreed that artificial birth control is always wrong. But even outside temptations of the flesh (opportunities for which are presumably greater among the younger population), the overwhelming majority (80 percent) of the generation called to lead this "authentic Catholic renewal" agreed that "individuals should seek out religious truth for themselves and not automatically conform to the doctrines of any church." Eighty-eight percent said, "if you believe in God, it doesn't really matter which religion you belong to." Most didn't even know the Second Vatican Council took place, much less what it taught.

Anyone who's taught in a Catholic high school or religious ed program will greet such findings with a yawn. So? What else is new? One year with my seniors, I asked how many thought pre-marital sex was wrong. None of them did. Every once in a while, on a Monday, I would poll them on their Mass-attending habits. I'd poll freshmen and seniors both. Most of the (Catholic) freshmen had been to Mass the previous weekend. Maybe 25% of the (Catholic)seniors had.

However, what I think is being missed here is Weigel's and Carroll's (and Tim Drake's) real points, which is not that Catholic youth as a whole are slouching towards orthodoxy or conservatism, but that that's where the Catholic action is. That's where the energy is. The groups and movements of young Catholics that are growing and active are, for the most part, those that integrate a more holistic vision of Catholicism - by that I mean not one obssessed with "the Spirit of Vatican II," but that is more interested in the spirit and richness of the entirety of Catholicism from the Gospel on up to JPII, and doing that very serious dance of engaging the culture even as they question it and refuse to be co-opted by it. They're involved in the most interesting and energetic apostolates. They're doing the most successful and popular speaking. They're doing the most engaging writing. In ten years, they'll be the ones setting the agenda, I have no doubt.

Comments

[Todd]

Maybe. Or maybe not.

It's wishful for adults to think youth are following in their footsteps, but I simply can't see thirty-something energetics taking Weigel's place in 2015. I suspect the older crowd of neocons will find their positions dear enough to hold on for a good long time. It was that way twenty years ago, and I don't think human nature has changed that much.

I disagree with your sense that Vatican II progressives have dropped the ball on pre-1965 Catholicism. I was a spectator until the early 80's, and by that time a lot of people on both sides of the divide had an impressive resume of screw-ups. Without Vatican II, conservative Catholics would have had nowhere near the voice they have today. I welcome the input of Carroll, EWTN, and others to the point it is but one way of expressing Catholicism, not the only, not necessarily the best, but certainly part of the whole.

The people who have the most depth to their faith life will always have more energy, more vibrancy, and will atract others who want to know why. Post-conciliar days were no desert for people who found substance in the Bible, the Patristics, monasticism, the mystics, the authors, etc.. Most "Spirit V2" Catholics I know aren't recognizable leaders in the sense of the public sphere, writing or speaking, but their role is no less substantial because they don't enjoy a bully pulpit.

I think there's more energy in the local parishes that are doing good work, especially in charity and liturgical ministries. Speakers come and go -- literally. And a good book is eventually read. But for the US, the parish will be the engine that drives the Church, and I think Feuerherd might indeed be exposing a soft underbelly in a popular line of thinking.

[r o]

That even 10% of younger Catholics think contraception is always wrong is surprising to me, although I'm a 26-year-old Catholic who thinks it. When I was in a Catholic girls' high school of the Brooklyn diocese from 1991-94, my impression was that the typical student (at least among the well-behaved, mostly honor roll types I knew) went to Mass on every day of obligation, planned to remain a virgin until marriage, and utterly disregarded the teaching on contraception. I'm not in touch with enough of them to know what has happened in their lives over the past decade re churchgoing and sex.

[joe]

amy is spot on here.

[joe]

amy is spot on here.

[Clark]

I think you are right on Amy.

Todd is way off.

Also, I am not sure the parish is where the action is going to be in the future. I hope parishes can become centers from which authentic cultural and spiritual renewal occur but it is not clear to me that this will be the case.

Todd writes, "I simply can't see thirty-something energetics taking Weigel's place in 2015." What about the hundreds of young Catholics Weigel has taught every summer in Poland for the last 10+ years.

What is certainly the case is that those of my generation (I am 27) who take their faith seriously (and I am purposely eschewing the labels of orthodoxy and conservatism), will not be taking up the mantle of the National Catholic Reporter and US Catholic and other tired and hackneyed approaches to Catholicism. There is nothing intellectually vibrant about them.

And I don't think Weigel thinks these young people are necessarily neocons. He thinks they are young people who have become intoxicated with the Gospel of Christ, who are sick and tired of a mansy-pansy Catholicism whose first step is to question so much of the democracy of the dead, tradition. I think he would point equally to the young folks at Notre Dame who have followed Father Michael Baxter and his radical vision of following Christ as he would to those who have taken a more neocon approach.

Who are my generation's Sister Joan Chittisters, Father McBriens, etc. They aren't around. But there are many young people who are seeking to take up the mantle of folks like my friend Sister Prudence Allen RSM (http://www.stfx.ca/pinstitutes/ccls/2002-2003.html), JPII, George Weigel, Michael Baxter, etc.

It is also isn't a question of one brand or version of Catholicism. EWTN v. NCR. It is a question of Catholicism lived in its fullness and richness and half-baked versions that have the attractiveness of a tapeworm.

[Donald R. McClarey]

I would not draw too many conclusions from loose morality among the very young when it comes to later religious attitudes. One can imagine the type of answers that Saint Francis would have given in his playboy days before his encounter with a talking crucifix. When they are ready most of the young, especially after parenthood, will follow Mother Church.

[Jim]

And what is the Church in the U.S. doing to pass on its great treasure of tradition to the next generation?

Its parochial school systems are a shambles and schools are closing at a record rate. Its high schools have become, in effect, private academies with so many non-practicing (but affluent) students that the faith is presented in a lukewarm, dumbed-down version so as not to really offend anyone. And the majority of students don't go to Catholic schools and are subjected to a religious education program that is "taught" usually by poorly trained and generally uninformed catechists.

And the notion of "vocation" is still mostly reserved to vocations to the presthood and religious life, while we consign the rest of our children to a guidance counseling system that emphasizes how to get the best paying job, instead of encouraging young people to find a life's work that is compatible with the gifts that God has given them.

Some of our young people have figured all of this out and have found the right path on their own, but why are we making it so difficult?

[Jay Anderson]

Oh, the wishful thinking the progressive dissident types must resort to engaging in to help themselves sleep at night.

[messy]

Where are all these young, devoted Catholics? I'm dying to meet them! They weren't in any of the parishes I attended in Pittsburgh or Baton Rouge or New Orleans or--aside from Notre Dame, a pretty special case--in South Bend. I went to the Rite of Election in the Archdiocese of Chicago a few weeks ago and didn't find them there either, though I did see about 1500 Latin-Americans. I have seen a lot more curiosity about Catholicism from people my age (I'm 28), but I've had trouble finding my peer group in an actual PARISH.

[Sara]

Oh, Dean Hoge is a precious man! And I'm sad to say, Jay, that his is not the wishful thinking. I have read Carroll's book... and when I realized that I personally knew at least 2 or 3 of the people she interviewed I realized it wasn't exactly a representative sample. Which isn't to say it's without value, it just means that you take it for what it is. Let's face it, there's a reason it's a "narrow road" and many DO take the broader one. This is true with older Catholics and it is true for younger Catholics. It is not a cause for despair or unrealistic hopes. It's a chance to keep working for young adults and teens to help them choose the narrow road.

In his class last year, Hoge made an effort to get to know each of us personally. He was floored by the fact that 2 out of his 10 students were orthodox, reject premarital sex, contraception, etc. (one out of 5 ain't bad!) He was a reader on my thesis on the theology of the body in light of the social sciences. He, like most of our culture, sees the numbers (which are real) and thinks that because people don't do it, it must not be true. It is sad... he has been tricked by our culture. we have to pray for people like him. When faced with the ToB, he would just say, "people can't do it". It's a very Protestant thought, "we've fallen and we can't get up"...

I think it's good to have both sides-- truth does not contradict truth. It is true that there are a lot of young Catholics embracing the faith. It is also true that there are many more who don't. Thanks!

[Rich Leonardi]

Well done, Amy. Anything short of a majority vote for orthodoxy would seem to fall short in Feuerhard's view. Todd is, as someone else pointed out, way off. What you won't hear in cooperator circles, book clubs, and Familia meetings are "nuanced" views of the historicity of the Gospel, discussions of the "inevitability" of women's ordination, "ecumenism" used as a trump card to stifle discussion of apologetics, and tsk, tsk'ing about "warm bodies in cassocks" teaching about human sexuality. Which is why the new orthodoxy makes the Todds of the Church still hanging-on in increasingly empty parish basements nervous.

[Todd]

" ... young people who have become intoxicated with the Gospel of Christ, who are sick and tired of a mansy-pansy Catholicism ..."

A fragment like this takes me back to the 80's. And I'm sure reformers felt this way the decade and a half before. My elderly friends from the social justice circles of the 30's and 40's felt the same way. You can probably go back to the Desert Fathers, too.

I am glad to read some St Bloggers think an oversexed society and poor catechesis can be so vigorously overcome. I'll keep that in mind the next time I chime in on a contraception-is-the-root-of-all-evil thread.

[Tom]

It's wishful for adults to think youth are following in their footsteps, but I simply can't see thirty-something energetics taking Weigel's place in 2015.

I should hope not! One George Weigel is plenty.

But I suspect there's more thesis/antithesis/synthesis going on than older observers might credit. The distinctions that searingly define the sides in one generation are often not as important to the next generation. The orthopraxy of twentysomethings is unlikely to be identical to that of fortysomethings.

Even the kids today (by which I mean those under thirty-five) who have abandoned all hope in everything contemporary and are attempting to return to the purity of 1950 (or 1550, or 1250) aren't, strictly speaking, returning to anything; they are adding something new to the lived experience of Catholics in the 21st Century as much as any enthusiastic young NCR intern (assuming there are any).

Still, Joe Feuerherd seems to utterly miss Colleen Carroll's point. You can't rebut a claim about "those who set trends and lead others" by quoting from a general survey of "18-to-39-year-old American Catholics." I think it's a safe bet that people who don't "even know the Second Vatican Council took place" are not going to be setting many enduring trends within the Church in the United States.

[Fr. Matthew K]

Completely agree with you Amy. Whenever the libs trot out the surveys, you know they are getting desperate. A more pertinent survey would be to look at the Catholic blogs, to see about those who care enough to write about their faith. I'd guess orthodox blogs outnumber "progressive Catholics" by at least ten to one. Look at the newest priests and sisters - they will provide leadership for the next generation.

[B Knotts]

I think there is also a basic cultural/behavioral point to consider: the younger generation tends, to some extent, to rebel against the establishment.

The NCR/feminist/dissenter crowd are the establishment.

[Thomas]

This is a tough one to put your finger on.

I did everything wrong in my 20s. Now 35, reverted to the faith about 8 years ago, first confession in 15 years when I turned 30.

I would preface the statement "Catholic youth are more orthodox" with the statement "Of those who regularly attend Mass and the Sacraments..."

That said, I see a direct connection between younger people - do I still qualify as 'young' ;) - who attend Mass, confession, married in the Church, and orthodoxy. Those friends and others I know who do not, aren't so orthodox. In no way am I suggesting they're bad people, just that their notions of what the Christ and His Church teaches and their personal viewpoints need a little reconciling.

I'm not sure if it's the overwhelming tide of our secular [largely evil] culture, or the lack of proper instruction, or both probably. But by the grace of God all it takes is somehow, a connection is made whereby a young person can point to the Church and say "This is Truth, this is important, what our culture teaches is nonsense and evil." and the conversion happens. I believe only God can make that connection for them. We laity and our Religious can help tremendously, but in the end, the individual has to make that determination on their own.

[Kate P]

I'm curious about the margins of error for these surveys, and the sampling areas. In general, I'm kinda split down the middle on my opinion. I'm a 29 yo orthodox Roman Catholic, went 2 years to an orthodox RC liberal arts college, and then 2 years to a Catholic-in-name-only university. I would say yes, there are definitely a number of religious vocations (although I noticed with the female religious life they tend to be with cloisters and I'd love to see these wonderful devout women in public ministry, maybe shake up the SSJ's that led my classmates astray in high school), but based on my experience with a Catholic young adult group in the Southeastern Penna. area, a lot of "young adults" are holding on fiercely to the "young" part and not willing to take on the responsibility/"adult" part, as in leadership roles. I wound up outgrowing the group, I think in part because of this immaturity. I'm sorry to say it got to the point where we had to beg people to run for leadership positions (yes, I did my tour of duty for a year); in my opinion, members were discouraged because a lot of childish and petty issues were invading the group--who wants to waste their time settling dumb skirmishes between individuals who should be mature enough to settle them, themselves? I know one person who resigned from his post because he was tired of spending so much time on the minutiae holding the group back from doing great things and deepening their faith and service to God. So there's immaturity, and there's frustration. For myself, I would like to make a difference in the literary world and hope to get my novels published to offer people an alternative to the new age stuff and garbage that's out there. Is that a Catholic enough goal? I hope so. I see that a number of young adult Catholics around here are attracted to good role models like the Pope and Christopher West (I'm drawing a blank on females--maybe after Amy comes down for Theology on Tap in the summer. . .) but the follow-through is lacking. Maybe some of the more seasoned members of the Church can help us out with that. Sorry to go on so long--I am concerned about the spiritual welfare of my peers! Thanks for all your encouragement :)

[Thomas]

Let me add on a positive note: I do believe, that this conversion, this moment where a young person decides to follow Christ and His Church and abandon the nonsense our society teaches is an increasing phenomenon.

[amy]

Let me emphasize one more time before the thread teeters off course - my point was that this piece was doing apples and oranges. I don't think Weigel/Carroll/Drake are saying that there's a mass movement to orthodoxy among young adult Catholics. I think they're saying that the most energetic "intentional Catholicism" being lived out is being lived out in that group by folks who would be called "orthodox." And they are the ones who I think, in the coming years, will be the leaders - they're the source of the majority of religious vocations, and so on.

But what I thought of last night after I posted, and which one commentor has mentioned, was that there's much more to leading the way in the US Catholic Church than the divides about which we speak - there's the impact of immigrant groups, which, historically, do quite a bit of agenda-setting in our church themselves. So who knows?

[Tom C]

As a 28 year-old recent convert, I thought I might add a few of my thoughts. First, at seventeen I was an atheist dope-smoking punk rocker. Now I’m a looney ultra-conservative Catholic. Go figure. People change a lot between 17 and 27, and the trend today is definitely in a more conservative direction. All of my old friends, to some degree, have shifted to the right (though not necessarily as much as me).

Second, I’d have to agree that all the energy and excitement is on the conservative side of the Church. When I first became interested in the Church, and started looking for info on the Internet, everything I found was rather traditional and conservative – Mark Shea, Amy (our host here), Catholic Answers, etc. The folks my age and younger use the Internet for everything, and what they will find is almost all solidly traditional. I did not come across a single liberal Catholic apologetics page. Now my RCIA class is a different story . . . .

I think this parallels a bigger trend in Western Civilization. The Boomers have pretty much run the show, and their ideological viewpoints mostly solidified in the 60's when all things old were discarded and all things new were embraced. But the Boomers will not be running things for much longer. Those of us who grew up in the 80's and 90's generally don’t have such a rosy opinion of personal liberation. We’ve grown up in a world confronted with the negative consequences of that attitude. We have the option of either embracing that nihilistic reality, or rejecting all of it.

For me, the Catholic Church was appealing because it was so rebellious, it was the only institution willing to thumb its nose at the spirit of the age. It was a clear alternative to the banal nihilistic world I had grown up in. And perhaps for that reason I’m more “spirit of Trent” than “spirit of Vatican II.”

[Jay Anderson]

"I did not come across a single liberal Catholic apologetics page."

So you missed the website for the National Catholic Reporter? :)

[RP Burke]

A couple of thoughts that I hope aren't flame bait.

1. ... folks who would be called "orthodox."

Actually, they call themselves "orthodox."

2. They surely are trying to assert leadership. I'm concerned about the larger group that is not claiming to be "orthodox" (and whom the "orthodox" would agree are not!). Their lack of grounding in the church -- especially the intellectually empty religious education they have received -- means they don't have the strong attachment of earlier generations. I doubt that if my daughter stops practicing her faith that she'd ever fill out the "religion" space on a survey with "Catholic -- lapsed" like so many in my parents' generation would.

3. Is the answer to this an approach that resembles, with a patina of "dynamism," the old take-it-or-fry pre-Vatican II religious education?

[John Heavrin]

RP, I think "take-it-or-fry" beats take-it-or-leave-it or take-it-for-what-its-worth or take-it-from-the-top-strum-strum-plink-plink. On this Friday in Lent, let us not forget that the "Now Frying" sign still blinks down below...Vatican II didn't reimagine the reality of personal eternal damnation, did it?

[AnotherCoward]

I can't help but respond to this. It just so happens that I've been seeking out Catholic blogs to have a semblance of on-line Catholic community - otherwise, I'm left as a dissenting voice among my Reformed friends ;) And I'm glad to have found Amy's blog as I think it will help me find that community.

My real name is Spencer. I consider myself an orthodox Catholic (this is where you all clap for me and give me hugs and stuff). I'll be 27 soon. I'm a convert of 4 years this Easter. I'm married to a wife that is without a doubt best suited for me. I'm a father of 2 boys. Up until we had the kids, we were super involved with the teens at our parish - now, with babies and toddlers, not so much :D

And there's others like me. Not a lot, but they are there. And we _*LOVE*_ our faith, just as someone said: all of it from Adam to the Gospels through today and on into tomorrow.

The biggest problem I think for us is our small number. That's something perhaps that we're left to fix. But, as with any kind of real evangelization, it is hard. It's hard for me to talk with people my own age at my own parish or in casual settings because of their blatant disregard for the teachings of our faith.

It's really hard to evangelize Catholicism because you're not simply presenting the Gospel to someone - you're presenting Church history and redefining it for people who only have heard about the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades and the Reformation. You've got to get Protestants out of Sola Scriptura: something that is increasingly possible as they begin to study and emphasize Biblical historical context (which is why I was won over). And you've got to get people back to the concept of Church: the marriage of autonomy and community. But it's only until you really enter the Church, sacrificing autonomy - that we are taught is King and absolute to who we are - for an equitable relationship between autonomy _*and*_ community, that you become Orthodox (in my humble opinion).

So, yeah, we're here... yeah, there's not a whole lot of us... yeah, we love getting involved (but sometimes can't due to other priorities). That's why I've been prowling the 'net the past few days. It's nice to have peers to encourage and build up and study with.

So, hello there for all you naysayers. I (and we) do exist and, when we can be, are super involved.

[Rich Leonardi]

Actually, they call themselves "orthodox."

And to the extent they ascribe it to themselves, it's done in the same way St. Ignatius used the word "Catholic" -- to differentiate themselves from those within the Church who deny or cast doubt on what she teaches.

[Kate P]

Cheers to the converts and reverts! (Cradle Catholics like me, glad you're still here too.)
I guess with respect to the slow increase in vocations in the U.S., it's a little like waiting for the forest to regrow after being devastated by a fire--"Grow faster, darn it!"--and think I get what Amy's saying about the exponential growth in vocations on other continents like Africa. Once after having heard an excellent priest from India speak during the Novena of Grace, I wondered, "Are there more like him they can send here?" If there could be a more equitable distribution of priests worldwide (I'm sorry if that sounds socialist, not intended), what would be so bad about that? Maybe they can "Miracle Gro" the nascent reemergence of vocations among "native" Americans. One of the marks of the Church is catholic--universal--so it crosses cultures. Truth is the same across cultures and so is God's love. I feel happy just saying that!

[John Sheridan]

At 35 I am certainly not young, but I am younger than the NCR generation. And the one thing I think may be unique about the NCR types is that they manage to be very devoted to Catholicism without believing in anything that Catholicism actually teaches. I don't think this trait will continue down the generations; I supect that it was the result of some sort of cultural connection with Catholicism that no longer exists. I think people of my generation and younger tend to make a choice. If they like women priests, gay marriage, etc., then they will leave the church--I mean what is the point of staying? They can become Episcopalian.

[Richard]

Hello amy,

Perfectly said.

[Richard]

Hello Todd,

I disagree with your sense that Vatican II progressives have dropped the ball on pre-1965 Catholicism.

Such allegations can be difficult to measure but I offer one index here: 87% of Catholic theology doctoral dissertations done over the last 20 years address 20th century thinkers.

In academia, at any rate - the few outcroppings of interest in Balthsar and ressourcement theology and a few blossoms of renewed interest in Thomism aside - it's been a virtual desert in America for patristic and medieval scholarship of late.

There are small signs the tide may be turning a little - but if so, it's through no help or interest on the part of most of the major Catholic theology departments or the CTSA, which is too busy carving out its niche as an "alternate magisterium" to be bothered with such esoteric matters.

[Mike Roesch]

In my experience, this generation is all or nothing, orthodox or apathetic. There are very very few "progressive" Catholics in my generation; the youth who disagree with the Church (and there are admittedly a lot of them) just leave. This contrasts with the previous generations who stuck around to try to change things. The ones who do stay in the Church don't come to Mass, and they certainly don't become priests. There will be no Father McBriens in this generation.

[Dennis Gairdner]

Dr. Janet Smith (*Why Humanae Vitae Was Right*) considers 4% an optimistic number for Catholics practicing NFP. If 10% of the young people support the Church's teaching that could augur a sea-change coming.

[Therese Z]

I agree with John Sheridan, that when the young embrace the faith with their heads and hearts, it's the orthodox, faithful-to-magisterium kind, very, very beautiful.

In my parish, the liturgy/music/religious ed people are all in their annoying relatistic forceful prime, wishing that they could all be priests or priestesses.

But they scorn attendance at or management of devotional activities, so it's mostly the younger people who are running and expanding Adoration, organizing talks and studies by faithful teachers and preachers, etc. They push up as the oldsters push down.

I'm caught between the two groups, but ally myself with the younger ones, since they don't think my faith life is "old-fashioned" like my mother does!

[Andrew]

Combine Church teaching, a strong faith in God, and plenty of evidence that the pill just isn't good for you [women] and NFP is a no-brainer. I'm meeting more and more couples who, even if they're shaky on their belief in Church teaching against contraception, have personal experience that the pill [being just one but the most 'popular' form of AC] is not part of a healthy long-term lifestyle. That's tipping the scales in favor of NFP, in addition to living a life trusting Christ.

[Daniel H. Conway]

And ignored by the conservative crowd is the army of faith-based post-graduate volunteers and Catholic Workers. Jesuit Volunteers, Mercy Corps (Sisters of Mercy), Maryknoll are easy examples. Almost all these folks are young.

What is it about this example of sacrifice, if only temporary, that it can be routinely ignored by Weigel, et. al?

What isn't said in conservative circles is as predictable as what is said.

[Rich Leonardi]

What is it about this example of sacrifice, if only temporary, that it can be routinely ignored by Weigel, et. al?

Mr. Conway,

In my experience, under-40 Catholics were the ones who suffered the worst of the catechetical abuses in the 70s and 80s, and we resent it. Call it "Catholic Lite" (a la Weigel) or "Christianity and water" (a la Lewis), in the end we were "robbed".

And we'll be d@mned if we're going to sit idly by and let the next generation of Catholics be schooled in an incomplete affirmation/social Gospel.

Further, if you actually read Weigel, you'll find his books are chock full of descriptions to young, active Catholics involved in apostolates and parishes. Just thumb through "Letters to a Young Catholic" the next time you're in a Barnes & Noble.

[Jen]

VERY interesting stuff. As a member of this generation (well, grew up with 70's silly RelEd) I find I trust more people my age then the nuns and priests who are 60/70 years old. Also, having working in the Church now for 15 years I have seen some great signs.

The youth I've worked with in the past5-8 years seem to be searching for the substance of our faith-don't tell me what to think,just give me the facts and let me decide. (Fortunately, if given the correct facts that will lead them to a holistic, full living of the Faith).

Even more so, we see hundreds of youth go through ministries that form them in excellence: NET Ministries, LifeTeen (let's NOT get into the whole Mass debate-their programming is rooted in the Church) and going to institutions of higher learning such as Franciscan University, Ave Maria, Christendom and such. These folks influence the next generation and are hopefully doing a good job of "echoing down" (Catechesis) the fullness of the Faith.

I know that I'm committed to this. In fact at this parish, since I've been here (this is my 2nd year at this parish) the Juniors and Seniors want a type of AP course in Theology. I'm pulling stuff from my COLLEGE courses to teach them and scholarly books, because they want to know-they are asking intelligent questions!!!

There is another resource that I'd like to get my hands on: Christian Smith's "Soul Searching: the Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers". This is a study of both Catholic and Protestant -as well as some non-Christian but religious teens. It will be interesting to see his findings. (Has anyone read it yet?)

[Sean Gallagher]

I remember working as a DRE and hearing the assumption from the pastor that young adults who were nominal Catholics would become more active when they started having children and wanting to have them baptized, etc.

I believe that that may have been true at one time.

It's not now. It is quite socially acceptable to openly and directly reject the practice of any faith in particular or all in general. Indeed, I think society is moving in the direction where it will be less and less acceptable to actually embrace the practice of a traditional Christian faith with any high degree of enthusiasm.

That doesn't mean that we can just write off the high percentage of those young adults Catholics that Feuerherd points to who embrace less of the faith than the minority that Weigel and Carroll point to. They can be evangelized. To a certain degree, I think I count myself among those who have been evangelized.

But I don't think that Joe can count on them, in their current state, to be the Church of today, let alone tomorrow. It's very easy for them to check out altogether.

[Todd]

Richard, I have no doubt your stats on PhD dissertations are accurate, but I'm not sure that very select information is contributing much to the total picture. PhD's, writers, speakers, have all been part of the Catholic culture in the past, but in an increasingly net-driven and visually stimulated society, I suspect these folks are more like the old Big 3 tv networks competing their butts off for a smaller portion of the viewers at large.

I have no doubt that a number of EWTN/Steubenville/whatever folks are out there, are under 35, and are on fire about their faith. More power to 'em. The parish is still the main place to make inroads, and books and doctoral theses just aren't going to make much of a dent in the tv/net generation.

Daniel makes an apt observation: these people continue to get volunteers without much fanfare or terribly much promotion. I know some of those very people: a minority to be sure, but not uniformly embracing the retrenchment.

[Leslie]

Richard writes above:

87% of Catholic theology doctoral dissertations done over the last 20 years address 20th century thinkers.

In academia, at any rate - the few outcroppings of interest in Balthsar and ressourcement theology and a few blossoms of renewed interest in Thomism aside - it's been a virtual desert in America for patristic and medieval scholarship of late.

There are small signs the tide may be turning a little - but if so, it's through no help or interest on the part of most of the major Catholic theology departments or the CTSA, which is too busy carving out its niche as an "alternate magisterium" to be bothered with such esoteric matters.

First, where are you getting your stats on Ph.D. dissertations?

Second, having recently defended my doctoral dissertation at Notre Dame, and finishing up my first year of full-time teaching there currently, I think I can speak on behalf of what is arguably the premiere Catholic research university in America: there is absolutely no "virtual desert in America for patristic and medieval scholarship of late." All one needs to do is remember John Cavadini, a brilliant scholar of Augustine, and Fr. Brian Daley, one of the foremost patristics scholars in the country, not to mention Blake Leyerle, whose first book is a fascinating study of John Chrysostom.

Then there are the Ph.D. students who are working with Cavadini, Daley, Leyerle et al., not least of them my friend Fr. Michael Heintz, the rector of St. Matthew Cathedral in South Bend. If you read, for instance, the Journal of Early Christian Studies, all of these people and many more are represented.

And I haven't even mentioned the Medieval Institute at Notre Dame, which trains some of the brightest young scholars I've ever seen.

Look around. Read the journals. There is no "desert" in patristic and medieval studies, particularly in academia.

Sorry to get off-topic from the thread. It's just hard to let misleading information go unchecked, and the repeated canard that "Catholic university theology departments don't give a d*** about Catholicism anymore" becomes really grating after a while.

[Charles A.]

The Tradition has completely unravelled. All that's left are Personal Stories of Hunger for Orthodoxy ... and Orthodoxy that fades with every passing year.

[ajb]

Amy:
I don't think Weigel's point was necessarily missed. Rather, the point of the article seems to be that although most energetically "orthodox" Catholics are among the young, they remain a distinct minority even within their own age group.
Even if the next generation of Church leaders are among this 10-20% of young Catholics, will the other 80-90% be following?

[BA]

Leslie:

I second your comments, though I admittedly have less credentials than you. As one who reads theology as a layman, though, I can tell you that not every one who does a dissertation on a "twentieth-century" theologian is therefore "with the revolution." I know theologians interested in "twentieth-century" guys, but not necessarily sympathetic to everything they stand for. Indeed, those very people can often show just how brilliant the patristics and medieval theologians were for anticipating the "problems" the twentieth-century thinkers often mistakenly believe they have worried into existence.

[Todd]

And it's also possible that the 20th was the first century in at least four, or even fifteen that produced theological minds worth studying to such a degree. Certainly liturgists have gone back to the early centuries. That's what's gotten us into so much trouble in some circles: having the audacity to wonder if the Patristics got it better than Trent. I never did a doctoral dissertation, but my Master's thesis was full of John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and a few others of early note. Leslie's got another possible myth pegged.

[Mark]

My first time here, and let me say how heartened I am to see the variety opinions about the future of young Catholics! The future of young Catholics, I believe, doesn't (and should not) lie in one direction. And, while it's encouraging to see the witness of young Catholics excited about the faith like the students of the Compass organization I work with here at Loyola University in New Orleans, I am concerned for the many young Catholics who, for various reasons, are alienated from the Church. They are a diverse bunch, and aren't necessarily going to fall in line with traditions within Catholicism that you or I might prefer, but I'm convinced nevertheless there is a place for them. And I'm not satisfied, like some seem to be, with just giving up on them because they don't fit our mold. What are we going to do to invite them back in to the body of Christ?

[Dale Price]

It's pretty clear there's no point inviting them to the Church of the Left.

The subtext of Feuerherd's latest is that "most of them already agree with us good progressives on sex and doctrine." The problem is, "most of them" aren't showing up on Sundays.

What he fails to see is that "agreeing with us" is absolutely fatal to long-term commitment. The endlessly welcoming approach says: "Keep it up--you're doing great! And that doctrinal crap doesn't matter!"

Well, guess what? It's very, very effective. People listen and take it to heart. Tacking on a plea to work in the soup kitchen or literacy program at the end of it isn't going to fly. Not for more than a couple of months, anyway. They've got bills to pay, and a club scene to check out.

We're on the verge of losing our second straight generation because of mindsets like Feuerherd's.

[Todd]

"It's pretty clear there's no point inviting them to the Church of the Left."

... or the Right? What about just inviting them into the Church. Period. (1 Cor 1:11ff)

"The subtext of Feuerherd's latest is that 'most of them already agree with us good progressives on sex ...'"

Second sentence, and it's already boiled down to sex. Maybe they agree with Deal Hudson on sex

"'... and doctrine.'"

Second billing to sex isn't too bad.

"The problem is, "most of them" aren't showing up on Sundays."

It'a about the same commitment level as over-70 Catholics, who admittedly, have a few more health issues than the 18-39 crowd. Survey says the single most effective way to get them back is to simply invite them. Anybody think of that?

"We're on the verge of losing our second straight generation because of mindsets like Feuerherd's."

Actually, the first generation was lost to the pre-Vatican II mindset. Unless all those 50's Catholics were really closet Spirit V2-ers.

[Dale Price]

Cute, Todd. But you airballed this one.

Please note that the first two survey questions *Feuerherd* mentions rotate around pelvic issues, and the last two are more "doctrinal". Being slightly familiar with Hoge's work, it's not likely that the survey consisted of four questions, and it's even less likely he led with sex. But JF did. Your attempted zinger is a bullseye on the Rep's Washington correspondent.

Invite them--absolutely.

But to what? NCR's gospel of self-affirmation is being tried, and it's emptying the pews of the mainline.

[Tim Drake]

Was it wishful thinking that led me to write "Young and Catholic: The Face of Tomorrow's Church"?

No, it wasn't. I was led to write the book in the first place because I noted the absence of youth and young adults at Mass. I wondered, "Where are the young?"

That question led me in search of them. Statistics never have, and never will, tell the full story.

In the end, I was heartened to find that they weren't entirely disengaged from the Church, rather they are active in various other ways. They attend youth Masses on Saturdy and Sunday evenings. They gather in bars to learn theology, and in groups to discuss the Pope's "Love and Responsibility" and the Theology of the Body. They gather by the hundreds of thousands at World Youth Day. These are not isolated events. They represent a movement. Are authors such as Weigel, Carroll, and myself saying that this movement is a majority movement? Hardly.

What we are saying is that the Church will continue as it always has, upon the vigor and the energy of its youth. The Pope knows this. Why else would he make World Youth Day his one scheduled trip/event for this year?

At times the Church is led by a majority of believers. At other times it's led by a remnant. The jury is still out on which will lead as time marches forward.

All I know is that there are a great many inspiring young Catholics leading the Church right now. Some see that. Others refuse to see it. I've said, and I'll say it again, it's rather you want to see the pews as half-empty or half-full.

P.S. For the reader who said that conservatives ignore faith-based volunteers, I would encourage him to read my book. One of the chapters is filled with stories of youth and young adults who have devoted their time and energy to serving the Church and the poor.