With planes, trains and automobiles to take us everywhere in the world as fast as we can, and with modern communications that make everyone available to everyone else at any time, you would guess that more and more people would have a global or universal outlook to their lives.
The opposite seems to be the case.
As we are able to communicate globally and travel wherever we want, we seem to be drawing in to ourselves and our own little communities more and more.
A set of “isms” that undergird our secular society is our assumption that one particular group of people or way of thinking is superior or more correct than anyone else.
This assumption that “my group” is right and others are wrong leads to division in our lives, our society and our Church.
The first of these is nationalism.
This is the assumption that my ethnic group, my tribe, my clan or my country is superior.
Nationalism can take a positive form in patriotism or it can manifest itself negatively in racism, militarism or extreme patriotism (my country, right or wrong!).
Nationalism can lead us to condone military might so that we invade other countries, convinced that we are in the right. Nationalism can blind us to our faults and to the strengths of other ethnic or national groups. Nationalism limits us to our own little clan.
It not only keeps us from growing and broadening our experience, but it may also lead us to attack others in “defense” of our own tribe.
Sectarianism is like nationalism, but in the field of religion.
The sectarian first withdraws into his own, comfortable little religious group.
Snug in the rightness of his beliefs, he builds a fortress around himself and his religious sect. However, before long, the false sense of security wanes and the self-righteous sectarians start pointing the finger at others.
The sectarian mentality is, by its very nature, exclusive. The sectarian believes he is right and everyone else is wrong.
It is easy for Catholics to blame Protestants for being sectarian, but Catholics are also prone to withdraw into special-interest groups or communities within the Church.
If these “isms” are sisters, then Sister Nationalism waves a flag and wears a uniform and stands up to defend her country, “right or wrong.” Sister Sectarian is a purse-lipped and sour old spinster who is suspicious of everyone.
Both nationalism and sectarianism spring from elitism.
Elitism is the unquestioned assumption that “me” and my group of people are better than everybody else. Elitism can be fostered by any structure that isolates and elevates a particular group of people.
The elitist group might be a club whose members have inside knowledge or the elite could be wealthier than other people or the special group might be driven by a particular ideology or political ambition.
All of these “isms” display characteristics of what C.S. Lewis called “The Inner Ring.” This is the human tendency to identify a circle of people who are “on the inside.”
It is part of human ambition to be part of that “inner ring,” and some people will do anything to get there. Lewis observed the insidious and perfidious nature of the “inner ring” because once one is invited to join it turns out that within that “inner ring” of influence and power there is another “inner ring” which is even more exclusive.
The tendency to nationalism, sectarianism and elitism is present in our secular society, but it has crept into the Catholic Church as well.
We divide into subgroups, identifying ourselves as “liberal” or “conservative.” We divide among ethnic lines or we associate ourselves with a particular movement in the Church or the kind of liturgy or worship that we like.
There is nothing wrong with diversity of style, different forms of spirituality and different apostolates, but when they become elitist, nationalistic or sectarian, diversity becomes division. The answer is to be more “Catholic.”
One of the things I love about being a Catholic parish priest is the universality of the Church.
In our very ordinary American parish, we have people from every continent and ethnic group. In the congregation each Sunday, we have the young and the old, the poor and the rich, the educated and uneducated.
The Catholic Church embraces all, and in this universality our ethnic, sectarian and elitist divisions vanish.
Catholicism is bigger and older than all our little groups. To be Catholic is to be universal. The Catholic faith transcends all of our religious opinions, ethnic histories and national cultures.
We strive to be Catholic because “Catholic” transcends not just these divisions, but it also transcends time and space. It’s bigger and older than all of us.
The way to treasure and live the “Catholic” aspect of our faith is to break out of our own little, holy huddles, our ethnic groups and elitist mentality. We need to develop true tolerance and curiosity about others. We need to learn how to see the truth in all its different guises.
A convert friend of mine was asked why he became a Catholic, and he said, “Because I wanted to belong to the Big, Holy, Old One.”
That was his way of saying he wanted not just to affirm his faith in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, but he wanted to live that faith in a practical way day by day.
Father Dwight Longenecker is parish priest of
Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church in Greenville, South Carolina.
This is part of a Lenten
series that can be found at NCRegister.com.
Follow Father Longenecker at DwightLongenecker.com.
Edward Pentin: Remembering Margaret Thatcher
Matthew Warner: Ask Fr. Barron: What gives you hope for future of the Church?
Comments
Post a Comment
Father, It seems like your comments about human nature could have been taken out of my “The Law of Isolation” that I wrote years ago. http://ninshinob.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/law-of-isolation/
So by your logic wouldn’t the catholic church as a whole be a sectarian organization. Lets be honest you say the Catholic Church “embraces all” but thats not really true. just a few weeks ago a priest refused to be part of a wedding because one of the family members who was involved in the wedding was homosexual. Would the Church allow an openly homosexual family put there children through first communion? I realize these are extreme example in the Churches eyes but this is exactly what this article was talking about. One organization or group of people pointing out the faults in others based on there own religious or moral beliefs. “The sectarian believes he is right and everyone else is wrong.” I guess my question then, does the Church recognize there inherent participation in Sectarianism? And if not please explain because I am clearly confused.
The Church embraces homosexual PEOPLE, but not homosexual BEHAVIOR. If people are born with the innate inclination to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, that isn’t their fault as it isn’t their choice, and they deserve sympathy and respect and dignity, just like anyone else. But that doesn’t extend to supporting their acting on it, any more than having sympathy for someone having innate violent tendencies should extend to supporting their inflicting violence on other people. As for the rest, that’s to do with “openly” gay behavior, which can result in scandal as it can make other people think it’s okay.
If you’re interested, it would probably be a good idea to look into WHY the Church believes that homosexual behavior is sinful, if you don’t already know. I don’t want to assume, but I’m guessing you don’t, since you’re stating it as a given that the Church is innately “sectarian”.
While it’s not up to us to judge other people as “good” or “bad” (that’s God’s job), one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to rebuke sinners—that’s a work of mercy because if someone doesn’t know they’re sinning they have no motivation to stop, and if they know but still do it, they’re acting like a disobedient child, and what do you do with a disobedient child? You punish them—but in such a way that they distinguish between what they DID (which was bad) and themselves (who are good), and so that they know they have a second chance and can start over, which is what Christianity is all about.
And of all things, why do people want to identify with a sexual orientation, to the point of even identifying with acting upon that inclination? Do heterosexuals identify as “straight”, outside of situations where their sexual orientation would naturally come into question? I don’t think so. It isn’t like with gender or race or ethnicity, as far as I can see.
NFP groups by method can be a “groupish” at times. What’s needed is a universal approach. The Church needs to take larger role in putting forth theses methods Herself. They are also more apt to be believed and followed if She puts them forth.
Father, I know what you are trying to say, but, I get the impression that you saying that mere membership in a sub group to mean you are somehow going to take on an undesirable attitude towards others. I wouldn’t be in a group unless I thought it was best or right or more desirable. That is why I am Catholic! I am discriminating, I must be. I will agree there is a human tendency towards subduing others. I will not agree that the solution is to eliminate your judgment of right and wrong or better and worse.
“Lets be honest you say the Catholic Church “embraces all” but thats not really true. just a few weeks ago a priest refused to be part of a wedding because…”. Stephen, this is a common mistake. The teaching Church can be found in Christ’s words, other scripture, the catechism, and the magisterium. If a priest differs from this teaching you are not seeing the Church you are seeing a person who differs.
Let’s try this wording instead: If these “isms” are brothers then Brother Nationalism waves a flag and wears a uniform and stands up to defend his country “right or wrong.” Brother Sectarian is a tight lipped dour old bachelor who is suspicious of everyone.
Stephan, you do know that whole thing was a set up by an LGBT activist. Also by refusing to give her the Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus, the priest was pretecting her from greater sin.
My point is that the Catholic faith transcends all sectarian opinions. It also welcomes all people, all of whom are sinners. However, it does not allow them to continue in their sin. So we are happy to welcome a murderer, but we expect him to stop killing people. We welcome a person who is sexually promiscuous, but we expect him to live a life of chastity.
Oh, how I love Humanity,
With love so pure and pringlish,
And how I hate the horrid French.
Who never will be English!
The International Idea,
The largest and the clearest,
Is welding all the nations now,
Except the one that’s nearest.
This compromise has long been known,
This scheme of partial pardons,
In ethical societies
And small suburban gardens -
The villas and the chapels where
I learned with little labour
The way to love my fellow-man
And hate my next-door neighbour.
—G.K. Chesterton
Oddly enough, we DO have a greater responsibility to our next door neighbor than to the fuzzy idea of man in general, or to people halfway round the world whom we will never meet and cannot seriously hope to influence or help. “Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house”—but no one candle is the sun in the sky, and it can only hope to give light to all that are in the house, not to the whole world. (In “You are the light of the world,” the word “you” is plural.)
The Catholic Church is DIVINE. The Word made flesh and dwelt among us, Jesus Christ, established HIS bride, the Church.
Stephen is right. The Catholic Church is definitely sectarian. It’s right and everything else is varying degrees of wrong. Popes through the ages and all the way up to the present are very clear about this. Recent popes and bishops are “diplomatic” about it though, perhaps to a fault.
Stephan,
She was given communion by an EM, and then received a lavish apology, even though I personally think the priest did no wrong.
Dan,
The Catholic church accepts truth where ever it is to be found.
What Fr. Longenecker means is that there is nothing that can explain it in one word. No single statement of faith that would, since it’s different parts coming together to form a whole. This has been my observation.
“The Catholic Church is definitely sectarian. It’s right and everything else is varying degrees of wrong”. Dan I think you misunderstand the Church; A true statement is; “Christ is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong!”
So, which is better—the man with a “global outlook” who claims to love all women equally, or the man who claims to love his wife more than others, in fact in some way from which others are entirely excluded?
P.S. Ironically, the captcha below is “husband38”.
@savvy
Nothing can explain it in one word? On the contrary, truth can only be explained in one Word. (John 1:1)
Dwight Longnecker writes:
“The Catholic faith transcends all of our religious opinions, ethnic histories and national cultures.”
Has there been a policy change, then? In both wars big enough to be called “World” Catholics have killed Catholics, encouraged by Catholic chaplains. Of course, the other churches claiming the label “Christian” did the same- perhaps that was ‘transcending’?
Doug. I find it fascinating that people still try and get away with equating faith with actions in order to discredit religion. They are not the same thing. We hope people act according to their faith; if you have free will, is it the teaching or teacher’s fault if you choose another path? Follow God instead of you favorite charismatic fellow human being.
@Doug
This really is a case where the principle of double effect comes into play. What Catholic chaplains would have encouraged the men under their care to do is to win battles: to destroy tanks and airplanes, to sink ships, and to hold or take key locations. That is the basic role of the military. Destroying a tank or airplane or sinking a ship will usually result in deaths, but the goal is not to simply kill as many of the other guy as possible; the goal is to impose your will on the field. This is why most soldiers from both sides come back from most wars; the goal was not simply slaughter.
War is a terrible thing, but it would be all the worse were there no chaplains. Also, practically every war is far too complicated to be a simple “white hats vs. black hats” struggle. Generally there will be honorable men and both sides, and there will always be villains on both sides. Yes, this sometimes means Catholics fighting against Catholics. It’s too bad, but it’s scarcely the discussion-ender you think it is.
Howard Duncan writes:
“Follow God instead of your favorite charismatic fellow human being.”
Catch-22: The Churches teach that their leaders- priests, pastors, elders- claim to represent God and his wishes. If a nominal Christian chooses to avoid the country’s current war because of, say, John 13:34,35, he’ll find that his churchman and his national government will be allied in assuring him that ‘God is on our side’. (Some countries have provisions for conscientious objection, which has its own problems for the practicing Christian, even if available in wartime. In any event, C.O. tends to disappear in wartime.) These statements are based on history.
So: Does the nominal Christian obey Church and State, and go off to kill? Or does he obey the command from his Lord Jesus Christ, and stay home or in jail?
Howard writes:
“What Catholic chaplains would have encouraged the men under their care to [perform] ... is the basic role of the military”
Is my elision of your statement fair? If so, it illustrates the problem I’m addressing. Anyway, your complete statements certainly seem to equate military roles and Christian roles. If that’s the case with God, then why is there any discussion here about ‘just’ wars: State wants war; Church wants war; God wants war. End of discussion.
I expect more from God, if not from his self-appointed representatives. A scripture that applies IMO is Rev 4:11.
“You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honour and power. Because you have created all things: and for your will they were and have been created.” God, not man, has created. God, not man, chooses what and whom to destroy, and by whom. That choice has been made for the present and foreseeable future, as seen at Rev 14.
“And another angel came out from the [Jehovah’s] temple, crying with a loud voice to him [Jesus] that sat upon the cloud: Thrust in your sickle and reap, ... And the press was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the press, up to the horses’ bridles, for a thousand and six hundred furlongs.”
That should be enough fighting for anyone!
“Yes, this sometimes means Catholics fighting against Catholics. It’s too bad, but it’s scarcely the discussion-ender you think it is.”
Certainly it would end the discussion for you when your fellow Catholic’s bullet finds you. :-(
Doug said; “Catch-22: The Churches teach that their leaders- priests, pastors, elders- claim to represent God and his wishes.”
I suggest that you look deeper into Christianity and its beliefs than movies and clumsy books by atheists. The only persons I have ever heard say they represent God was a couple of strange men on street corners in New York City. God spoke for himself 2,000 years ago. No one has any authority beyond what was given to the Apostles and their successors. A lawyer represents his client and speaks for his client. A Bishop teaches and guides his flock recognizing his own human weaknesses and Gods perfection.
Howard Duncan writes:
“claim to represent God and his wishes.”
Pope = Vicar of Christ = representative of God; all per Catholic doctrine, not so?
“Bishop is the title of an ecclesiastical dignitary who possesses the fullness of the priesthood to rule a diocese as its chief pastor, in due submission to the primacy of the pope.” says the Catholic Encyclopedia.
“A Bishop teaches and guides his flock recognizing his own human weaknesses and Gods perfection.” says Howard.
1 Tim 3:2, Douay: “It behoves therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous,” says Holy Writ.
A teacher; not quarrelsome. Yet teaches his flock to go to war? With other Catholics? Led by THEIR bishops?
And, “in due submission to the primacy of the pope”. Surely the Pope sees the wrongness of Catholic killing Catholic? Can not The Vicar of God- God ‘who is judge of all the earth’ Gen 18:25- and having primacy over [national] Bishops, can he not stop their particicpation in national wars?
There is a prophecy of a peaceful world; it’s obvious that such a world is not yet, if it is ever to be: “... nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Is it considered presumptuous of Catholics to want to act that way now? Is it possible for Christians now ‘not even to learn war, much less practice it’?
I don’t see any cites of “movies and clumsy books by atheists” in my previous posts. Have I used any such here? If so, I apologize, and promise to stick to RC-approved sources in future.
Doug. I see no difference in my definition and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Different words, the same meaning. He is a priest and pastor. My problem with your use of “represents” is that I believe you mean it to be exclusive, therefore prone to be false and self serving as in an agent represents a client, a lawyer represents a client. If you wish to use the word properly in this context, it should be taken as a responsibility and not an authority. The Bishop and his priests are not above the laity in Gods eyes, they just have a different job to do. I won’t argue if a particular war is warranted or not. Having been in the military though I can tell you a little about it. Wars are tactical operations. The object of a battle is to gain a physical advantage over and opponent that leads to an end of hostility. Even if the aim is to gain territory, the least expensive cost in men and material is the aim of a good commander. Waste is not profitable. The ideal conflict, large or small, is to gain the advantage without loss of life or injury. It doesn’t matter if the motive is because the commander loves life or could care less. Preservation of assets is most important. A war that also includes torture and death and rape of civilians as occurred when the Nazis invaded Russia (and the reverse when they retreated) is not totally tactical. A soldier who understands warfare and is a near Saint prays for a swift victory with no loss of life or limb on both sides. Less of a Saint, he prays for no loss on his side, still less of a Saint his own safety and to hell with everyone else. If you are one who does not defend himself from physical harm then I can see how you would denounce all war. Personal self defense is merely small scale war. You haven’t quoted the references I cited, but your arguments reflect those sources
Howard Duncan writes:
“You haven’t quoted the references I cited, but your arguments reflect those sources”
My arguments ‘reflect’ [are mainly taken from] the Bible. Your argument, then, is with that Writer, not with me. I’m merely a humble copy/paste guy!
I quoted the Catholic view of Bishop to show that it is the same as yours, EXCEPT you don’t hold a clergyman to any higher standard than yours. Thus you will be ready to participate in the next war, which I had guessed.Duncan on war: “The ideal conflict, large or small, is to gain the advantage without loss of life or injury.”
Patton on war: “War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula” and
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other [Christian?] die for his.”
To my question, “Is it possible for Christians now ‘not even to learn war, much less practice it’?” I take your reply as a No, which I had guessed. It is a prophecy by Isaiah, a man often quoted by Jesus. Do you have a reason why it isn’t possible for this to be fulfilled now?
I am actually too old to participate in any future war. I was wondering if you would actually quote from the movie “Patton”. The art he speaks of is tactical not a comment on the purpose of war. If you remember he was censured for his personal views and allowed to lead only when his tactics contributed towards the settlement of WWII. I think we have gone as far as we can. I hope your search for truth will be successful.
“Do you have a reason why it isn’t possible for this to be fulfilled now?”
I take your reply as a No, which I had guessed.
Yet it is possible, and the prophecy has been fulfilled. One example of thousands similarly documented:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20071015a/article_01.htm
“GÜNTER GRASS, German author and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1999, published his autobiography in 2006 ... In the same book, he tells of a man who made such an impression on him that it has stayed with him for over 60 years ...In an interview ..., Grass recalled this extraordinary person, who refused to take up arms ...”
Could other churches claiming a connection with the Bible do the same?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.