Millennials have turned away from ‘cool’ Christianity, but traditional churches
#11
On the issue of politics, the article only discusses churches that take "leftwing" political stances, but at least anecdotally, it seems to me that many young people--even those with an interest in traditional liturgy and the like--are even more hostile to churches with "rightwing" politics. So, sure, they like the bells and smells, but that doesn't mean that they are all going to accept orthodox Christian positions on, say, homosexuality or contraception.

To be a little pessimistic, this sort of thing makes me wonder if for many of these people traditional liturgies and devotions are anything more than isolated, "authentic" aesthetic experiences like eating ethnic food or listening to indie music rather than practices that shape one's life in any sort of meaningful way.

In this case, traditional churches serve a sort of hygienic or therapeutic function, providing people with temporary relief from the pressures and unreality of late capitalism, but people who rely on traditional religious practices for these functions do not accept the idea that they have political and social consequences. Christopher Lasch had it right, I think: "A society that has made nostalgia a marketable commodity on the cultural exchange quickly repudiates the suggestion that life in the past was in any important way better than life today. Having trivialized the past by equating it with outmoded styles of consumption, discarded fashions and attitudes, people today resent anyone who draws on the past in serious discussions of contemporary conditions or attempts to use the past as a standard by which to judge the present." Thus, we have people who are fascinated with past styles but who nevertheless angrily reject the idea that the societies in which those styles emerged might have anything meaningful to teach us.
Reply
#12
(12-28-2015, 06:05 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: On the issue of politics, the article only discusses churches that take "leftwing" political stances, but at least anecdotally, it seems to me that many young people--even those with an interest in traditional liturgy and the like--are even more hostile to churches with "rightwing" politics. So, sure, they like the bells and smells, but that doesn't mean that they are all going to accept orthodox Christian positions on, say, homosexuality or contraception.

To be a little pessimistic, this sort of thing makes me wonder if for many of these people traditional liturgies and devotions are anything more than isolated, "authentic" aesthetic experiences like eating ethnic food or listening to indie music rather than practices that shape one's life in any sort of meaningful way.

In this case, traditional churches serve a sort of hygienic or therapeutic function, providing people with temporary relief from the pressures and unreality of late capitalism, but people who rely on traditional religious practices for these functions do not accept the idea that they have political and social consequences. Christopher Lasch had it right, I think: "A society that has made nostalgia a marketable commodity on the cultural exchange quickly repudiates the suggestion that life in the past was in any important way better than life today. Having trivialized the past by equating it with outmoded styles of consumption, discarded fashions and attitudes, people today resent anyone who draws on the past in serious discussions of contemporary conditions or attempts to use the past as a standard by which to judge the present." Thus, we have people who are fascinated with past styles but who nevertheless angrily reject the idea that the societies in which those styles emerged might have anything meaningful to teach us.

Basically hipsters. "Cool and trendy." 

I don't know many people, especially my age, who share my worldview. If I told my friends that I woke up today at 8AM to listen to Mozart and read Evola, they would be beyond confused. Probably angry.
Reply
#13
I'm a bit confused why you're listening to a Freemason and reading a anti-Catholic neo-pagan  ???

I kid, of course, but CP is right, and I'm afraid its not just hipsters (which I really don't see that often in Church), but serious, suit wearing opus dei kinda of guys. They adopt a very liberal and timid kind of Catholicism. And of course, many a cool trad will also think its too much when you take it too serious--when you're being too prudish or too monkish.

Reply
#14
(12-28-2015, 06:42 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I'm a bit confused why you're listening to a Freemason and reading a anti-Catholic neo-pagan  ???

I kid, of course, but CP is right, and I'm afraid its not just hipsters (which I really don't see that often in Church), but serious, suit wearing opus dei kinda of guys. They adopt a very liberal and timid kind of Catholicism. And of course, many a cool trad will also think its too much when you take it too serious--when you're being too prudish or too monkish.

I don't see the Opus Dei types as being "liberal."  My former bishop was in Opus Dei, and I have a lot of respect for him.  He wasn't exactly a trad, but he was certainly sympathetic- even encouraging- of tradition.  He was also orthodox, reverent, and prayerful.  His efforts gave the diocese the largest ordination class in its history, and I daresay this one was on the whole more orthodox and traditional.  Given how much Satan seems to hate him, I think he did a lot of good here.

I've read some of St. Josemaria Escriva's books, and found them edifying.  I don't think I'm what Opus Dei wants, as I'm not the clean-cut professional type.  I do like that they're strong on moral theology- contraception, abortion, and other "life" issues- and I like that they seem to make good family men and women.  It's difficult to discuss tradition with them, though, because they'll go to such lengths to defend the Novus Ordo and Vatican II.  They often seem to view even polite, respectful criticism of the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, or any evaluation of any statement made by the most recent popes as an attack on the papacy itself and on the Church.  The Opus Dei types aren't perfect, but I'd hardly call them liberal.
Reply
#15
Well, yes, I meant liberal in the sense that they completely drank the democracy, etc., kool aid. Maybe this is a local perception I have, since most opus dei guys here are lawyers, but they look at you like you're a crazy person if you say something about monarchy, Christ the King, religious liberty, etc.

I'm aware opus dei generally give some very decent bishops (including the late Dom Livieres, who made wonders in his diocese and was patient even towards trad-exclusive priests).
Reply
#16

(12-28-2015, 06:42 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I'm a bit confused why you're listening to a Freemason and reading a anti-Catholic neo-pagan  ???

I was waiting for it . Of course I will clarify I do not endorse all the views of Evola but I do enjoy some of this political theory. I tend to avoid his more "spiritual" writings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#17

(12-28-2015, 08:19 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Well, yes, I meant liberal in the sense that they completely drank the democracy, etc., kool aid. Maybe this is a local perception I have, since most opus dei guys here are lawyers, but they look at you like you're a crazy person if you say something about monarchy, Christ the King, religious liberty, etc.

I'm aware opus dei generally give some very decent bishops (including the late Dom Livieres, who made wonders in his diocese and was patient even towards trad-exclusive priests).

To be fair almost anyone will look at you crazy if you tell them you're a monarchist haha. There are a lot of "Trads" who drank the democracy too.

However I do understand what you mean. If your going to find monarchists anywhere they will be in the trad circles, or Eastern Orthodox. Iv never meet a Vatican 2 monarchist. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#18
Americans are raised and taught from a young age that democracy is the zenith of governmental systems and that monarchies are evil. It's not easy to find Americans who will prefer a monarchy, especially if they've never lived in one.
Reply
#19
I think some greatly underestimate many young traditional church goers.  I tend to view three types of young people.  There are the hispters, avant garde with the leather patches and the corn pipe and back slap you with a copy of Orthodoxy if don't think distrubitism is the way to go.  Then there are the normals like me, who is not cool enough to hang with the cool kids with their pipes and not the strange ones.  Then there are the kind of weird people in that they are very quiet, try to be extremely pious, may be over scrupulous, and perhaps suffer from mental disorder.  Still despite the range, I find that most of them that go are quite sincere in their faith to various degrees, definitely more so than most NO attendees, though you would be surprised at how many of them are sincere as well. 

the problem with mentioning politics is that in the states politics are typically aligning this way or that way.  Well, I think most faithful Catholics have a more muddled view.  Of course, if I line 10 of us up and issue a survey one that describes your politics and your faith.  I have a feeling that the political would be quite divergent and the one in faith would be quite similar.  Needless to say, some of our more charged members would be cussing me out because of some of my stances. 

To be brief, the problem with democracy or republicanism is not that too many drank the kool aid, it is that too few people actually understand and appreciate what it is, because most people are denizens not citizens but given a citizen's greatest right, that to vote, so once they learn they vote themselves money, etc, they will.  Too many people have drank the populist or the socialist kool aid.  But that is another discussion not to derail. 
Reply
#20

(12-29-2015, 10:22 AM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: I think some greatly underestimate many young traditional church goers.  I tend to view three types of young people.  There are the hispters, avant garde with the leather patches and the corn pipe and back slap you with a copy of Orthodoxy if don't think distrubitism is the way to go.  Then there are the normals like me, who is not cool enough to hang with the cool kids with their pipes and not the strange ones.  Then there are the kind of weird people in that they are very quiet, try to be extremely pious, may be over scrupulous, and perhaps suffer from mental disorder.  Still despite the range, I find that most of them that go are quite sincere in their faith to various degrees, definitely more so than most NO attendees, though you would be surprised at how many of them are sincere as well. 

the problem with mentioning politics is that in the states politics are typically aligning this way or that way.  Well, I think most faithful Catholics have a more muddled view.  Of course, if I line 10 of us up and issue a survey one that describes your politics and your faith.  I have a feeling that the political would be quite divergent and the one in faith would be quite similar.  Needless to say, some of our more charged members would be cussing me out because of some of my stances. 

To be brief, the problem with democracy or republicanism is not that too many drank the kool aid, it is that too few people actually understand and appreciate what it is, because most people are denizens not citizens but given a citizen's greatest right, that to vote, so once they learn they vote themselves money, etc, they will.  Too many people have drank the populist or the socialist kool aid.  But that is another discussion not to derail.

Calling Distibutism a hipster ideology? I don't think we have the same definition of a hipster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)