I would like to thank Sarah for her interest in our article on NE and Vatican II Catholics and for writing a thoughtful and respectful response to it.<\/p>\n
First, I want to say something non-scientific or at least something that sounds non-academic (although Durkheim, Turner, Bellah, Rawls, Rosati and many others who appreciate the findings in the sociology of emotions and ritual practices might disagree that what I am about to write is non-academic) that the difference we outline between NE and Vatican II Catholics is basically affective or emotional for those involved.\u00a0 Indeed, it was explicitly stated by one Vatican II professional we interviewed when he\/she said simply, \u201cI just get a different feeling from them\u201d (that is NE professionals \u2013 see p. 298).\u00a0 I say this because Sarah is partly right in saying NE professionals have a communal orientation and some Vatican II professionals have an individualistic orientation.\u00a0 However, I think our data (admittedly it is qualitative and cannot be used to generalize to the church at large and, granted, we did not describe our methodology other than in footnote 2) supports the Vatican II professional\u2019s response \u201cI just get a different feeling from them.\u201d\u00a0 We admitted in our article that each type has similar characteristics as the other but when speaking, when teaching, when conversing with each other they are clearly different because you just get a different \u201cfeel\u201d from each.\u00a0 We said this to ourselves several times during the research process and wrote \u201cthere is a palpable difference\u201d between them in the article.\u00a0 There is something going on, \u201cI can feel it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Turning to the particular critiques, Sarah questions our identification of \u201cdistinctly evangelical Catholic rhetoric\u201d as \u201ca rhetoric that contrasts sharply with what is ordinarily thought of as traditional or cultural Catholicism.\u201d Instead, she suggests that \u201crhetoric emphasizing one\u2019s \u2018personal encounter with Christ\u2019 should be understood as a retrieval of a longstanding \u2018traditional\u2019 emphasis on prayer and spirituality captured in Deus Caritas Est<\/em>.”\u00a0I would argue that, in the American context, \u201cindividualism\u201d is something very different than in the early Church or medieval Church or Tridentine Church.\u00a0 American individualism, a two-edged sword most would admit, colors the American experience of religion in a completely different way than what early church members would have experienced.\u00a0 More specifically, in the American context, although NE types might say (and believe) that they are in continuity with the early Church\u2019s spirituality it would be a hard sell I think.\u00a0 American individualism, we are arguing, has colored their religiosity to an extent they are perhaps unaware of.\u00a0 We are not arguing that this is bad or negative or detrimental, just that it is American.<\/p>\n Sarah makes the observation that NE types talk about the larger Church, even the universal Church, and are faithful to the magisterium. As Sarah states: <\/em>\u201cYet just as often as I have detected personalistic rhetoric among NE professionals, I have heard them contextualize their ministry, the project of evangelization and their own faith commitments within \u201cthe Church.\u201d\u00a0 In my experience, NE Catholics\u2019 reference to \u201cthe Church\u201d is, in fact, probably even more ubiquitous than use of personalistic language.\u201d\u00a0 Thus, Sarah argues that they are not as inward and individualistic as we make them out to be.\u00a0 Perhaps, but not likely, even though we did not extend our analysis this far if you will.\u00a0 Specifically, as Sarah notes, the NE term \u201cthe Church\u201d is NOT synonymous with the Vatican II phrase \u201cthe People of God.\u201d\u00a0 I think our quote from Archbishop Vigneron clarifies my point (in that we believe the Archbishop to be more a NE type than a Vatican II type, although he balances between them) when he felt that Vatican II folk emphasized the \u201cpeople of God\u201d too much to the detriment of Jesus.\u00a0 And with respect to Sarah noting that NE types show \u201cfidelity to the magisterium,\u201d I think she is right on \u2013 Vatican II types are more questioning of the magisterium, although faithful in the end I think \u2013 so another difference that we did not address.\u00a0 Again, I would say, that we admit these are ideal types<\/em> and so there is overlap, but they do have different emphases and of course they would from a sociological perspective because the Vatican II types were socialized or ecclesialized by Vatican II and NE types by Pope John Paul II and the NE.\u00a0 We do say on p 308, that \u201calthough both sides would suggest they are not denying the other\u2019s values, both stress one side of the tension more than the other.\u201d<\/p>\n Building on earlier points, Sarah says the following: \u201cIronically, in my experience, much of the tension between NE and Vatican II Catholics actually turns on precisely the reverse characterization of that described by McCallion et al.: Whereas NE Catholics prioritize community and conformity to \u201cthe Church\u2019s\u201d official teaching and norms of worship, Vatican II Catholics hold up individual \u201cfreedom of conscience,\u201d Catholic social teaching\u2019s emphasis on the dignity of the person, and parish variability in establishing norms of worship.\u00a0 Some NE Catholics express concern that the Vatican II emphasis on the parish as \u201cthe People of God\u201d and progressive interpretations of liturgical renewal after Vatican II loses sight of \u201ctraditional\u201d and catholic dimensions of \u201cthe Church.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Another example of the NE self-association with communalism, rather than individualism, is the NE Catholics critique that Vatican II Catholics\u2019 alternative views on issues such as homosexuality and women priesthood place the primacy of individual opinion over the teachings of \u201cthe Church.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0 I think Sarah has a point in saying the NE Catholics may be more faithful to the magisterium and that that fidelity expresses a communal orientation, but it still does not refute that the NE Catholics emphasize an individualistic orientation more so than Vatican II Catholics in their overall RHETORIC.\u00a0 Again, our qualitative data relied on \u201crhetoric\u201d and given the rhetoric data we collected and presented in our article a clear orientation toward individual or communal language exists.\u00a0 So I disagree there is a reverse characterization \u2013 the NE connection to the CCR and their emphasis on evangelization and their embeddedness in American culture and the broader American religious culture of evangelism — clearly suggests our analysis that an individualistic orientation exists is on target \u2013 admitting this varies.\u00a0 Moreover, I think the Rector\u2019s response to the question \u201care you a Vatican II or a NE Catholic\u201d with \u201cYES,\u201d is indicative of our whole article and says in a very succinct way that the distinction we discovered and tried to explain is real, it exists.<\/p>\n Sarah makes one final observation about our article.\u00a0 She says: \u201cFinally, McCallion et al. suggest that Vatican II Catholics\u2019 rhetoric placed more emphasis on the sacraments and communal aspects of parish life than NE Catholics.\u00a0 The authors note one Vatican II Catholic\u2019s frustrated questioning, \u201cWhat happened to the Mass?,\u201d when listening to an NE presentation.\u00a0 My experience of NE Catholics has been that \u201cthe Eucharist\u201d and \u201cthe Mass\u201d are seen as critical to promoting the abovementioned universality of \u201cthe Church.\u201d <\/em>Again, Sarah makes a good observation and I would admit that I heard NE Catholics talk about the Eucharist and the Church in various ways but nevertheless the NE professionals said \u201cyou have been sacramentalized, but you have not been evangelized.\u201d\u00a0 This is a shift to the individual.\u00a0 Moreover, it implies that the individual who has received the sacraments is not a good enough Catholic.\u00a0 But this has been a long standing Catholic theology, that we receive Christ in and through the sacraments.\u00a0 This was one of the oddest phrases we heard in our research.\u00a0 And we did not hear it just once but over and over.\u00a0 There is a direct emphasis on the individual and, moreover, an individual who is alone and is somehow evangelized and receives the Lord and then perhaps goes to Church and the sacraments.\u00a0 This is a decidedly individualistic understanding of sacramental theology and overall Catholic theology.\u00a0 And I might add that Dr. Ralph Martin\u2019s new book emphasizes \u201cindividual\u201d salvation in his interpretation of Lumen Gentium<\/em> 16.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n Thanks again Sarah for your comments and I hope my response provided some clarity.\u00a0 Obviously, there is much more to discuss on this issue and many other distinctions and commonalities that we could analyze and which you have already begun to do.\u00a0 So, thanks again.\u00a0 Mike McCallion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I would like to thank Sarah for her interest in our article on NE and Vatican II Catholics and for writing a thoughtful and respectful response to it. First, I want to say something non-scientific or at least something that … Continue reading