Monthly Crisis Check-Up

Here were some mildly interesting articles in the most recent Crisis issue. While I could just tell you all to read it monthly, I figure it is just easier to peruse it myself for articles that I think you would appreciate. That's just how much I love you guys.

Here's a snippet on the best novel ever written, per Mr. and Mrs. Ransom.

And here's a somewhat lacking inquiry into the roots of neoconservatism with Michael Novak. It left me with the impression that neoconservatism is merely a reactionary political ideology. I think I would be more drawn to an original political approach that can be based on Catholic principles. Instead I see two somewhat distinct principles trying to coexist:

Alexis de Tocqueville asserted in Democracy in America that someday Catholics would be able to give the best arguments in favor of the American system. The Catholic sense of community and its distinctive feeling for equality, as well as the long Catholic sense of history, add new notes to the American mind. On equality, for example, whether you are a peasant or a serf or a noble, a count or a duke or a king, you meet at the same communion table. My point is: There are real riches in the Catholic tradition, which are highly instructive in interpreting the American experience. That is why Father Neuhaus, who was not a Catholic until 1990, wrote that in trying to understand social policy, one is well-advised to look at it through such Catholic notions as subsidiarity, associations, the common good, subjectivity (in Pope John Paul II’s sense), and the person as distinct from the individual. In this way, the day-to-day language of America is becoming more and more Catholic. The American genius, in forming associations on the local level, owes a great deal to the confraternities and associations of the Catholic medieval period, and so does Anglo-American common law.

But later he says:

We have an implicit rule in the United States that is not often articulated, but it is there nonetheless. It says: “Bring your own heritage with you; you do not have to renounce it. But do not make it geographical. You cannot declare a piece of land as your community, with your own values and customs. You must become part of the larger community, with its own laws and rules. There must be one law for all.” Now this has worked very well for us; but as I said, not many Americans have ever made this rule explicit, as it should be.

By the way, wouldn't the incorporation doctrine applying the federal bill of rights against the states be a pretty explicit rule in that direction?

P.S. I suggested to my pastor that I was interested in helping out with high school religious ed. Yesterday I met with the lady in charge of S.O.R. (school of religion, I think) to talk about how I could be involved. I regrettably discovered a youth group for the high school kids rather than a religious ed program. This woman happily described the current state of affairs, generally beginning her sentences as such, "Well, the kids would really like to..." or "The kids decided to..." I don't know if it is a product of hiring parish workers that are incompetent or perhaps have too much on their plate and are therefore forced to take a hands-off approach (or maybe it is both). What other position can you think of where people get hired to run a program and then don't contribute anything to it whatsoever other than taking surveys? Can you imagine a coach saying to high school athletes, "What do you want to do for practice today?" or a parent asking their kids, "How do you want us to spend our money on you this month?" or a priest asking his congregation: "How do you want to worship?" Wait, that last one actually happens.

Anyway, I've come up with a new term that I will use to refer to this backward approach that only seems to pop up in youth ministry. Youthanizing. This lady has youthanized her high school religious education program, and I'm not really sure if I should try to jump in and resurrect it.