TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Christianity

    Faith & Culture

    Joseph Pearce, Editor of Faith & Culture magazine, has weekly interviews with well-known Catholic authors, speakers, and academics on a variety of topics related to Catholicism.

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    The Life of St. Benedict Jul 13, 2020
    Show notes

    This selection is taken from chapters 33-34 of The Life of Saint Benedict by Gregory the Great. St. Benedict (d. 547) is considered the founder of Western monasticism, and many forms of religious life find their root in The Rule of St. Benedict. In this beloved story from near the end of his life, Benedict’s sister Scholastica shows him (and us) that charity is the end of the rule, and sometimes even trumps the letter of the rule.

    GREGORY:

    What man is there, Peter, in this world, that is has found greater favor with God than St. Paul, who yet three times desired our Lord to be delivered from the prick of the flesh, and obtained not his petition (cf. 2 Cor. 12:8)? Concerning such a point I must also tell you, about one thing which the venerable father Benedict would have done, and yet he could not.

    For his sister called Scholastica, dedicated from her infancy to our Lord, used once a year to come and visit her brother. The man of God went to her at a place that belonged to the Abbey not far from the gate, and entertained her there. And when she came there at her accustomed time, her venerable brother with his monks went to meet her, where they spent the whole day in the praises of God and spiritual talk: and when it was almost night they supped together, and they were still sitting at the table, talking of devout matters, and darkness came on, the holy Nun his sister entreated him to stay there all night, that they might spend it in discoursing of the joys of heaven. But by no persuasion would Benedict agree to that, saying that he might not by any means stay all night out of his Abbey.

    At that time, the sky was so clear that no cloud was to be seen. The Nun, receiving this denial of her brother, joining her hands together, laid them upon the table: and so, bowing down her head upon them, she made her prayers to almighty God: and lifting her head from the table, there fell suddenly such a tempest of lightning and thundering, and such abundance of rain, that neither venerable Benedict, nor his monks that were with him, could put their head out of door: for the holy Nun, resting her head upon her hands, poured forth such a flood of tears upon the table, that she drew the clear air to a watery sky, so that after the end of her devotions, that storm of rain followed: and her prayer and the rain did so meet together, that as she lifted up her head from the table, the thunder began, so that in one and the very same instant, she lifted up her head and brought down the rain. The man of God, seeing that he count not, because such thunder and lightning and great abundance of rain, return back to his Abbey, began to be heavy and to complain of his sister, saying: "God forgive you, what have you done?" to whom she answered: "I desired you to stay, and you would not hear me, I have desired our good Lord, and he has granted my petition: therefore if you can now depart, in God's name return to your monastery, and leave me here alone."

    But the good father, being not able to go forth, stayed there against his will, where willingly before he would not stay. And so by that means they watched all night, and with spiritual and heavenly talk did mutually comfort one another: and therefore by this we see, as I said before, that he would have had that thing, which yet he could not: for if we respect the venerable man's mind, no question but he would have had the same fair weather to have continued as it was, when he set forth, but he found that a miracle did prevent his desire, which, by the power of almighty God, a woman's prayers had brought about. And it is not an incredible thing, that a woman who had not seen her brother for a long time, could do more at that time than Benedict could, according to the saying of St. John, “God is love” (1 John 4:8). Therefore, rightly she did more who loved more.

    PETER:

    I confess that I am wonderfully pleased with that which you tell me.

    GREGORY:

    The next day the venerable woman returned to her convent, and the man of God to his Abbey: who three days after, standing in his cell, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, beheld the soul of his sister (which was departed from her body), in the likeness of a dove to ascend into heaven. He rejoiced much to see her great glory, with hymns and lauds gave thanks to almighty God, and did impart the news of this her death to his monks, whom also he sent presently to bring her corpse to his Abbey, to have it buried in that grave which he had provided for himself. Therefore it happened that as their souls were always one in God while they lived, so their bodies continued together after their death.

    Translation from Tertullian.org (in the public domain), with minor modifications by Elizabeth Klein.


    Luke 12:32 with St. Thérèse of Lisieux Jul 10, 2020
    Show notes

    “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

    St. Thérèse of Lisieux uses this gospel passage to help her interpret one of the most dramatic events in her young life. In her The Story of a Soul she tells of how she went to Rome at the age of fifteen and was granted an audience with pope Leo XIII. While there, she begged the pope that he would allow her to enter religious life with the Carmelites despite her young age. Because Luke 12:32 had been the gospel reading at Mass that day, she felt sure that the pope would grant her request. Instead, the pope told her to obey her superiors, saying “go… go … you will enter if God wills it.”

    This experience led her to interpret Luke 12:32 in light of Luke 22:28-29 (“You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom”). Thérèse comes to understand that the kingdom that God wishes to give is the kingdom won on the cross. Or as she puts it: “in other words, I reserve crosses and trials for you and it is thus you will be worthy of possessing the kingdom after which you long; since it was necessary that Christ suffer and that he enter through it into his glory.” God, through the words of the pope, wanted to give her the kingdom by presenting her with the chalice of the Lord’s passion, the suffering of obedience.

    But Thérèse does not thereby interpret the words of Jesus as having only a kind of abstract or future fulfillment. She really does receive the earthly kingdom she was seeking, which she understood as the “kingdom of Carmel.” She later came to see the pope’s parting words as prophetic and as revealing the true meaning of that gospel passage: “in spite of all obstacles, what God willed was really accomplished. He did not allow creatures to do what they willed but what he willed.” The Father’s good pleasure was for little Thérèse to receive both the kingdom of Carmel and the kingdom of heaven, but by way of the cross.[1]

    [1] Summary by Elizabeth Klein with the use of Thérèse of Lisieux, Story of a Soul, 133–136.


    True and False Progress Jul 08, 2020
    Show notes

    In 1864, Frédéric Le Play published his magnum opus, Social Reform in France, which offered a comprehensive response to the progressive social theories of the Enlightenment rooted in his extensive sociological studies of multi-generational families in Eastern Europe. The following selection is reprinted from Critics of the Enlightenment (ISI Books, 2004), which is due to be released later this year in a second edition by Cluny Media.

    I shall refute two theories—mutually opposed and equally erroneous—that would compromise social reform either by giving us exaggerated confidence or by casting us into despair.

    According to the first opinion, man is naturally led to the good, and it suffices to leave human societies freely to follow their propensities for progress to occur. And because the facts thwart this theory, it is supplemented by declaring the government to be the source of evil and always inclined to pervert the individual tendency to good. This view concludes by declaring that we can throw ourselves confidently into those revolutions that remove the popular masses from the influence of the ruling classes.

    The two connected ideas on which this first theory is founded—the original perfection of individuals and the beneficent influence of revolutions—seem to me to be refuted by the observation of human nature and the events of the past two centuries. Evil is not introduced to the world only by governments, for the people who are best preserved from evils are precisely those who have had the least recourse to revolutions. Evil is born chiefly in the ignorance and depraved instincts of the younger generations. It is incontestable that the nations in whom the movement of progress is the most marked in our day are those whose social organization permits them effectively to combat this permanent source of corruption through education and the ascendancy of the mature and the elderly. Progress can only be obtained under these conditions. Surely it is slowed or compromised when the ruling classes cede to the causes of corruption brought on by prosperity, especially the influence of wealth, and do not rest upon the heights of their mission. Yet this is impossible in any society in which the new generations are abandoned to their natural propensities. The state of nature, so highly extolled at the end of the last century, is a chimerical idea conceived outside of all methodical observation. As to revolutions, they can be a heroic remedy for the people when the ruling classes have fallen into corruption. But they are only fruitful upon the condition of being immediately followed by a long period of good morals and stable government. This truth is to be seen in the success that the English have attained since 1688 and by our hard trials since the end of the last century.

    Unlike the first, the second opinion does not spring from a false principle, but it deduces false consequences from a true principle. Accepting that the propensity to evil is inseparable from human nature, it infers that the nations are, in the long run, condemned to decadence and destruction as fatally as our individual lives are bound to decrepitude and death. According to the common expression, there are young nations with a long future before them, and there are old ones that have accomplished a certain mission in the work of universal civilization and must now be extinguished. The former have firm religious beliefs, leadership by elders, frugal and simple customs, physical strength and martial courage, and, finally, a power of expansion that makes their race overflow its native region through conquest or colonization. In the latter, the opposite characteristics are found: religious indifference, disdain for elders and relaxation of family bonds, the abuse of luxury and wealth, sterility and the physical weakening of the race, and the inability to populate its colonies and recruit for its armies. A fatality that man cannot master obliges nations to pass successively through these two states, just as water from a spring must travel past all the banks of the river until it reaches the ocean. This image is frequently reproduced in our common language to affirm that no nation can swim against the tide of civilization.

    While at first sight this theory is more in conformity with history than the first, it is nevertheless falsified by reason and experience. In the first place, it is evident that the equation made between individuals and societies cannot be adopted in its literal sense, because societies do not age, but remain in absolute conditions of stability so far as the age of their members is concerned. Yet the state of equilibrium that is spontaneously produced in physical organization always tends to be upset in the moral and intellectual order. For death harvests the mature and elderly, and therefore constantly deprives society of the treasures of wisdom and experience, while birth tends constantly to infuse these same societies with original barbarism. This cause of decadence acts equally upon all peoples, while the first weighs especially upon the most advanced. How many times have those of us who have lived a half-century had to groan to see extinguished by death those good men who are the principal vital forces of the country! The most perfect societies are evidently those which, under this double influence, have the most to lose and the least to gain; they are, consequently, the most exposed to decline. Yet this difficulty is not insoluble, and it does not increase with the number of centuries in a nation’s history. To the extent a people elevates itself, it is more exposed to decline, but it will find in its successes new forces by which to resist corruption and thus preserve itself from decadence. Many populations without histories or recently implanted upon a virgin soil cannot escape barbarism, while the oldest European nations are able to keep themselves in the first rank. Others, such as Spain and Italy, after having languished for centuries, give new testimonies to their youth and vitality. The possession of a glorious past, far from being a cause of weakness in them, is, on the contrary, a source for renewal. The special object of this work is to seek the forces that allow nations to progress and reform, and I will prove that these are especially found in those social regimes in which each citizen has the power to overcome the original vice of his children and to transmit to them the habits of work and virtue created by their elders. For the moment I will merely note that this task is no more difficult for the old imperial nations than it is for their newest colonies.

    In conclusion, nations, like individuals, enjoy freedom. They are fatally bound neither to good nor to evil, and we cannot discern in the history of any nation the necessary succession of youth or progress by old age or decadence. Whatever their past may have been, they remain the masters of their own future. They may always expect success, even after a long period of abasement, if they once again observe the moral laws, while their prosperity will come to an end as soon as they let these laws fall into neglect.


    Stones Jul 06, 2020
    Show notes

    The life of St. Francis of Assisi has produced some of the most colorful and inspiring stories in the Catholic tradition. One of the most famous recounts his mystical experience at the chapel of San Damiano. As he had looked for Christ among the ruined humanity of lepers, so he looked for Christ among the ruined structure of an abandoned chapel. Asking for guidance on how best to serve the Lord, Francis heard Jesus speak to him from a tattered, Byzantine-style crucifix: “Francis, do you not see that my house is falling into ruins? Go, then, and repair it for love of me.” Francis set about rebuilding the chapel and eventually established a convent for women religious adjacent to it. Early commentators such as St. Bonaventure were quick to see in Christ’s words to Francis a broader, spiritual metaphor: “the Church that the voice was pointing out to him was the one that Christ purchased for himself by his blood.”[1] Bonaventure was no doubt correct to see in Francis something much more than an amateur stone mason, but his gloss points to a persistent tension between theology and culture, a tendency for universal theology to overpower the particularity of culture. That St. Francis wrote so little and fulfilled his mission by having the wounds of Christ written on his own body stands as the most powerful rebuke to theological abstraction. We moderns, alas, tend to be more comfortable with abstractions, a theology of the cross rather than the cross itself. San Damiano is a metaphor; it is also stones. Catholic culture today needs fewer metaphors and more stones.

    Catholics in America once grew up surrounded by stones. The stones of their churches, the stones of their schools, the stones of the industrial city. That this Catholic life coincided with what is now often referred to as “pre-Vatican II Catholicism” should not lead us to confuse it with the life-style of those who currently claim to defend “pre-Vatican II Catholicism.” Those longing for the supposed certainty and unity of the past rarely know anything of the life lived by urban Catholics in the decades before the Council. The relative lack of popular theological conflict during that period reflected less theological uniformity than the priority of an alternative source of faith. Let us call this source, in a word, stones: the physical, geographic life of living in a neighborhood where all of one’s material and spiritual needs were met within walking distance, where churches rubbed up against factories, schools against grocery stores, libraries next to movie theaters. And bars, bars everywhere.

    The concentration of so much of life in a small space indeed fostered insularity, even a kind of tribalism; the sociologist Herbert Gans titled his early 1960s study of a neighborhood of Italian Catholics in Boston, The Urban Villagers. Still the geographic dislocations of American life since World War II have not diminished tribalism so much as forced its migration to other locations, most especially “social media”—virtual “communities” possessing all the vices of the tribe with few of the virtues of authentic community.

    The world of the Catholic urban village rarely makes it into the debates that animate contemporary Catholic cultural commentary. Sadly, so many of those best able to tell the story of this world, especially those who came of age in the 1960s, left the Church as adults. I was, nonetheless, pleasantly surprised recently to find unsought evidence for the enduring hold of this world on at least one famous ex-Catholic, Bruce Springsteen. A couple of years ago, I found myself watching the Tony Awards. Just at the point when I believed I had fulfilled my obligation to be aware of the current state of Broadway’s cultural depravity, the stage cleared, leaving only a man and a piano. Bruce Springsteen performed an excerpt from his Tony Award winning one-man show based on his memoir, Born to Run. Over a simple, hypnotic chord progression, Springsteen spoke:

    I grew up on Randolph Street with my sister Virginia, she was a year younger than me, my parents Adele and Douglas, my grandparents Fred and Alice, and my dog Saddle. We lived spitting distance from the Catholic church, the priest's rectory, the nuns’ convent, the Saint Rose of Lima Grammar School, all of it just a football's toss away across the field of wild grass. I literally grew up surrounded by God. Surrounded by God and all my relatives. We had cousins, aunts, uncles, grandmas, grandpas, great grandmas, great grandpas, all of us were jammed in five little houses on two adjoining streets. And when the church bells rang, the whole clan would hustle up the street to stand witness to every wedding and every funeral that arrived like a state occasion in our neighborhood. We also had front row seats to watch the townsmen in their Sunday suits carry out an endless array of dark wooden boxes to be slipped in the rear of the Friedman's Funeral Home long black Cadillac for the short ride to Saint Rose cemetery hill on the edge of town. And there all our Catholic neighbors, all the Zirillis, and the McNicholases, and all the Springsteens who came before, they patiently waited for us. Now when it rains in Freehold, when it rains, the moisture in the humid air blankets the whole town with the smell of moist coffee grounds wafting in from the Nescafe plant on the town's eastern edge. You know, I never cared for coffee, but I loved that smell. It was comforting, it united our town just like our clanging road mill in a common sensory experience. It was a place here, you could hear it, you could smell it.[2]

    There is no moral to this story. There is, simply, presence. Springsteen would never be so naïve as to imply that people were better in the Freehold of his youth than they are today; the tone of lament in his recitation simply affirms that people were, for better or for worse, more connected. For Catholic culture, connection is itself a kind of virtue—necessary, not optional, not discretionary.

    Still, Springsteen’s loss of faith speaks to the limits of community. As post-World War II American Catholics emerged from their urban enclaves, the communal faith of their childhood simply could not withstand the onslaught of alternative messages—really, alternative faiths—relentlessly promoted by an all-pervasive consumer culture. The experience of American Catholics since the Second Vatican Council shows the need for something deeper than a merely communal faith.

    It also reveals the limits of a rigorously internalized, individual faith. Poor catechesis alone cannot explain why so many American Catholics find so little to attract them to the life of the Church. The evangelization of culture must avoid falling into the trap of intellectualism, as if it can be achieved by setting Catholic books, movies, and websites against their secular counterparts. Catholics will, for the foreseeable future, be outgunned in such a battle; more seriously, they will have allowed the secular world to set the terms for the fight. The early Church Father Tertullian famously observed that Christians set themselves apart from the world most powerfully through their way of living. Pagans looked on with amazement and gasped: “See how they love one another.”[3] The post-Christian West has appropriated the word “love” beyond all usefulness as a way to communicate the distinctness of the Christian message. The word “community” may face similar challenges, but the experience of urban Catholicism in America offers correctives to the dangers of abstraction or sentimentality. Would that one day our modern pagans will look on Catholics and say, “See how they live together.” For that day to come, we need to talk less about the Church and more about churches: built to last, built with stones.

    [1] These quotations come from Ivan Gobry, Saint Francis of Assisi (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), 42-43.

    [2] Bruce Springsteen, “We Lived in the Shadow of the Steeple,” Tony Awards Performance, 11 June 2018, Radio City Music Hall, New York City, USA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3E2ajPN0Wo

    [3] Quoted in Meg Hunter-Kilmer, “Let People Say of Us, ‘See How They Love One Another!’” https://aleteia.org/2016/06/19/let-people-say-of-us-see-how-they-love-each-other/


    Luke 8:24–25 with St. Augustine Jul 03, 2020
    Show notes

    “And they went and woke him, saying, ‘Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm. He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even winds and water, and they obey him?”

    In this scene from the Gospel, Jesus and his disciples are in a boat crossing the lake of Gennesaret. On the journey, the Lord falls asleep. Luke vividly describes the storm they encounter: “a windstorm came down on the lake, and they were filling with water and were in danger” (Lk. 8:23). Speaking to his congregation, St. Augustine spiritually interprets the passage, reminding them that each detail in the story is symbolic. The boat represents both the Church and the soul of a Christian who has Christ dwelling interiorly. So then, what do the wind and the raging waves signify in the story? Augustine tells his audience and, by extension, us: “you have heard an insult – it’s a high wind; you’ve got angry – it’s a wave. So as the wind blows and waves break, the boat is in peril.” There is a real danger for us here, just as for the disciples, for “your heart is in peril, your heart is tossed about.”

    Augustine points out that often our initial reaction to these accusations and insults is to retaliate and seek revenge. Yet he warns that if we give in to these thoughts it will lead to shipwreck in our spiritual lives. The doctor of the Church diagnoses that our desire for reprisal is “because Christ is asleep” in us; we have “forgotten Christ.” The solution to our ailment is to “wake Christ up, remember Christ; let Christ stay awake...” When we experience temptation to sin, symbolized by the biting wind and the buffeting waves, Augustine tells us that this is the moment to awaken Christ. Christ is the one whom the winds and water obey; he is the one who can still our hearts in the midst of trial and protect us from danger. To successfully navigate the sea of life, let us not despair but “let’s wake up Christ, and so sail in on a calm sea, and reach our home country”[1]

    [1] Summary by Ben Akers with the use of Augustine, s. 63 in Essential Sermons, trans. Edmund Hill (New York: New City Press, 2007), 101–102.


    Mark 10:29–30 with St. Teresa of Ávila Jul 01, 2020
    Show notes

    “Jesus said, ‘Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.’”

    This saying of Jesus about forsaking the world for his sake and receiving great rewards in return appears in three of the gospels (see also Matt. 19:29 and Lk. 19:29-30). St. Teresa of Ávila focuses her attention on the claim worded most emphatically in Mark’s gospel that those rewards will not only be in eternal life but “now in this time.” Teresa clings to Jesus’ promise with confidence, urging us: “let us not cease to believe that even in this life God gives the hundredfold.”

    But what does Teresa mean by this statement? Is she a sixteenth-century version of the prosperity gospel, telling us that God is going to give us every material comfort in this life? Certainly not! Her reflection on this gospel passage comes from her own experience of knowing the sweetness of God even in the midst of many hardships. She explains that what the Lord means by saying that we will obtain the hundredfold in this life is that those who detach themselves from the things of this world dispose themselves to receive God more and more fully. She uses the following analogy to describe how those who make progress in the spiritual life can receive the hundredfold even though the gift God gives of himself is always the same: “since what is given to those who are further advanced is totally the same as that given to them in the beginning, we can compare it to food that many persons eat. Those who eat just a little are left only with a good taste in their mouth for a short while; those who eat more, receive nourishment; those who eat a great deal receive life and strength.”

    Teresa’s reflection on this gospel passage should help us share her confidence. When we sacrifice for the sake of the gospel and give up the things of this world to follow Christ more closely, then we work up an appetite for God’s love, to use her analogy. We move from having only a taste of God’s goodness, to a full course meal that can sustain us. According to Teresa, the hundredfold of which Jesus speaks is the Lord himself, given to us more and more as we make room to receive him.[1]

    [1] Summary by Elizabeth Klein with the use of St. Teresa of Ávila, The Book of Her Life 22.15–16, trans. Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez in The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Ávila vol. 1 (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1987), 199.


    Mark 12:14–17 with St. Augustine Jun 29, 2020
    Show notes

    “And they came and said to him, ‘Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?’ But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, ‘Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.’ And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ They said to him, ‘Caesar’s.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they marveled at him.”

    St. Augustine in a short homily gives us a succinct interpretation of this passage, which highlights the wisdom of Christ in answering his opponents. The question put to Christ, says Augustine, was meant to trap him. If he denied that taxes should be paid, then he would be branded an instigator, someone who was bent on causing trouble for the established authorities. However, if he affirmed that taxes ought to be paid, he would be deemed a traitor to Jerusalem and a friend of Rome.

    Jesus avoids this political conundrum by pointing his opponents towards a deeper truth, one beyond the realities of worldly power. By drawing attention to Caesar’s image on the coin, Jesus asks a question about belonging and about the ordering of our priorities – these men are worried about a coin bearing Caesar’s image, but not about their own souls which ought to bear God’s image. According to Augustine, it is as if Christ had said “if Caesar can look for his image in a coin, is God not to look for his image in a man?” Augustine adds an additional dimension to the analogy: just as Caesar’s image on a coin is worn down with improper use, so also the image of God in our souls is worn down and effaced by sin. Jesus, in avoiding his opponent’s snare is also showing that he is “the master of the mint” who has come to “strike the coins afresh … by pardoning sins with grace; and he will show you that God is looking for his image.”[1]

    [1] Summary by Elizabeth Klein with the use of Augustine s. 229W in Sermons vol. 6, trans. Edmund Hill (New York: New City Press, 1993), 342.


    From the Pre-History of Twitter Jun 26, 2020
    Show notes

    In 1817, Louis de Bonald published a slim volume written in imitation of Blaise Pascal, Pensées Divers, or Thoughts on Various Subjects. The following selection from Bonald’s Thoughts is reprinted from Critics of the Enlightenment (ISI Books, 2004), which is due to be released later this year in a second edition by Cluny Media.

    The cry “Liberty, equality, fraternity or death!” was much in vogue during the Revolution. Liberty ended by covering France with prisons, equality by multiplying titles and decorations, and fraternity by dividing us. Death alone prevailed.

    Even after the example of France, Europe lacks one last lesson. Woe to the people destined to give it to her!

    The most beautiful monuments executed in Paris under Bonaparte’s orders are the rue de Rivoli, the rue de la Paix, and la place du Carrousel. For these he had only to demolish, and he was in his element.

    Revolutions have proximate and material causes that capture the attention of the less attentive. These causes are really only occasions. The true causes, the profound and efficacious causes, are moral ones, which small minds and corrupt men fail to see. A shock, they say, a sudden storm has toppled the edifice: doubtless true. Yet the walls had long since lost their stability. You believe that a financial deficit was the cause of the Revolution. Dig deeper and you will find a deficit in the very principles of the social order.

    Happy England, she has preserved her old sentiments alongside, or rather in spite of, her institutions. In France, we labored to remove our sentiments before changing our institutions. The English Revolution was an accident; ours was a system.

    In olden days in France, our manners were lighthearted and our minds serious. The Revolution changed all that. It made our minds superficial and our manners grave. Today we have neither reason nor joy.

    Our tone of voice in conversation has become lower and our expression less frank and more studied to the point that we now have less good faith in our opinions and less strength of character. One might say that we not only fear to be understood, but even to be heard.

    In a time when only graceful manners and charm are praised, one only finds strong characters, manly virtues, and steady minds by chance.

    Wherever there are many machines to take the place of men, many men will be mere machines. The effect of machines, in sparing men, must be to diminish the population.

    In every society there are more domestic sorrows to the extent that there are more public pleasures. In olden times, there was less pleasure and more happiness.

    A mind employed to corrupt is nothing other than force employed to destroy.

    It is difficult for the father of a family not to regard as a personal enemy the author of a bad book that brings corruption into the heart of his children.

    A man must read many books to furnish his memory, but when he wants to form solid taste and good style, he should read few of them. The immense quantity of books makes us read more, and, among the society of the dead as among that of the living, an overextended acquaintance does not leave enough time for good friendships to form.

    Fashions change ceaselessly in a people that no longer has morals, in the broadest sense of the term.


    John 1:23 with St. Augustine Jun 24, 2020
    Show notes

    He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”

    In the first scene of the fourth gospel, John the Baptist is questioned by the priests and Levites as to his identity and his mission. To answer them he employs an image from an important prophecy from the book of Isaiah (cf. Isa. 40:3): he is the voice preparing the way of the Lord. This passage declares the good news that Israel has been longing to hear. A messenger in the desert will signal that this is the appointed time of consolation and comfort. This is the moment that God is coming to visit his people (cf. Isa. 40-66). To draw out the meaning of this image of the “voice,” St. Augustine asks us to reflect on the relation between the voice and the word in our everyday speech. The message or word that is spoken by us first begins in the heart of the individual. The person then seeks to communicate it to another “so that what is already in my in my mind may also be found in yours,” as Augustine phrases it. What makes this exchange possible is the sound of the voice. Although the sound dissipates once the word is uttered, the spoken truth remains both in the heart of the one who speaks and in the hearer. Augustine sees this reality as symbolic of the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. John is the voice and Christ is the Word. John’s ministry is the voice of one breaking the silence so that Christ, the Word, might be received in the hearts of believers. Despite this exalted ministry, the Baptist’s work is one of humility. At the height of his apostolic activity, John does not seek to grow his own ministry apart from the Incarnate Word. He is content directing others to Christ. He aims to make Christ known as he himself fades into the background. Augustine praises John’s clarity in mission: “he identified himself, he pointed out the difference between the Christ and himself, he humbled himself.” In our Christian life, we need to imitate St. John the Baptist. Whether it be on our lips or in our hearts, we echo the words of the Baptist: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn. 3:30).[1]

    [1] Summary by Ben Akers with the use of Augustine, s. 293.3 in Sermons vol. 8, trans. Edmund Hill (New York: New City Press, 1994), 150.


    Reading Sociology for the Sake of the Gospel Jun 22, 2020
    Show notes

    Could it be part of a Catholic’s duty to read works of sociology? As a professor of theology most of whose students work as evangelists and catechists, I believe that I should. As St. Paul taught, it belongs to the work of the evangelist to “become all things to all people” and to “do it all for the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor 9:22–23). It is as true today as it was in the thirteenth century that quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur—“whatever is received, is received after the manner of the recipient.” The evangelist must know something about those he hopes to evangelize, and sociology promises insight into their views. Mindful of that duty, and having benefited greatly in the past from the work of sociologists such as Christian Smith, I turned to Tim Clydesdale and Kathleen Garces-Foley’s The Twentysomething Soul: Understanding the Religious and Secular Lives of American Young Adults (Oxford, 2019).

    At the same time, the limitations and potential pitfalls of sociology were also on my mind when I read the book, due to two occasions in 2019 when reports of survey results concerning religion sent the media and Catholic opinion into convulsions. In the spring, it was announced that the 2018 General Social Survey (GSS) had revealed that the religiously unaffiliated, popularly known as “Nones,” now make up 23.1% of the population of the United States. This figure appeared consistent with the Nones’ meteoric rise over the last three decades. The Nones had seemingly caught up with Catholics and Evangelicals. Some, however, questioned mainstream interpretations of this data. It was pointed out that some journalists had erroneously equated Nones with atheists (most Nones do not self-identify as atheists). It was also observed that although there is good reason to recognize ours as a period of religious decline, there is little evidence of a major drop-off in fervor among the fervent. In other words, the new Nones are largely not yesterday’s committed believers but instead yesterday’s nominal box-checkers—those who had vaguely identified with their grandparents’ religious tradition despite its irrelevance to their way of life. It would be wrong to dismiss the GSS finding as a non-story, but it does seem that its significance was widely misconstrued.

    Late summer saw another apparently momentous study hit the headlines. According to Pew Research, fewer than a third of US Catholics believe the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation. If accurate, this would seem—based on earlier studies, whose accuracy may themselves be questioned—to indicate a drop of nearly 30% in a mere eight years. Once again, however, close examination of the data gave good reason to suspect that the findings were being misinterpreted. Mark M. Gray of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) noted that the wording of the survey was potentially misleading. In addition, the “US Catholics” in question are all “self-described Catholics.” That would include those who rarely or never attend Mass. It would thus be wrong to conclude, as some did, that the study meant that only 31% of Catholics at Sunday Mass believed in the Real Presence. It is evident, then, that if evangelists are to profit from sociological studies, they must look beyond the headlines and ask careful questions about data and methods.

    Both of these sensational findings and the considerations that rendered them questionable were fresh in my mind when I began reading The Twentysomething Soul. In differing ways, the book confirmed my misgivings about popular reporting on sociology. Near the beginning, the authors summarize the “major claims” they wish to make. The most interesting of these have to do with religious stances that prove unstable over time. Some Nones are proponents of “philosophical secularism.” Yet it turns out that philosophical secularism tends to atrophy outside universities and urban centers. Journalists often use “None” as if it meant atheist or principled agnostic. In fact, Nones are most likely to be “Indifferent Secularists,” who simply devote little attention to religious or philosophical questions (54%). Another third of Nones are either “Unaffiliated Believers,” who think there is a personal God but do not identify with any religious tradition, or “Spiritual Eclectics,” who find “spiritual growth” important but do not belong to a faith community (17% apiece). Only 12% of Nones qualify, on Clydesdale and Garces-Foley’s telling, as “Philosophical Secularists.” It is also noteworthy that Clydesdale and Garces-Foley confirm something we might have intuited: those who are only “tepidly affiliated”—who attend services inconsistently, who pray sometimes but not regularly—tend to slide over time towards disaffiliation. The center does not hold (see Lk 11:23).

    Both insights from The Twentysomething Soul—the minority status among Nones of philosophical secularists and the fragility of nominal religious affiliation—confirm the need for circumspection over breathless headlines about the rise of the Nones and the decline of religious faith. The Twentysomething Soul is thus a salutary corrective to popular interpretations of the GSS finding mentioned above.

    Nonetheless, The Twentysomething Soul suffers from some of the methodological difficulties that beset the Pew study on Catholics and the Eucharist. First, categorization of religious identity is among the thorniest problems that sociologists of religion face, and Clydesdale and Garces-Foley’s admirably transparent “Methodological Appendix” shows that this task presented an enormous obstacle to their project. Second, the wording of several of the survey items in the National Study of American Twentysomethings (NSAT), the centerpiece of the authors’ data collection, raises doubts about their validity—that is, their success in measuring exactly what they are intended to measure.

    Finally, the usefulness of The Twentysomething Soul may be diminished by the age of the data. The volume was released in August 2019, but the data that inform it were collected between 2006 and 2014, with the NSAT being administered in 2013. Many of the individuals whom the authors studied, and whom they present in the book as “today’s twentysomethings,” are in fact by now thirtysomethings, and a few are likely in their forties. The rapidity and volatility of cultural shift in the 2010s was considerable, to say the least, and 2020’s foot seems to be firmly planted on the accelerator. Data as fresh and precise as possible are a special desideratum in such times.

    Shortcomings of the present volume aside, it is an example of the kind of work that evangelists and catechists may find it useful to read for the sake of the gospel, provided they are prepared to sift what they read patiently and judiciously.


    Previous 1 2 3 4 5 10 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Joel Osteen Podcast

    1

    Joel Osteen Podcast Christianity
    Joel Osteen Podcast

    2

    Joel Osteen Podcast Christianity
    The Bible For Normal People

    3

    The Bible For Normal People Christianity
    The Liturgists Podcast

    4

    The Liturgists Podcast Christianity
    Firestarters

    5

    Firestarters Christianity
    Elevation with Steven Furtick

    6

    Elevation with Steven Furtick Christianity
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights