St. Paul the Apostle Catholic Church in NYC is hosting a Pride Mass this month across the street from Stonewall Inn. My life is pretty evenly divided between Catholics who're unfamiliar with LGBT pride/history, and "secular" queer people who've been pushed too far away from the Church to have any faith in it. Then there are a few of us trying to bridge the divide. This Pride Mass is St. Paul the Apostle Church bridging that divide. I'm going to attempt to explain the importance to both sides here.
Why LGBT Pride is important:
I went to Milwaukee PrideFest from 2005 through 2013, and the changes that happened there over those 8 years were absolutely incredible. The first few years photography was banned (this was before smartphones) because so many people were in the closet, protesters crowded outside, people came from around the state for the much-needed community. I knew a few teachers who feared that their participation at PrideFest would get out and they would lose their jobs. But as more celebrities came out, more conversation about LGBT rights happened on a national scale, more companies began sponsoring Pride events, more schools began getting gay-straight alliances, and more people came out, things began to change. The B52s, Cyndi Lauper, Joan Jett, and others came to perform at PrideFest! The last couple years, the only protester was a local joke who drag queens posed in front of for pictures. Child-friendly sections of the festival grounds opened, and people brought their kids! I interned at The Alliance School, a high school for LGBT kids who'd been bullied out of their schools, and they've been holding their graduation ceremonies at PrideFest for years!
There are still LGBT people getting kicked out of their homes by their parents, losing their jobs (especially under Christian employers), being beaten and killed and "corrective" raped. Compared to the rest of the population, a disproportionate number of LGBT people are incarcerated, homeless, and/or clinically depressed. Pride is community, culture, and history that both memorializes those we have lost and provides a safehaven away from that pain. I used Milwaukee PrideFest as an example because it shows precisely how LGBT communities can thrive through Pride in a way that couldn't happen without it.
Why Mass is important in this context:
Mass is when Catholics gather together and share Communion as a community of equals. Usually, the Bible readings leading up to Communion highlight God's presence in the poor, downtrodden, exiled, and despised. Communion is the epitome of that. "The body of Christ" refers to both the actual Eucharist and the people sharing it.
To have Mass across the street from Stonewall Inn (where Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson lead a protest against a violent police raid on the gay bar in 1969) is to acknowledge that the people there have that presence too. An explicitly LGBT Mass proclaims LGBT people as "the body of Christ."
This LGBT Pride Mass isn't a solution, it's a step in building a bridge. The Church has many more steps to take, but I think that explaining the details of this huge step to both sides might make building that bridge easier.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Sunday, May 20, 2018
System Racism and Domestic Abuse
As I've been trying to figure out systemic racism in the United States, I've begun to notice commonalities with domestic abuse. Both involve one party attaining power by taking power away from the other party, the grooming of both the prey and of peers in order to attain power more smoothly, the destruction of the prey's identity and resources and relationships, and putting the onus of reconciliation on the prey rather than on the predator. Although I've been working on this idea for months now, I haven't been certain enough of the parallels to put words to it.
What I've been hearing more and more often since the presidential election, particularly from people of color, particularly from Black people, is that the silver lining is how undeniable both overt and systemic racism have become. Racism in the United States is much more blatant now. At first I couldn't see how this development could possibly be good or helpful, but I shut my mouth and opened my ears. So many voices that know a lot more than I do have been saying this, there must be something to it.
It finally clicked for me when I realized the statement "at least X doesn't hit you" is no different from "racism ended with the civil rights movement." The most inconspicuous domestic abuse is the most effective domestic abuse - most people just don't know how to help or even believe someone who doesn't have bruises. In the same vein, the most inconspicuous racism (notice that it's most inconspicuous to the people who benefit most from it) has been the most pervasive racism. How often has it been argued "I can't be racist, I have a black friend" as though the perceived tolerance of one person excuses one's behavior? Fr. Bryan Massingale has spoken about the misconception of racism as an overt, clearly stated declaration. This misconception is both a product of and a contributing factor towards the systemic racism upon which the United States has been built.
In the same vein, domestic abuse that is not physically violent is rarely taken seriously in one's community. It's often brushed aside as a misunderstanding, all in the prey's head, or told "they don't really mean it." Spouses and children are usually told to try to please the person, usually someone in a position of authority, in order to mend the bond. This only draws more power to the abuser, who continues to benefit from the abuse. Prey who are unfamiliar with domestic abuse usually don't have words to describe what's happening to them, and can't/won't call it "abuse" simply because it isn't physical. Often only after the prey shows visible signs of physical abuse do schools, CPS, police, communities intercede - this is due partly to low resources, and partly to the easy deniability of abuse that is not physical.
Months ago, I thought I was going crazy for thinking that systemic racism is essentially domestic abuse on a large scale. Now I wonder if these macrocosms and microcosms are symptoms of a larger human problem?
What I've been hearing more and more often since the presidential election, particularly from people of color, particularly from Black people, is that the silver lining is how undeniable both overt and systemic racism have become. Racism in the United States is much more blatant now. At first I couldn't see how this development could possibly be good or helpful, but I shut my mouth and opened my ears. So many voices that know a lot more than I do have been saying this, there must be something to it.
It finally clicked for me when I realized the statement "at least X doesn't hit you" is no different from "racism ended with the civil rights movement." The most inconspicuous domestic abuse is the most effective domestic abuse - most people just don't know how to help or even believe someone who doesn't have bruises. In the same vein, the most inconspicuous racism (notice that it's most inconspicuous to the people who benefit most from it) has been the most pervasive racism. How often has it been argued "I can't be racist, I have a black friend" as though the perceived tolerance of one person excuses one's behavior? Fr. Bryan Massingale has spoken about the misconception of racism as an overt, clearly stated declaration. This misconception is both a product of and a contributing factor towards the systemic racism upon which the United States has been built.
In the same vein, domestic abuse that is not physically violent is rarely taken seriously in one's community. It's often brushed aside as a misunderstanding, all in the prey's head, or told "they don't really mean it." Spouses and children are usually told to try to please the person, usually someone in a position of authority, in order to mend the bond. This only draws more power to the abuser, who continues to benefit from the abuse. Prey who are unfamiliar with domestic abuse usually don't have words to describe what's happening to them, and can't/won't call it "abuse" simply because it isn't physical. Often only after the prey shows visible signs of physical abuse do schools, CPS, police, communities intercede - this is due partly to low resources, and partly to the easy deniability of abuse that is not physical.
Months ago, I thought I was going crazy for thinking that systemic racism is essentially domestic abuse on a large scale. Now I wonder if these macrocosms and microcosms are symptoms of a larger human problem?
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Feminine Genius
Whenever I've hear the term "feminine genius" in a Catholic setting, I've always felt like I'd heard it before but couldn't remember where. Finally, after hanging out with a bunch of Catholic menopausal women, it clicked.
My Catholic all-women's college library had a wealth of books about midwifery, menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, birth, and "feminine" bodily experiences altogether. Most of these had been written and self-published from the 70's through the mid-90's with a strong emphasis on herbal remedies. "Our Bodies, Ourselves" was perhaps the most groundbreaking as it was the first medical book that explained, among many other things (red flags of domestic abuse & how to survive it, for example), the realities of female bodies without telling said female bodies what they should do to fill a certain agenda. A few of these books used the term "feminine genius" to mean the treatment of "feminine" bodily changes - it's foolish to claim, these books argued, that any & all actions done by a mind within a "feminine" body would automatically be "feminine" acts. Obviously, this made an impression!
"Feminine genius" involved the wisdom of midwives & doulas, the easing of hot flashes, and methods to soothe the aching breast growth of pubescent, pregnant, and transgender women. "Feminine genius" didn't assume that someone who menstruates, miscarries, or goes through menopause will just automatically comprehend what's happening and deal with it in a vacuum. What I took away from these studies was primarily the knowledge of reusable menstrual products, although apparently much more has stayed with me.
I guess I had so thoroughly absorbed this understanding of "feminine genius" that I'd forgotten where I had first heard it. Discovering that the alternative use of the term, put forth by celibate men, excludes the "feminine genius" that I learned in college is sometimes like walking on an alien planet. Where are the cushioned seats for women going through menopause? Where is the outcry against disposable menstrual products that don't biodegrade? Where is the protection of preteen girls, not protection of their "purity," as their bodies change beyond their control?
Anything that proclaims "feminine genius" as a presumption of how all feminine people should be, rather than the realities lived by diverse feminine people, is not something I want a part of.
My Catholic all-women's college library had a wealth of books about midwifery, menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, birth, and "feminine" bodily experiences altogether. Most of these had been written and self-published from the 70's through the mid-90's with a strong emphasis on herbal remedies. "Our Bodies, Ourselves" was perhaps the most groundbreaking as it was the first medical book that explained, among many other things (red flags of domestic abuse & how to survive it, for example), the realities of female bodies without telling said female bodies what they should do to fill a certain agenda. A few of these books used the term "feminine genius" to mean the treatment of "feminine" bodily changes - it's foolish to claim, these books argued, that any & all actions done by a mind within a "feminine" body would automatically be "feminine" acts. Obviously, this made an impression!
"Feminine genius" involved the wisdom of midwives & doulas, the easing of hot flashes, and methods to soothe the aching breast growth of pubescent, pregnant, and transgender women. "Feminine genius" didn't assume that someone who menstruates, miscarries, or goes through menopause will just automatically comprehend what's happening and deal with it in a vacuum. What I took away from these studies was primarily the knowledge of reusable menstrual products, although apparently much more has stayed with me.
I guess I had so thoroughly absorbed this understanding of "feminine genius" that I'd forgotten where I had first heard it. Discovering that the alternative use of the term, put forth by celibate men, excludes the "feminine genius" that I learned in college is sometimes like walking on an alien planet. Where are the cushioned seats for women going through menopause? Where is the outcry against disposable menstrual products that don't biodegrade? Where is the protection of preteen girls, not protection of their "purity," as their bodies change beyond their control?
Anything that proclaims "feminine genius" as a presumption of how all feminine people should be, rather than the realities lived by diverse feminine people, is not something I want a part of.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Pew-fillers and the aftermath of Charlottesville
Since my return to the Catholic Church, I've noticed a large gap between the actively involved parishioners and those who sit in the pew until receiving Communion and then leaving until next Sunday.
Let me be clear. I am aware that many people can't be as involved as they might want to be. Family, career, or health demands get in the way; maybe their parish's ministries and social groups aren't welcoming, or they don't consider themselves skilled enough to participate further (you are!). Some people are active in ways that don't involve the parish proper, whether at home, volunteering, or academically.
It stunned me the first few times parishioners told me "it's great that you're so involved. I don't even listen to the homily, I just come for Communion." Why?! Maybe it just isn't in me to take every part of the Church for granted since I was away for so long. In fact, I took it for granted that everyone there is there because they want to be there 100% - not just to sit in a pew for an hour a week. I'm there largely to make sure that the things that drove me away don't happen to anyone else. It's been struggle for me over the past few months to just let pew-fillers be rather than exhausting myself over attempts to motivate them.
Since the white supremacist "rally" at Charlottesville, many white Catholic bishops, priests, educators, women religious, and activists have spoken out against white supremacy. How much action is behind these words varies, and I'm trying to remain realistically optimistic - pessimism is not a motivator. Complaints from Catholics, generally those who're disillusioned from Catholic institutions altogether, point to the bishops and priests who have gone about business as usual. These passionate Catholics call to mind Rev. Bryan Massingale, Sr. Thea Bowman, Dr. Diana L. Hayes, and the dozens of Black Catholics who have been calling out the Church in America for its inaction and ignorance for decades.
I worry that the division between Catholics who work to dismantle white supremacy, and "business as usual" white Catholics is widening to the point that the latter group will intermingle with racist Catholics. And I wonder if that division lines up at all with the gap between active Catholics and pew-fillers. Ultimately, I worry that the passionate Catholics working to dismantle white supremacy will eventually become so disillusioned that they (we?) will leave altogether. And then who will be left?
Let me be clear. I am aware that many people can't be as involved as they might want to be. Family, career, or health demands get in the way; maybe their parish's ministries and social groups aren't welcoming, or they don't consider themselves skilled enough to participate further (you are!). Some people are active in ways that don't involve the parish proper, whether at home, volunteering, or academically.
It stunned me the first few times parishioners told me "it's great that you're so involved. I don't even listen to the homily, I just come for Communion." Why?! Maybe it just isn't in me to take every part of the Church for granted since I was away for so long. In fact, I took it for granted that everyone there is there because they want to be there 100% - not just to sit in a pew for an hour a week. I'm there largely to make sure that the things that drove me away don't happen to anyone else. It's been struggle for me over the past few months to just let pew-fillers be rather than exhausting myself over attempts to motivate them.
Since the white supremacist "rally" at Charlottesville, many white Catholic bishops, priests, educators, women religious, and activists have spoken out against white supremacy. How much action is behind these words varies, and I'm trying to remain realistically optimistic - pessimism is not a motivator. Complaints from Catholics, generally those who're disillusioned from Catholic institutions altogether, point to the bishops and priests who have gone about business as usual. These passionate Catholics call to mind Rev. Bryan Massingale, Sr. Thea Bowman, Dr. Diana L. Hayes, and the dozens of Black Catholics who have been calling out the Church in America for its inaction and ignorance for decades.
I worry that the division between Catholics who work to dismantle white supremacy, and "business as usual" white Catholics is widening to the point that the latter group will intermingle with racist Catholics. And I wonder if that division lines up at all with the gap between active Catholics and pew-fillers. Ultimately, I worry that the passionate Catholics working to dismantle white supremacy will eventually become so disillusioned that they (we?) will leave altogether. And then who will be left?
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Presenting "faith journey" aka existential crisis
Every Sunday from now until January, I'm meeting with a group of Catholic women for personal formation, community discipleship, and event planning. We will facilitate a women's spiritual retreat after our last meeting. The dozen of us went through the same retreat last month, facilitated by women who had met together all of last year.
Event planning is well-rehearsed. Community discipleship is new to me in terms of spirituality, but otherwise not that different from my experiences in other goal-oriented groups. Alverno College prepared me well for both of these.
The primary way that personal formation is achieved through these meetings is through a half hour presentation, followed by "affirmations" from the rest of the group. Most of the retreat consisted of these presentations, edited and refined throughout last year's meetings, and then reflections on them both alone and in small groups. The two leaders of my group, seasoned facilitators, will give their presentations again and then give some light guidance while we dozen prepare our own.
These presentations will focus on each individual's personal "faith journey," how each person got to where we are now. Guidelines are loose, though based on the presentations at the retreat most of these women speak almost exclusively about their relationships with their parents, their husbands, and their children.
It's only been a day and a half since the first meeting and I've already turned this into a full-on existential crisis! Go me! I'm such an overachiever! I signed up to be one of the first presenters partly so I won't have to think about it for more than a month, and partly + selfishly so I can give a little lesson about good public speaking skills right away (if one more person clicks her tongue after every sentence, I'm going to scream). The more I think about my journey the more I delve into gender and feminist theory, liberation theology, and nihilism vs. existentialism. This sums up my progress thusfar ("ppl" = people):
Here is this unusual opportunity to talk about myself openly before a group for a half hour, and... this is very cheesy... if I talk about theory, then who am I? If my developing plan to speak about my journey consists mostly of concepts that exist outside of me, then what does that say about me? The debate and contemplation of these ideas will continue after me, the same can't be said about relationships (I wonder how many people identify through their relationships out of a fear of mortality?). But if I end up impacting these studies through academia, does that reflect on the quality/value of my life? If I don't, does that imply failure?
It's not that people, places, and events aren't important to me, I just can't imagine filling up more than 15 minutes with talking about only them as a reference to my self. But these concepts, I could - and do! - go on and on and on.
At the first meeting the other day, each person summarized their personal goal as an individual in the group for the year. Mine was "be an agent of change." That tends to be my goal/role in Catholic communities altogether, and it's what I hope to achieve through grad school (next year???). The retreat highlighted how alone I feel as a whole human being in these communities and I don't expect that to change as long as I aim to facilitate change. I'm just not certain what it says about me as a whole human being presenting oneself through theory.
Event planning is well-rehearsed. Community discipleship is new to me in terms of spirituality, but otherwise not that different from my experiences in other goal-oriented groups. Alverno College prepared me well for both of these.
The primary way that personal formation is achieved through these meetings is through a half hour presentation, followed by "affirmations" from the rest of the group. Most of the retreat consisted of these presentations, edited and refined throughout last year's meetings, and then reflections on them both alone and in small groups. The two leaders of my group, seasoned facilitators, will give their presentations again and then give some light guidance while we dozen prepare our own.
These presentations will focus on each individual's personal "faith journey," how each person got to where we are now. Guidelines are loose, though based on the presentations at the retreat most of these women speak almost exclusively about their relationships with their parents, their husbands, and their children.
It's only been a day and a half since the first meeting and I've already turned this into a full-on existential crisis! Go me! I'm such an overachiever! I signed up to be one of the first presenters partly so I won't have to think about it for more than a month, and partly + selfishly so I can give a little lesson about good public speaking skills right away (if one more person clicks her tongue after every sentence, I'm going to scream). The more I think about my journey the more I delve into gender and feminist theory, liberation theology, and nihilism vs. existentialism. This sums up my progress thusfar ("ppl" = people):
It's not that people, places, and events aren't important to me, I just can't imagine filling up more than 15 minutes with talking about only them as a reference to my self. But these concepts, I could - and do! - go on and on and on.
At the first meeting the other day, each person summarized their personal goal as an individual in the group for the year. Mine was "be an agent of change." That tends to be my goal/role in Catholic communities altogether, and it's what I hope to achieve through grad school (next year???). The retreat highlighted how alone I feel as a whole human being in these communities and I don't expect that to change as long as I aim to facilitate change. I'm just not certain what it says about me as a whole human being presenting oneself through theory.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Liberation Theology vs Prosperity Theology
Before I delve into the boundaries between the two, I will first briefly define them:
Liberation theology centralizes around oppressed people freeing themselves. Scripture passages that highlight liberation of the poor and marginalized bolster this movement, namely the story of Jesus Christ as told in the gospels. Oscar Romero, James H. Cone, and Diana L. Hayes are among the most prominent names in liberation theology. South American and Black religious communities are the strongest proponents of liberation theology, interweaving womanism (black women prioritizing the equality of black women among both race and gender lines) and mujeristas (Latinas working to liberate both the poor and oppressed in their culture, as well as their culture overall against colonial influences).
Prosperity theology prioritizes the embracing of God-given gifts, namely material gifts. The idea is that God has given the faithful these gifts, and it would be ungrateful to give away those gifts - charity, according to prosperity theology, is against God's will. There are communities, though, who do emphasize giving in order to receive, but the giving is almost exclusively to leaders who are already wealthy. Joel Osteen is the most famous proponent, and he is in good company with Southern charismatic churches and other televangelists. Almost all of these are white, with almost no references to any of the gospels.
I am by no means the first person to connect the Trump administration and its supporters to prosperity theology (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). "Make America Great Again" has never included greatness for anyone who benefits from liberation theology - the declaration of making Mexico pay for a wall dividing the nation from the United States makes this clear, among many other points.
Although I may prioritize the liberation of oppressed people, especially in the face of the oncoming administration, it is not about me. After all, it is because of my platform as an able-bodied white person that I can put forward liberation theology with reasonable expectation of being received by other able-boded white people. It is up to me to use the benefits I systemically receive from prosperity theologians, now that they are coming into their greatest political power yet, to work towards this liberation while also understanding that it is from these systems, including my role in them, that oppressed people must be liberated. It is up to me to keep in mind these intersections while also understanding that I, no matter how hard I work, am not separate from the ivory tower that is prosperity theology.
Diana L. Hayes described it better than I could. In her connection between womanism and liberation theology, she said that it would be logically inconsistent for her to work with feminists (see: white) because it is from us (see: white) that she must be liberated.
Liberation theology centralizes around oppressed people freeing themselves. Scripture passages that highlight liberation of the poor and marginalized bolster this movement, namely the story of Jesus Christ as told in the gospels. Oscar Romero, James H. Cone, and Diana L. Hayes are among the most prominent names in liberation theology. South American and Black religious communities are the strongest proponents of liberation theology, interweaving womanism (black women prioritizing the equality of black women among both race and gender lines) and mujeristas (Latinas working to liberate both the poor and oppressed in their culture, as well as their culture overall against colonial influences).
Prosperity theology prioritizes the embracing of God-given gifts, namely material gifts. The idea is that God has given the faithful these gifts, and it would be ungrateful to give away those gifts - charity, according to prosperity theology, is against God's will. There are communities, though, who do emphasize giving in order to receive, but the giving is almost exclusively to leaders who are already wealthy. Joel Osteen is the most famous proponent, and he is in good company with Southern charismatic churches and other televangelists. Almost all of these are white, with almost no references to any of the gospels.
I am by no means the first person to connect the Trump administration and its supporters to prosperity theology (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). "Make America Great Again" has never included greatness for anyone who benefits from liberation theology - the declaration of making Mexico pay for a wall dividing the nation from the United States makes this clear, among many other points.
Although I may prioritize the liberation of oppressed people, especially in the face of the oncoming administration, it is not about me. After all, it is because of my platform as an able-bodied white person that I can put forward liberation theology with reasonable expectation of being received by other able-boded white people. It is up to me to use the benefits I systemically receive from prosperity theologians, now that they are coming into their greatest political power yet, to work towards this liberation while also understanding that it is from these systems, including my role in them, that oppressed people must be liberated. It is up to me to keep in mind these intersections while also understanding that I, no matter how hard I work, am not separate from the ivory tower that is prosperity theology.
Diana L. Hayes described it better than I could. In her connection between womanism and liberation theology, she said that it would be logically inconsistent for her to work with feminists (see: white) because it is from us (see: white) that she must be liberated.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Millennials leaving religion
I was just listening to the "Keep the Church Weird" lecture by Rachel Held Evans and it was like lightening struck.
Rachel Held Evans says what I've been saying for years: evangelizing to millennials does not work because we have learned to avoid anything that seems to be an advertisement. Advertising is cheap and shallow, the exact opposite of what spirituality and religion should be. And I've not been the only person who's been saying this, Kaya Oakes made similar points in her book "The Nones Are Alright." Those who say they are "spiritual but not religious" leave many parts of mainstream religion behind including the contemporary commercialism, and this departure is largest among millennials.
Think of how mainstream American culture treated millennials in the late 90's, when we were in middle school. The Spice Girls, N SYNC, the Backstreet Boys, Tiger Beat magazine, claire's, etc. Because the young adults at that time had both expendable income and a modicum of autonomy unseen in previous generations, we were targeted in advertising unlike ever before. This was also when "NeoWicca" became popular among young adults, and became increasingly commercial. Perhaps the Spice Girls are the best example of how extremely millennials were marketed to; the idea of a commercial girl group was formed in order to compete in pop music, and then women auditioned to fill those roles (source). Advertising became more obvious as well, with the celebrities most popular among young millennials blatantly flaunting their sponsors' logos. The film Josie & the Pussycats highlighted this in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
All of this advertising worked well when we were 10-15. I argue that the trend of wearing things "ironically" in the late 00's was a way of maturing out of that. "I got this Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirt out of a dumpster, I'm wearing it ironically." The idea of actually supporting popular brands was so odious that millennial hipsters made it blatantly obvious that wearing those brands was a joke. And if you were not in on the joke, that meant you were a sell-out.
So what does this mean for the religious bodies so desperate to bring the millennials back to their churches? The techniques that worked so well for big name brands in the late 90's worked then, but not now. The techniques that existed ("worked" is an inappropriate term for a social trend that denied efficiency) ten years ago won't work now.
Frankly I don't know what will bring millennials back to the churches. But working harder at enticing us back than at sincere service to the poor is certainly not the way to do it.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Journaling
A good friend is trying to expand her journaling but doesn’t know where to start. People keep telling her “do whatever you want” but that isn’t concrete enough. I’ve been journaling since ‘99 so I put together a little presentation of all the stuff I’ve done. To begin with, when I say “journal” as a noun what I mean is a blank book that a person fills over time with personal information. A diary is a journal that’s either mostly or all words, a verbal personal narrative. A sketchbook is a journal that’s either mostly or all art, a nonverbal personal narrative. A journal is a blend of these.
1:
1:
My first journal was purely diary. Lined paper with words written in either pen or pencil. This was the book that lasted me the longest, 4 years while the rest last 3-9 months. I was a very angry teenager and while most of the entries are about mundane events, like visiting my dad or something my school bullies said, it’s almost all just emotional ranting. Intentionally bad spelling, swearing as I was oh-so-rebellious in these pages, violent ideation.
2:
I had this idea that my drawings would someday be framed into gallery-quality art, so I was very stingy with the paper. This is by far the biggest book out of all my journals, and yet it has the most empty space. Out of my 35(!!!) completed journals, I have very few regrets and not filling pages is probably my #1.
3:
4:
5:
Honorary Mentions:
First is Ceremony by Leslie Marmon Silko, which I painted and collaged last summer. This is one of my favorite books and having it on plain paper just didn’t seem right.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Gendered Marketing in Religion
The rise in both gendered marketing and the outcry against it has largely been secular. Soap, deodorant, shampoo, yogurt, shaving razors, pens, earplugs - these are just a handful of items that have been needlessly gendered solely to bump up sales. Men's products are in dark packaging with hard lines and a sense of adventure, whether through sports or references to battle or problem-solving. Women's products, which tend to be more expensive, are in pink or purple packaging with soft lines and a sense of delicacy. While women have been purchasing more of the men's products largely because they are cheaper, men very rarely purchase the women's products partly because they're more expensive and partly because they're emasculating.
Gendered marketing has spilled over into religious products, namely teen Bibles and rosaries. Faith & Family Reviews posted a brief review of the "faiTHGirLz! Bible" and the "NIV Boys Bible" commending the gendered marketing. The "faiTHGirLz!" Bible has a "dream girl" section. Faith & Family Reviews compliments the boy's Bible's "manly" appeal to boys by having a cover resembling metal. The girl's Bible has sections focusing on difficult emotions, the boy's Bible has sections focusing on strength.
Other Bibles marketed to teen girls are also pink with flowers, birds, and repeatedly the phrase "faith, hope, and love" (1, 2, 3, 4). These four, as well as the one reviewed by Faith & Family Reviews, all have profiles of women in the Bible - a topic that usually goes unnoticed outside of Eve and the Virgin Mary. Christianbook.com also offers dozens of similar Bibles for teen girls.
The same Bibles marketed to teen boys bear darker covers and bold but simple graphics. Their descriptions are more focused on action in "the real world" rather than on personal development (1, 2, 3, 4). None of them mention women of the Bible - perhaps the creators of these gendered Bibles assume boys don't need to know about them? Christianbook.com's Bibles for teen boys resemble footballs and soccer balls, bear army camouflage, and repeatedly declare "man up."
These Bibles prioritize very differently for boys and girls. Where's the adventure for girls? Where's the emotional depth for boys? Why apply such commercialism to Bibles, especially the sports references? And how could anyone stand to read Galatians 3:28 in a gendered Bible?
And this gendered marketing in religion extends to Catholic rosaries as well. Men's rosaries almost always have larger, matte beads - black, blue, brown, dark red - with thick dark wire. Descriptors often include "strength," "durability," "heroic," and "powerful" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Catholic online shops offer dozens of men's rosaries that all look remarkably the same (1, 2, 3).
Women's rosaries, on the other hand, come in a wide variety of colors and flourishes (1, 2). Pearls and svaroski crystals are very common. Men's single-decade rosary bracelets are shown on the wrists of models with no other part of the body visible (1), while women's rosaries are often pictured with cleavage, shoulders, necks, hair, and lips (1). Descriptors are almost exclusively focused on the beauty of women's rosaries (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
While there is certainly nothing wrong with having personalized rosaries, the gendered division goes against the very universality of both the rosary itself and of Catholicism. Do men and women really pray the rosary so differently that they require such different styles with explicitly different priorities?
Gendered marketing extends beyond Christianity. Jewelry and apparel for Pagan men and women is similarly divided. Pagan women's jewelry tends to be smaller, more delicate, more graceful, and more colorful (1, 2) black velvet chokers are very common. Pagan men's jewelry is thicker, darker, bolder (1, 2). Additionally, Pagan apparel is very distinctively gendered. Men's clothing tends to be baggier, covers more, and has large bold designs (1, 2) most of these are black, grey, or white t-shirts. Pagan women's clothing has a much wider variety that involves more colors, shows more skin, and bears more delicate or "cute" designs (1, 2). While all of these statements could be made about men and women's apparel/jewelry in general, gendered marketing seems contradictory and perhaps even hypocritical in a community that so often complains of "patriarchy" in Christian practices.
What does gendered marketing say about contemporary religion? In terms of Matthew 22:21, is the commercialism of these gendered Bibles and rosaries Caesar's or God's? What does it mean when Pagans critique the complementarianism of Christianity but then duplicate the same themselves?
Gendered marketing has spilled over into religious products, namely teen Bibles and rosaries. Faith & Family Reviews posted a brief review of the "faiTHGirLz! Bible" and the "NIV Boys Bible" commending the gendered marketing. The "faiTHGirLz!" Bible has a "dream girl" section. Faith & Family Reviews compliments the boy's Bible's "manly" appeal to boys by having a cover resembling metal. The girl's Bible has sections focusing on difficult emotions, the boy's Bible has sections focusing on strength.
Other Bibles marketed to teen girls are also pink with flowers, birds, and repeatedly the phrase "faith, hope, and love" (1, 2, 3, 4). These four, as well as the one reviewed by Faith & Family Reviews, all have profiles of women in the Bible - a topic that usually goes unnoticed outside of Eve and the Virgin Mary. Christianbook.com also offers dozens of similar Bibles for teen girls.
The same Bibles marketed to teen boys bear darker covers and bold but simple graphics. Their descriptions are more focused on action in "the real world" rather than on personal development (1, 2, 3, 4). None of them mention women of the Bible - perhaps the creators of these gendered Bibles assume boys don't need to know about them? Christianbook.com's Bibles for teen boys resemble footballs and soccer balls, bear army camouflage, and repeatedly declare "man up."
These Bibles prioritize very differently for boys and girls. Where's the adventure for girls? Where's the emotional depth for boys? Why apply such commercialism to Bibles, especially the sports references? And how could anyone stand to read Galatians 3:28 in a gendered Bible?
And this gendered marketing in religion extends to Catholic rosaries as well. Men's rosaries almost always have larger, matte beads - black, blue, brown, dark red - with thick dark wire. Descriptors often include "strength," "durability," "heroic," and "powerful" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Catholic online shops offer dozens of men's rosaries that all look remarkably the same (1, 2, 3).
Women's rosaries, on the other hand, come in a wide variety of colors and flourishes (1, 2). Pearls and svaroski crystals are very common. Men's single-decade rosary bracelets are shown on the wrists of models with no other part of the body visible (1), while women's rosaries are often pictured with cleavage, shoulders, necks, hair, and lips (1). Descriptors are almost exclusively focused on the beauty of women's rosaries (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
While there is certainly nothing wrong with having personalized rosaries, the gendered division goes against the very universality of both the rosary itself and of Catholicism. Do men and women really pray the rosary so differently that they require such different styles with explicitly different priorities?
Gendered marketing extends beyond Christianity. Jewelry and apparel for Pagan men and women is similarly divided. Pagan women's jewelry tends to be smaller, more delicate, more graceful, and more colorful (1, 2) black velvet chokers are very common. Pagan men's jewelry is thicker, darker, bolder (1, 2). Additionally, Pagan apparel is very distinctively gendered. Men's clothing tends to be baggier, covers more, and has large bold designs (1, 2) most of these are black, grey, or white t-shirts. Pagan women's clothing has a much wider variety that involves more colors, shows more skin, and bears more delicate or "cute" designs (1, 2). While all of these statements could be made about men and women's apparel/jewelry in general, gendered marketing seems contradictory and perhaps even hypocritical in a community that so often complains of "patriarchy" in Christian practices.
What does gendered marketing say about contemporary religion? In terms of Matthew 22:21, is the commercialism of these gendered Bibles and rosaries Caesar's or God's? What does it mean when Pagans critique the complementarianism of Christianity but then duplicate the same themselves?
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Catholic community: sexuality vs wealth
Over the past 10 weeks I have been involved in a Catholic parish through attending Mass, talking with parishioners after service, participating in a Pastoral Plan Listening Session, meeting with two spiritual directors, and joining a theology discussion group. Finding a Catholic community that values hospitality was a long and difficult struggle. My enjoyment of this one is mingled with hesitation that it may all crumble into more of the same shame-focused elitism I'd found at other parishes over the past 3 years.
A significant portion of this hesitation roots in my sexual activity. The vast majority of parishioners are married parents, and the few single members I've met seek to join them. I've been open about my intention to continue "single" and childfree to no response, I think they either don't know how to react to that or just see it as none of their business (hopefully the latter). What I haven't revealed, though, is that I'm polyamorous. It hasn't come up in context. Sex & sexuality, in fact, haven't come up at all. Which is both a relief and frustrating - I prefer being casually open altogether. Neither my sexuality, nor my focus on sex ed, nor my polyamory play a large role in my spirituality; which only baffles me further when religious communities use those standards for judgement.
Contingent with my hesitation to be open about my polyamory is the wealth of the parishioners. Every Sunday the church's parking lot fills with BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, all new. I've been to two parishioners' houses and was stunned at the luxury. Infinity pools! 4 car garages! Stunning views of suburban Texas hillcountry! Marble countertops, multiple fireplaces, second story balconies, full wine racks, cathedral windows, oriental rugs. It's made me reconsider my material wealth. Although I'm not in a place to give financially, I've begun seeking out ways to give my time.
Sidenote: growing up Catholic in the MidWest, I saw dirt poor parishes and incredibly wealthy parishes and everything in between. Both blue collar and immigrant parishes were commonplace. Here in Austin, all Anglo parishes I've found have been white collar upper class - the only others are Latino, and I admit fault for knowing very little about them as I know almost no Spanish. Anyway, maybe the parishioners' wealth here is so obvious to me because it's so uniform.
The idea that I would be shamed for my sexual activity when I share the pew with those who live with such incredible material wealth is chafing. I haven't been to Confession in 16 years and this disparity is a new reason to avoid it further. I'm honest, open, and safe with my lovers: nobody is hurt (and there's nothing anyone can say to convince me that we're "hurting our souls"). But when I see that wealth, I see food withheld from the hungry, shelter withheld from the homeless, medicine withheld from the sick, and justice withheld from the imprisoned. And yet big names in the Church condemn my actions first. It remains to be seen whether or not this parish with join them, or if they'll continue to try to meet me where I am.
A significant portion of this hesitation roots in my sexual activity. The vast majority of parishioners are married parents, and the few single members I've met seek to join them. I've been open about my intention to continue "single" and childfree to no response, I think they either don't know how to react to that or just see it as none of their business (hopefully the latter). What I haven't revealed, though, is that I'm polyamorous. It hasn't come up in context. Sex & sexuality, in fact, haven't come up at all. Which is both a relief and frustrating - I prefer being casually open altogether. Neither my sexuality, nor my focus on sex ed, nor my polyamory play a large role in my spirituality; which only baffles me further when religious communities use those standards for judgement.
Contingent with my hesitation to be open about my polyamory is the wealth of the parishioners. Every Sunday the church's parking lot fills with BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, all new. I've been to two parishioners' houses and was stunned at the luxury. Infinity pools! 4 car garages! Stunning views of suburban Texas hillcountry! Marble countertops, multiple fireplaces, second story balconies, full wine racks, cathedral windows, oriental rugs. It's made me reconsider my material wealth. Although I'm not in a place to give financially, I've begun seeking out ways to give my time.
Sidenote: growing up Catholic in the MidWest, I saw dirt poor parishes and incredibly wealthy parishes and everything in between. Both blue collar and immigrant parishes were commonplace. Here in Austin, all Anglo parishes I've found have been white collar upper class - the only others are Latino, and I admit fault for knowing very little about them as I know almost no Spanish. Anyway, maybe the parishioners' wealth here is so obvious to me because it's so uniform.
The idea that I would be shamed for my sexual activity when I share the pew with those who live with such incredible material wealth is chafing. I haven't been to Confession in 16 years and this disparity is a new reason to avoid it further. I'm honest, open, and safe with my lovers: nobody is hurt (and there's nothing anyone can say to convince me that we're "hurting our souls"). But when I see that wealth, I see food withheld from the hungry, shelter withheld from the homeless, medicine withheld from the sick, and justice withheld from the imprisoned. And yet big names in the Church condemn my actions first. It remains to be seen whether or not this parish with join them, or if they'll continue to try to meet me where I am.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
God vs. Humankind
I've written before about the abusive parish in which I was raised. In the years after I left that parish, I was very angry at God. How could God allow such horrible cruelties, especially upon children? How could these Christians preach about compassion and divine love out in public, but in private lock children in their basements without food or make children kneel on broken glass? In my mind, largely because these abusers had told me so for so long and so violently, there was no distinction between God and them.
Although my relationship with the Divine continued, it was very narrowly compartmentalized. MY God was loving and giving and powerful, THEIR God was malicious and preyed upon the weak. Great pains were taken to differentiate myself from organized religion altogether. Anger, obsessive defensiveness, and passive aggressive vengeance dominated this time.
After college, I mended my relationship with a whole God by separating God from humankind altogether. This was when the healing process went from painful to soothing. All the boundaries began to fall between God and I. Could this have been done if I hadn't put up such a large wall between other people and us? Probably not, as at that time the only people I knew who were interested in spirituality at all were very aggressive anti-theists. Ultimately, I wasn't going to allow anyone to damage the new, awe-inspiring relationship I had with God. And the most direct and effective way to do that was to separate God from humankind altogether.
That doesn't seem to be working as well anymore. The need for spiritual community has arisen regularly for the past few years, only to fade away as I refused to make myself that vulnerable again. Now that I'm seeking and finding community, though, I'm questioning if that boundary should still remain up. The last thing I want to do is to let down my barriers only to have someone or a group of someones give me good reason to put them back up again. As to seeing God present in any human being, that is a long way off yet.
Although my relationship with the Divine continued, it was very narrowly compartmentalized. MY God was loving and giving and powerful, THEIR God was malicious and preyed upon the weak. Great pains were taken to differentiate myself from organized religion altogether. Anger, obsessive defensiveness, and passive aggressive vengeance dominated this time.
After college, I mended my relationship with a whole God by separating God from humankind altogether. This was when the healing process went from painful to soothing. All the boundaries began to fall between God and I. Could this have been done if I hadn't put up such a large wall between other people and us? Probably not, as at that time the only people I knew who were interested in spirituality at all were very aggressive anti-theists. Ultimately, I wasn't going to allow anyone to damage the new, awe-inspiring relationship I had with God. And the most direct and effective way to do that was to separate God from humankind altogether.
That doesn't seem to be working as well anymore. The need for spiritual community has arisen regularly for the past few years, only to fade away as I refused to make myself that vulnerable again. Now that I'm seeking and finding community, though, I'm questioning if that boundary should still remain up. The last thing I want to do is to let down my barriers only to have someone or a group of someones give me good reason to put them back up again. As to seeing God present in any human being, that is a long way off yet.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Pastoral Plan Listening Session
The parish I've been visiting the past four weeks had a Pastoral Plan Listening Session a few days ago. This was a meeting in which lay parishioners could give their feedback to a pastoral council about things they like about the parish and things they want changed. I haven't been there long enough to contribute in great detail, but since I have the freshest impression they wanted me to communicate it with them. They requested an email, as long as I wanted, and I thought I would share it here (edited to leave out personal details):
Greetings,
I attended the Pastoral Plan Listening Session at St. ... the evening of Tuesday, May 31st. I had to leave early, but the facilitator at my small group table encouraged me to email my feedback.
Firstly, I'll introduce myself and give you some idea of my background. My name is K, I am 30 years old, I am both single and childfree and have no intentions of changing that. I earned my bachelor's degree at an all-women's Franciscan college in Milwaukee, I graduated from a Jesuit high school in a Chicago suburb, and I attended a so-called Catholic K-8 school in Chicago. It was only when I graduated from this K-8 school, when the Church sex abuse scandal was beginning to hit the mainstream news, that I discovered that this school was not alone in its abuses and that it wasn't part of the Chicago Archdiocese. Because the school was so cruel and extreme in both doctrine and practice, the Chicago Archdiocese refused to include it among its parishes. Although I left the Church personally when I left that school, the Jesuits and Franciscan nuns worked very hard to help me heal and to understand that the cruelties of the abusers were not the acts of God.
Roughly four years ago I began returning to the Church very gradually. Initially, my reasoning was that if there is going to be a certain amount of my life spent in Mass, I don't want the majority of that time to have been spent under the control of those abusers. I began returning to Mass in order to tip the scales, and through that healing process the priority became ... finding a community that is spiritually connected. This has proven to be very difficult.
At the Pastoral Plan Listening Session, I both explained to the facilitator and wrote on my worksheet that what has stood out most to me at St. ... is the hospitality. Although I have lived in Austin for a little over a year, ... I attended Mass at five or six churches in the Austin Diocese before going to St. .... At those other churches, either nobody spoke to me or I was given a book/pamphlet and told "this will tell you everything you need to know about X parish" and that was it. My first time at St. ... was morning Mass 5/2/16 and as soon as the service ended and I walked through the narthex, a parishioner introduced herself and shook my hand. Before moving to Austin, I explored parishes in Nashville and Milwaukee as well as Quaker meetings and American Catholic churches - St. ... was only the third place in which anyone extended this hospitality, and the first Roman Catholic parish.
Greetings,
I attended the Pastoral Plan Listening Session at St. ... the evening of Tuesday, May 31st. I had to leave early, but the facilitator at my small group table encouraged me to email my feedback.
Firstly, I'll introduce myself and give you some idea of my background. My name is K, I am 30 years old, I am both single and childfree and have no intentions of changing that. I earned my bachelor's degree at an all-women's Franciscan college in Milwaukee, I graduated from a Jesuit high school in a Chicago suburb, and I attended a so-called Catholic K-8 school in Chicago. It was only when I graduated from this K-8 school, when the Church sex abuse scandal was beginning to hit the mainstream news, that I discovered that this school was not alone in its abuses and that it wasn't part of the Chicago Archdiocese. Because the school was so cruel and extreme in both doctrine and practice, the Chicago Archdiocese refused to include it among its parishes. Although I left the Church personally when I left that school, the Jesuits and Franciscan nuns worked very hard to help me heal and to understand that the cruelties of the abusers were not the acts of God.
Roughly four years ago I began returning to the Church very gradually. Initially, my reasoning was that if there is going to be a certain amount of my life spent in Mass, I don't want the majority of that time to have been spent under the control of those abusers. I began returning to Mass in order to tip the scales, and through that healing process the priority became ... finding a community that is spiritually connected. This has proven to be very difficult.
At the Pastoral Plan Listening Session, I both explained to the facilitator and wrote on my worksheet that what has stood out most to me at St. ... is the hospitality. Although I have lived in Austin for a little over a year, ... I attended Mass at five or six churches in the Austin Diocese before going to St. .... At those other churches, either nobody spoke to me or I was given a book/pamphlet and told "this will tell you everything you need to know about X parish" and that was it. My first time at St. ... was morning Mass 5/2/16 and as soon as the service ended and I walked through the narthex, a parishioner introduced herself and shook my hand. Before moving to Austin, I explored parishes in Nashville and Milwaukee as well as Quaker meetings and American Catholic churches - St. ... was only the third place in which anyone extended this hospitality, and the first Roman Catholic parish.
After this parishioner introduced herself and asked me a few polite questions, she invited me to Connections and emailed, from her own personal email, me information about the group. I came the the next night and about half of the participants welcomed me in a similar manner. I've attended every Connections meeting I could as well as Sunday Mass. Intellectual discussions pertaining to theology and service are very appealing to me, and I enjoy the exchange of ideas at Connections.
Hospitality has been a remarkable strength of St. ..., as well as its diversity of ministries and the comprehensive information about them provided both on the parish website and at the parish itself. Church life is evident there every day of the week rather than just on Sundays, and that is very refreshing. The one specific thing that comes to mind that St. ... could work on immediately is the website's page about Spiritual Direction & Mentorship. Who are these three directors/mentors? What's their availability? What are their foci? How much do they charge? The webpage says they are trained, but where and through what programs?
A less easily-defined area for growth that I see is St. ... is a very common issue in the Catholic community as a whole in America. Although both the parishioners at Mass and the group at Connections have been very welcoming and friendly and nonjudgemental (save for one lady's claim that the devil uses disloyal Catholics to tear down decent Catholic communities, but there's one sourpuss in every crowd), I am among the youngest participants and I think the only unmarried and childfree women. I am a "Millennial," alone as far as I know in the community I've found at St. .... Forbes, the NY Times, Psychology Today, The Atlantic, and dozens of other distinguished publications have all connected several trends among my generation. We postpone marriage and parenthood, many rejecting both altogether, and view chastisement for these decisions as disingenuous, unsolicited judgements. We also participate the least in religious communities, by the widest margin yet recorded. Most of these listed publications have noted connections between these trends. The overall pattern thusfar is that we reject the idea of following tradition for tradition's sake - this is evident in home life, business, economics, and religion. The phrase "spiritual but not religious" is a concise summarization of "I want a connection with God but don't want to blindly follow arbitrary rules set by authorities who don't listen to their flocks." While some of the biggest reasons my peers have given for leaving the Church are political, I will not get into that. The political disagreement, anyway, is part of a bigger issue. The average middle-class Millennial who got good grades, participated in extracurriculars, had a good GPA at a good college or university, and followed the prearranged track to marriage + mortgage + children, ultimately graduated during the Recession. Following prearranged rules "for your own good" ended up in debt and worthless degrees. And on top of that, the average middle-class Millennial raised Catholic was Confirmed right around the time of the mishandling of the Church sex abuse scandal. The 2000's were a terrible time to come to adulthood, and most of those who had that misfortune have now come to reject what they see as unfounded authority altogether - the Church being at the top of that list.
Religious communities, especially Catholic and Mainline Protestant as they have lost the most followers among Millennials, have been trying to figure out why so many 25-35 year olds have been leaving and how to get them back again. Those who do stay tend to be very passionate and active, the Easter/Christmas church-goer may well be on the way out with older generations. Although my K-8 experience was a very extreme example, most of my peers have experienced similar painful disillusionment with their childhood parishes. They also haven't had my Jesuits and Franciscan nuns to show them that both compassion and sincerity are still present in the Church. Were it not for those two groups in my life, seeking out a parish community and discovering St. ... never would have happened.
The author Kaya Oakes has perhaps done the most comprehensive journalism regarding the Millennials' split with the Church. I highly recommend reading both her books Radical Reinvention(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13239764-radical-reinvention) and The Nones Are Alright(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27397708-the-nones-are-alright) with an open mind. Very many churches, particularly Evangelical Protestants, have attempted commercial advertising in order to bring in the missing generation - this has backfired, as advertisements are typically viewed as insincere. Do not assume that poor hospitality is a deterrent, as most Millennials don't even make it to the step of parish shopping. Because most "recovering Catholics" my age see the Church as a cold, monolithic authority that gives its services only unreasonably conditionally, more subversive tactics may be needed. Be active in needy communities, listen nonjudgementally, and display compassion modestly. Matthew 6:1-8 and the Beatitudes in action would make a greater impression that could open an intergenerational dialogue. Most of my friends think I'm nuts for having any interest in the Church, especially considering my childhood parish, because they haven't experienced the compassion and listening that I have. I've already seen the potential for this at St. ... and while it's maybe a little unreasonable (maybe not, God works in mysterious ways!) to expect this parish to overcome the generational trend of the western world, helping even a few individuals heal the right could mean the world to them.
Something else that I would like to see both at St. ... and in the Austin Diocese as a whole is more interfaith networking. Whether this takes form in discussion forums, visits from neighboring pastors/priests/monks/rabbis/imams/etc, joint community service events, etc. I'm acquainted with the Society of Friends Meeting of Austin and while Quaker and Roman Catholic doctrine could not be more different, both communities seek to spread Christ through service to the needy. Not to mention that connecting members of different faith traditions decreases the frequency of hate crimes, which have been on the rise in the past few years nationally. I see interfaith networking as a wonderful bridge to a larger, closer, more compassionate community.
I realize that my background is very unique to St. ..., my parish ideals are individualistic, and that I am in many ways unlike the St. ... community. It would be unreasonable to expect any parish to change to fit the needs of one person, especially one without children and who doesn't plan to stay in the area for more than a couple years. But what both welcomes and keeps quality parishioners above all else is sincerity. Thusfar St. ... seems sincere in its efforts and values, as highlighted by holding the open Pastoral Plan Listening Sessions and asking for this kind of feedback.
Thank you very much, and I hope to hear back from you,
K
Hospitality has been a remarkable strength of St. ..., as well as its diversity of ministries and the comprehensive information about them provided both on the parish website and at the parish itself. Church life is evident there every day of the week rather than just on Sundays, and that is very refreshing. The one specific thing that comes to mind that St. ... could work on immediately is the website's page about Spiritual Direction & Mentorship. Who are these three directors/mentors? What's their availability? What are their foci? How much do they charge? The webpage says they are trained, but where and through what programs?
A less easily-defined area for growth that I see is St. ... is a very common issue in the Catholic community as a whole in America. Although both the parishioners at Mass and the group at Connections have been very welcoming and friendly and nonjudgemental (save for one lady's claim that the devil uses disloyal Catholics to tear down decent Catholic communities, but there's one sourpuss in every crowd), I am among the youngest participants and I think the only unmarried and childfree women. I am a "Millennial," alone as far as I know in the community I've found at St. .... Forbes, the NY Times, Psychology Today, The Atlantic, and dozens of other distinguished publications have all connected several trends among my generation. We postpone marriage and parenthood, many rejecting both altogether, and view chastisement for these decisions as disingenuous, unsolicited judgements. We also participate the least in religious communities, by the widest margin yet recorded. Most of these listed publications have noted connections between these trends. The overall pattern thusfar is that we reject the idea of following tradition for tradition's sake - this is evident in home life, business, economics, and religion. The phrase "spiritual but not religious" is a concise summarization of "I want a connection with God but don't want to blindly follow arbitrary rules set by authorities who don't listen to their flocks." While some of the biggest reasons my peers have given for leaving the Church are political, I will not get into that. The political disagreement, anyway, is part of a bigger issue. The average middle-class Millennial who got good grades, participated in extracurriculars, had a good GPA at a good college or university, and followed the prearranged track to marriage + mortgage + children, ultimately graduated during the Recession. Following prearranged rules "for your own good" ended up in debt and worthless degrees. And on top of that, the average middle-class Millennial raised Catholic was Confirmed right around the time of the mishandling of the Church sex abuse scandal. The 2000's were a terrible time to come to adulthood, and most of those who had that misfortune have now come to reject what they see as unfounded authority altogether - the Church being at the top of that list.
Religious communities, especially Catholic and Mainline Protestant as they have lost the most followers among Millennials, have been trying to figure out why so many 25-35 year olds have been leaving and how to get them back again. Those who do stay tend to be very passionate and active, the Easter/Christmas church-goer may well be on the way out with older generations. Although my K-8 experience was a very extreme example, most of my peers have experienced similar painful disillusionment with their childhood parishes. They also haven't had my Jesuits and Franciscan nuns to show them that both compassion and sincerity are still present in the Church. Were it not for those two groups in my life, seeking out a parish community and discovering St. ... never would have happened.
The author Kaya Oakes has perhaps done the most comprehensive journalism regarding the Millennials' split with the Church. I highly recommend reading both her books Radical Reinvention(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13239764-radical-reinvention) and The Nones Are Alright(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27397708-the-nones-are-alright) with an open mind. Very many churches, particularly Evangelical Protestants, have attempted commercial advertising in order to bring in the missing generation - this has backfired, as advertisements are typically viewed as insincere. Do not assume that poor hospitality is a deterrent, as most Millennials don't even make it to the step of parish shopping. Because most "recovering Catholics" my age see the Church as a cold, monolithic authority that gives its services only unreasonably conditionally, more subversive tactics may be needed. Be active in needy communities, listen nonjudgementally, and display compassion modestly. Matthew 6:1-8 and the Beatitudes in action would make a greater impression that could open an intergenerational dialogue. Most of my friends think I'm nuts for having any interest in the Church, especially considering my childhood parish, because they haven't experienced the compassion and listening that I have. I've already seen the potential for this at St. ... and while it's maybe a little unreasonable (maybe not, God works in mysterious ways!) to expect this parish to overcome the generational trend of the western world, helping even a few individuals heal the right could mean the world to them.
Something else that I would like to see both at St. ... and in the Austin Diocese as a whole is more interfaith networking. Whether this takes form in discussion forums, visits from neighboring pastors/priests/monks/rabbis/imams/etc, joint community service events, etc. I'm acquainted with the Society of Friends Meeting of Austin and while Quaker and Roman Catholic doctrine could not be more different, both communities seek to spread Christ through service to the needy. Not to mention that connecting members of different faith traditions decreases the frequency of hate crimes, which have been on the rise in the past few years nationally. I see interfaith networking as a wonderful bridge to a larger, closer, more compassionate community.
I realize that my background is very unique to St. ..., my parish ideals are individualistic, and that I am in many ways unlike the St. ... community. It would be unreasonable to expect any parish to change to fit the needs of one person, especially one without children and who doesn't plan to stay in the area for more than a couple years. But what both welcomes and keeps quality parishioners above all else is sincerity. Thusfar St. ... seems sincere in its efforts and values, as highlighted by holding the open Pastoral Plan Listening Sessions and asking for this kind of feedback.
Thank you very much, and I hope to hear back from you,
K
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
