…via e-mail, on the culture debate. Specifically, he references my Newman-heavy post:

It’s hard to argue with Cardinal Newman. :)  But, a few quick (ADHD) points anyway:

1.  Of course, the family state is different; however, there’s that “universal call to holiness” mandate.  One shouldn’t become a hothouse flower, but pearl diving in sewers isn’t good for the health either.

2. Didn’t the Benedictine monastaries become centers of culture and of communities?  Made up of — families.  So, I wonder if that Benedictine model isn’t more applicable than the narrow focus of abbey life.

3. As I said, it’s hard to argue with Newman.  However, I think it’s worth asking — is our culture today fundamentally different in a way from Victorian England in a way which invalidates (or at least lessens) Newman’s point?  Where’s the precious that needs distinguishing from the vile?

My response:

1. I don’t disagree. I’m big on striving for balance. See my comments today, re: Chesterton’s assessment of cliques vs. small communities. I said, “This is why I continue to believe that the only sensible course, if never a particularly safe one, is the middle road. Create your castle, but take care not to build too big a moat. Defend your fiefdom, but do not hide within your walls - go out and engage the world (which requires, of course, that you know something about the “culture” that informs it.)”

2. Yes, the Benedictine model is a good one, where possible, though it shouldn’t be construed as the universal norm. Such a thing is being build around Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma, and I support that. In that sense, I think there is an authentic community being built around a common cause, provided that enough people from different perspectives come there to share a common goal. Excessive homogeneity is bad, and shutting out the outside world is problematic (unless you have a monastic vocation, which means you’re probably not called to married life) but sharing in the richness of this community in order to bring its life to the world is a very good thing.

Further, not everyone is called to this. Certainly, some may be better off in a life of solitude, work and prayer, even if they are a family. I would caution here, however, that children are notoriously unpredictable as regards their willingness, once they are old enough to decide, to stay in environments with limited choices and opportunities. If, again, they are completely cut off from the outside world, if they decide to finally venture out into it, Newman’s assertions about being “thrown upon Babel” hold true.

Finally, I think that with as few real Catholics as exist in modern society, taking an inordinate number of them and putting them into a Benedictine community may not be as beneficial, depending on their level of isolation there, as it would have been when Catholic society was flourishing. Every evangelist you take out of the world is that much less leaven. It also makes that much more work for the rest of us.

3. Yes, of course our culture is different, and arguably far worse. Which isn’t to say that it wasn’t sufficiently bad already, or Newman may not have made the observations he did, which he seemed to assume were fairly obvious. I think, however, we are on a trend line that is simply further degraded than it was in Newman’s time. If we trace the problems with modernity to the Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation, Newman was already in the thick of it, it just hadn’t yet blossomed into what it has now.

As for discerning what is precious from what is vile, that’s precisely the reason for this argument. Newman could no doubt, if asked, point to contemporary works that exemplified what we should wish to see. Can we? Possibly, but they are few and far between. The Passion of The Christ is a paradigm, but I’m happy with contemporary fiction like Eifelheim as well. The problem is that there is too little of this sort of thing being made, because, as Barbara Nicolosi said:

I have gone to these schools—the Catholic schools, the special Catholic schools—I’ve gone to them all several times and spoken there and pleaded, and what I find there is that kids do not have any apostolic drive. After getting these great Great Books educations, what they want to be is maybe a DRE in a small country parish in the backwoods where nobody will notice them and they can just shut the world down and out. You know, there’s nothing apostolic in that. St. Paul could’ve done that—the Church would be nothing if we had done that. We have not received a mandate to head for the hills.

So we need to revive a sense of Catholic culture, even if we, like Chesterton, are taking potshots at modernity. And we need to get our heads around what Catholic art is - that it can be sacred art, but that it can also be secular art that is produced by people with a Catholic worldview. Why should the secularists have a stranglehold on producing culture? What can we borrow from the talent of those crazy, sinful, postmoderns who know a little something about making art with mass appeal, and capitalize on that?

I am not an art/music/literature snob, and that will no doubt bother some people, or give them cause to criticize me, or my formation, or whatever. I don’t care. I like the music of Michael Buble (and the Rat Pack singers that inspired him.) I love the voice of Amy Winehouse, even if her life and her lyrics are horrifying. I’m a fan of Christopher Nolan’s directorial style, William Gibson’s approach to storytelling, the imagination of George Lucas, and the food-is-culture sensibility of Anthony Bourdain. I think Dr. Gregory House (played by Hugh Laurie) is a fascinating character, even if (and perhaps because) he’s crass. I think Jeremy Clarkson’s a brilliant satirist, and so, for that matter, is Seth MacFarlane. None of this stuff is stuff I would produce, but I can skim through and find things about all of it that I love.

We may not be creating Catholic culture these days, but it’s not for lack of talent. Every person I just mentioned could be doing it, because God gave them their gifts. The fact that they aren’t is saddening. The fact that we aren’t - all of us Catholics who no doubt have equal talent among our ranks - that’s even worse.

Maybe the people I mentioned don’t know better. We should.

Filed under: Catholicism, Culture Wars