"converting The Culture"

[Nihil Obstat]

Ah! But you are talking about converting the culture by converting individuals (of a sufficient number, and thoroughly, i.e., genuinely). With that I am in full agreement. I think it is the right way. In such cases, converting individuals is primary, and converting the culture is secondary (or at least, merely a consequence of individual conversions).

 

What I'm uncomfortable with are attempts to convert the culture either without attention to individuals, or as a higher priority than individuals. In such cases, it would seem that priority is given to "converting" the soulless mass culture, rendering the conversion of individuals secondary or even a total non-issue. This poo really ticks me off. I see it everywhere in Protestant evangelical political lobbying, in all its varied forms. When I read of the USCCB doing essentially the same thing (albeit for good causes)...

 

I can totally see how it would seem that I'm segregating public and private and situating religious convictions strictly in the latter. But that's not what I mean. Is it now clear how?

 

(Thanks for the quotes! :) )

Like I said, I think at the core we should not try to separate the two concepts. Converting individuals is converting culture, and converting culture is converting individuals. It is not that one cannot exist without the other, but simply that they are the same thing. Like I said, culture is simply the macrocosm. Culture is simply a group of people with particular shared traits. I think confusion comes in when we try to treat culture as an entity in and of itself. It is not; it is simply a way of referring to a particular group of individuals. 

[Gabriela]

Like I said, I think at the core we should not try to separate the two concepts. Converting individuals is converting culture, and converting culture is converting individuals. It is not that one cannot exist without the other, but simply that they are the same thing. Like I said, culture is simply the macrocosm. Culture is simply a group of people with particular shared traits. I think confusion comes in when we try to treat culture as an entity in and of itself. It is not; it is simply a way of referring to a particular group of individuals. 

 

Maybe this is the heart of our disagreement. I think culture is bigger than just an aggregate of people.

 

Then again, maybe what I'm talking about isn't really culture, but the public policies and practices of a society. In which case, maybe it is just an aggregate of people.

 

:idontknow:

[Nihil Obstat]

Maybe this is the heart of our disagreement. I think culture is bigger than just an aggregate of people.

 

Then again, maybe what I'm talking about isn't really culture, but the public policies and practices of a society. In which case, maybe it is just an aggregate of people.

 

:idontknow:

Well, neither culture nor public policy exist independent of people. That is what I mean. If you properly, thoroughly convert an influential portion of a group that constitutes a culture, then the culture itself is thereby converted. Whether we are talking public policy, or a broader conception of culture.

[Gabriela]

Well, neither culture nor public policy exist independent of people. That is what I mean. If you properly, thoroughly convert an influential portion of a group that constitutes a culture, then the culture itself is thereby converted. Whether we are talking public policy, or a broader conception of culture.

 

All very true. And I agree that the two are inseparable in the sense that converting either will convert the other. Maybe my issue with converting the culture (as I see it done in our country) is practical: It seems a terribly ineffective way of converting individuals, which is, in the eternal view, what matters. Although, perhaps if we were more successful in converting the culture, we would begin to see more individual conversions. Or perhaps if we went about it in a different way (one that didn't mimic the political uglinesses of our times, but instead set a good Christian example), it could be more effective.

 

So I suppose even the ineffectiveness of converting the culture for the conversion of individuals in not inherent to the activity per se. It may just be a function of the way we are doing it.

[Nihil Obstat]

All very true. And I agree that the two are inseparable in the sense that converting either will convert the other. Maybe my issue with converting the culture (as I see it done in our country) is practical: It seems a terribly ineffective way of converting individuals, which is, in the eternal view, what matters. Although, perhaps if we were more successful in converting the culture, we would begin to see more individual conversions. Or perhaps if we went about it in a different way (one that didn't mimic the political uglinesses of our times, but instead set a good Christian example), it could be more effective.

 

So I suppose even the ineffectiveness of converting the culture for the conversion of individuals in not inherent to the activity per se. It may just be a function of the way we are doing it.

I referred to a gradual acceptance of the 'American system' earlier. I think that ties in to your concerns. To me it seems that it involves a lot of vacillating, even compromise for the sake of temporal gains. There is a lot of indifference and even antinomianism on the part of some people who advocate cooperation with secularism.

[Gabriela]

antinomianism

 

 

You win.  :winner:

[Nihil Obstat]

 

You win.  :winner:

It can be a really handy word when discussing Christianity, let me tell you. ;)

[Socrates]

This idea has always made me uncomfortable, and I just read about the USCCB's (back then, the NCCB's) advocacy activities in the 1980s. I'm interested now in hearing good arguments for/against our duty to "convert the culture". I rather suspect that trads will be less keen on this idea, but I don't want to assume, and if I'm right/wrong, I'd like to know why.

 

***I am particularly interested to see references to biblical and other Church documents that support the idea that we do/do not have a duty to "convert the culture".

 

I admit I'm not familiar with the USCCB/NCCB activities you are writing about, and it might be helpful to be more specific as to what things you are referring to for me to make a good, informed reply.

 

While I'm generally not a huge fan of the USCCB (though I definitely don't think that everything they do or say is wrong or bad), I absolutely believe that Catholics do in fact have a duty to "convert the culture," and I think every Pope would agree with this.

 

I currently attend a FSSP Latin Mass parish, though I don't necessarily agree with the stereotypical "trad" on everything.  I'm not aware of any Traditionalist Catholics who are against converting or evangelizing the culture on principle.  (Though some might disagree with others on how this would best be accomplished.)

 

 

 

It's the idea that we, as Catholics, ought to get out there "in the world" (i.e., in the public arena of American culture) and shape things like public policy and public discussions toward more Catholic/moral values.

 

 

 

I honestly don't see why any Catholic should be opposed to getting out in the public arena and trying to influence public policy and discussions toward Catholic moral values.  All the Popes I'm familiar with would regard this as a basic Christian duty (as well as every orthodox Catholic priest and teacher I've heard or read on the issue).

(I'm presuming you're referring to such things as being involved in the pro-life movement politically, or or opposing other immoral legislation or public policy, such as opposing legal "gay marriage" or the contraception mandate of Obamacare.)

 

It's the moral duty of Catholics to do what we reasonably can to fight policy that is intrinsically immoral and evil.

 

I haven't met any "trad" Catholics who disagree with that.

The whole idea that Catholics ought to keep their "religious morals" out of public life and politics is a secularist one, and far more typical of "liberal Catholics" than Traditionalists.

 

See also "evangelizing the culture" (as opposed to individuals).

 

 

I don't see those things as being opposed at all.  Obviously, "evangelizing the culture" won't be effective if we fail to evangelize individuals, but "the culture" is made up of individuals, and influences individuals.  Individual persons do not live in a vacuum.

 

I don't know of any serious Catholics who say we should not evangelize individuals.

 

 

 

Well, it seems the pre-VII Church could care less what happened in the world. Her concern was with the faithful. Her focus was largely inward, and She expended her efforts tending to the needs of individuals. . . . 

 

The "pre-VII Church" includes the Church throughout the world through nearly 1,950 years.  During that period, the Church was heavily involved in missionary activity, and converted entire nations, an entire empire, and an entire continent from paganism to Christianity, and much of that time was actually pretty heavily involved in political affairs (some would say too much so).

I don't think any of that would happened if the Church "could care less about what happened in the world" and only focused inward.

 

Even if you're using "pre-VII Church" in an extremely narrow sense to refer to the Church in '50s era America, that was the time of Ven. Fulton Sheen's national TV broadcasts, and other public evangelical efforts.

 

I'd say if anything, the Church was more bold about trying to convert the outside culture prior to VII than afterwards.

 

 

But again, I'm not entirely clear as to what you are talking about, or what makes you so uncomfortable.

[Socrates]

Yes, I see the possibility of mass evangelization of individuals, but to evangelize a "culture" means to attempt to turn that culture toward Christian values, not by means of converting individuals to Christ (either one at a time or en masse), but by means of legislation, public policy, influence over public opinion, etc., so that the public sphere is generally more amenable to and in accordance with what Christian values dictate the public sphere ought to be like. I think the good intention behind that is that, if the public sphere looks/is more Christian, individuals will see the goodness inherent in Christianity and thus be more likely to be (indirectly) converted. But I think the means are questionable, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the Church or the faithful adopting such practices as I described above (PR tactics, lobbying, public protests, etc.).

 

Something in me says that Jesus would have responded, "Leave the powers that be as they are. Focus on converting individual souls in the cultural context you find yourself in."

 

Am I just wrong?

 

Are you saying that the Church/Catholics should just keep quiet regarding the public sphere and public policy?

[Gabriela]

I admit I'm not familiar with the USCCB/NCCB activities you are writing about, and it might be helpful to be more specific as to what things you are referring to for me to make a good, informed reply.

 

....

 

(I'm presuming you're referring to such things as being involved in the pro-life movement politically, or or opposing other immoral legislation or public policy, such as opposing legal "gay marriage" or the contraception mandate of Obamacare.)

 

It's the moral duty of Catholics to do what we reasonably can to fight policy that is intrinsically immoral and evil.

 

....

 

The "pre-VII Church" includes the Church throughout the world through nearly 1,950 years... and much of that time was actually pretty heavily involved in political affairs (some would say too much so).

I don't think any of that would happened if the Church "could care less about what happened in the world" and only focused inward.

 

Even if you're using "pre-VII Church" in an extremely narrow sense to refer to the Church in '50s era America, that was the time of Ven. Fulton Sheen's national TV broadcasts, and other public evangelical efforts.

 

The NCCB activities I'm referring to are briefly discussed in an article by Cheney & Vibbert from the 1987 Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Unfortunately I only have an image PDF of that chapter, as well as carpal tunnel, so I'm not keen on the idea of typing in the whole shebang. But basically, they advocated for and against certain public policy issues. One of Cheney's articles about the activism of the NCCB on nuclear armament is here:

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233279801_The_U._S._catholic_bishops_on_nuclear_arms_Corporate_advocacy_role_redefinition_and_rhetorical_adaptation

 

You have to get a (free) account to see it.

 

I agree we have a duty to oppose laws that are morally evil, and a right to defend ourselves against anti-faith legislation such as the HHS mandate. Through this discussion, I'm starting to think that my objections to (some) Christian communities' involvement in political issues derives more from my identification as a libertarian than a Catholic. It irks me that Christians jump in the ring and say, "No, don't legislate their way! Legislate our way!" When in fact the matter shouldn't be legislated at all.

 

You provide excellent examples from the pre-VII Church. Thank you!

 

Are you saying that the Church/Catholics should just keep quiet regarding the public sphere and public policy?

 

No. It just seems to me that much of the political/public sphere involvement of Christians (including some Catholics):

 

1. Attempts to "convert the culture" while ignoring the more important task of converting individuals (which can be done by converting the culture, but the ultimate goal of turning individual souls to Christ needs to be there, and it seems to me it often is not);

 

2. Adopts questionable methods of engagement/communication drawn from mainstream American culture, without asking first whether these are appropriate for Christians to use;

 

3. Is motivated primarily by the excitement and drama of engaging in political battle, rather than by a deep desire to convert souls, decrease sin, and increase virtue.

Edited September 6, 2014 by curiousing

[Gabriela]

Actually, Socrates, if you want to send me your email address, I can send you both the PDF of the handbook chapter and that Cheney article on the nuclear armament issue (if you're that interested).

[Socrates]

The NCCB activities I'm referring to are briefly discussed in an article by Cheney & Vibbert from the 1987 Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Unfortunately I only have an image PDF of that chapter, as well as carpal tunnel, so I'm not keen on the idea of typing in the whole shebang. But basically, they advocated for and against certain public policy issues. One of Cheney's articles about the activism of the NCCB on nuclear armament is here:

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233279801_The_U._S._catholic_bishops_on_nuclear_arms_Corporate_advocacy_role_redefinition_and_rhetorical_adaptation

 

You have to get a (free) account to see it.

 

I agree we have a duty to oppose laws that are morally evil, and a right to defend ourselves against anti-faith legislation such as the HHS mandate. Through this discussion, I'm starting to think that my objections to (some) Christian communities' involvement in political issues derives more from my identification as a libertarian than a Catholic. It irks me that Christians jump in the ring and say, "No, don't legislate their way! Legislate our way!" When in fact the matter shouldn't be legislated at all.

 

I actually didn't bother to read the linked article, but I think I get a better idea of what you're talking about.  

I never was totally on board with the USCCB's nuclear disarmament stuff (I don't think we should actually nuke anyone, but disarmament in reality would simply leave nukes in the hands of the "bad guys," without deterrent, and ironically increase the danger of a nuclear attack - not to derail this into another debate).  

I also heartily disagree with the USCCB on a host of other political issues (on which they take typically left-wing positions, though I don't feel like starting more debates).

 

So basically, I think I agree with you more than I thought I did.  I think the USCCB (and similar groups) get way too involved in politics, and a lot of their stuff seems basically trying to play politics by trying to balance support with the political right and political left.

(Recently, I read a piece by a certain bishop which said [rightly] that Catholics must oppose abortion and contraception, but also said "we are not truly pro-life" unless we support such political policies as amnesty and gun control.  BS.)

 

Imo, the Church should restrict political activism to issues where it is opposing something objectively intrinsically immoral (such as abortion), and avoid needlessly taking political sides in issues where there are legitimate opposing viewpoints.

 

 

 

 

You provide excellent examples from the pre-VII Church. Thank you!

 

 

No. It just seems to me that much of the political/public sphere involvement of Christians (including some Catholics):

 

1. Attempts to "convert the culture" while ignoring the more important task of converting individuals (which can be done by converting the culture, but the ultimate goal of turning individual souls to Christ needs to be there, and it seems to me it often is not);

 

2. Adopts questionable methods of engagement/communication drawn from mainstream American culture, without asking first whether these are appropriate for Christians to use;

 

3. Is motivated primarily by the excitement and drama of engaging in political battle, rather than by a deep desire to convert souls, decrease sin, and increase virtue.

 

 

Legitimate points, though I think things need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  "Converting the culture" is a vague expression and can refer to many different things.

 

Essentially, politics shouldn't come before the task of saving souls (though I'd say political involvement does have its place).

If that's your main point, I agree.

[Gabriela]

Legitimate points, though I think things need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  "Converting the culture" is a vague expression and can refer to many different things.

 

Essentially, politics shouldn't come before the task of saving souls (though I'd say political involvement does have its place).

If that's your main point, I agree.

 

I agree that the term is vague (hence this thread!) and that one must always evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

 

And yes, that is my main point.

 

Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity.

 

:)

[Credo in Deum]

The culture is crap because Catholics are not living their faith. In America tons of horrible bills are passed by the lukewarm Catholics in places of political power and influence. I think we need to evangelize ourselves.

[Basilisa Marie]

Converting the culture might work best when we put it in context of the laity's role in the Church. If we actually were living our faith in a radical way, being in the world but not of the world, naturally society changes. Catholics don't exist in insular communities quietly converting one or two people they know and maybe the occasional curious onlooker. I've understood "converting the culture" to be a call to live out our Catholic values and morality in a way that makes them a true presence in the world, which also results in concrete changes in the way the world works (food banks, pregnancy clinics, hospitals, working for just economic practices, etc). Maybe you're seeing the problems people run into when they make the physical results of "converting the culture" more important than spreading the Gospel, or seem to separate them from living the Gospel?