I see two main causes for such a development. On the one hand the educational industry has become one of the greatest sources of inequality – hence elitist. The average student debt for the 2017 graduates was $39,400 (nationally over $1.48 trillion owed by 44 million borrowers.) This is a great jeopardy for the future of the national economy. The other influence is that of the social media. While adults spend about 5 hours a day on television, teenagers – the most extreme case – spend an average of nine hours a day on the social media, that is, more time than sleeping and being at school. These teenagers are jeopardizing their own future.

This cultural environment is very corrosive for education. Students walk to class checking their smart phones, unobtrusively check their messages during class, and return to their smart phones while walking out of class. They may study while listening to their favorite pop music, and find on the web an essay to plagiarize. Class discussions have become more difficult, it seems, than about 20 years ago. If this correct, the future of education is in danger.

The internet, like any encyclopedia, only gives fragmented knowledge, and on the social media the news are even more fragmented. Often this leads to cultural and religious ignorance. To make matters worse, Catholic Church services tend to be elitist in their own way: the hymns and songs reflect the tastes of seniors, the organ is still the main church instrument in the age of rock and roll, the liturgy is frozen in its antique beauty, and the homilies speak more to the old than to the young.

What can be done? In reference to education, I leave it up to you.

About 40 years ago a few enterprising pastors started to cater to the unchurched and against all odds they have been very successful. There has been an explosion of mega churches catering to populist tastes. Their preaching is definitely populist, but they satisfy deep (although superficial) needs. There is little effort in the Catholic Church to reach the nones and the unchurched and there are no populist preachers. Most initiatives (of the coming synod on youth?) are of the type, “Catholics, come home!” – Come home to the old ways, with rosaries and standardized Masses.

Cultural populism is with us, whether President Trump retires after 4 or 8 years. We better prepare for the future – which is happening today!

QUESTIONS: How to you teach to the populist generation?
How welcome are populist teenagers in your parish? Is the church fostering a generation gap?

COMMENTS

Populism and religion

Populism, regardless of society in which it is found, is based on feelings that are rooted in images. Most often the images are derived from stories and pictures, for example, stories about money-hungry Jews and cartoons showing Catholics as puppets of the pope. Some images are found in memories of unpleasant experiences, for example, being cheated by a sales clerk or being mugged by a black man.

            Because it is based on feelings and not on facts, populism cannot be countered by information such as statistics or by appeals to principles such as fairness. It can be undone only by direct personal experience. Catholic author Jim Carroll tells of being taught that all Jews are cheats, which as a boy he believed—until he went to work for a Jewish shopkeeper who was scrupulously fair with his customers and honest with his employees.

            Much of Trump’s popularity is based on his appeal to Americans who feel forgotten by both parties and looked down on by liberals. By appealing to their prejudices (Make America great again!) and offering pictures that promise improvement (Drain the swamp!), Trump makes them feel good about themselves and offers them the false hope that the America of their dreams can become a reality. 

            For thirty years, and especially in my last two books, I have argued that religious rituals are meaningful when they connect with people’s experiences and feelings. Even the Latin mass was able to do that for immigrant Catholics for whom the liturgy and church doctrines made them feel connected to a larger reality such as the One True Church, and who felt secure in their belief that they could get good with God by going to mass and regularly confessing their sins.

            This is no longer the case, as is proven by the drift away from organized religion by Catholics of all ages and by young people in particular. In Honest Rituals, Honest Sacraments: Letting Go of Doctrines and Celebrating What’s Real, I argue that our church rituals will become meaningful again only when they are redesigned so that they are based on genuine experiences of community, commitment, fidelity, forgiveness, healing and service to others.

            Until then, young people will become increasingly attracted by the populisms of pleasure, wealth, technology, beauty, and popularity. We cannot counter feelings with ideas. We can do so only by offering experiences that touch hearts and transform minds. One slogan of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps is “Ruin your life forever.” There is much in our contemporary culture that deserved to be ruined and replaced through life-giving experiences.
Joseph Martos, martos@ai.edu
Louisville, KY

[The number of teenagers at Masses I frequent]

Regarding the number of teenagers at Masses I frequent (in Manhattan, N.Y.C. and in a 95% Hispanic town in New Jersey), I see the least teenagers in the liberal Franciscan (OFM) parish to which I officially belong (and it has upbeat music and singing); more teenagers in the Latin-mass parish I also attend, especially at the High Mass Tridentine masses that feature a full-fledged scholar that is expert at Gregorian chant; and the most teenagers at the Spanish-language Masses (which feature lively Hispanic "popular" religious songs) in the New Jersey parish. Thus my own experience may seem counter-intuitive, at least if measured in terms of the lead essay, this week, at Wake Up, Lazarus! (I do not mean to imply that the use/meaning of the word "populist" as such is wrong in that essay).

 If I may be permitted an aside referencing terminology, the term "populism" is very slippery, and it is wise to keep that in mind. Dear Pope Francis is called a "populist" by the United Statesian Catholic right-wing, and of course these right-wingers mean the term pejoratively: they mean that the current Pope is soft on remarriage after divorce, and protective of practicing homosexuals (neither of these charges is true). The Pope himself uses the word "populism," but often in the context of religious practice, where he means "popular [traditional peasants', and street folk's and blue-collar workers'] devotions" such as public recitation of the rosary, novenas, pilgrimages to shrines, use of sacramentals, etc., and he heartily defends these in the face of rigid "liturgists" who disparage them.
Robert Magliola, rmagliola@yahoo.com  
Assumption U. of Thailand (retired)

REPLY to Robert

I recently reviewed a book for two journals, which is The Attraction of Religion edited by Sloan and Van Slyke. See: https://www.amazon.com/Attraction-Religion-Evolutionary-Psychology-Explanationebook/dp/B00S970OTS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1540213097&sr=82&keywords=the+attraction+of+religion.  Chapter 4 is called "Losing My Religion: An analysis of the decline in religious attendance from childhood adulthood" by Jason Weeden.

My friend Lluis Oviedo, OFM,  from Rome/Spain was visiting with me in my house in New Mexico on Sunday. I attended Mass with him on Sunday morning. What I saw among the congregants is what that chapter is about. The average age of the adults was a bi-modal curve with gray hair people and people in their 30s and 40s with children. Who were missing were the 20 to 30 year old people without children. That is what the chapter addresses. Their absence is explained by human behavioral ecology theory. I saw a number of children, including teenagers but they were all with their parents. It was a large church and there were hundreds of congregants.

This posting does not address populism per se but perhaps it helps in terms of the demography of congregants, since there were a number of teenagers at the Mass but with their parents.
Jay Feierman  jay.feierman84@gmail.com

Populist youth?

How to you teach to the populist generation?
How welcome are populist teenagers in your parish?
Is the church fostering a generation gap?

Today’s youth are a prophetic mirror of their elders. In fact society as a whole, if we look closely enough, can see itself in today’s youth. This claim sounds counter intuitive, the polar opposite of Bye Bye Birdies “What’s the matter with kids today…why can’t they be like we were.” But think about it. The world young people inhabit—ubiquitous computing, cell phones, unreflective bits and pieces of news—inhabits us and influences our world view, our sense of purpose, and values. They can’t be like we were, any more than we can be like we were. There are distinct differences between youth and the older generations, but technology and a sense of being disconnected from traditional institutions is not one of them. Our attention span, not just theirs has shortened. The populist generation includes the adults who support America first policies and (surprise!) excludes many younger persons, whose sense of inclusion is much broader than white-straight-individualist.

It seems to me to be a big (and unwarranted) jump to ask what a parish is doing to welcome the populist generation, as if that explains why so many youth are not interested in finding a spiritual home in the parish. Remember that the majority of older adults are also unable to find a spiritual home in the parish!

Charles Taylor offers a big-picture view that sees the onset in the “technology” mindset signaled in “closed world structures” and “secular time” as something that has been building up since the Enlightenment. So it is not surprising that back in 1950 the parents of the “Boomers,” wanting to see their children thrive and succeed, were already coaching their children on how to navigate in a world increasingly explained through instrumental rationality, such that (a la Geertz) we took it as the way things are and the only possible reality; the “true” description, explanation of the world in which we live.

Lonergan, in discussing progress and decline of cultures and society, reminds us that when systems get too big, too complex, they become so distant and remote that they make understanding and reflection more difficult. I might add: so difficult that we stop trying. We live then by group-ism, accepting partial truth as the whole, and creating our own version of “fake news” long before the term gained currency in today’s political discourse. Add to this what James Comey describes as “confirmation bias”(accepting the truth only of that which confirms what one already wants to believe), and the populist generation expands to include octogenarians.

Who controls the culture of the parish? The question then goes beyond the response of clergy and Church officials to the questions of youth today [see Synod reports to realize how hard it is for many prelates to understand the world from the perspective of youth] and their seeming haplessness in addressing the religious needs of all people in a “secular age.” The question moves into the interrogation of parish culture. For example, is the culture of the parish so polite that it allows no room for conscience formation? If a parish is incapable of wrestling with the signs of the times, of discerning a parish vocation that throws in its lot with the fate of the Kingdom of God, then we are no longer talking about a generation gap—but a cultural gap. The Church/parish becomes an “equal opportunity” excluder. Sociological studies of Church attendance show that the parish excludes many in their 60s, 70s, and above, who can’t find God in a world that has lost its sense of transcendence. It is not just youth who have a very fragile, if any, identity with or commitment to the Church.

Youth are a mirror to their elders. Their distance from the Church, which in many ways has left them fend for themselves, is a prophetic denunciation of a Church and its parishes that are failing not only their generation; but that of their parents and grandparents.

So to whom does the parish cater (may I use this word), when it keeps doing what it has always done, even as it sees that its message leaves so many untouched and unmoved? To answer this question will take a long and deep practical theological study, a sustained and substantive conversation—discernment, reading the signs of the times, discovering the vocation of a parish in the world today. I suggest that most parishes are unprepared for such a conversation and do not even see it as a possibility.
Richard Sshields, richshields@sympatico.ca

Reply to Richard

I agree with Rich Shields—all of it, especially the interrogation of parish culture. I was glad to see "the parish" mentioned so often because I still think that is where the rubber meets the road and where youth will be won or lost (if I can say it that way). I agree with Pope Francis that parishes are not outdated institutions, even though some are questioning the "parochial principle" (the last issue of the journal WORSHIP has an editorial on this principle. I tend to disagree with the editorial generally because of the importance of the parish). I realize youth gather in ways beyond the parish but these gatherings are fleeting and sporadic for the most part -- while the parish is still there every week.

I agree parishes are not entering the conversation about youth and populism or do not even see it as a possibility as Rich notes. But part of the problem is the weak institutional infrastructure of local parishes in terms of pastoral staff. In Detroit, half the parishes do not have a youth minister and the other half are mostly part-time. I know this is not the only answer to the problem but if there are not people in place, in institutionalized committed roles within the parish that focus on youth, parishes will keep floundering in this area. How can a parish address populism if there is no one to organize such a conversation, make such a conversation happen, has the time to make it happen, especially with respect to youth? There is so much more to say, but . . . . (And what about getting paid a living wage? There was a youth conference somewhere this year or last where a woman got up and said something along monetary lines and received a standing ovation).
Mike McCallion mccallion.michael@shms.edu

Reading the signs of the times - A response to cultural populism

I was not yet part of the human community when our beloved Pope John XXXIII called for a shift in the church’s rigid conformity to Tridentine orthodoxy and embrace the pneumatological approach to reading the signs of the times. I was introduced to this during my theological studies and have never stopped appreciating the wisdom in the pope’s vision of how to be church in an ever-changing world. Today, our beloved Pope Francis has continued in that prophetic tradition by calling for a new way of being church that embraces complexities, paradoxes, and alterity in their full expressions. This, I find to be refreshing in many ways and can best address the topic we are discussing this week. In the era of truth denial, and rise of cultural populism, many might be tempted to flee from the world and advocate for a rigid curtain that denies entrance to anyone who may not share in their religious, political, or socio-cultural beliefs. It can quickly become a world of them against us.

However, what is my role as an educator, one who stands always at the crossroads of social existence? How should I attempt to shed light on the crevices of our values, and experiences? I have noticed that I continue to find comfort in the works of two philosophers, Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas, who advocated for a shift in the philosophical discourse that tended to focus on the self and less on the other. In my work as a scholar and educator, I continue to apply their insights on what it means to be a follower of Christ in a world that is shaped by religious, cultural, and ideological pluralism. For Buber, two types of relationships are always at play in all that we do as humans, the I-It and the I-Thou.

The former emphasizes the primacy of the self. It seeks to define meaning always from the location of the self. Everything else must serve the needs of the I. This, unfortunately, is at the heart of current global dynamics among nations. The rise of nation-states has validated this approach as the only legitimate way for negotiating with foreign nations. Even when nations advocate humanitarian solutions to problems, they most often follow the I-It approach.

The latter (the I-Thou) is a relationship of surplus. It is a relationship of kairos-encounters because it seeks to focus on the good of the other; knowing fully well that the other is always a gift that comes to us even when we are most inadequate. This form of relationship is what Levinas builds upon when he speaks of ethics as first philosophy. It is agapic, it is self-less, and it allows for paradoxes and complexities to be without a rush to judgement. It seeks to encounter the other always as the divine disguised as a stranger.

Over the years, I have noticed that each time I begin to cover this aspect of ethical relationships in my introduction to theology course, my students become alive in ways I really cannot explain. As one student once told me, it was that part of your course that gave me purpose in life during my time studying theology. There is legitimacy in such a claim. In an era of Trumpism, or rigid nationalism, theologians, and educators alike, can refocus our attention by inviting our students to embrace the latter form of relational encounters.

Words may not suffice. We also need to demonstrate to each other how we embody the I-Thou relational approach to all we encounter. This means that we ought to now intentionally choose to reject the polarized way of looking at reality in today’s world. I believe Pope Francis was doing this when he responded to the question of the journalist on his take on homosexuals – “Who am I to judge?” I believe this is at the heart of his vision for the church during his papacy by calling all Christians to ground their theologies, actions, worldviews, and existence in divine mercy. God’s mercy does not eradicate paradoxes. It simply chooses to embrace all because there is a common denominator – the flourishing of all lives. All lives come from God.
Simon Aihiokhai aihiokhais@yahoo.co.uk

[Participation in parish and university]

My full-time work is at a Catholic university. My weekend ministry takes me to four different parishes though usually not all on one weekend. I notice differing levels of participation and attendance of young people at the various parishes. Some of that may be the particular Masses at which I usually preside. The strongest presence and participation comes when young people are there with family. Thus there is usually a significant gap in terms of young adults 20-30 years of age. Interestingly enough at the university the percentage of participation generally mirrors the percentage of Catholics at large. I suggest it is the sense of community, the sense of belonging, and hopefully being addressed by the Word.

Sadly in terms of the classroom while there are small hints of conviction about the current social and political culture—including perspectives on the truth of facts—voices tend to remain silent. No one wants to offend, challenge, or talk politics in general leaving everyone to be entitled to their own opinion/truth. I suggest some of this may also be related to the preparation for a career that has taken hold of the academy and the decline of the liberal arts curriculum.

Finally, I appreciate the observations of Michael McCallion and Simon Aihiokhai. I like to remind people that young people are not the future of the church - they are the church. Leadership in the church needs to provide structures that address their needs and foster their sense of belonging and participation. I, too, find that students awaken to the "plus dimension of life" and are willing to engage in religious/spiritual reflection when introduced to perspectives like that of Buber.
Frank Berna, berna@lasalle.edu
La Salle University

[Populism and education]

My experiences with young people and their acceptance or rejection of social process centers on the conception of authority. There was a time that an institution and institutional leaders could expect that their position/longevity earned respect and commanded attention. That is no longer the case. Personal experience, sometimes in the shallowest forms, now frame the conferral of authority.

Populism, precisely because it relies on group membership and emotion, foreswears logic and fact-based analysis. Young people are particularly susceptible to populism because it engenders a feeling of belonging.

I have always thought populism is a tool that can be used for good or for ill. For Catholicism, insistence on rules as a measure of belonging is a fated detour from God’s love. I don’t have much optimism for turning this around, given the collapse of Catholic schools as education for everyone. They are now mostly elite factories for conformists trying to “make it” in a secular world. Bret Kavanaugh, in my opinion, is now the model of what Catholic schools produce. Sad.
Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, stevensa@ptd.net
Emeritus, Puerto Rican and Latino Studies