www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology AmChurch and our Church

Dear Friends,

We all know the term "AmChurch" or "American Catholic Church" coined by Fr. Malachi Martin to describe a mindset among North American Catholics that is very liberal and in opposition to official Church teaching.

It is very pro-social gospel, female ordination, pro-birth control and abortion etc.

Is our Byzantine Catholic Church affected by the "AmChurch mindset?"

If so, how and in what ways, remembering to give specific examples rather than make generalizations.

Is our Byzantine Forum here so affected as well- As some have called it, "ByzAmChurch.com?"

I think this is worth a discussion and I am not trying to "stir the pot."

This is simply responding to what I have heard said from and by others.

Alex

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Alex,

Many Catholics find the term "AmChurch" quite offensive. Might I suggest we not employ it here, even in reference?

However, to address your question: the concepts that Martin was discussing is, in fact, a form of enculturation. However, it is not a good form of enculturation as this means taking the Church and making it fit society.

To a certain extent, this happens to all Churches at all times. The most common example of this is the use of the vernacular. Not a bad thing, in and of itself, unless that also means incorporating slang or jingoism.

The problem is that culture affects individuals who, in turn, affect the Church. This cannot be avoided. We are, therefore, always to be mindful that the profane does not overpower the pious, that the secular does not root out the sacred.

The Latin Church has suffered in America because they have lost the sense of the sacred. This is the greatest single loss possible becuase it is the key to losing all else.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear Alex,

Please let us avoid this term, I have not read Malachi Martin's book, and I am not sure of the usefulness of coining this new word.

If you wish to discuss any of these topics, of course that is fine...

A topic on "social gospel" or "birth control" or "women's ordination" or anything at all is fine here...

But to lump them all together in one enormous all encompassing discussion does not seem like a very good way to proceed. Please correct me if I am wrong...

May I make a suggestion, that we pick one (or several) such questions, and title a thread appropriately? And begin a discussion with a pertinent point of view?

To simply say "What does everyone think about all of this" or "How does everything in the Roman Catholic Church affect everything in the Byzantine Catholic Church" is (for me anyway) not the most helpful way to begin a topic... It is too large, and to vague.

My secret fear is that it gives license to "vent" about the Roman Church, without really concretely addressing the particular challenges it is facing on serious issues.

Sorry for being so bold, and I hope you understand my difficulty with this topic title?

Elias

Dear Reverend Father Deacon,

I am aware of its offensive nature, and am willing to change it to another name, whatever you suggest.

I only raise it here because it is a name that is sometimes used to describe what goes on in our Church and even on this Forum.

I am open to your suggestions but think we need to discuss this openly as you have already begun.

Personally, "American Catholic" is something I don't find offensive, even though the ideology behind the label is.

And the very feeling of this term being offensive can also be a point of discussion, in terms of why it is.

Sorry, but it is something we Canucks don't talk about much up here in the Northern Kingdom, but it is obviously a sore point for our neighbours to the South.

So why exactly?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your response to Father Deacon. However, I might say that I don't really find the term offensive in itself, and I don't really mind it.

I just wonder if a more "focused" discussion might be more productive.

Elias

Bless me a sinner, Father Elias!

Sorry, but I don't agree with you.

I think we have already discussed many of the separate issues that go to make this mystifying concept of "AmChurch."

But it is clearly not the sum of its parts.

As an ignorant bystander, I would like to know why this term and its underlying ideology strikes such emotions in people.

We've used it here before and people have left here as a result of the arguments over it.

I agree that we need to be civil in any conversation on this topic.

But we're not talking about "AmChurchism" per se but only insofar as it might be affecting OUR Church and this Forum.

If it is, what are we to do about it?

Again, and I am not referencing you, Father, why is this topic so verboten and why the rush to silence it and me, as I've experienced with it.

And I find that truly offensive.

If it is not to be talked about for some mysterious reason, then anyone with the requisite authority can close this down and tell me to shut up or even leave permanently.

And that I can deal with.

But I want to know. And I know there are others who want to know to.

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Elias!

I am a far cry from a Moderator or an authority of any kind here or anywhere else in the Church.

Ultimately, obedience is what should characterize my attitude, not belligerence.

But the focus here would be on how "AmChurchism" however one sees it, is or is not affecting the Byzantine Catholic Churches and this Forum, again if it is and how it is, giving examples.

His Holiness himself continues to issue statements such as his recent one to guard against the "clericalization of the laity" and other such issues.

I think that to use this issue to brow-beat the Latin Church is wrong, since we are concerned with the Byzantine Church in any event.

That is the focus and it is a focus.

If I am overstepping my bounds, I will withdraw.

Alex

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

I believe that "AmChurch" implies a willing and planned conspiracy to destroy the Church - minus the black helicopters.

If there are problems in a church community, we Easterners look at it as a 'sickness' in need of Christ's healing and restoration. Not everyone who believes in women's ordination is anti-life, and not everyone who is liberal is immoral.

The key word here is "liberal." It is the preferred term of those who cannot think outside a political spectrum - liberal/conservative, left/right, etc. It is also a sign that those using it are also guilty of the very same thing they accuse others, namely to impose non-Church notions on the Church (i.e., the politicalization and assumed Balkanization of the Church).

There is, indeed, moral and spiritual sickness present in the Church: lack of discipline, confusion over sexual orientation, a dramatic drop in the notion of the sacred and sin, rejection of responsibility, etc. This is affecting all peoples regardless of faith/church affiliation.

Joe

Alex,

I think that the term has become offensive because it's use differs greatly from, say, "Ukrainian Church" , which generally denotes ethnic traditions that, while they to an extent set one who identifies oneself as an "Ukrainian Catholic" (for example), those ethnic traditions do not deny or oppose basic tenets of the faith. Such traditions celebrate that very faith in certain ways, reiterating certain points of doctrine.

"American Church", in the context of Catholicism, however, has come to mean something completely different. It has come to mean opposition to the Deposit of Faith. It has come to mean "We don't care what the Pope or Sacred Tradition says, we're doing it this way!". It has come to mean for Latins such as myself folk Masses, "LifeTeen" Masses, dancing at the liturgy, removal of the Tabernacle to some out of the way chapel no one can see, and a host of other things. I have been blessed to have not been subjected to most of the above, but I feel for our other Latin brethren who have.

As an Eastern Christian, you appreciate the fact that the Liturgy is a central part of the Faith. Indeed, time and time again it is reiterated here how important the Divine Liturgy is in expressing the various Truths of Faith. We of the Western Rite, however, are watching (with some horror) as our Liturgy is co-opted into expressions of disobedience. For example, here in the States, after the Sanctus, we are to kneel for the Consecration, as per the norms approved by the USCCB in keeping with our Western traditions. An increasing number of parishes are being told to stand now, disobeying the directives of our bishops. People are being taught disobedience and arrogance at Mass instead of obedience and humility! Practices such as this characterize the "traditions" of the "American Church", as opposed to, say, bowing at a certain time or place in the "Ukrainian Church". For many, "American Church" means "Disobedient Church".

I beg the forgiveness of anyone who took offense to my use of "American Church".

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Cantor Joe,

Thank you for those insights!

In what ways and areas is this affecting the Byzantine Catholic Chuch, do you feel?

We are, as a whole, very traditional in terms of liturgy, theology etc.

Is that a good thing? I mean the idea of "resist to the death the smallest change?"

And if there are those who are pro-horizontal in terms of social gospel, what happens to the vertical Gospel?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your answer. Of course 'if' it is a topic in its own right (not merely an epithet), then it could make a profitable discussion.

I think I am beginning to get a clearer idea of what is meant, but I am not sure I still "have it".

I would certainly never with to rush (or even slowly move) to silence you. You know I always read your posts with interest, and profit from your thoughts and ideas!

Before a profitable discussion takes place, I would like to go back, and read the guidelines and advice our esteemed Administrator has already given for this discussion.

Without taking anything away from his guidance, may I suggest that before discussing it, we should have an absolutely clear definition of exactly what it means? If it is a new or "coined" word that is dangerous, because we cannot go to a dictionary or encyclopedia to look it up! Those of us who have not read Malachi Martin's book, need to have a concise, clear, accepted, and understandable definition which we perceive that everyone agrees upon. In addition, we must also all agree, that it is not an "epithet" or term of negative abuse.

If we cannot agree on the definition for this new word, and all agree that it is not a term of abuse, then perhaps we should ask how best to proceed?

I suspect there is potentially an important discussion here, and I would hate to see that good discussion flounder on the rocks of this one word... It that what happened last time? If so, it would be disappointing if that happened again.

So, can we formulate a clear definition? Does everyone accept that definition? Does everyone agree that it is not a word of abuse or scorn?

If it is simply "liberalism" or "modernism" with a new name, perhaps these more generally understood terms would serve us better?

All my good friends on the forum, please, let us proceed cautiously and carefully, and in good humor!

Elias

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: Hieromonk Elias ]

Dear Mikey,

That's great!

So "AmChurch" is, in and of itself, a construction that is intentionally meant to be an oversimplified and ideological characterization of a perceived group in North America that is disobedient to the Church's teachings and liturgical tradition.

And that is truly offensive.

But the use and subsequent meaning of a term can vary, if one defines how one is using it in advance.

I would rather not use the term "liberal" for the reasons Joe Thur has given.

That is a wide open term that is used very irresponsibly for every bogeyman issue around.

Perhaps "AmChurch" is as well.

But I don't see why this term, defined narrowly, cannot be used in a consideration with respect to our Church.

Joe Thur identified negative trends affecting all of us.

I think there are many of us ByzChurch people who think that when it comes to the problems experienced by the Latin Church, they don't happen with us.

And is that so?

And can we say that there aren't people of That Ilk, for want of something better, that don't have their own ideas of how the Church should be worshipping, believing and doing social outreach that is at variance with what the Church has always taught?

Let's go beyond the name or use a different one.

Speaking as a secular sociologist now, I am fascinated by the reaction to this unmentionable name.

Sorry, but whenever that happens in my working world, you know you are on to something.

Again, please don't feel inhibited. Remember, I can be shut down, even permanently here.

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Elias!

I have no wish to make this a personal issue and take no offence from you, Father in Christ!

As an ignorant bystander to all this, I see "AmChurch" as an "ideal type" that exists more or less in reality depending on a given, concrete individual or community.

Again, in the midst of my ignorance, I see it as a hearkening back to the 19th century ultramontanist disputes in the Church.

Catholics in Europe at that time in general tended to place their church loyalties to their national hierarchies first and to the pope "beyond the mountains" or Ultramontane, second.

Surely this is at the root of not only the Reformation arguments concerning authority in the Church but the Gallican controversy and others.

Fr. Martin, as a traditionalist Jesuit that he was, was certainly an Ultramontanist and,yes, he derided the American Catholic Church for even considering itself as a Particular Body and later for its general liberalization in terms of liturgy and following of Church teaching regarding women's ordination, birth control and the like.

Again, it is an "ideal type" definition and is not applicable to the entire Church - how could that even be?

So "AmChurch" as used by ignorant me is a set of attitudes that oppose Church teaching or differ from it - period.

One may be loyal to the Magisterium and be a liberal or a conservative. Were Catholic socialists "AmChurchers" in any respect? Not the ones I've known!

So the touchstone in this definition of "AmChurch" is when we deliberately go against the Magisterium of the Church to make the Church more "of this world."

If someone has a better term, fine. But perhaps we can just use a specific usage of a term that's probably been done to death in ideological terms.

Alex

It is God who blesses you!

So it merely means to stand within the Church and yet oppose Church teaching?

Perhaps that is why "Eastern" Christians find it imposible to understand? To be a member of the Church is to be Orthodox, "Christians of the true faith" (as some say), "right-believing, and right-worshipping Christians".

How can one be both? It is a term that is a contradiction in itself (for an eastern). You either profess the faith (and are a member of the Church), or you do not profess the faith (and stand outside of the Church).

One cannot stand within the Church, and yet object to the faith of the Church. It is a nonsense. Or do I still miss the point of this word?

Elias