Viewpoint: Multicultural Ministry

by Msgr. M. Francis Mannion

One of the most pressing challenges facing the Catholic Church in the U.S. today is the necessity of more adequate ministry to the many ethnic communities growing within our national borders. Among the impediments said to be operative against effective incorporation of ethnic communities into the Church in the U.S. are that these communities are enormously diverse and, therefore, present huge challenges to mainstream Catholicism.

While these assertions are widely held among theorists of American Catholic multiculturalism, I suggest that they do not completely have the mature evidence of culture theory on their side.

The notion that American ethnic communities are quite diverse seems at first sight well grounded. Native American, Hispanic, African-American, and Asian cultures can seem enormously different from each other. Clearly considerable differences do exist at the levels of cultural customs and practices. But at the level of what anthropologists call the โ€œdeep structuresโ€ of cultures, there are notable and striking similarities.

Consider, for instance, that the cultures just mentioned hold in common many of the following characteristics: a pervasive sense of divine presence in ordinary life; an attachment to place and a closeness to the earth; a strong communal memory; a heroic attitude in the face of suffering and deprivation; a deep consciousness of the home as a holy place; reverence for parents, elders, and ancestors; a closely knit communal life; a well developed system of group festivity and celebration; and a ritualized response to birth, human transition, and death. I would call these cultures โ€œtraditional-communal.โ€

I would argue that the Catholic cultures of Italy, Spain, Ireland, and Poland were historically traditional-communal, exhibiting the same features just outlined, and that they continued to be so after being transported to the U.S. in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Accordingly, it seems to me that the distance between the Native American, Hispanic, African-American, and Asians ethnic communities and traditional European-based Catholicism in the U.S. was historically not as great as many multicultural theorists suggest.

However, just as the European-based Catholicism in the U.S. began to reach out to the Native American, Hispanic, and African, and Asian communities after the 1960s, it began to lose the ability to do so because it was fast adapting to the mainstream culture of the U.S., which I would describe as โ€œliberal-individualistic.โ€

Liberal-individualistic culture, which has its origins in Protestantism, is highly puritanical, pragmatic, rationalistic, and privatized; it separates God from public life and assumes a secularist mentality. It is non-communal and non-celebratory.

The kind of American Catholicism which is liberal-individualistic is fundamentally incapable of dealing with ethnic and immigrant communities, especially the newer ones. It simply does not understand them and tries in vain to reach across the divide that separates liberal-individualistic cultures from traditional-communal ones.

I suggest, then, that if mainstream Catholicism in the U.S. today were less a reflection of liberal-individualistic culture, it would be better positioned to minister to Catholic ethnic communities.

The bottom line here is that the newer ethnic and immigrant communities are not the problem; mainstream U.S. Catholic culture is. While great efforts are being made in the Church to minister to ethnic communities, not enough attention is paid to the ability of these communities to teach mainstream American Catholicism how to be authentically Catholicโ€”and less liberal-individualistic. Alongside diocesan offices reaching out to ethnic Catholic communities, I suggest that we need diocesan and parish programs in which Catholic ethnic communities can minister to and teach mainstream Catholicism in the U.S. how to recover its traditional-communal roots and become, therefore, more fully Catholic.

Msgr. Mannion is pastor emeritus of St. Vincentโ€™s parish, Salt Lake City.

By permission of The Intermountain Catholic, Salt Lake City.

Francis Mannion


Posted

in

,

by

Comments

14 responses to “Viewpoint: Multicultural Ministry”

  1. Fr. Ron Krisman

    It’s really great to see your postings at PTB, Msgr. Mannion. Keep them coming!

    A few reactions to this particular posting. I think you paint with too wide a brush when you state that “liberal-individualistic culture has its origins in Protestantism.” Perhaps it has its origins in some strains of Protestantism, but certainly not all. Was the culture of German Lutherans emigrating to the USA not as “tradition-communal” as that of German Catholics arriving on the same ships? I think it was. And in today’s America, what Christian subcultures are the most traditional-communal? Perhaps the Amish and Mennonites, along with Eastern-rite Christians (both Orthodox and Catholic) who have retained their strong ethnic roots?

    Also, is the supposed ineffectiveness of multicultural ministry in the Catholic Church in the USA attributable to a liberal-individualist cultural mindset, as you propose, or rather to a contemporary form of narcissism which knows no ethnic borders?

  2. Charles Jordan

    Regarding: “Consider, for instance, that the cultures just mentioned hold in common many of the following characteristics: …”

    View from the pew:
    – While these fine characteristics are shared by many, if not all, ethnic groups, each one of these ethnic groups normalizes its own expression of these characteristics so much so that other ethnic groups in the same parish are treated as other or less than the ethnic group who offers its normalized expressions as sine qua non. Thus one will have the sense that the Marian devotion from ones own group is less effective than the devotion of another group.

    – Having ministers trained to serve a specific ethnic group is not much help if those ministers are not able to help the ethnic group to accept the other groups on the common ground. Thus, what good is it to have Thai speaking clergy if they are not helping the Thai community (for an example) to minister to other ethnic groups. Thus in this scenario, even though language differences can be a barrier, the common characteristics are never found to be shared.

    Regarding: “…mainstream U.S. Catholic culture…”
    – Can not imagine what a parish looks like or feels like that is part of such a mainstream culture. It occurs to me that every parish is so part of its region or neighborhood that such a description fails on “mainstream”. No doubt though — there must be parishes for which this phrase is an apt description.

  3. Dale Rodrigue

    I agree somewhat with Fr Krisman in #1 and Charles in #2, too broad a brush. Also too quick to blame “liberal individualistic culture” (parts of his definition Puritanical, pragmatic, rationalistic can also be applied to some in the right wing of the RC ie Chaput, Tobin, et al too.
    Cultural differences are just too complicated to be so neatly packaged. An example that seems to show this are the feast days of St. Patrick and St. Joseph. When I lived in Chicago St Patrick’s day was almost considered a holiday, the river was (and is) dyed green and there was a parade and green beer. However, there is also a large Polish community in Chicago and they celebrate St. Joseph’s Day on March 19th and their color is red. The two groups, Irish and Polish, keep apart from one another and did not mix, at least they didn’t in religious circles in the 1970’s because the Polish community didn’t think they were considered equal or at least as important as the Irish culture especially with St. Patrick’s day being two days earlier on March 17th. No large St. Joseph’s parade and food, the Irish community/culture essentially ignored them. Lots of hostility about this. Two wholly Catholic cultures at odds with each other unable and unwilling to understand each other. Liberal individualistic culture? Nope, just a difference in culture. I knew of plenty of cultural French Catholics who didn’t associate at all with cultural Vietnamese Catholics who migrated to our area after the fall of Saigon. Both groups eschewed assimilation into the prevailing culture at that time and both resisted each other. Courteous to each other, but one group didn’t overly help the other unless there was dire need.
    Furthermore, as cultures assimilate into the “melting pot” of US multiculturalism they tend to drift from their own cultural groups and assimilate. Not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact that’s what we want to happen to Islam, assimilate otherwise we end up with some of the turmoil that Europe has had recently.
    One last thing, since when does “traditional communal roots” equate to “more fully Catholic” as Msgr stated. Don’t agree with the good Msgr’s statement at all. IMO that is like saying the reality TV show, “Jersey Shore”, which is deeply Italian culturally, is therefore more fully Catholic.

    I hope Jack Rakosky chimes in on this since I think this is his speciality. I’m interested to hear what he thinks.

  4. Jack Rakosky

    Rocco, this morning, has a fine piece taking on the lack of understanding of Francis and the peopleโ€™s piety among both the right and the left:

    While an increasingly paranoid Right has taken to trashing the Pope as some sort of “liberal,” as Francis’ Left flank has given its flagged penchant for “cosmos” baths a break to bask in a sense of his supposed “enlightenment,” such is both sides’ bloodlust for self-satisfied point-scoring that the ongoing ideological foodfight for “Catholic” supremacy has shown precious little regard for the reality of the man or the matter.

    http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2013/10/mother-we-will-fight-together-we-will.html

    Sure, he’s never been to these shores (at least, not until 2015). Still, Papa Bergoglio knows of what he speaks even in the Stateside context โ€“ for all the noise too many of this crowd make and heed over the passing concerns that witness to little more than “worldliness,” the reality remains that, even today, the two largest annual gatherings of American Catholics are both dedicated to the Mother of God โ€ฆ

    Now, this isn’t merely a stupid slip of the blissfully ignorant โ€“ we’re ten years past that point. These days, sad as it is, for what claims to be a savvy, faithful, “representative” ecclesial discourse on an American Catholicism whose “minorities” now comprise its working majority, the lack of attention to and encounter with our own makes for a pretty embarrassing, if not outright discrediting, indictment.

    Then again, it just goes to remind that if you want to see The Church as Francis knows, wants and loves it best, you won’t find it in any suburbanized, politicized, Anglo-centric combox.

    Mannionโ€™s viewpoint is very misguided from an historical, cultural and sociological viewpoint. However, I had decided to past up saying anything about it largely because this post is one of the few on this blog or any blog that touches upon multi-cultural ministry.

    II think Dale has opened up an important issue: the difference between ethnic culture and religious culture. My own background had both German and Polish Catholicism. They were not exactly friendly. My German Grandmother would not allow my mother to get married to my dad (โ€œHunkies beat their wives.โ€) until my mother threatened to get married outside the church! At that time in PA you had to be 21 to be married without parental consent, except you could do it in Maryland at age 18.

    Ethnic religion has its plus and minuses. Mannionโ€™s viewpoint ignores the problems as well as the glories of ethnic parishes. And of course Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy even have ethnic dioceses!!!

    It is supposed to rain here tomorrow and I am going to have another beautiful day outside today, so I will wait until then to say more about my real criticism, namely that Mannion does not understand American culture historically and sociologically. In the meantime I would encourage discussion of ethnicity and religion.

  5. Count me a skeptic on the bashing of the so-called “โ€œliberal-individualistic” thingie.

    At first I wasn’t sure if he was using the “PC” vogue definition of liberal often found among conservatives.

    When I reviewed the litany of paragraph 4, I thought he was describing Ignatian values as well as picking up on many themes of the liberal counterculture of the past century:

    “a pervasive sense of divine presence in ordinary life” — could be Wiccan, even. But certainly a Catholic incarnational view.

    “an attachment to place and a closeness to the earth” — those back-to-nature sensibilities, and along with that “closely knit communal life” the phenomenon of communes, religious and hedonistic, and in-between, including the Catholic Worker movement.

    “a strong communal memory” — Woody Guthrie and union songs?

    “a heroic attitude in the face of suffering and deprivation” — the Peace Corps and today, many volunteer service opportunities young people embrace for a year or for several.

    I appreciate the attempt to review cultures within Catholicism, but I think the Left-Right meme has pretty much spent itself as a means of defining differences between “good” and “bad” Catholicism. This is about as dead as Cardinal George’s “liberalism is dead” argument from ’99. We can do better.

    I’m unconvinced that “programming,” perhaps a characteristic of post-conciliar US Catholicism, is the solution. We seem to go to that well all too often.

    We can’t treat people and cultures as problems to be solved. What is needed is dialogue on a vast, committed, and individual scale. People like Fr Mannion talking to liberals. nth-generation Irish, Germans, etc. talking to Vietnamese, Chinese, blacks, etc..

    When somebody who looks different and thinks different joins our community, why not just talk to them? We don’t need a program for that. Just honest friendship.

  6. Bill deHaas

    Msgr – wonder if your use of *liberal-individualistic* follows the European political/philosophical milieu…..thus, translate into US political/philosophical and it really says *conservative-individualistic*.

    Examples: Numerous “catholic” speakers (politics, church, writers) have adopted the 20th century evangelical/libertarian outlook in describiing catholicism e.g. Acton Institute, some US bishops, some publications, catholic politicians such as Paul Ryan or even Scalia. What once was rejected by mainstream catholics (born again individualism, personal relationship vs. sacramental approach, individual prized over commonweal; focus on sinful humans) has now been accepted by some of our *US Republican Bishops*.

    Most liberals I know work and live and support initiatives to address and build up the common good – e.g. immigration, voting rights, universal healthcare, hunger, disease eradication, clean water, civil justice system, gay rights, etc. Find the conservative-evangelicals to be on the other side of this divide – against immigration, minimize even the rightful role of government in some of these issues, against gays, focused on abortion/contraception.

    Just some thoughts that go beyond the *comments on culture*.

  7. Jonathan Day

    I also thank Mgr Mannion for a thoughtful post, even where I disagree with some of his conclusions. We need more discussion of these issues.

    Mary Douglas, the British social anthropologist, tackles many of these questions in, Natural Symbols, especially in a chapter โ€œThe Bog Irishโ€, written after the British bishops removed the requirement for Friday abstinence.

    For Douglas, part of the โ€˜traditional-communalโ€™ culture of the Irish in England was that they were an embattled, excluded group: โ€ฆ they are likely to see on the doors of lodging houses, โ€˜No Irish, no colouredโ€™. Then the sense of exile and of boundary is sharper. This is what the rule of Friday abstinence can signify. No empty symbol, it means allegiance to a humble home in Ireland and to a glorious tradition in Rome.โ€

    Is the โ€˜embattled, excludedโ€™ element essential to its being โ€˜traditional-communalโ€™? Many calls for โ€˜Catholic identityโ€™ seem to be about increasing the sense of separation from the mainstream culture. Is this a particularly good thing? It sure flies in the face of the Jesuit model, which is always to engage with the culture.

    Mgr Mannion speaks about an โ€˜attachment to placeโ€™. Mary Douglas writes about the need for symbolic structures that โ€˜organise the universeโ€™, even where the result is โ€œโ€ฆa doctrine as uncompromising as a West African fetishistโ€™s that the deity is located in a specific object, place and timeโ€ฆโ€

    And yet โ€˜placeโ€™ for many Catholics has become global and virtual; paradoxically, the โ€˜death of distanceโ€™ has strengthened bureaucratic reach (not necessarily compliance with the bureaucracy) and connectivity with the centre in Rome.

    As just one example: St John Cantius flourished as a local, Polish parish in Chicago. It nearly died in the face of urban renewal, only to be reborn not as a โ€˜traditional-communalโ€™ parish but as a global icon for the reform-of-the-reform liturgy movement, with people travelling great distances to attend it, and a heavy presence on the internet. How can โ€˜traditional-communalโ€™ structures, with โ€˜attachment to placeโ€™, prosper in such a world?

    I will put my final reflection on Mgr Mannionโ€™s post in a separate comment.

  8. Jonathan Day

    Mgr Mannion wants Catholic ethnic communities to โ€˜minister to and teach mainstream Catholicism in the U.S. how to recover its traditional-communal roots and become, therefore, more fully Catholic.โ€™

    The problem here is that, as Clifford Geertz puts it, โ€œone constructs arguments for tradition only when its credentials have been questioned.โ€* I would go further and say that in a truly traditional society, nobody talks much about degrees of tradition, a shift from less to more traditional, or even tradition itself.

    As corroborative evidence for my claim, consider Ben Schmidtโ€™s analysis of phrases used in the script of the popular television drama Downton Abbey. At one point the bumbling Earl of Grantham says, about another character, โ€œ You don’t think she’d be happier with a more traditional set up?โ€

    This sounds rather โ€ฆ traditional, until Schmidt uses the Google Ngram database to demonstrate that, in 1917, nobody would have talked this way. โ€œTo a real Earl of Grantham,โ€ he writes, โ€œtalking about tradition as a sliding scale would rather miss the point; either it’s traditional or it’s not.โ€ (See here for details.)

    If โ€˜traditional-communalโ€™ is another option on the menu of social and religious stances, then it is hard for me to see how this can be remotely considered โ€˜traditionalโ€™. Tradition is not a consumer good, to be found, evaluated (perhaps by โ€œseeingโ€ it on the internet) and then adopted or not.

    How, in a consumerist society, would Mgr Mannion have us become โ€˜more traditionalโ€™?

    —-
    * โ€œIdeology as a Cultural Systemโ€, n. 42 in Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973)

  9. Dale Rodrigue

    I think rather than traditional communal entities we are probably accomplishing more with liberal individualism. Take immigration reform which involves not just hundreds but millions in that “ethnic community”. The depth and breath of reform in the US is amazing. Clergy as well as possibly the majority of “individual” citizens not associated with any traditional commmunal groups support it. However, we find those that do not support reform are usually, not always, but usually on the conservative side.

    But how will the greater good of immigration reform for this enormous “ethnic community” of Hispanics/Latinos come about? Via traditional “cultural systems” or “liberal-individualism”? It will come about by liberal individualism when each votes on it. I might add that in the last election millions of “legal” immigrants voted about 75-80% for liberal candidates knowing that these politicians support them and immigration reform. (And no, I’m not a registered Democrat, rather an Independent).
    It is difficult to package any culture whether ethnic or religious. Ethnic cultures mix and monolithic religious culture can break down into bickering between those that “accept” everything and would avoid anything “liberal” vs those who would associate with liberals ie Hispanic/Latino groups who find hope in them but are then labeled “cafeteria Catholics” because of their association with these same groups who are pro “choice”. All very messy indeed. I think rather than dealing with groups we should be dealing with individuals as Todd alluded to above.
    I thank Msgr Mannion for opening this interesting discussion on culture and willing to walk in the “minefield”. There are more facets to this discussion than found on a diamond.

  10. Jonathan Day

    I also don’t see how tradition (or “being traditional-communal”) can be done in an instrumental way.

    “Be traditional-communal — not because you have that belief and social structure, but because you can evangelise more effectively.”

    That doesn’t sound right.

  11. John Swencki

    “Therefore, the Bishop of Rome added, let us accept the others, โ€œlet us accept that there is a proper variety,โ€ because uniformity kills life. The life of the Church is variety, he continued, โ€œand when we want to impose this uniformity on everyone we kill the gifts of the Holy Spiritโ€. It is therefore necessary to keep alive this diversity which so enriches the Church.” –L’Osservatore Romano, Oct 10, on the Pope’s Oct 9 General Audience address.

  12. David J. Kozak

    I heartily agree with Monsignor’s reflection. It is no accident that a large number of clergy who minister to Hispanics in our diocese are products of a vibrant consciousness of our ethnic roots. Raised in our ethnic parishes with our faith nurtured there we saw the closure and in my case physical demolition of our spiritual cradle. After participating in the vibrant multicultural liturgies I reacted very negatively to the bland homogenized liturgies prevalent in most parishes. They are totally co-opted by the current culture so well described in Monsignor’s post. Thank God for the new ethnic groups who are saving the soul of Catholic liturgical life in the U.S!

  13. John Swencki

    SS. Cyril & Methodius Seminary in Orchard Lake, Michigan, was founded in 1885 to prepare men for service in Polish-American parishes. In recent decades it has prepared men and women of varied ethnic and cultural backgrounds for ordained and lay ministry and is a valuable resource in understanding and serving the multicultural parish today. (Two of the courses it offers are described below.) Its basic premise: The church, like the united states, is a mosaic (as opposed to melting pot) of differences which are united to mutually enrich and together to serve. The multicultural parish show “catholic” in the concrete.

    Pastoral Ministry to Immigrants
    Theology of migration and pastoral care of migrants in light of Church documents. Pastoral care of Polonia: historical overview, origin, development, religiosity and new forms. Pastoral care of migrants: model, functions, and tasks. The Polish, Hispanic and Asian Apostolate in the United States as a contemporary structure of pastoral care.

    Cultural Context of Pastoral Ministry
    A study of faith and culture. Rethinking pastoral ministry in the light of cultural change. Understanding the multicultural context of the parish and framing creative responses to shifting cultural patterns. Exploration of issues affecting the parish today, such as, racism, fundamentalism, the changing family, senior citizens, etc. Facilitate mapping cultural shifts experienced by participants in their journey to adulthood and in ministry.

    1. David J. Kozak

      @John Swencki – comment #13:
      Glad to hear that OL is carrying on their God given mission.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *