I once asked some of them about how prayer was integrated into the house (at Day’s CW, for instance, the rosary was prayed as a community every day) and got some rather various responses. I recall something rather generic about “praying to God all of the time when we need something” and one of them mentioning that he was sort of into Buddhism and meditation.

(Please note: this was years ago, and could very well have changed in the meantime–I am not making a blanket statement about all CWs, nor about whoever might be at some of the local houses now, just relating my personal experience. There are many devout and good people who are involved in various ways with the houses around here, but I am speaking only of those people who called themselves Catholic Workers, in that they lived in the houses. Also, I should note that some of the older members of the house seemed more or less devout, although at least one of them often attended “house masses” led by a Fransiscan that distributed the bread before the consecration…)

I should note, though, that I have also never read anything from Day or Maurin that suggested that the “commune farms” were ever meant to be seen as a permanent institution. Rather, they were supposed to help teach young couples and individuals about sustainability and distributism, as well as how to sanctify work, with the assumption that they would carry these lessons with them into their own families. There was never any intentional attempt to dissolve or discredit the family as the basic structure of Catholic society. Rather, the understanding was that our society had gotten so far away from the society that the Church, in love and faithfulness, wants for her members to have, that these sorts of “movements” had to take place to help get our culture re-aligned with the truth.

Unfortunately, for me, it does seem that the intellectual legacy of the CWs is more reliable and faithful than their practical legacy. But, I am an idealist, and I have always loved this Easy Essay from Maurin, a summary of the CW movement intertwined with history:

When the Irish scholars
decided to lay the foundations
of medieval Europe,
they established: Centers of Thought
in all the cities of Europe as far as Constantinople,
where people could look for thought
so they could have light.
Houses of Hospitality
where Christian charity were exemplified.
Agricultural Centers where they combined
(a) Cult—
that is to say Liturgy
(b) with Culture—
that is to say Literature
(c) with Cultivation—
that is to say Agriculture.

A point I asked you to defend.

My intent was not to talk about that section at length but rather list some qualifications that Benedict proposes for people doing charitable work within the Church. What exactly do you want me to utilize from the encyclical that’s applicable to what we’re discussing? (seriously, I’m asking)

Well, first you mentioned “qualities.” Now you mention “qualifications.” Which is it? I assume you mean qualities. Which qualities from Deus Caritas Est, which are outlined in far more sections than that which you quote, are low in priority with regard to the Catholic Worker movement (seriously, I’m asking).

you’ll find brief references to the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Roman Canon, but there is nothing that mentions accomplishing all this through the Church and the local Bishop.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. You said that you didn’t think CW’s were “concerned with working in conjunction with their ordinary.” Are you basing this judgment strictly on silence rather than any positive evidence? If so, I think such a judgment does not withstand the scrutiny of honest reason. Rather, one, at worst, would have to be agnostic on the question. Perhaps it is worth noting that most lay apostolates begin, develop and function independently of the bishop, yet this does not mean that these apostolates are “not concerned” with working in conjunction with that bishop. Independence is not synonymous with separation or division. What would be troubling and, indeed, lacking in the “qualities” described by Pope Benedict XVI would be a lay apostolate that deliberately and obstinately refused to submit to a local ordinary. I repeat what I askied above: Which CW house has done so?

Furthermore, of the 35 or so CW’s I’ve been acquainted with, at least a third weren’t even Catholic. Please tell me how a non-Catholic is going to work in conjunction with the Magisterium?

It seems now that you have shifted from describing Catholic Worker houses to Catholic Workers themselves, which changes things. Is it unusual to find a non-Catholic participating in a Catholic apostolate? Does one or several non-Catholics working within a Catholic apostolate cause that apostolate to be out of conjunction with the local bishop? Would a non-Catholic working in a local St. Vincent de Paul group cause the group itself to shift away from a bishop? Unless you have exclusively non-Catholics founding and operating Catholic Worker houses (which, I think, would be unusual and extraordinary given the name and spirit of the movement), I don’t think your comment here means anything.

Why are you so defensive? I’m not making random accusations about the CW; these are my experiences. Each of us has different experiences with different people, so relax.

Not defensive at all. Just asking you to defend your sweeping judgments on the viability of the CW’s catholicity and the tendency of CW houses to misappropriate or mis-prioritize Pope Benedict XVI’s “qualities.” Relax, we’re just having a discussion.

2. To clarify, the section I quoted from was from Part II, “Caritas: The Practice of Love by the Church as a ‘Community of Love’”, subsection “Those responsible for the Church’s charitable activity”.

I wasn’t tried to communicate the heart of Part II, so I’m not sure why you point out that I didn’t do so. My intent was not to talk about that section at length but rather list some qualifications that Benedict proposes for people doing charitable work within the Church. What exactly do you want me to utilize from the encyclical that’s applicable to what we’re discussing? (seriously, I’m asking)

The part I quoted speaks to the intention of the Catholic Worker, for sure, but the action in terms of cooperating with the ordinary? That’s debatable.

I’m making an argument based on my experiences talking with Catholic Workers. Also, if you take a look at the Aims and Means of the Catholic Worker online, you’ll find brief references to the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Roman Canon, but there is nothing that mentions accomplishing all this through the Church and the local Bishop.

Furthermore, of the 35 or so CW’s I’ve been acquainted with, at least a third weren’t even Catholic. Please tell me how a non-Catholic is going to work in conjunction with the Magisterium?

Why are you so defensive? I’m not making random accusations about the CW; these are my experiences. Each of us has different experiences with different people, so relax.

“None” of the qualities. Wow. I have found quite the opposite through my contacts and conversations. In fact, even that tiny passage you provide from Deus Caritas Est, which in itself does not communicate the heart of Part II of the encyclical, seems to speak to the specific intention and action of Catholic Worker. Perhaps you can elaborate more fully using the encyclical in question (in its entirety) and solid evidence from CW (beyond anecdotal evidence).

I said what I did because that’s my experience of the CW. Obviously I haven’t properly researched the matter completely, but I don’t think it’s a hasty generalization.

What is this “something”? Could it be a personal prejudice?

Traditional was a poor choice of words, I was typing in a hurry. I suppose I meant “traditional” as in “normative” but I was really in a hurry, so I probably didn’t think it through all that much.

Here’s my rub though, Michael. If “not all bishops are the same,” but are united by some kind structure. Yet you claim that “that the CW is orthodox,” but the Catholic Worker isn’t monolithic at all. (Again, I’d refer you to the book I mentioned above) That seems like a methodological double standard to me. It also raises a hairier issue of who gets to be the “gatekeeper” or Orthodoxy. I don’t think that it would be controversial to suggest that it is the Catholic Church, but if diverse views in the unstructured Catholic Worker movement deviate from this, when does the Catholic Worker become unorthodoxy? When these views reach 51% of the Catholic Worker movement? 75%? How do evaluate any claim about the Catholic Worker as a whole, as it has no structure whatsoever?

On your second point, by the way, I would suggest that the “Catholic Worker” house here in Pittsburgh is one. They seem to want to be listed on all the Catholic Worker online directories, etc, but insist on calling themselves a “small commune.” Their webpage makes almost no mention of anything even slightly faith-based, and their blog has an entry which insinuates that Benedict XVI was implicit in Iraq war. So I think I can name at least one.

Ok Henry. Why don’t you add a link to this site to the Priestly Society of St Josaphat and the work they are doing among Ukranian Rite Catholics?