The insight about Boomers apostatizing in droves out of sociopathic consumerism is a behavior I've noted on the micro level but somehow never applied to generational theory. Thank you.
NB: In my experience, people who've apostatized from Apostolic Churches for worldly reasons like social clout or sex tend to be untrustworthy.
"Schools are bad because boomers ran them poorly and had bad educational legislation; he never questions whether schools were ever that good to begin with (after all, the boomers went to public school) and whether a system that can be so degraded is inherently good. "
CS Lewis points to the education of the Silent and Boomer generation as being degraded from his own. CS Lewis and his generation were probably the last get a serious Western education, itself somewhat degraded by then. (CS Lewis boarding school had problems to put it mildly.) It's a difficult thing to point out to people so sure it was better (and it was to an extent) that they had been carefully trained by the system to believe in the equivalent of communist social engineering. The Founding Fathers in the US at least would have had no idea what to do with them.
Our educational system is commonly called the Prussian model; the point wasn't to educate, it was to "form a citizen," and with such a sweeping role, it's no wonder it has been so degraded.
The schools were degrading in the 40s! IIRC, there's a scene in _Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House_ towards the beginning, where Cary Grant asks his on-screen daughter what she learned in school today, and she recites some bit of Communist propaganda. He shrugs it off, and the movie continues.
This is interesting to me because my family straddles the divide. My parents are devoted believers who raised my siblings and I on the fringes of 80s and 90s society. We were homeschooled, we read books, we listened to Radio Disney until it just became too insipid for words and we went back to burning CDs ourselves. Meanwhile, my husband's parents are the classic sociopathic boomers talked about in this book. They value money above all other things, including their relationship with their son and grandchildren. They want bragging points from us about the awesome monetary decisions we've made but couldn't care less about our faith. Yesterday my father in law was pumping my husband for news of our teen son and what college he was going to go to after graduation. I told my son, you will not make the mistakes we did, and you are never going to touch a student loan. I will not burden you with the horrors of my generation.
Another weird thing to me is living in Arizona and seeing the snowbirds. They are affluent old people who migrate in for the winter and leave in the spring. They have a bad reputation around here because they're rude and entitled, they tip poorly, and they're so stingy they make Scrooge look generous. I think they're a pretty good slice of the boomers talked about in this article. It makes me very sad, because we live far away from both sets of grandparents, and my kids are starved for that older influence. Thankfully we're in a good church now (populated by boomers and younger folk, with a huge gap in the middle where there are very few 40-somethings).
I get the sense that the unwillingness to help the generation to come was a value passed down to some as well. Some of Jones/X have it, and would have experienced the same decades of wealth and excess. Puts me in the odd situation of revering the elders for growing old... while at the same time somewhat suspicious of some of them, because of their abhorrent policies that borrow against the next ten generations beyond the present.
"the reality where it was correct for the entire economy (minus essential workers like door dash drivers) to be ground to a halt so that baby boomers could lower their risk of dying of a flu."
Those 'essential workers', notice, were all people who served baby boomers. The retail stores, grocers, food delivery and hospitals the Baby Boomers demanded for themselves be open. They could not go without their slaves, could they?
The boomers are looked upon foully for the same reason the jews are: incredibly strong in-group preference. For some reason whenever a question of us (boomer) vs them (everyone else) comes up the boomer chooses themselves regardless of morality or law. There was a simulator that played out survival game theory with altruists, the pure selfish, and the in-group bias. I can't find it up despite looking but the end result was that the selfish are the first to get quickly eliminated followed by the altruists who then get trounced by the in-groupers. Similarly the entire halls of power, the bent of the law and the money of society's veins are staffed by and for boomers.
As far as I could tell, in the simulation, the only way to beat in-groupers was to in-group but Boomers, having had the largest group, would win every time. In addition game theory says to tell everyone else to be either altruistic or selfish since that would mean they get eliminated from the game. Telling Millenials to be bleeding 'coexist' npcs and telling X'ers that greed is good falls in line with weakening their in-group preference so you win.
I truly believe the boomers will not lose meaningful power until they die or another, larger and more determined, in group appears to unseat them. Both appear to be happening simultaneously, burning the candle at both ends, but it's hard to imagine boomers repenting at this point. A wicked generation that lived and died for itself, like a cancer.
Boomers really are uniquely wicked, even and especially in church. The utterly vicious attacks that 65-70 year old women have made against my 6 year old and 2 year old are breathtaking. If it wasn't my family in the crosshairs it would play like an absurdist comedy. They are like characters out of "It's Always Sunny...", not merely depraved but wholly immune to shame.
"The “seeker-focused church” movement is just the current stage of a movement that began in the 1970s: a church for me. My music. My interpretation of scripture. My personal relationship with Christ. And if the pastor sucks, or the music changes? I’ll find a different church. No biggie. "
Inside Catholic baseball ahead: I have spent the last several years casually discussing traditionalist Catholic movement online. The traditionalist movement is somewhat provincial in being largely US based, but also extends to the wealthiest 1st world countries. The discussion does not generally make sense in poorer countries, particularly the newest converted countries. Anyway, the movement itself and the issues with a certain Archbishop Marcel Lebrevre date to the late 1970's and 1980's. We seem to be hitting a crescendo with Pope Francis, but none of the actual discussion/issues are new.
My personal conclusion is that original fire of the traditionalist movement is in the Boomer religious rebellion of the 1960/70's. Catholics were and are not immune to the generational influences. The Boomer rebellion is seen most clearly in the liberal, tambourine hippie Catholic culture. However, a minority of Boomers rebelled against the changes that their parents simply accepted and perhaps were indifferent to.
The reasoning is usually phrased something like "God wants the Mass this way", but it does not take much conversation to realize they want the Mass their way. The Mass is to have their (God's) music, done in their (God's) style, with the "right" people, who are performing at Mass in ways they will approve. Does your modest neighborhood parish seem like a "modernist" disaster, in your personal opinion? Do people show up as they are, for better and worse? No biggie. You've got a car, drive for almost unlimited amounts of time to "correct" Mass. with "right" er, "reverent" people. Tradition! Because driving regularly for hours of your diocese for a Sunday Mass is very traditional. *ahem*
Anyway, I do understand some of the issues behind the traditionalist movement, including a wish for more reverence, orthodoxy, and beauty. These things are hard to find in modern era, even sometimes in Catholic parishes. However, the answer is not to take on modernist attitudes when it comes to parish/liturgy selection. It's a little mind bending to point out to people accusing others of modernism that the modernist attitude is in insisting that they know better than the clerics. It's not in the form of the Mass.
No, it’s not in the form of the Mass. Had you looked beyond externals, you’d find that many, many traditionalists, including clergy apart from Abp. Lefebvre, were not expressing preferentialism, but instead making a statement in support of *Catholicism*. It was the clergy that was acting in perfect accord with Boomer narcissism; the entirety of Vatican 2 turned the Church’s focus from God to man. If that’s not in the spirit of Dave’s thesis herein, I don’t know what is.
As for the indignity of driving several hours to assist at a valid Mass, again, you both missed the point and made Dave’s. In the practical order, this is *not odd* as the faithful have been deprived of the sacraments for decades in some cases in the past. The regular reception of the Eucharist, daily in fact, is a relatively recent practice, tracing to the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X. We were lucky to have regular access when we did. It is the height of Boomerism to gnash teeth over the slightest indignity and inconvenience, especially over the participation in the *sacrifice* of the Mass. Boo hoo, I can’t just roll out of bed and go to my friendly guitar mass. What was that about taking up one’s cross?
"It is the height of Boomerism to gnash teeth over the slightest indignity and inconvenience, especially over the participation in the *sacrifice* of the Mass. Boo hoo, I can’t just roll out of bed and go to my friendly guitar mass. What was that about taking up one’s cross?"
Unfortunately, I can turn around that last statement against the traditionalists, too. How much is God asking of anyone to show up at less than perfect representation of the Sacrifice? The liberals bellyache about wanting their guitar and the traditionalists their organ music and chant. Christ died for us. If we have to die with him to to the tune of "On Eagle's Wings" on guitar, then yes, we do it. Driving 2 hours on Sunday to avoid that is not an ideal use of time. Yes, liberal Catholics, ditto on Georgian chant, if it's available in their near parishes.
I have experienced the traditionalist movement, as it came to us in the last priest switch in the diocese. It's not 100% ideal either. Utopia has not broken out in the small parish I attend, despite a tradition oriented pastor/Mass. We struggle with enough volunteers for ordinary parish life, precisely because we get so many at the 11AM Mass who drive too far. We have lost a fair amount of regular parishioners because it appears there's too rigid culture that has developed.
"the entirety of Vatican 2 turned the Church’s focus from God to man.."
No, Vatican II did not. Almost no one in traditionalist circles have read Vatican II or understood what the immediate goals of the liturgical reforms even were. The problem in the Roman Rite before Vatican II was an almost complete indifference to anything the Church was offering, including the spirit of the sacraments. People showed up to an unintelligible Mass, got their Heavenly bread, and then whatever, including not even bothering to pay attention to the Sacrament that is also about intellectual development in the faithful. There was sincere belief pre-Vatican II, but it was buried under 1001 rules without enough of the spirit of them, including the Mass.
Every reform was sensible and about incorporating something back into the sacraments. Even rolling back mandatory confession before the Eucharist has a solid argument behind it. The attempt to measure ourselves by confession lines is bad idea, because it's about measuring ourselves to the amount of mortal sin people commit.
My thesis in my OG post is that modernism is lurking in several areas of life in 2024AD, including Catholic traditionalist movement. Modernism is found in a generally sincere wish to return to a past that unfortunately never was while not reading anything of the sources involved. That statement covers both liberal and traditionalist Catholics. The rumor that Vatican II changed the nature of the Church, rather than get it back on track from a decay into a rules based culture is a modernism that traditionalists embrace. It is just as damaging as the liberal modernist idea that Vatican II was carte blanche to make any changes they desired to the Divine Liturgy to go back to it's "primitive/original" form.
If you have never looked up the Donatists, I highly recommend reading up on them. While the issues are not identical, the spirit of the group is the same when traditionalists find themselves arguing with Peter and the Church. The issue absolutely is not in wanting more reverence or even Georgian chant, etc. I "get it" and I agree. It's wanting those so badly that we're not honoring the Cross God is asking us to pick up right in front of us. Rejection of the Church is never the path to sainthood.
David, I am not remotely a “sociopath “. I'm a SURVIVOR and sensitive soul and empath, aware of the sorrow of others. I have not made a pile of money nor had any influence as a Boomer. Tell that also to my brother Tom, drafted and killed in Vietnam, August 24, 1968.
David, I am grateful for Substack Notes, a place in which we can have honorable dialogue and share ideas and experiences. The Boomers were a huge generation with plenty of flaws, some of which I discuss in my own Substack, "a blunt Oregon girl". That being said, I attempt to treat other humans as individuals. While I think people are still tribal by core nature (color, culture, nationality, faith), we can still have a neutral territory, as we all seem to want the same thing: honorable work that we have a gift to do, someone to love and be loved by, reasonable financial security, reasonable sense of safety. There is much to be worked on. I am certainly not the enemy of Gen. X, Millennials nor Gen. Z. I was quite wild in my youth and filled with sorrow and rebellion after my brother was killed in Vietnam. I would hope for a dialogue between the generations. An entire generation is certainly not "psychopaths", and I will never agree to that concept. I attempt to not stereotype others.
No pressure to reply, I am just speaking my heart in all this. Wendy
"The boomers are looked upon foully for the same reason the jews are: incredibly strong in-group preference."
That's a false equivalency. Boomers have been a majority for a long time with wealth and privileges. Jews have always been a minority often threatened by confiscation, exile or even death - so, just like similar minorities (Armenians, Chinese in other countries, etc.) they've learned to stick together in tough times. However, they've been occasions when the Jewish population chose the loyalty to their country over other considerations: for example, there were Jews fighting for both sides during the US Civil war or for Germany during WWI (strange as it sounds). Some Jews joined the communist revolution while others vehemently opposed it. I don't think anyone is threatening to confiscate the Boomers' wealth or force them to sell the houses that are too big for them to the more deserving young families (even though boomers' parents got generous subsidies from the government along with other benefits).
When groups blanket-assert about other groups, they always... oh, wait. :)
Great review. Thank you.
I set my first novel (bit.ly/CWS-p) in the late 1960s thru 1971 because the bursting-forth of all manner of wickedness during that short window is undeniable; I wanted to understand it better.
Without denying the thrust of the boomer pathology idea (which I largely agree with), and having the flip-flop advantage of living just weeks in the JFK admin (yet vividly recalling my parents' angst at the '68 DNC bloodbath, and what I had for dinner on July 21st, 1969) it seems to me that the issue is less one of special generational WICKEDNESS (a.k.a., sociopathy) than of special generational OPPORTUNITY (e.g., as you note, piles of wealth, superpower status, and an already weakened church--see J. Greshem Machen, 1923, or read Charles Spurgeon on the downgrade controversy of the 1860s).
The Bible says--over & over & over--that unless and until the God-man grants someone His perfect righteousness and finished-at-the-cross atonement, sin resides, deep and pervasive in ALL hearts. (See John 3:36) Contrary to the Pope's heretical hand-wave, there are not a few rogues among mostly good folks, but a lot of folks playing nice (wearing a mask) until they get means and opportunity to run wild. Which I suppose is pretty close to the definition of sociopathy.
Have you read, "Snakes in Suits"? (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/132615.Snakes_in_Suits) Based on way too much time in the deepest bowels of the financial industry, "getting" to witness some eye-poppingly ugly things at the very highest levels, I can attest that the authors' observations about sociopathy appearing more prevalent at the tops of dog-eat-dog pyramids is shockingly correct.
"The Bible says--over & over & over--that unless and until the God-man grants someone His perfect righteousness and finished-at-the-cross atonement, sin resides, deep and pervasive in ALL hearts. (See John 3:36) "
John 3:36 doesn't say that. This summary of Scripture, while entirely traditionally Protestant, is not exactly an accurate one. Jesus does say at least once that only the people the Father grants can approach Jesus. Certainly the idea that people have to believe (something) about Jesus is repeated in the New Testament. This summary however is not what impressed me about reading Scripture. What Scripture does appear to hammer home is that people take a few simple instructions/rules by God and seemingly choose repeatedly to go their own way, generation after generation, no matter what the circumstances and help that God offers.
" it seems to me that the issue is less one of special generational WICKEDNESS (a.k.a., sociopathy) than of special generational OPPORTUNITY (e.g., as you note, piles of wealth, superpower status, and an already weakened church--see J. Greshem Machen, 1923, or read Charles Spurgeon on the downgrade controversy of the 1860s)."
Unfortunately, this is the long, intellectual way of saying it's not really the Boomer's fault. Nobody sane blames the Boomers for merely showing up in the middle of an already degraded 20th century. What's appears to have been under their control, however, was the choice to take those opportunities and reverse or at least slow down the decline. On every front, the choice was to hit the gas. The 1960/70's is not the first appearance of Western decay. It is however, an acceleration point where very few counter forces appear, unlike earlier in the 20th century.
Wealth/TV/social conditioning did not force the Boomers to only think of themselves when it came to family. It did not force them to abandoned the traditions of their youth to suit themselves. It did not deny them the self awareness that younger people might not see the events of their youth as shattering everything and ending history. It's funny that one paragraph there's a belief about pervasive, inherent wickedness that comes close to denying God can do anything about it. And then the next is "Gosh, it was just that the Boomers had special opportunities to be wicked". Hmm...
God is the ONLY one who can do anything about inherent wickedness, but the gate to life is a one-at-a-time turn-style narrow; Matt 7:13-14, a birth metaphor, just like John 3:3-8. Here's what John 3:36 says: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not OBEY the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” "believes" = G4100, pisteuon = trust = faith. No one in their original state *can* obey. (Psalm 14:1-3 & 53:1-3; quoted by Paul at Rom 3:10+, or see John 3:5, or Jesus at Matt 5:20 - "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.") The regeneration required to even begin obeying comes from the gift of faith by the new birth. Otherwise, all our deeds are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) abhorrent in His sight b/c we assume, as the 1st century apostates did, that they can climb up by the law, in their own righteousness. Salvation from any "wicked generation," (https://nasb.literalword.com/?h=29&q=Luke+11, e.g.,) is one at a time, by His grace alone.
"No one in their original state *can* obey. (Psalm 14:1-3 & 53:1-3; quoted by Paul at Rom 3:10+, or see John 3:5, or Jesus at Matt 5:20 - "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.") "
If no one in their fallen state can obey, why would a just God ask it of people? Why would anyone even try? Why do I experience almost literal face palm when Aaron ends up making a golden calf for the newly freeded Israelites when Moses leaves for like 30 seconds to talk with God alone?
Also, we have the same problem of Scripture referenced at very best is only tangential to the thesis. Even what you quote has nothing to do with idea that we incapable of proper behavior, even fallen. It rather suggests the opposite.
"The regeneration required to even begin obeying comes from the gift of faith by the new birth. Otherwise, all our deeds are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) abhorrent in His sight b/c we assume, as the 1st century apostates did, that they can climb up by the law, in their own righteousness."
What if Jesus choose to start the regeneration process by a physical sacrament? Perhaps of water and the spirit? Also Isaiah 64 is not a blanket condemnation of all righteous deeds through time. It certainly cannot be talking about needing a faith in Jesus who had not yet been born. Isaiah is talking Israel at the time, about ready to be banished from Israel for being unwilling to keep up their end of the covenant. Meanwhile:
"My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20
It appears that not all righteous deeds are filthy rags before the Lord.
"To exalt Christ, the singular God-man. Any other Way, Truth, or Life makes the cross pointless."
Then this God of justice seems to not really love humanity then. Our deliberate idiot moves and unchosen sufferings would appear to be all sideshow, simply to exalt his Son. Our very existence seems entirely unnecessary for the end goal stated. Either that we've lost of sight of a God of justice and mercy, because that this God makes the suffering humanity a sort of plaything.
There is an alternate theory. Perhaps we are capable of proper behavior but the weight of sin/debt to God in our fallen state had become so large it was unpayable by any human. That even the best of us and most righteous of us had lost access to God under that state. Then we have a reason for the Cross. And perhaps some idea that suffering and obedience had made a sinless man perfect.
I've read that book, and while it calls itself anti boomer, it really just seethes about one political party over and over. It doesn't matter which, because there are no political solutions.
That said, boomers are an ontologically evil group, such that the best one ever did for me was follow the terms of a one off professional arrangement after being paid more than it's worth. They haven't bothered me as much as certain other groups, but they also have not benefited me in any capacity.
Which is why it's always hilarious when I see the NPC dialogue lines about muh divide and conquer. If the anti boomer memes had no basis in reality, they would only work on NPCs. Naming the enemy is not divide and conquer, because they are the ones who divided themselves from you.
That said, I don't follow any form of soy morality, so nothing prevents me from taking pleasure in seeming them alone as a direct result of their own actions.
True. But it should have been called TDS, because it was really seething about cuckservatives, and not other politicians or boomers. Not that Trump is a solution either, all he does is trigger the NPCs. But everything does that.
The main way I know that you are not sincere was the fact that you edited it after the fact, which makes you dishonest. Your original reply has zero substantive criticism and I initially thought might have been satire, as it was so on the nose for what a boomer would say. This later essay also adheres to the third sentence in my review: you can't tell the difference between individuals and groups. You can't tell the difference between yourself and the collective action of boomers, nor can you differentiate between an attack on me and those who you think are my generation.
The insight about Boomers apostatizing in droves out of sociopathic consumerism is a behavior I've noted on the micro level but somehow never applied to generational theory. Thank you.
NB: In my experience, people who've apostatized from Apostolic Churches for worldly reasons like social clout or sex tend to be untrustworthy.
"Schools are bad because boomers ran them poorly and had bad educational legislation; he never questions whether schools were ever that good to begin with (after all, the boomers went to public school) and whether a system that can be so degraded is inherently good. "
CS Lewis points to the education of the Silent and Boomer generation as being degraded from his own. CS Lewis and his generation were probably the last get a serious Western education, itself somewhat degraded by then. (CS Lewis boarding school had problems to put it mildly.) It's a difficult thing to point out to people so sure it was better (and it was to an extent) that they had been carefully trained by the system to believe in the equivalent of communist social engineering. The Founding Fathers in the US at least would have had no idea what to do with them.
Our educational system is commonly called the Prussian model; the point wasn't to educate, it was to "form a citizen," and with such a sweeping role, it's no wonder it has been so degraded.
The schools were degrading in the 40s! IIRC, there's a scene in _Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House_ towards the beginning, where Cary Grant asks his on-screen daughter what she learned in school today, and she recites some bit of Communist propaganda. He shrugs it off, and the movie continues.
The book you want that explains how we lost education is The Abolition of Man. The text book it takes apart is the one used to train the Boomers.
"Realities diverged after 2016". You published this on the anniversary of Harambe's death. Coincidence? I think not!
There are no coincidences.
DOFH
This is interesting to me because my family straddles the divide. My parents are devoted believers who raised my siblings and I on the fringes of 80s and 90s society. We were homeschooled, we read books, we listened to Radio Disney until it just became too insipid for words and we went back to burning CDs ourselves. Meanwhile, my husband's parents are the classic sociopathic boomers talked about in this book. They value money above all other things, including their relationship with their son and grandchildren. They want bragging points from us about the awesome monetary decisions we've made but couldn't care less about our faith. Yesterday my father in law was pumping my husband for news of our teen son and what college he was going to go to after graduation. I told my son, you will not make the mistakes we did, and you are never going to touch a student loan. I will not burden you with the horrors of my generation.
Another weird thing to me is living in Arizona and seeing the snowbirds. They are affluent old people who migrate in for the winter and leave in the spring. They have a bad reputation around here because they're rude and entitled, they tip poorly, and they're so stingy they make Scrooge look generous. I think they're a pretty good slice of the boomers talked about in this article. It makes me very sad, because we live far away from both sets of grandparents, and my kids are starved for that older influence. Thankfully we're in a good church now (populated by boomers and younger folk, with a huge gap in the middle where there are very few 40-somethings).
“Never trust anyone over 30. Well, 40 now. 50, I meant. Never trust anyone over 60.
“Ahh, screw it. I meant never trust anyone under 70.”
You're just mad your generation didn't have the Beatles.
I get the sense that the unwillingness to help the generation to come was a value passed down to some as well. Some of Jones/X have it, and would have experienced the same decades of wealth and excess. Puts me in the odd situation of revering the elders for growing old... while at the same time somewhat suspicious of some of them, because of their abhorrent policies that borrow against the next ten generations beyond the present.
"the reality where it was correct for the entire economy (minus essential workers like door dash drivers) to be ground to a halt so that baby boomers could lower their risk of dying of a flu."
Those 'essential workers', notice, were all people who served baby boomers. The retail stores, grocers, food delivery and hospitals the Baby Boomers demanded for themselves be open. They could not go without their slaves, could they?
The boomers are looked upon foully for the same reason the jews are: incredibly strong in-group preference. For some reason whenever a question of us (boomer) vs them (everyone else) comes up the boomer chooses themselves regardless of morality or law. There was a simulator that played out survival game theory with altruists, the pure selfish, and the in-group bias. I can't find it up despite looking but the end result was that the selfish are the first to get quickly eliminated followed by the altruists who then get trounced by the in-groupers. Similarly the entire halls of power, the bent of the law and the money of society's veins are staffed by and for boomers.
As far as I could tell, in the simulation, the only way to beat in-groupers was to in-group but Boomers, having had the largest group, would win every time. In addition game theory says to tell everyone else to be either altruistic or selfish since that would mean they get eliminated from the game. Telling Millenials to be bleeding 'coexist' npcs and telling X'ers that greed is good falls in line with weakening their in-group preference so you win.
I truly believe the boomers will not lose meaningful power until they die or another, larger and more determined, in group appears to unseat them. Both appear to be happening simultaneously, burning the candle at both ends, but it's hard to imagine boomers repenting at this point. A wicked generation that lived and died for itself, like a cancer.
This was the authors explicit intent: to identify the boomers as the "other" and unite everybody else.
Unfortunately, it hasn't worked. It's difficult to build a coalition, but it is the only way to defeat the in-group in theory.
Even in the comments I see it - it's just purely tribal. There is no "self" apart from the identity of "baby boomer," at least for those commenting.
Boomers really are uniquely wicked, even and especially in church. The utterly vicious attacks that 65-70 year old women have made against my 6 year old and 2 year old are breathtaking. If it wasn't my family in the crosshairs it would play like an absurdist comedy. They are like characters out of "It's Always Sunny...", not merely depraved but wholly immune to shame.
"The “seeker-focused church” movement is just the current stage of a movement that began in the 1970s: a church for me. My music. My interpretation of scripture. My personal relationship with Christ. And if the pastor sucks, or the music changes? I’ll find a different church. No biggie. "
Inside Catholic baseball ahead: I have spent the last several years casually discussing traditionalist Catholic movement online. The traditionalist movement is somewhat provincial in being largely US based, but also extends to the wealthiest 1st world countries. The discussion does not generally make sense in poorer countries, particularly the newest converted countries. Anyway, the movement itself and the issues with a certain Archbishop Marcel Lebrevre date to the late 1970's and 1980's. We seem to be hitting a crescendo with Pope Francis, but none of the actual discussion/issues are new.
My personal conclusion is that original fire of the traditionalist movement is in the Boomer religious rebellion of the 1960/70's. Catholics were and are not immune to the generational influences. The Boomer rebellion is seen most clearly in the liberal, tambourine hippie Catholic culture. However, a minority of Boomers rebelled against the changes that their parents simply accepted and perhaps were indifferent to.
The reasoning is usually phrased something like "God wants the Mass this way", but it does not take much conversation to realize they want the Mass their way. The Mass is to have their (God's) music, done in their (God's) style, with the "right" people, who are performing at Mass in ways they will approve. Does your modest neighborhood parish seem like a "modernist" disaster, in your personal opinion? Do people show up as they are, for better and worse? No biggie. You've got a car, drive for almost unlimited amounts of time to "correct" Mass. with "right" er, "reverent" people. Tradition! Because driving regularly for hours of your diocese for a Sunday Mass is very traditional. *ahem*
Anyway, I do understand some of the issues behind the traditionalist movement, including a wish for more reverence, orthodoxy, and beauty. These things are hard to find in modern era, even sometimes in Catholic parishes. However, the answer is not to take on modernist attitudes when it comes to parish/liturgy selection. It's a little mind bending to point out to people accusing others of modernism that the modernist attitude is in insisting that they know better than the clerics. It's not in the form of the Mass.
No, it’s not in the form of the Mass. Had you looked beyond externals, you’d find that many, many traditionalists, including clergy apart from Abp. Lefebvre, were not expressing preferentialism, but instead making a statement in support of *Catholicism*. It was the clergy that was acting in perfect accord with Boomer narcissism; the entirety of Vatican 2 turned the Church’s focus from God to man. If that’s not in the spirit of Dave’s thesis herein, I don’t know what is.
As for the indignity of driving several hours to assist at a valid Mass, again, you both missed the point and made Dave’s. In the practical order, this is *not odd* as the faithful have been deprived of the sacraments for decades in some cases in the past. The regular reception of the Eucharist, daily in fact, is a relatively recent practice, tracing to the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X. We were lucky to have regular access when we did. It is the height of Boomerism to gnash teeth over the slightest indignity and inconvenience, especially over the participation in the *sacrifice* of the Mass. Boo hoo, I can’t just roll out of bed and go to my friendly guitar mass. What was that about taking up one’s cross?
"It is the height of Boomerism to gnash teeth over the slightest indignity and inconvenience, especially over the participation in the *sacrifice* of the Mass. Boo hoo, I can’t just roll out of bed and go to my friendly guitar mass. What was that about taking up one’s cross?"
Unfortunately, I can turn around that last statement against the traditionalists, too. How much is God asking of anyone to show up at less than perfect representation of the Sacrifice? The liberals bellyache about wanting their guitar and the traditionalists their organ music and chant. Christ died for us. If we have to die with him to to the tune of "On Eagle's Wings" on guitar, then yes, we do it. Driving 2 hours on Sunday to avoid that is not an ideal use of time. Yes, liberal Catholics, ditto on Georgian chant, if it's available in their near parishes.
I have experienced the traditionalist movement, as it came to us in the last priest switch in the diocese. It's not 100% ideal either. Utopia has not broken out in the small parish I attend, despite a tradition oriented pastor/Mass. We struggle with enough volunteers for ordinary parish life, precisely because we get so many at the 11AM Mass who drive too far. We have lost a fair amount of regular parishioners because it appears there's too rigid culture that has developed.
"the entirety of Vatican 2 turned the Church’s focus from God to man.."
No, Vatican II did not. Almost no one in traditionalist circles have read Vatican II or understood what the immediate goals of the liturgical reforms even were. The problem in the Roman Rite before Vatican II was an almost complete indifference to anything the Church was offering, including the spirit of the sacraments. People showed up to an unintelligible Mass, got their Heavenly bread, and then whatever, including not even bothering to pay attention to the Sacrament that is also about intellectual development in the faithful. There was sincere belief pre-Vatican II, but it was buried under 1001 rules without enough of the spirit of them, including the Mass.
Every reform was sensible and about incorporating something back into the sacraments. Even rolling back mandatory confession before the Eucharist has a solid argument behind it. The attempt to measure ourselves by confession lines is bad idea, because it's about measuring ourselves to the amount of mortal sin people commit.
My thesis in my OG post is that modernism is lurking in several areas of life in 2024AD, including Catholic traditionalist movement. Modernism is found in a generally sincere wish to return to a past that unfortunately never was while not reading anything of the sources involved. That statement covers both liberal and traditionalist Catholics. The rumor that Vatican II changed the nature of the Church, rather than get it back on track from a decay into a rules based culture is a modernism that traditionalists embrace. It is just as damaging as the liberal modernist idea that Vatican II was carte blanche to make any changes they desired to the Divine Liturgy to go back to it's "primitive/original" form.
If you have never looked up the Donatists, I highly recommend reading up on them. While the issues are not identical, the spirit of the group is the same when traditionalists find themselves arguing with Peter and the Church. The issue absolutely is not in wanting more reverence or even Georgian chant, etc. I "get it" and I agree. It's wanting those so badly that we're not honoring the Cross God is asking us to pick up right in front of us. Rejection of the Church is never the path to sainthood.
David, I am not remotely a “sociopath “. I'm a SURVIVOR and sensitive soul and empath, aware of the sorrow of others. I have not made a pile of money nor had any influence as a Boomer. Tell that also to my brother Tom, drafted and killed in Vietnam, August 24, 1968.
Stereotypes! WEW
The third sentence in this article was noting that Baby Boomers cannot tell the difference between individuals and groups.
David, I am grateful for Substack Notes, a place in which we can have honorable dialogue and share ideas and experiences. The Boomers were a huge generation with plenty of flaws, some of which I discuss in my own Substack, "a blunt Oregon girl". That being said, I attempt to treat other humans as individuals. While I think people are still tribal by core nature (color, culture, nationality, faith), we can still have a neutral territory, as we all seem to want the same thing: honorable work that we have a gift to do, someone to love and be loved by, reasonable financial security, reasonable sense of safety. There is much to be worked on. I am certainly not the enemy of Gen. X, Millennials nor Gen. Z. I was quite wild in my youth and filled with sorrow and rebellion after my brother was killed in Vietnam. I would hope for a dialogue between the generations. An entire generation is certainly not "psychopaths", and I will never agree to that concept. I attempt to not stereotype others.
No pressure to reply, I am just speaking my heart in all this. Wendy
"The boomers are looked upon foully for the same reason the jews are: incredibly strong in-group preference."
That's a false equivalency. Boomers have been a majority for a long time with wealth and privileges. Jews have always been a minority often threatened by confiscation, exile or even death - so, just like similar minorities (Armenians, Chinese in other countries, etc.) they've learned to stick together in tough times. However, they've been occasions when the Jewish population chose the loyalty to their country over other considerations: for example, there were Jews fighting for both sides during the US Civil war or for Germany during WWI (strange as it sounds). Some Jews joined the communist revolution while others vehemently opposed it. I don't think anyone is threatening to confiscate the Boomers' wealth or force them to sell the houses that are too big for them to the more deserving young families (even though boomers' parents got generous subsidies from the government along with other benefits).
When groups blanket-assert about other groups, they always... oh, wait. :)
Great review. Thank you.
I set my first novel (bit.ly/CWS-p) in the late 1960s thru 1971 because the bursting-forth of all manner of wickedness during that short window is undeniable; I wanted to understand it better.
Without denying the thrust of the boomer pathology idea (which I largely agree with), and having the flip-flop advantage of living just weeks in the JFK admin (yet vividly recalling my parents' angst at the '68 DNC bloodbath, and what I had for dinner on July 21st, 1969) it seems to me that the issue is less one of special generational WICKEDNESS (a.k.a., sociopathy) than of special generational OPPORTUNITY (e.g., as you note, piles of wealth, superpower status, and an already weakened church--see J. Greshem Machen, 1923, or read Charles Spurgeon on the downgrade controversy of the 1860s).
The Bible says--over & over & over--that unless and until the God-man grants someone His perfect righteousness and finished-at-the-cross atonement, sin resides, deep and pervasive in ALL hearts. (See John 3:36) Contrary to the Pope's heretical hand-wave, there are not a few rogues among mostly good folks, but a lot of folks playing nice (wearing a mask) until they get means and opportunity to run wild. Which I suppose is pretty close to the definition of sociopathy.
Have you read, "Snakes in Suits"? (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/132615.Snakes_in_Suits) Based on way too much time in the deepest bowels of the financial industry, "getting" to witness some eye-poppingly ugly things at the very highest levels, I can attest that the authors' observations about sociopathy appearing more prevalent at the tops of dog-eat-dog pyramids is shockingly correct.
"The Bible says--over & over & over--that unless and until the God-man grants someone His perfect righteousness and finished-at-the-cross atonement, sin resides, deep and pervasive in ALL hearts. (See John 3:36) "
John 3:36 doesn't say that. This summary of Scripture, while entirely traditionally Protestant, is not exactly an accurate one. Jesus does say at least once that only the people the Father grants can approach Jesus. Certainly the idea that people have to believe (something) about Jesus is repeated in the New Testament. This summary however is not what impressed me about reading Scripture. What Scripture does appear to hammer home is that people take a few simple instructions/rules by God and seemingly choose repeatedly to go their own way, generation after generation, no matter what the circumstances and help that God offers.
" it seems to me that the issue is less one of special generational WICKEDNESS (a.k.a., sociopathy) than of special generational OPPORTUNITY (e.g., as you note, piles of wealth, superpower status, and an already weakened church--see J. Greshem Machen, 1923, or read Charles Spurgeon on the downgrade controversy of the 1860s)."
Unfortunately, this is the long, intellectual way of saying it's not really the Boomer's fault. Nobody sane blames the Boomers for merely showing up in the middle of an already degraded 20th century. What's appears to have been under their control, however, was the choice to take those opportunities and reverse or at least slow down the decline. On every front, the choice was to hit the gas. The 1960/70's is not the first appearance of Western decay. It is however, an acceleration point where very few counter forces appear, unlike earlier in the 20th century.
Wealth/TV/social conditioning did not force the Boomers to only think of themselves when it came to family. It did not force them to abandoned the traditions of their youth to suit themselves. It did not deny them the self awareness that younger people might not see the events of their youth as shattering everything and ending history. It's funny that one paragraph there's a belief about pervasive, inherent wickedness that comes close to denying God can do anything about it. And then the next is "Gosh, it was just that the Boomers had special opportunities to be wicked". Hmm...
God is the ONLY one who can do anything about inherent wickedness, but the gate to life is a one-at-a-time turn-style narrow; Matt 7:13-14, a birth metaphor, just like John 3:3-8. Here's what John 3:36 says: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not OBEY the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” "believes" = G4100, pisteuon = trust = faith. No one in their original state *can* obey. (Psalm 14:1-3 & 53:1-3; quoted by Paul at Rom 3:10+, or see John 3:5, or Jesus at Matt 5:20 - "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.") The regeneration required to even begin obeying comes from the gift of faith by the new birth. Otherwise, all our deeds are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) abhorrent in His sight b/c we assume, as the 1st century apostates did, that they can climb up by the law, in their own righteousness. Salvation from any "wicked generation," (https://nasb.literalword.com/?h=29&q=Luke+11, e.g.,) is one at a time, by His grace alone.
"No one in their original state *can* obey. (Psalm 14:1-3 & 53:1-3; quoted by Paul at Rom 3:10+, or see John 3:5, or Jesus at Matt 5:20 - "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.") "
If no one in their fallen state can obey, why would a just God ask it of people? Why would anyone even try? Why do I experience almost literal face palm when Aaron ends up making a golden calf for the newly freeded Israelites when Moses leaves for like 30 seconds to talk with God alone?
Also, we have the same problem of Scripture referenced at very best is only tangential to the thesis. Even what you quote has nothing to do with idea that we incapable of proper behavior, even fallen. It rather suggests the opposite.
"The regeneration required to even begin obeying comes from the gift of faith by the new birth. Otherwise, all our deeds are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) abhorrent in His sight b/c we assume, as the 1st century apostates did, that they can climb up by the law, in their own righteousness."
What if Jesus choose to start the regeneration process by a physical sacrament? Perhaps of water and the spirit? Also Isaiah 64 is not a blanket condemnation of all righteous deeds through time. It certainly cannot be talking about needing a faith in Jesus who had not yet been born. Isaiah is talking Israel at the time, about ready to be banished from Israel for being unwilling to keep up their end of the covenant. Meanwhile:
"My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20
It appears that not all righteous deeds are filthy rags before the Lord.
"If no one in their fallen state can obey, why would a just God ask it of people?"
To exalt Christ, the singular God-man. Any other Way, Truth, or Life makes the cross pointless.
"To exalt Christ, the singular God-man. Any other Way, Truth, or Life makes the cross pointless."
Then this God of justice seems to not really love humanity then. Our deliberate idiot moves and unchosen sufferings would appear to be all sideshow, simply to exalt his Son. Our very existence seems entirely unnecessary for the end goal stated. Either that we've lost of sight of a God of justice and mercy, because that this God makes the suffering humanity a sort of plaything.
There is an alternate theory. Perhaps we are capable of proper behavior but the weight of sin/debt to God in our fallen state had become so large it was unpayable by any human. That even the best of us and most righteous of us had lost access to God under that state. Then we have a reason for the Cross. And perhaps some idea that suffering and obedience had made a sinless man perfect.
I go 2 rounds with anons. Read John 3:16, repent of your blasphemy, and take off your mask.
I've read that book, and while it calls itself anti boomer, it really just seethes about one political party over and over. It doesn't matter which, because there are no political solutions.
That said, boomers are an ontologically evil group, such that the best one ever did for me was follow the terms of a one off professional arrangement after being paid more than it's worth. They haven't bothered me as much as certain other groups, but they also have not benefited me in any capacity.
Which is why it's always hilarious when I see the NPC dialogue lines about muh divide and conquer. If the anti boomer memes had no basis in reality, they would only work on NPCs. Naming the enemy is not divide and conquer, because they are the ones who divided themselves from you.
That said, I don't follow any form of soy morality, so nothing prevents me from taking pleasure in seeming them alone as a direct result of their own actions.
The insistence that it's the "other's political party's fault" is itself a Boomerism.
True. But it should have been called TDS, because it was really seething about cuckservatives, and not other politicians or boomers. Not that Trump is a solution either, all he does is trigger the NPCs. But everything does that.
You don't seem to know what Sycophant means as well as who the Baby Boomers are. Maybe try typing a word or two into a search engine?
Sorry
Perfect boomer comment *chef's kiss*
The main way I know that you are not sincere was the fact that you edited it after the fact, which makes you dishonest. Your original reply has zero substantive criticism and I initially thought might have been satire, as it was so on the nose for what a boomer would say. This later essay also adheres to the third sentence in my review: you can't tell the difference between individuals and groups. You can't tell the difference between yourself and the collective action of boomers, nor can you differentiate between an attack on me and those who you think are my generation.
Out of charity, I'm going to block you.