Do We Need "Group Identity" in Catholicism?

 Catholicism is a "big tent" religion--there is a lot of diversity within it across the spectrum. Like any major organization, you have your sub-groups within the corporate structure--charismatics, traditionalists, cultural Catholics. You have Hispanic Catholics, Black Catholics, Eastern-Rite Catholics...I could go on and on. 

But to what extent does this matter? In high school, I floated from group to group--I hung out with the athletes, the Phish-heads, the theater kids. I went stag to my prom, and had a lot of fun despite my intentional lack of a date. I guess I just didn't want to be locked into a particular clique or group. I've always been kind of wary of group-think. I think there's something to be learned from everyone, however small. 

But some people really do find comfort in belonging, in finding their tribe. There's nothing wrong with that. We tend to gravitate towards people and friendships with like-minded people who share similar values. We've been to a few Hispanic masses, and like many European communities at the turn of the 20th century, they are a bit of an enclave. The section of Philadelphia I lived in you could throw a stone and hit the "German" church, the "Italian" church, and the "Polish" church standing in one spot. (William Cavanaugh has an interesting essay which I read in grad school about the concept of the nation-state, access here.)

Of course, it isn't like that today. Though these churches were built by immigrant enclaves who stuck to their own communities, our parishes today are not so much split by ethnic lines. It seems like something from a bygone era. So, to what extent do we really need a kind of group identity in our faith?

There seems to be more tribalism on-line than in person, whether that's in the Crisis combox or on social media. Maybe the low initial investment and buy in for people online lends itself to this kind of virtual sifting into groups. Are you a James Martin Catholic, or a Taylor Marshall Catholic? There's no secret handshake, but one learns what ideological lines to keep within. 

One of the hard parts about not fitting squarely in one box or another, for me at least, is that it can be hard to get published outside of small spheres. If an editor isn't sure 'where you stand' and how they can sell/pitch your work, they are being forced to take a risk that might blow back in their face. We saw how Simcha Fisher and Mark Shea were booted from the Register a few years back (personally, I think Simcha is a gifted writer, but I don't read what she has to say, at least not anymore), as well as the rifts between people like Taylor Marshall and Tim Gordon. 

It can be a confusing field to navigate for new Catholics who may not know all the lingo yet or who stands for what, kind of like being the new kid at school in the cafeteria. But new Catholics have the grace of being babies in the faith, and there is an innocence and purity in babies, which is why they are so cute. Sooner or later, though, we all tend to gravitate towards one group or another. I guess it's inevitable.

Maybe this group identity among Catholics isn't a real thing, though. Maybe it doesn't have to be this way. When we shut off our minds to different ways of thinking, we can find ourselves in echo chambers that aren't always healthy. Growth comes from ripping your muscles and rebuilding them, not being comfortably flaccid. But one has to be on solid ground themselves to do so, I think, and comfortable in their own skin. "Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out," as Chesterton said. 

It can be a hard thing when do inadvertently or consciously step out of the drawn lines, though, and find your "tribe" turned against you in Mean Girls fashion; being anathema is no fun for anyone. To the extent people lose their faith over their treatment at the hands of other Catholics, it is lamentable. 

I like what St. Paul said when he wrote, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I may save some" (1 Cor 9:22). The Apostle to the Gentiles seemed to possess an adaptability that fortified his mission. When he was hungry, he was content. When he was fed, he was content. When he was in prison, he was content. When he was preaching freely, he was content. He possessed an inner-freedom not dependent on circumstances. And yet, even then he wrote to different Christian communities separated by their standing as Jews or Gentiles, national boundaries, and citizenship. He was adaptable. We have many epistles because Paul was writing to different audiences. 

So maybe this 'group identity' with Catholicism is a thing, and always will be. Maybe it's human nature to want to belong. To the extent that groups devour their own, though, that healthy cohesion seems to be lost. 

I'm not much bothered being a more-or-less "free-agent" as a Catholic and not belonging to one group or another. I value my freedom--that freedom in Christ--to have a little of that spirit of St. Paul to be "all things to all men." I also recognize it's limitations (ie, being published outside a small sphere, as I mentioned). It's a trade-off I'm ok with. Do we need group identity in Catholicism? Maybe, maybe not. But as long as we are one in Christ, and keep that our focus, I think we have a better chance of surviving by not eating our own.