BENEDICTUS PP XVI

This Pope is full of surprises, eh?

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350430?eng=y

Here is the text of Pope Benedict's most recent "lectio divina", which (to me, at least) provides some context for his decision to resign.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350428?eng=y

from it, and citing St.Augustine's imagery of the uprooted tree:

"Naturally, there is a false optimism and a false pessimism. A false pessimism that says: the time of Christianity is finished. No: it is beginning again! The false optimism was that after the Council, when the convents were closing, the seminaries were closing, and they were saying: but it's nothing, everything's fine . . . No! Everything is not fine. There are also grave, dangerous downfalls, and we must recognize with healthy realism that this is not all right, it is not all right when wrongful things are done. But also to be sure, at the same time, that if here and there the Church is dying because of the sins of men, because of their unbelief, at the same time it is being born anew. The future really does belong to God: this is the great certainty of our life, the great, true optimism that we know. The Church is the tree of God that lives forever and bears within itself eternity and the true inheritance: eternal life.”

Yet another new thread on the same topic - I think this is at least number four! The main one on the Christianity group appears to be at http://www.librarything.com/topic/149835#3908253

#3: thanks, but this feels like a vigil in many ways - a time for family and friends, those who knew and loved. (Maybe, by the time the funeral mass rolls around I'll care what the others have to say or think. Or not. They'll continue to yammer on, regardless.)

>4 enevada: Understood.

#5: You are a good man.

I'm guessing our old pastor is revisiting his notes for tonights' talk "A Personal Response to Vatican II."

#7: yes, it certainly forces a response (or re-visiting of things) from all of us Catholics - and I can't help but feel his declaration of the Year of Faith and his decision to dedicate his remaining years to prayer are closely related, and intentional.

Cardinal Gabriel Zubeir Wako of Khartoum has today felt the need to issue a public statement "to calm down the shocked faithful" of his archdiocese, as one of his priests put it. The cardinal explains simply that papal resignation is indeed lawful and possible, reiterates the pope's stated reasons for his resignation, and discourages speculation.

It is shocking, in a way that is difficult to describe to non-Catholics or marginal Catholics. I have to smile at the coverage that the secular press is giving the announcement – CNN “explains” the decision by parsing Benedict’s written statement and adding not only bullet points, but bold text. Well, it all makes sense now. And the NYT coverage seems almost over the top – but I think the US media has never gotten it right on this Pope and has instead settled for a narrative in which “modern day Catholics” were somehow held back by his reactionary conservatism.

While I don’t think the intent was to shock, I also think the shock will do us some good. The call to follow Christ is itself one the most radical paths an individual and a body can undertake. It is, essentially, the willingness to rupture oneself from any obstacle that separates you from God – family, tradition, law (Luke 14, comes to mind, as does Matthew 8).

The Pope's Ash Wednesday address:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/02/13/pope:_pray_for_me,_future_pope,_the_l...

worth reading in its entirety, but these passages seems particularly relevant to me:

"Overcoming the temptation to place God in submission to oneself and one’s own interests or to put Him in a corner and converting oneself to the proper order of priorities, giving God the first place, is a journey that every Christian must undergo. "Conversion", an invitation that we will hear many times in Lent, means following Jesus in so that his Gospel is a real life guide, it means allowing God transform us, no longer thinking that we are the only protagonists of our existence, recognizing that we are creatures who depend on God, His love, and that only by “losing" our life in Him can we truly have it. This means making our choices in the light of the Word of God. Today we can no longer be Christians as a simple consequence of the fact that we live in a society that has Christian roots: even those born to a Christian family and formed in the faith must, each and every day, renew the choice to be a Christian, to give God first place, before the temptations continuously suggested by a secularized culture, before the criticism of many of our contemporaries.

The tests which modern society subjects Christians to, in fact, are many, and affect the personal and social life. It is not easy to be faithful to Christian marriage, practice mercy in everyday life, leave space for prayer and inner silence, it is not easy to publicly oppose choices that many take for granted, such as abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, euthanasia in case of serious illness, or the selection of embryos to prevent hereditary diseases. The temptation to set aside one’s faith is always present and conversion becomes a response to God which must be confirmed several times throughout one’s life."

Thank you, Pope Benedict:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqC9Yhrr8T4

Thank you, Pope Benedict

I'm sure you're aware of Father Z's "Reelect Raztinger" campaign—tongue-in-cheek, of course.

It is shocking, in a way that is difficult to describe to non-Catholics or marginal Catholics.

Nobody's commented on it that I know of, but there's a clear split in reactions between the church's left and the right—seen in blogs and articles, but especially in online comments, radio call-ins to Catholic shows, etc. This is no doubt partially just the feeling that "your man" or "the other guy's man" is leaving. But it also touches core questions of ecclesiology.

I would argue that this shows the deep authenticity of Benedict's "conservatism"—absolutely unyielding on centuries of Christian tradition, of course, but not the conservatism of what Nicholas Lash called "holding onto last week" (i.e., a 19th century). As a matter of fundamental theology, the papacy is a ministry and an office, not a person. But there's no question it's pretty amazing news either way.

My personal theory is that he isn't just "feeling old," but that he's aware of a concrete health issue that will render him truly incapable in short order. This is just speculation, but it fits the facts better than current explanations without being outside of them, as a true conspiracy theory would be.

>13 timspalding: but there's a clear split in reactions between the church's left and the right—seen in blogs and articles, but especially in online comments, radio call-ins to Catholic shows, etc

I have to confess that I don't read blogs nor listen to call-ins or Catholic shows, but I haven't got the impression of a split in reactions from the more objective media which I am looking at.

My personal theory is that he isn't just "feeling old," but that he's aware of a concrete health issue that will render him truly incapable in short order. This is just speculation, but it fits the facts better than current explanations without being outside of them, as a true conspiracy theory would be.

I'm inclined to be sceptical of this, but that's unimportant. I think what's been missing in much of the media coverage (and frankly, this is true both of secular and Catholic outlets) is a recognition that this decision has almost certainly been a result of much prayerful discernment. Since there's not much one can report on that score, it's been largely overlooked. But I think that any Christian who has ever committed a major decision to prayer will recognise the centrality of this factor. As a result, while there are doubtless contributory reasons - some or all of which the Pope has mentioned, there will remain a significant aspect of this decision that will always remain outside our capacity to analyse.

#15: "a recognition that this decision has almost certainly been a result of much prayerful discernment."

That's my feeling as well - and his decision reaffirms the absolute power (which would be completely invisible, if not downright silly to secularists) of monastic prayer. Something that Elizabeth Scalia notes: The Pope's Benedict Option

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/02/the-popersquos-benedict-option

>15 gabriel:, 16 Thank you for looking at it from the angle of prayer and discernment. Some things cannot only be analysed in political terms.

Noting the glimmers of promise coming from Africa and Asia, anyone looking with honest eyes must also acknowledge the worldwide social and institutional wreckage that threatens the Church from the West.

I like that sentence from the link in >16 enevada:. As one who lives in Africa it perhaps explains why I am always seeing "the glimmers of promise" in the Church while other LT posters in the West often see only the "social and institutional wreckage".

Edited to add: Pope Benedict recalls 'joy and light' of papacy (Guardian)

Pope Benedict XVI recalls joy and 'choppy waters' (BBC)

#17: Lights out in Europe. Light rises to the south and east. Spe salvi facti sumus!

Today's entry in John Allen's series on "Papabile of the Day: The Men Who Could Be Pope" was on Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith of Colombo, Sri Lanka.

"Four years later he was moved out of Rome again, this time to become the Archbishop of Colombo. Some read this as a second exile; Italian Vatican writer Andrea Tornielli wrote at the time that Ranjith was "considered by his adversaries to be too close to the traditionalists and Lefebvrists." Others argued that it was a genuine promotion, intended to give Ranjith pastoral seasoning as the head of the diocese and to set him up as Benedict's point man across Asia.

He certainly didn't waste time. Four months after arriving, Rannith issued new liturgical rules for Colombo requiring that communion be received on the tongue and in a kneeling position, forbidding laity from preaching, and barring priests from bringing customs from other religions into Catholic worship …

(H)e may be a little too traditionalist for some of the moderates in the College of Cardinals – "more Ratzingerian than Ratzinger himself," as some put it. In 2006, he said of the Lefebvrists that he wasn't a fan, but that "what they sometimes say about the liturgy, they say for good reason."

Shiver.

>19 timspalding:

I'm always intrigued by such "shiver"-type reactions. One of the things that I find difficult among traditionalists is their visceral distaste for any liturgical practices they don't favour. They shiver too, just at the opposite things. Some of the extremes dogmatize everything; but the shivers happen among those who at least recognize that sacramental theology doesn't enforce an answer to whether we should kneel or stand when receiving the Eucharist. It seems to me that (especially within the Church) we ought to be able to disagree about matters that are questions of wisdom or pragmatic judgement without having these visceral reactions which seem to me to be akin to the reaction of partisans in secular politics.

I hope you don't see the above as a personal criticism. Perhaps I'm basically asking "why can't we all get along?"

#20: "They shiver too, just at the opposite things. " and " visceral reactions which seem to me to be akin to the reaction of partisans in secular politics."

I think that is apt. The "shiver-ers" in any camp are more about themselves (and in-group identification, as happens in social polities everywhere) than about the Church universal, that is, Catholic. (Wouldn't it be nice if holy water washed away that persistent stain of ego as we entered Mass?)

Also, today's gospel reading seems apropos:

"The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
by the Lord has this been done,
and it is wonderful in our eyes?"

It will be wonderful. we just need the clear eyes to see it, the humility to accept it.

>20 gabriel:

Here's the counter-argument. When it comes to "religion," dogmatic theology is not the only thing that counts. For example, from the perspective of fundamental Catholic theology, an Anglican service—no matter how "Catholic," not to mention how deep everyone's commitment to Christ—is in fundamental error. The priest is not a priest; the sacrament is not a sacrament; any number of dogmatic errors lie about. Meanwhile, a hyper-traditionalist service with no doctrinal errors but—and here I simply stipulate about this service, not all—empty, pompous, self-satisified Pharisaical religiosity remains "orthodox." Heck—and pardon the argumentum ad hitlerum—there is no theological problem with receiving communion from the hand of Bishop Williamson, who denies the Holocaust, while participating in a communion service with Dietrich Bonhoffer must, according to Catholic dogma, be shunned. I'm not disagreeing with that—but merely noticing it's not all that counts.

I freely acknowledge that we need rules of orthodoxy and non-orthodoxy, or that an orthodox belief is not true, but holiness and its opposite are not coextensive with orthodoxy. It is every Catholic's job to be both orthodox and holy, and to defend both, but they are not the same thing. In other words, one may be a saintly Lutheran, or an authentically Catholic monster. One may be a monstrous but orthodox Jew, or a holy Samaritan. Indeed, to get down to it, this is the only way to make sense of so much of what Jesus did and said about the Judaism of his time—the error was not orthodoxy of practice or belief, but unholiness of motive and absence of love.

In this case, while I acknowledge Ranjith's reforms are not against Catholic dogma—anything done before can be done again—I think they're liable to offend millions, shrink the church in the west and—uniquely, because he's against inculturation—elsewhere, and lead people away from what, ultimately, matters—authentic love for God and neighbor.

>22 enevada:

Was it ego or politics that lead Jesus to rebuke the perfectly orthodox Pharisees? Was it ego or politics that made him tell stories about heretics (eg., the Samaritans) who "got it" when orthodox practitioners and believers did not?

As I said the word, I'm clearly the "shiverer" who thinks more about himself, in-group identification and ego. Gabriel was far more circumspect. You want to know what's pernicious in the political? Doubting the sincerity and morality of your opponents because you disagree with their ideas.

#23: "Was it ego or politics that lead Jesus to rebuke the perfectly orthodox Pharisees?"

Well, that's just it, isn't it? How much of "me" to bring to the practice of faith, and how much of the collective wisdom of the church fathers? The struggle for practicing Catholics is in achieving this balance, and I admittedly put more faith in doctrine, the collected and very deliberate (and deliberated) teachings of the Church, than in the meager bits I bring to the table. I know that ultimately I am responsible for the acceptance, understanding, and application of those teachings in the acts of my acts of faith: thanksgiving, charity, and worship. So, that's where I put my focus.

I liken it to hiking a mountain: you can go out and trail blaze, or you can follow a path that has already been broken. using tools to help you navigate: a compass, an AMC guidebook, a map. All the work of others who made the same hike, hashed things over, and shared their wisdom. But, ultimately, you choose the steps for that day - and may have to adjust the plan to accommodate specific events - a mama bear in a blueberry barren, or a recent rock slide, for instance.

It isn't that I disagree with your ideas, I just find it a silly exercise for a lay Catholic to try to horse-pick the next Pope or to fret over the choices. The collected wisdom of the conclave is good enough for me, but even if it weren't, we've got the Holy Spirit to rely on.

>24 enevada:
And offering our prayers that God's will, not man's will prevail in that conclave.

#25: "And offering our prayers that God's will, not man's will prevail in that conclave."

Yes, you add the most important point of all. Thanks.

>24 enevada:: "I just find it a silly exercise for a lay Catholic to try to horse-pick the next Pope or to fret over the choices."

I can't speak for Tim, but let me say a few words about why I (though not a Roman Catholic) am so engaged in the horse-race. For me, it comes down to the fact that I am an historical theologian whose focus is the Middle Ages -- and this past week was likely one of the few (or only) times in my career in which I was introducing freshmen students to the history of the papacy (as part of a survey course from the birth of Christ to the Reformation) while the modern papacy was simultaneously making institutional history.

Furthermore, I was in the middle of polishing an article for publication on the relationship between Pope Benedict and Hildegard of Bingen -- a paper that, if it is ever to see the light of day now, will have to be substantially revised in light of the abdication. (It throws a whole new light on Benedict's ecclesiology.) His successor will also play a factor in that paper because its focus was on the similarities and differences between the Pope's and the prophetissa teutonica's visions for church reform -- and I believe that the monumentality of reform that is necessary was a major factor in Benedict's decision to renounce the Chair.

Anyway, I have a specific interest in this horse-race that goes beyond "fretting" -- I suppose you could think of my interests in the same way presidential historians and political scientists take a particularly intense interest in elections.

#27: a good example of non-vested, academic interest for an academic non-Catholic. And I share your hunch that " the monumentality of reform that is necessary was a major factor in Benedict's decision to renounce the Chair." Not an example of fretting - which is I how would classify a lay Catholics hand-wringing about offending "millions" and shrinking the Church in the West (that one is downright funny! Gee, I dunno..).

Where/when is your article to be published?

>28 enevada:: "Where/when is your article to be published?"

I was planning on doing a final revision over Spring Break (week after next) before submitting it anywhere, to fill in some paragraphs on Ratzinger's role at Vatican II...

...but the abdication kind of changes everything. I probably won't get to the now-substantive revisions it needs until this summer, and only then can I start submitting it to journals.

You can read the kernel of the paper (which has now expanded much beyond it) in a blog post I wrote when Hildegard's canonization was confirmed last May: http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/2012/05/pope-and-prophetess-benedict-xvi....

#29: That is an excellent article, and I’m not sure that I see a need for substantive revision – in fact, I think Benedict’s decision re-affirms your basic premise that “The professor-pope’s approach, though certainly more amenable to rationalist logic than the poetic symbolisms favored by his twelfth-century forbears, nevertheless shares with them a methodology fundamentally directed toward understanding the theology of history” and “we can see distinctly the influence of the twelfth- and thirteenth-century theologians of history whom he had studied” (from your article).

As to Ratzinger’s own prophetic speculation on the future of the Church itself, I think they speak directly to Tim’s expressed worries – from the selections quoted in Faith and the Future, especially:

“From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much. It will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. It will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices it built in its palmy days. As the number of its adherents diminishes, so will it lose many of its social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of its individual members.”

And, also:

“The Church will be a more spiritualized Church, not presuming upon a political mantle, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost it much valuable energy. It will make it poor and cause it to become the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will will have to be shed. One may predict that all of this will take time. The process will be long and wearisome (…). But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. People in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.”

Yes, the Church in the West has and will continue to shrink. The little flock of believers will indeed be something “wholly new”. This Lent, this Spring, we have the great fortune to bear witness and be a part of it. On our knees, one hopes.

Now, I’ll go read part II.

Part II: even better. And, still see no need for dramatic revision. Why do you say that?

You write:

“The most extraordinary aspect of those periods of renewal and holiness, however, is that they would involve the radical confiscation of clerical wealth and the disestablishment of the Church’s claims to institutional authority in the world. It is in these images of the future of the Church that Hildegard’s visions are so strikingly similar to those of Joseph Ratzinger.”

(Also, this article feels like a gift, today. Our gospel reading at morning mass was MT: 21:33-43, 45-46. And, I must say that Hildegard’s voice is far more…strident? Stringent? than that of the gentle Jesuit who gave the homily in chapel this morning. In her letter to Conrad, as you quoted:

“Hear this: You have turned aside in some ways from God, and the times in which you live are frivolous like a woman, inclining to a perverse injustice that seeks to destroy justice in the vineyard of the Lord (cf. Matt. 21:33ff). Later, worse times will come, when the true Israelites will be scourged, and the Catholic throne i.e. the papacy will be shaken by heresy. And the last times will be times of blasphemy, dead as a corpse. The grief of these times blacks up the Lord’s vineyard like smoke.”

Gee, Hildy. That comes off as a little exclusive. )

>30 enevada:: Tim has expressed before some significant reservations about this "smaller and holier" vision of the Church -- his feeling is that modernity offers the Church an opportunity at new forms of aggiornamento that should be pursued with evangelical (and ecumenical) zeal, rather than turning in on itself and shrinking.

Though I think that Ratzinger's words--and the call for the New Evangelization--meet Tim's desire but only by focusing that energy through the lens of Christ. Holiness is a prerequisite for aggiornamento.

>31 enevada:: "even better. And, still see no need for dramatic revision. Why do you say that?"

Thank you for the compliments. The current draft of the article (which I reworked last summer) broadens the examination of Hildegard's relationship with modernity to include the CDF's report on America's religious women, which was released just a few weeks before Hildegard was raised to the altar. I concluded at the time that Benedict's papacy had taken certain hard conservative turns that betrayed, in some ways (but not in others), the reformist vision he had earlier espoused. Hildegard became ever more suspicious in the course of her life of the institutionalization of spiritual authority -- and I think that, while she would have none-too-kind words for certain of America's more radical nuns, she would also criticize the CDF's report because of its mistaken understanding of the role of prophecy in the Church.

(The CDF characterized prophetic voices that are critical of the hierarchy as inherently flawed, even while a few weeks after the report's release, one of the Church's historically most critical prophetic voices was raised to the altar and then, a few months later, made a Doctor of the Church. There's an unresolved tension there--though that tension is active and unresolved even within Hildegard's own writings and self-perception as a prophetic "trumpet of God".)

What I've come to realize is that this is all far more complex than the "conservative" vs. "liberal" dichotomy that seems to rule most hermeneutics of Church reform today -- and that complexity is to be found even in Vatican II itself, where the "liberal majority" that supposedly generated the "Spirit of Vatican II" was far from homogenous, especially as regards the ecclesiology and anthropology articulated in Gaudium et Spes, of which Ratzinger, though a leading theological voice of the Council's majority, was nevertheless always a critic (he once quipped that certain portions of Gaudium et Spes "are downright Pelagian"). That complexity was given an extra twist by the abdication, which in some ways, at least, is a confirmation of Hildegard's suspicions about the dangers of institutionalized authority.

For the article to be published now, it will have to contend with the ways in which the abdication articulates Ratzinger's (evolving, I think) ecclesiology--and to figure that out is going to take time and reflection.

>31 enevada:: "And, I must say that Hildegard’s voice is far more…strident? Stringent?"

You should check out her criticism to the clergy of Kirchheim in 1170 (as quoted by Pope Benedict in his Christmas 2010 message to the Curia, which dealt in part with the sexual abuse crises):

In the year of our Lord’s incarnation 1170, I had been lying on my sick-bed for a long time when, fully conscious in body and in mind, I had a vision of a woman of such beauty that the human mind is unable to comprehend. She stretched in height from earth to heaven. Her face shone with exceeding brightness and her gaze was fixed on heaven. She was dressed in a dazzling robe of white silk and draped in a cloak, adorned with stones of great price. On her feet she wore shoes of onyx. But her face was stained with dust, her robe was ripped down the right side, her cloak had lost its sheen of beauty and her shoes had been blackened. And she herself, in a voice loud with sorrow, was calling to the heights of heaven, saying, “Hear, heaven, how my face is sullied; mourn, earth, that my robe is torn; tremble, abyss, because my shoes are blackened!”

And she continued: “I lay hidden in the heart of the Father until the Son of Man, who was conceived and born in virginity, poured out his blood. With that same blood as his dowry, he made me his betrothed.

For my Bridegroom’s wounds remain fresh and open as long as the wounds of men’s sins continue to gape. And Christ’s wounds remain open because of the sins of priests. They tear my robe, since they are violators of the Law, the Gospel and their own priesthood; they darken my cloak by neglecting, in every way, the precepts which they are meant to uphold; my shoes too are blackened, since priests do not keep to the straight paths of justice, which are hard and rugged, or set good examples to those beneath them. Nevertheless, in some of them I find the splendour of truth.”

And I heard a voice from heaven which said: “This image represents the Church. For this reason, O you who see all this and who listen to the word of lament, proclaim it to the priests who are destined to offer guidance and instruction to God’s people and to whom, as to the apostles, it was said: go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation’ (Mk 16:15).

#33: I see, this makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

As to your parenthetical observation that "(The CDF characterized prophetic voices that are critical of the hierarchy as inherently flawed, even while a few weeks after the report's release, one of the Church's historically most critical prophetic voices was raised to the altar and then, a few months later, made a Doctor of the Church. There's an unresolved tension there--though that tension is active and unresolved even within Hildegard's own writings and self-perception as a prophetic "trumpet of God".) Yes, again. And do you see why we Catholics love our Church, so? It is like the weather here in New England. Wait an hour. ; )

#32: Ah, yes, The New Evangelization. Aggiornamento. Can’t help but think of the joyful example of Timothy Cardinal Dolan and his seven planks. But Dolan acknowledges that:

“True enough, the New Evangalization is urgent because secularism has often choked the seed of faith; but that choking was sadly made easy because so many believers really had no adequate knowledge or grasp of the wisdom, beauty, and coherence of the Truth. Cardinal George Pell has observed that “it’s not so much that our people have lost their faith, but that they barely had it to begin with; and, if they did, it was so vapid that it was easily taken away."...

And, just as Jesus tells us “I am the Truth,” He also describes Himself as “the Way, and the Life.” The Way of Jesus is in and through His Church, a holy mother who imparts to us His Life. “For what would I ever know of Him without her?” asks De Lubac, referring to the intimate identification of Jesus and His Church. Thus, our mission, the New Evangelization, has essential catechetical and ecclesial dimensions…”

From the 4th point in his Feb. 2012 speech to the Pope and Cardinals on the New Evangelization.

Link to one full text version here: http://www.romereports.com/palio/timothy-dolans-speech-to-pope-and-cardinals-on-...

#34: That one seems to hit the mark quite well, I think.

>33 nathanielcampbell: this is all far more complex than the "conservative" vs. "liberal" dichotomy that seems to rule most hermeneutics of Church reform today

Thanks, Nathaniel. This is something I say often, in part because I don't live in Europe or north America where this dichotomy rules. In Africa, the Church can appear very "conservative" on many theological issues and yet very "liberal" on Catholic Social Teaching, justice and peace. It may at times appear very "liberal" on priestly celibacy or the use of condoms to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS while appearing "conservative" on homosexuality. It is also quite good at speaking out in favour of a "conservative" view while quietly ignoring it in practice and behaving more "liberally". All of which long ago convinced me that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" have little real meaning in discussing the Church, despite their popularity, particularly in the USA.

#36:
“It is also quite good at speaking out in favour of a "conservative" view while quietly ignoring it in practice and behaving more "liberally".

I love the perspective you bring, johnthefireman. I agree that the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" and the opposition is less than helpful in matters of the Church. I’ve also noticed, as part of my work in ecumenical groups and as a reader of secular and religious media, here and abroad, that a completely divergent approach to the concept of hypocrisy leads to a fundamental misunderstanding between Catholics and non-catholics, especially among fundamentalists of any stripe and secularists in particular. Among the latter, hypocrisy is the great sin of the modern age while among the former it is simply another facet of the human condition.

Of course my actions fall far short of my ideals – but that doesn’t mean I change the ideals – instead I begin to act on changing the actions. That, to me is the Catholic (and proper perspective: little me, big C). That the Church should change its doctrinal beliefs to match the behavior of its self-proclaimed adherents seems completely insane and counter-productive to me.

>37 enevada: a completely divergent approach to the concept of hypocrisy leads to a fundamental misunderstanding between Catholics and non-catholics

Well said. I'd never really thought about it in those exact terms. But I think you're right. We know we are a Church of sinners (hell, we're proud of it!) and we don't expect our Church to be perfect.

we don't expect our Church to be perfect

but some of your co-religionists believe that it must be, or even that it is.

Whereas the Church of England was born in such sqaulid circumstances (as Giles Fraser recently pointed out) that it offers little scope for pompous pride...

#38: "hell, we're proud of it!". Damn tootin...uh-oh: pride. Reconciliation, today at 3:00 pm.

#39: could you give us some specific examples, in print? Hard to respond to generalities.

>40 enevada: "hell, we're proud of it!". Damn tootin...uh-oh: pride. Reconciliation, today at 3:00 pm.

I phrased that rather too flippantly! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. What I meant was that it is a distinguishing feature of the Church as opposed, say, to some of the born again denominations.

could you give us some specific examples, in print?

I am aware that those who ask "is the Church perfect?" usually receive the answer "no", in one form or another, if they find an informed respondent; but they still ask the question.

"The Catholic Church is the one, holy, apostolic church of Christ, while other Christian Orthodox and Protestant denominations ... “suffer from defects”."

from "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church"
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 10 July 2007

"I was kind of upset when they taught that Vatican II stated the Church is not perfect. I totally disagree. The Church is perfect but the people that make up the Church, lay people, priests, deacons, brothers, sisters, etc.. are not. Their imperfection does not negate the perfection of the Catholic Church."
contributor to Catholic Answers, 9 Oct 2005, making a distinction too subtle for some...

"It is not man that makes the Catholic Church PERFECT, it is Jesus Christ who founded the Church and instituted the sacraments."
Bill Kirejczyk, 'Know your Catholic Faith' blog, 5 Mar 2010

"Jesus guarantees that, despite the sins of Her members, the Church Herself is perfect. ... Since God Himself established our Church, we must believe that it is perfectly designed to lead souls to perfection."
John L. Barger, Sophia Institute Press

This is, perhaps, a more nuanced and technical view of perfection:
"It is a society chartered as of right Divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action."
Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, Encyclical of 10 Jan 1890

#42: OK, thanks – this helps me understand your comment more fully. In the event that you are interested, you may not be, you made a simple observation and then gave me examples of what you meant, and I appreciate that - but, just in case, I would refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) in their entirety for a more complete answer.

CC: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

LG: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_...

My abbreviated answer is that the four marks of the Catholic Church neither imply nor equate perfection, and if you use the authority of the Catechism you'll see the reasons (excerpts in quotations) why I think this:

One: CC at 820:"Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her.”

Holy: CC at 825: “"The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect."295 In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: "Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect."296

Catholic: CC at 855: “The Church's mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity.357 Indeed, "divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects."358

Apostolic: CC at 857: “-she (the church)continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ's return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, "assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church's supreme pastor":366

Lumen Gentium, chapter one is pretty clear that perfection lies in Jesus and the Holy Spirit and not in the Church itself/alone: in fact it stresses that the Holy Spirit must work continuously to sanctify, to guide.

That the Church should change its doctrinal beliefs to match the behavior of its self-proclaimed adherents seems completely insane and counter-productive to me.

As always, the question what's doctrine and what's not. Was it "insane" that the church reversed course on the fixity of the earth, and the condemnation of Galileo? On the god-decreed morality of slavery? On the absurdity of a free press? On the utter unsuitability of democratic forms of government? On the absurdity of religious freedom for Protestants? On the unparalleled and eternal guilt and perfidy of Jews? Are you going to assert that "self-proclaimed adherent" were not involved in changing these--hmmm, let's call them "non-doctrinal views that the church repeatedly but wrongly called doctrinal"?

"Was it ego or politics that lead Jesus to rebuke the perfectly orthodox Pharisees?"

Well, that's just it, isn't it? How much of "me" to bring to the practice of faith, and how much of the collective wisdom of the church fathers?

I think there is a valuable discussion here. But you make a simple error--you ascribe to "me" what you disagree with, as if my prejudice here against empty and pompous religious ceremony is some quirky opinion of mine, not an oft-repeated, central message of our Lord and savior, echoed repeatedly throughout Catholic tradition!

The fact is that here and elsewhere tradition is thick. No Catholic will come to terms with all of it in a lifetime. Parts of the tradition go underground for centuries and come up again. Parts are highly developed, parts undeveloped. Much--and certainly much scripture--is polyvalent. Parts are even at a sort of war with other parts. Just as Saint Paul emphasizes the importance of diverse spiritual gifts, and different members of the body of Christ--the foot cannot be the hand--I think we should appreciate Catholics who put relatively more stress on different components of the tradition--on those who stress the importance of time-honored liturgy, clerical vestments with 20-foot trains, but also on those accessing deep traditions against pomp and circumstance in worship, simplicity of dress, etc. Do I need to say "both/and"?

The collected wisdom of the conclave is good enough for me, but even if it weren't, we've got the Holy Spirit to rely on.

I think it's false to mystify the event--to imagine that the conclave is without "politics" or interest groups, still less that it involves no serious or consequent differences of opinion about the future of the church. We know about these factors for past conclaves. Secrecy is unlikely to have coincided with their departure.

Similarly, it is naive and theologically erroneous to imagine that the Holy Spirit not only may but will ensure the best pope is picked. Ratzinger himself made this point--considering the many unworthy men who have held the job, God's assurance can extend no farther than the doctrine itself, that popes are protected against solemnly defining serious heresy for the whole church.

A lot can go wrong short of that! Although purely political and financial motives are no longer so much in play, the conclave is certainly free to elect an immoral monster. A major crisis might end up producing multiple papal claimants. These things have happened before, and the Holy Spirit took his sweet time ending them. We doubt these will happen not because of any theological barrier, but for pragmatic reasons--the church is in a lot more spiritual than in past days, and our current cardinals are mostly very holy men.

I can't speak for Tim, but let me say a few words about why I (though not a Roman Catholic) am so engaged in the horse-race.

In recent member I've spent days talking about obscure novelists and the history and hydrology of the Black Sea! I've obviously spent much time discussing past presidential elections which, in truth, I have just as little power to control! This is far more important and far more interesting.

Holiness is a prerequisite for aggiornamento.

Perhaps, but great defects of holiness tend to lead to reform, which is a sort of bringing-up-to-date. I think we may legitimately hope that the great lack of holiness exhibited in much of hierarchy relative to the sex-abuse crisis will lead to reform as well. Although I doubt he'll win, I'm pleased to see Sean O'Malley creeping into the papabile lists. He's no "liberal," but his reform of the church in Boston has been real.

At least I'm not doing this:



( from http://www.romatoday.it/foto/conclave-vota-turkson/vota-turkson-1.html )

Oh, and it turns out I can bet on who's going to be the next pope! http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/betting-on-the-conclave/

43: Thanks. I have the Catechism somewhere, but that wasn't the issue. You are preaching to the converted (in an extremely narrow sense here). I wasn't arguing that the Church is, or should be perfect, but stating that some Catholics hold this to be the case. I exemplified such claims, and also some of the pronouncements on which they are based. As I said:
I am aware that those who ask "is the Church perfect?" usually receive the answer "no", in one form or another, if they find an informed respondent; but they still ask the question.

>44 timspalding: tradition is thick. No Catholic will come to terms with all of it in a lifetime. Parts of the tradition go underground for centuries and come up again. Parts are highly developed, parts undeveloped. Much--and certainly much scripture--is polyvalent. Parts are even at a sort of war with other parts.

Well said. This is something I have tried to articulate from time to time. I often see tradition as a vine with many strands, some thicker than others, some more prominent than others, some of which have withered, some new ones have grown, and some have withered and then come back to life again centuries later.

This morning I popped in to the opening session of the Africa Faith and Justice Network* conference, where Cardinal Turkson was scheduled to speak. As expected, he didn't make it! However the Superior General of the Missionaries of Africa gave a summary of and reflection on the cardinal's address. Interesting. Not surprisingly justice was at the core of it.

__________________________

* AFJN is a US Catholic advocacy network.

I have to say, I think Turkson is trying too hard. Everyone else, when asked whether they want to be Pope, says "No" in some form. He says "I have always said, if God wills it."

>49 timspalding: Timothy Dolan said "No" very amusingly on CNN the other day. He's very good at that sort of thing.

"Every snarky comment about the Pope is an insult to me"
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/03/01/every-snarky-comment-...

Not an Onion article. Ugh.

#51: Snark has a pretty short shelf life. I'm amazed that people still find The Onion fresh. But I agree that if Catholics were to wither and wince at every clever twit who insults the Pope, we'd be a sorry lot.

#50: He is, indeed. I would re-cast him the Man for All Seasons of our own day.

#44: on doctrine: perhaps I was clumsy in my argument, but I wasn't suggesting that doctrine never changes, nor should never change but that behavior doesn't dictate or inform doctrine, rather the opposite. The subsequent referrals to he catechism do, indeed, reaffirm the belief that the Church and her teachings are in a continuous process of consideration and reform.

on the supernatural essence of faith: hate to be the one to break this to you, can't possible imagine that I am, but faith is a supernatural grace, again the Catechism part one, at 179: "Faith is a supernatural gift from God. In order to believe, man needs the interior helps of the Holy Spirit." In my formulation I put the wisdom of the conclave before the power of the Holy Spirit, and 2wonderwhy rightly corrected the order. It appears that you place the politics of the conclave before either - but perhaps we simply mis-read one another, once again.

#29: this is in response to nathaniel, and further reflection on his article, which has kept me fed all weekend. I appreciate the historical context and implications in your treatment of Hildegard and Benedict XVI, as I've already stated. I have been reading Faith and the Future on the recommendation of a friend, and can't help but agree with you that Benedict (then Ratzinger) looked backwards in order to look forward - as historians, scholars, and prophets are wont. In the circular nature of time and Church, I am also struck by another parallel: that of Benedict XVI and St. John of the Cross (who was canonized by Benedict XIII in 1726 and made a Doctor of the Church by Pius XI in 1926). It was another time of Reform, and he a mystical doctor and protege of Theresa d'Avila.

On Feb. 16th of 2011, Pope Benedict's general audience was the third in a series dedicated to the Doctors of the Church:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2011/documents/hf_ben-x...

>52 enevada:: "He is, indeed. I would re-cast him the Man for All Seasons of our own day. "

For wit, yes; but for rotundity, doesn't he fit better the part of Wolsey? :-)

(I use clips from the film version in my class when teaching the English Reformation -- and the students by that point have already gotten a taste of More via Utopia, which I pair with Machiavelli before we do the Reformation.)

>51 timspalding: I don't read Twitter, but if the snarky comments there are anything like the ones on LT then they often have more to do with the intelligence, anger and bitterness of the poster than the intended target.

>53 nathanielcampbell: I saw Dolan working a crowd of important Catholic donors at a posh dinner a couple of years ago, along with Cardinal McCarrick and the then head of a major Catholic charity. The three of them are really smooth operators and made a great team for that sort of thing.

#53: "For wit, yes; but for rotundity, doesn't he fit better the part of Wolsey? :-)"

Well, yes, of course - but that is the fun of the revision. A current day Man for All Seasons is being played, of course, with the HHS mandate and the challenge to religious liberty. Obama - reed thin and dour - makes for an inverse Henry VIII as well. I was actually thinking of Dolan as St. Thomas More and lovable Antonin Scalia as Wosley. (of course, my ending works out much better for the Catholics, and every one lives happily ever after).

I was clumsy in my argument, but I wasn't suggesting that doctrine never changes, nor should never change but that behavior doesn't dictate or inform doctrine, rather the opposite.

I'm pleased to see the acknowledgement--many will not acknowledge that, and even I am uncomfortable with the notion that doctrine changes. (Either the change is not essential, or the doctrine was not a doctrine.) I suppose I will agree with you that the church should not change its teaching to match the behavior of its adherents—"self-proclaimed" or not. But it should change its teaching in response to it's improved understanding of theology and morals.

Into that development the "behavior" of adherents—and even non-adherents—has clearly played a role on many occasions. Time and again everyday Catholics changed—often drawing deeply on Catholic theology, even as they were told again and again they were misapplying it—and the larger society changed, and the Vatican was among the last to "catch up." I am speaking about developments around things like slavery, usury, democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and new attitudes toward Jews. I'm sorry, but I see no other way to see the history of these topics, and history and theological explanation cannot utterly diverge. We cannot, for example, believe that Catholicism's late decision to condemn slavery and the slave trade—after advocating and even participating in it—was not influenced by the western sea change in feelings on the topic.

On the conclave, I doubt that our disagreement is severe. I certainly agree with you that faith is a supernatural grace, and wonder that you think this is some sort of reply to me. It is simply the case that cardinals are making up lists of people they think are right for the job (Dolan referred to making up a list of three tiers of candidates), comparing lists and discussing fall-backs and compromises. There can be no doubt whatsoever that some people are speaking favorably about their favorites. In other words, politics is occurring. It may not be corrupt politics—I certainly hope not, and certainly it will be less than in some centuries' past—but it is politics. God builds on nature, even political nature.

>56 timspalding:: "God builds on nature, even political nature."

And as the Philosopher reminds us, we are by nature political animals.

>56 timspalding: Doctrine doesn't change "to match the behavior of its adherents". But nevertheless, the teaching of the Church does change, and context is part of that process. Praxis theology is based on theological reflection on what the Church actually does, of course in dialogue with scripture, tradition and existing doctrine. If I knew enough Latin I could make a parallel between lex orandi, lex credendi and the idea that not only the way the Church prays but also the way the Church acts is a very real indicator of what it believes.

>58 John5918:: lex agendi, lex credendi

(Though I would point out that prayer is itself a way of acting and of living -- it isn't just about the words we utter aloud or in our hearts to God, but about a fundamental orientation to how we go about our lives.)

>59 nathanielcampbell: Thanks, Nathaniel, and I agree with you about prayer.

#58 & 59: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. The order is important here, faith of the Church is the necessary precedent to that of the individual, and worship is the formal expression of the Church's faith in which an individual takes part. I think the maxim gets to the very heart of the discussion here, and to all Catholics who live and worship in this time of the "imperial individual" (a phrase I've seen lately, but can't recall the originating source. A nod to whomever coined the phrase).

Lex orandi, lex credendi is the classical phrase. Judging by Google Books, lex agendi (law of doing, or action) was added first, in the 19th and 20th century—evidence, perhaps, of a desire to turn the maxim in an ethical direction. The change to videndi (living) only gets popular in the late 1960s, when, I dare say, ethics became "lifestyle."

Interesting article on it in the Josephinum Journal of Theology (2004), "Lex orandi lex credendi: Liturgy as Locus Theologicus in the Fifth Century?" arguing that the use of the term as a liturgical hermeneutic is anachronistic and illegitimate. Nathaniel could, I think, pass on it better than I.
http://www.pcj.edu/journal/essays/vanslyke11-2.htm

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_b...

From it: The Eucharist, A Mystery to be Celebrated:

Lex orandi and lex credendi

34. The Synod of Bishops reflected at length on the intrinsic relationship between eucharistic faith and eucharistic celebration, pointing out the connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, and stressing the primacy of the liturgical action. The Eucharist should be experienced as a mystery of faith, celebrated authentically and with a clear awareness that "the intellectus fidei has a primordial relationship to the Church's liturgical action." (105) Theological reflection in this area can never prescind from the sacramental order instituted by Christ himself. On the other hand, the liturgical action can never be considered generically, prescinding from the mystery of faith. Our faith and the eucharistic liturgy both have their source in the same event: Christ's gift of himself in the Paschal Mystery.


also, (I like the quote by St. Augustine, here and the order: receive, then become - to me, the very essence of the Eucharist) :

36. The "subject" of the liturgy's intrinsic beauty is Christ himself, risen and glorified in the Holy Spirit, who includes the Church in his work. (109) Here we can recall an evocative phrase of Saint Augustine which strikingly describes this dynamic of faith proper to the Eucharist. The great Bishop of Hippo, speaking specifically of the eucharistic mystery, stresses the fact that Christ assimilates us to himself: "The bread you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what the chalice contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. In these signs, Christ the Lord willed to entrust to us his body and the blood which he shed for the forgiveness of our sins. If you have received them properly, you yourselves are what you have received." (110) Consequently, "not only have we become Christians, we have become Christ himself."

>63 enevada: not only have we become Christians, we have become Christ himself

Now that is a statement full of riches and depth.

>62 timspalding:: Quoting from the conclusion of the article: "The axiom as it is commonly worded (“lex orandi lex credendi”) and understood is not a tradition handed down from early Christianity, but rather a recent theological invention of dubious merit."

While I agree with general conclusion that (1) the phrase as Prosper of Aquitaine used it does not take on a strictly liturgical character {though to me, the context, though of course grounded in the passage from I Timothy, also seems to allude to the sacramental character of the priest as an example of the overarching nature of sacramentality contra Pelagium -- but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax} and that (2) the common modern phrase has a broader and perhaps even different connotation, I do not at all agree that that connotation is "of dubious merit."

As enevada quotes in snippet form in (63), the phrase connotes for Pope Benedict, as for the other heirs of the 19th century's liturgical movement, the sense that the entire Christian life, as action taken under grace, can be understood sacramentally and therefore liturgically.

For Benedict, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ are a singular event in human history that dramatically changes the ballgame. The Church (the people of God and the house of God -- I allude here to Ratzinger's dissertation on those metaphors in Augustine) is a sacramental structure; the people of God become themselves living sacraments, as it were -- physical signs and channels of God's invisible grace, transforming them and, through them, the world.

Thus, this act of sacramental worship which is the Christ(ian) person is the oratio whose law is identical, therefore, to that of faith.

#64: The whole document is pretty amazing. Add it to the bedside pile - Lent never seems quite long enough to me. ; )

>65 nathanielcampbell:

I do not pretend to be deep into the theory of the liturgy. So I very much accept your correction and comments here, and apologize for the unsophistication of my thought.

But my worry with this sort of thinking is one can too quickly equate and solidify the linkage between (progressively) God, grace, sacrament, liturgy and "this liturgy I have right here." That is, if liturgy is understood as a perfect mirror and recapitulation of God's grace… well, how could you ever want to change it? And, in such a view, how could two different liturgical traditions, or liturgies of the past and future ever justify themselves? The liturgy would be like a diamond you found, which could only be appreciated, even if you didn't much care for diamonds, not like a bicycle you must ride to God, or a collection of spare parts you must fashion into that bicycle.

It seems to me far more fruitful to understand the liturgy—and the sacraments—as instruments of God's grace made for us, and in many details by us, not recapitulations of God's grace basically independent of us and our reception of it. Of course, there is a reality to the sacraments that transcends. Thus, the eucharist is the a true communion between God and man even if the liturgy around it is dreadful and everyone involved bored and uninspired. But if such liturgies were common—as perhaps they are—the answer would be to change the liturgy until it connected to real people in the real world. While such a change might be a reversion to an earlier form—Benedict's view, clearly—it might not. We might, for example, discover that the 16th century fashioned liturgies as unsuited to modernity as its bicycles. This in any case seems better to me than trying to force moderns like Renaissance bicycles.(1)

I hope that makes some sense. Please critique.

---

1. Yes, I realize there is no such thing.

>67 timspalding: the answer would be to change the liturgy until it connected to real people in the real world

It's been tried, eg in Zaire, but Rome didn't like it very much...

While such a change might be a reversion to an earlier form

Some of Vatican II's changes were indeed a reversion to, or at least an echo of, earlier forms. The "new" Eucharistic Prayer 2 echoes a very early prayer. There is more than one "earlier form", not just the Tridentine Mass which seems to fixate many in the Church. Before that there were Gallic and Celtic Rites, for example.

Some of Vatican II's changes were indeed a reversion to, or at least an echo of, earlier forms. The "new" Eucharistic Prayer 2 echoes a very early prayer. There is more than one "earlier form", not just the Tridentine Mass which seems to fixate many in the Church. Before that there were Gallic and Celtic Rites, for example.

Very much so. More importantly, I think, they were reversions to earlier conceptions of the thing—most particularly to the liturgy as something the entire congregation participated in. (I like Nicholas Lash's story about the title of the standard British catechetical pamphlet going from "What is he doing up there up at the altar?" to "What are we doing at mass?") Whenever possible and as the default, traditional forms should be used. But liturgical fundamentalism strikes me as sillier even than Biblical fundamentalism.

As you may know, I help out the director of catechesis here. In our class on the liturgy—which I did not teach; I wouldn't feel qualified—one of the braver young soon-to-be-ex-Protestants (they're all Protestants) admitted that, basically, she found mass incredibly boring. I think understanding and engagement feed interest—whether it's liturgy or butterflies. And I can think of other ways to work the problem, like switching to a more dynamic church. But ultimately the aesthetics of the thing aren't going to be a good match for everyone, especially for a 20-something accustomed to the super high energy and raw emotional connection in many evangelical churches. I don't know if that can be solved without creating worse problems, but her frank admission bothers me. There are a lot more where than came from.

It's been tried, eg in Zaire, but Rome didn't like it very much...

Catch me up?

NPR's Talk of the Nation had a show on the conclave with John Allen (CNN, NPR, NCR). It's worth a listen generally, but—especially to Nathaniel—I note the meme of a "smaller church" popping up as a leitmotiv of the far right. Whatever Benedict meant by it, the idea has been embraced by those who want to get smaller by getting rid of the non-traditionalists.

"Beth: And I understand that the church might have to get smaller before it is able to progress.

SHAPIRO: Now, when you say get smaller, do you mean that some people may be alienated, some people may not want to adhere to the doctrine and that's fine, they can go elsewhere?

BETH: Well, your first caller, Raphael, said that he wanted a zero tolerance policy on child abuse, of course, so do I. I want a zero tolerance policy also on people who are unable to be obedient to the teachings of the church."

It isn't a "meme" Tim - it is a mission. And why do you keep using the political labels of right (here, "far right" with the assumption that is relational to you or some other undefined fixed point) and left when we have all agreed that for purposes of this thread they are inadequate at best, misleading at worse?

"But Mass is boring !" What Catholic parent hasn't heard a child (usually under the age of twelve) make that very same observation? My answer with our three has been: wait a while: a year, three, a life-time...but don't underestimate yourself. (Come to think of it, that was my mother's response to me.)

>69 timspalding: Zaire

Inculturation is presenting the Christian message in a way that is meaningful and relevant to the reality of life in that culture. It involved some quite visible adaptation of the liturgy using dress, dance, music, movement, symbolism. There have been attempts to do the same in a number of non-western cultures, but Zaire (as DRC was then called) was probably in the forefront. As I said, Rome didn't like it in Zaire, but it's fairly common at a less extreme level.

Incarnation goes a step further, and attempts to bring the incarnation of Jesus the Christ into dialogue with the local culture, much as happened with the Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures 2,000 years ago. It doesn't pretend that 2,000 years of Christianity doesn't exist, so it brings scripture and tradition into that dialogue. Vincent Donovan's Christianity Rediscovered would probably be an example of this.

Inculturation and incarnation were being taught in missiology classes in Catholic missionary seminaries in the 1970s and '80s.

Here is some material, quite a bit, actually on the New Evangelization - a call not to "grow the church" but to deepen our faith with an emphasis on catechesis and theology. This isn't a bugaboo of your imagination, Tim, but rather from a source that is neither left nor right: The USCCB:

"What is the New Evangelization?

The New Evangelization calls each of us to deepen our faith, believe in the Gospel message and go forth to proclaim the Gospel. "

A LOT more here:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/

I won't cherry-pick, but do hope that this 2006 article gets a look, as it pertains to the recent turn in this conversation, and might be particularly helpful for those who find Mass boring: "Happy are those who are called to His Supper":

http://old.usccb.org/doctrine/Eucharist.pdf

"Don't do this in remembrance of me: do something much more long-winded, with men in weird clothes making symbolic gestures and spouting a lot of complicated verbiage."

#74: try reading the pdf. It will take 20 - 25 minutes of your life, if you can spare it. But, it may be long-winded and it does have a lot of complicated verbiage. Would never make the editorial cut for Real Simple magazine, that's certain. But on the bright side, it isn't trying to sell you lots of high priced material goods to help you simplify your life. ; )

Can we please start a thread just to discuss the Mass?

Sounds boring.

Ha. Sure, please do.

>73 enevada: I see from that first link that there is a heading "The New Evangelization in the United States", which thus appears to acknowledge that it will play out differently in different places and cultures.

Sudanese Bishop Daniel Adwok, in a paper given in 2011 (and published in One Church from Every Tribe, Tongue and People*) says this:

In this new era of evangelisation, new models of Church will emerge and some of the following opportunities need to be addressed:

1.Laity: participatory leadership.
2.Social involvement of the Church as Light of the World and Salt of the Earth.
3.Unity in diversity: Recognition of the diversity of the Church membership originated by historical circumstances.
4.Ecumenical collaboration.

It does not automatically nor necessarily assume that the Church will become smaller.

___________________________

* Full disclosure: I edited that book. Hopefully this will be seen as a relevant contribution to the conversation and not a spam attempt to advertise the book!

#78: " I see from that first link that there is a heading "The New Evangelization in the United States", which thus appears to acknowledge that it will play out differently in different places and cultures."

Yes, well the US is their jurisdiction. But I imagine you are correct that it will play out differently elsewhere. The assumption of a "smaller church" for me, comes from Benedict XVI's own writing, as I think we've hashed out pretty well over the course of this thread. (I should probably point out that I think his a note of optimism and not pessimism).

The books sounds interesting - and as a lay person my great interest in any model of church is at street level, wherever we happen to be.

>67 timspalding:: "It seems to me far more fruitful to understand the liturgy—and the sacraments—as instruments of God's grace made for us, and in many details by us, not recapitulations of God's grace basically independent of us and our reception of it. Of course, there is a reality to the sacraments that transcends. Thus, the eucharist is the a true communion between God and man even if the liturgy around it is dreadful..."

I think I was unclear in articulating the argument, because the more fruitful understanding that you advocate--one of dynamism rather than ossification--is precisely what I was trying to get at.

It all comes down to a fundamentally sacramental understanding of all reality (this is very much an Augustinian point of view that I think Benedict fundamentally shares): all reality, as created reality, signifies (points to) the Creator; and the new reality sparked by the Incarnation, as redeemed and recreated, effects grace in the same way a sacrament does, i.e. by being a sign that effects the signified. (See De doctrina christiana.)

This brings us around to John's point in (72) about Incarnation. It is crucial here to recall that Ratzinger was a principal author, together with Yves Congar, of the first chapter (the theological underpinnings) of Vatican II's Decree on Missions, Ad Gentes. I will quote here from the analysis of Jared Wicks in his 2007 Yamauchi Lecture, "Professor Ratzinger at Vatican II":

To help begin this work, J. Ratzinger drafted a Latin text of ca. 5,200 words, in which he identified the basis of all missionary activity as the outpouring of God's goodness and love, as expressed supremely in the twin missions for our salvation of God's own Son and Holy Spirit. Thus mission is not a work of conquest but a movement of caritas which intends to give to others God's own saving gifts and blessings. In its missionary activity, the Church is not the light, but instead a witness to the light of God, who intends to illuminate everyone as He invites them to eat as his table and come to ffer adoration as a living sacrifice to give God glory.

Mission testifies to the truth that humans are not saved by their own abilities and exertions but by what comes from Christ, to whom the Church witnesses by its ministry through Christ's sacraments. On mission, God's own call is made audible in a public and historical form, the call to reconciliation with God, as St. Paul expressed it (2 Cor. 5:18-20). The missionary message is much like Jesus' own programmatic announcement, "The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the Gospel" (Mk 1:15). It calls for repentance (metanoia) from sin and for faith in the Gospel announcement of God's healing grace for life in faith, hope, and charity. If the aim is to "plant the Church" where it has not lived before, this is only realized in an integral manner when a mission church becomes itself engaged in further evangelization. The basic image for mission unites the Old and New Testaments, since it is like the first Pentecost, gathering believers from many nations, which was a counter-movement to the dispersal from the Tower of Babel and the confusion of different languages. In line with the doctrine of episcopal collegial responsibility, promulgated in Lumen Gentium (...), the leadership of the whole Church should take responsibility for promoting and supporting missionary activity.

The roots of the theological theory on the liturgical dynamic in this double mission of Incarnation and Pentecost go back to a Romantic-era cadre of German theologians in the first half of the nineteenth century, whose work formed a major component of the growing "liturgical movement" of the second half of that century (think of the monks at Solesmes recapturing ancient music), which in turn inspired the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.

Ratzinger has long shown a fondness for these German Romantics. In the essay, "What Will the Church Look Like in 2000?" that I've referenced before (the locus classicus now for the "smaller church" vision), Ratzinger compares “the lifeless {Enlightenment} progressivism” of Matthias Fingerlos at the turn from the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries with “the richness and depth” of Johan Michael Sailer’s blend of romanticism and rationalism--and the key to Sailer’s fertile thought lies in his “profound grasp of the theological and mystical tradition of the Middle Ages” (Faith and the Future, pp. 96-99).

Likewise, I've got on the bookshelf via ILL (and hopefully they can renew it past Friday, as I haven't gotten to it yet) a study by Michael J. Himes on one of the leading figures of this movement: Ongoing Incarnation: Johann Adam Möhler and the Beginnings of Modern Ecclesiology (Möhler lived a characteristically short Romantic life of 1796-1838) -- as I get to it, I can firm up some of the details here. Nevertheless, the title itself, along with a glance through the chapter titles--"Pneumatocentric Ecclesiology 1: Spirit and Community," "Pneumatocentric Ecclesiology 2: Community and Institution," "The Trinity and the Relation of God to the World", "Protecting the Integrity of the Human," "Nature and Supernature," "Natural Supernaturality," "Descending Ecclesiology," "Ascending Ecclesiology"--should give us a sense of the intersections between missionary ecclesiology, incarnational sacramentality, and liturgy-writ-large that inform(ed) Ratzinger's ideas.

>79 enevada:: "The assumption of a "smaller church" for me, comes from Benedict XVI's own writing, as I think we've hashed out pretty well over the course of this thread. (I should probably point out that I think his a note of optimism and not pessimism). "

I think you are quite correct to note the optimism, though it is inextricably intertwined with a certain pessimism (again, this reflects Ratzinger's Augustinian Weltanschauung).

An interpretation of the "smaller church" meme as indicating an ossified conservatism that is closed to dynamic growth in the modern world and seeks to kick dynamic diversity out of the Church is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of Ratzinger's meaning.

Rather, it seems to me that the principles enunciated by John in (78) match much more closely with Ratzinger's vision. Though that 1969/1970 essay that I keep making recourse to does see "shrinkage" for the Church in the future, that shrinkage comes more from shedding the "worldly edifices that it inhabited in its palmier days", i.e. a recusal from compromising the faith to flirt with secular political ideologies. (Ratzinger was deeply disillusioned with attempts on either left or right to do so: his animus towards Marxist-inspired extremes of "liberation theology" falsely so-called is well known; less acknowledged is his disgust at the way the Church propped up Franco in Spain for so many years.)

But next to the refusal to compromise the faith to political ideologies is the embrace of adaptations to the genuine needs of the modern Church, including expansions of the body of men qualified to become priests (he doesn't explicitly mention opening the priesthood up to married men, but there are subtle hints to that effect, which are amplified by the waves if married Anglicans coming in under the Ordinariate) and explorations of new forms of ministry to serve a wider diversity of communities.

#80: This is entirely and beautifully written:

" It all comes down to a fundamentally sacramental understanding of all reality (this is very much an Augustinian point of view that I think Benedict fundamentally shares): all reality, as created reality, signifies (points to) the Creator; and the new reality sparked by the Incarnation, as redeemed and recreated, effects grace in the same way a sacrament does, i.e. by being a sign that effects the signified. (See De doctrina christiana.)"

This is the message of the mystics (the poets of faith) - the "divine union" that St. John of the Cross writes of - I need to get back to that book. Thank you, Nathaniel, very much.

#81: "But next to the refusal to compromise the faith to political ideologies is the embrace of adaptations to the genuine needs of the modern Church, including expansions of the body of men qualified to become priests (he doesn't explicitly mention opening the priesthood up to married men, but there are subtle hints to that effect, which are amplified by the waves if married Anglicans coming in under the Ordinariate) and explorations of new forms of ministry to serve a wider diversity of communities."

Also in agreement here, and in the culminating call of a Year of Faith I think Benedict/Ratzinger is calling each of us, every single one, to address these "genuine needs of the modern church." Today, and within our own spheres of influence.

It isn't a "meme" Tim - it is a mission.

A meme is an idea that spreads. The idea that the church may need to get smaller isn't an idea? It doesn't spread? (You yourself have spread it.) Can I say "it's an idea that spreads"? Do you just object to unfamiliar words?

And why do you keep using the political labels of right (here, "far right" with the assumption that is relational to you or some other undefined fixed point) and left when we have all agreed that for purposes of this thread they are inadequate at best, misleading at worse?

Even within a political context all such terms have only approximate value. Virtually all classification is of that nature. That doesn't mean classification is worthless. We all recognize hyper-traditionalism of the sort that wants a "zero tolerance policy" on dissent has ideological and statistical coherence—that is, the ideas stick together and the people who hold them cluster in their ideas. You may, if you like, pick another term. We can call them the "blue people" for all I care. But I think it's foolish and anti-intellectual to constantly quibble over words.

"But Mass is boring !" What Catholic parent hasn't heard a child (usually under the age of twelve) make that very same observation? My answer with our three has been: wait a while: a year, three, a life-time...but don't underestimate yourself. (Come to think of it, that was my mother's response to me.)

Right. But an adult in RCIA inquiry is not your child. I certainly agree that waiting and deepening your engagement are answers. The mass unfolds its richness over time and attention. That may not be a complete answer, however, even for child.

Here is some material, quite a bit, actually on the New Evangelization - a call not to "grow the church" but to deepen our faith with an emphasis on catechesis and theology. This isn't a bugaboo of your imagination, Tim, but rather from a source that is neither left nor right: The USCCB:

I'm unclear what you're even responding to. However, you yourself don't seem to read the links you post. The New Evangelization has both an internal and external aim. It is, therefore, indeed a call to grow the church—to spread the Gospel. Sometimes this means people who've never heard the word (although this is not the focus), sometimes it means those whose Catholicism is cultural and largely dead, and sometimes it means deepening those whose Catholicism is not minimal.

The New Evangelization calls each of us to deepen our faith, believe in the Gospel message and go forth to proclaim the Gospel. The focus of the New Evangelization calls all Catholics to be evangelized and then go forth to evangelize. In a special way, the New Evangelization is focused on 're-proposing' the Gospel to those who have experienced a crisis of faith. Pope Benedict XVI called for the re-proposing of the Gospel "to those regions awaiting the first evangelization and to those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but who have experienced a serious crisis of faith due to secularization." The New Evangelization invites each Catholic to renew their relationship with Jesus Christ and his Church.

Full disclosure: I edited that book

Flag!

"Pope Benedict XVI called for the re-proposing of the Gospel "to those regions awaiting the first evangelization and to those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but who have experienced a serious crisis of faith due to secularization." The New Evangelization invites each Catholic to renew their relationship with Jesus Christ and his Church."

I think this speaks exactly to the point that Johnthefireman makes in #78. But I don't see how it contradicts anything I have said. But, seriously, I'm not interested.

It contradicts your statement that it is not about growing the church.

>81 nathanielcampbell: But next to the refusal to compromise the faith to political ideologies is the embrace of adaptations to the genuine needs of the modern Church

Well said. I think sincere people often talk past each other because there is an assumption that anyone who wants to embrace "adaptations to the genuine needs of the modern Church" is compromising the faith by pandering to political ideologies or any number of other things, including the "imperial individualism" of >61 enevada:. It's an underlying (and unconscious?) assumption of extremism on the part of anyone who disagrees. I'm glad, for example, that you qualify your mention of liberation theology with "Marxist-inspired extremes of 'liberation theology falsely so-called"; I'm also against that, but not against liberation theology per se.

Incidentally, hasn't our Pontiff Emeritus also written recently against the extremes of the free market ideology? Can't recall exactly where.

>84 timspalding: Flag!

At least it wasn't a red one!

#86: OK, I see - but I read it as not growing in our region (the secularized one) but deepening : a re-proposition or re-alignment. I don't see it a numbers thing, and maybe I'm wrong but I would liken it it to a pruning of tree, so it that it may bear more, better fruit later on. Maybe you're looking ahead to the fruit? In other regions, it will take other forms, with the hope that the end result is the same.

Nathaniel has pointed me in a different direction - and one that I think will be more edifying: the study of reform periods throughout the Church's history - what I imagine are natural cycles of expansion and contraction. That I see a period of contraction ahead isn't meant to be a value-laden proposition, neither is it wishful thinking as you seem to think, it is simply an observation. In all honesty, I share the optimism of Benedict XVI - that is true, but not to be exclusive, but out of a respectful love of the Church.

#87: "incidentally, hasn't our Pontiff Emeritus also written recently against the extremes of the free market ideology? Can't recall exactly where."

Yes indeed he has: CARITAS IN VERITATE

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_...

also, 87: " I think sincere people often talk past each other because there is an assumption that anyone who wants to embrace "adaptations to the genuine needs of the modern Church" is compromising the faith by pandering to political ideologies or any number of other things, including the "imperial individualism" of >61 enevada:"

This is certainly true of me, and I'll apologize for making unfounded assumptions (but not for the bias against imperial individuals - this, one, I think has merit in any theater of human engagement).

>89 enevada: Ah, thanks. I should have remembered that one.

>88 enevada:

I think there are different conceptions of why the church will get smaller. Benedict's passage is about the loss of privilege and custom—what's happened in Europe, basically. Such a church, rather than being just a part of being Spanish, or whatever, "will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision." With size with come greater expectations—"As a small society it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of its individual members." Apart from agreeing as to size this vision is, I think, pretty much the opposite of the notion as often encountered among traditionalist Catholics, who imagine not a "voluntary society" but a society that kicks out sinners and dissenters, and rather than making larger demands on its members' initiative, makes larger demands on their submission.

As for pruning, I can't get with the image. Those aren't buds you're pruning, they're souls—souls the church isn't helping and indeed may not be saving. It's as Jesus' parable of the sower were rewritten to convey joy at all the seeds that fell awry and burned up.

>92 timspalding:: "As for pruning, I can't get with the image."

John 15:1-8:

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.

I'm just sayin'...

>92 timspalding:: "Apart from agreeing as to size this vision is, I think, pretty much the opposite of the notion as often encountered among traditionalist Catholics, who imagine not a "voluntary society" but a society that kicks out sinners and dissenters, and rather than making larger demands on its members' initiative, makes larger demands on their submission."

Which is precisely the point I've maintained all along, namely, that Ratzinger's vision for the future of church reform is far more radical and "liberal" (if we must use the term) than the traditionalists seem to grasp.

#92: "I think, pretty much the opposite of the notion as often encountered among traditionalist Catholics, who imagine not a "voluntary society" but a society that kicks out sinners and dissenters, and rather than making larger demands on its members' initiative, makes larger demands on their submission."

Here's the nutmeg, and also a point of misunderstanding, I think. I'm sure we all remember when Benedict XVI quite famously cited Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus' knowledge of the Qur'an when he quoted surah 2, 256 in his speech at Regensburg: "There is no compulsion in religion." The remainder of the speech essentially recapitulates and reaffirms the long tradition in Christianity between reason and faith, and Benedict's agreement with Manuel II: ""Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents...

I don't really intend to re-hash this age old debate, except to say that I think that while Benedict spoke directly of "violent conversion", I think we can also extend the discussion to coercive conversion in general and - this may be a stretch, but I'm comfortable with it, having read the body of Ratzinger/Benedict's works over the course of his life - coercive expulsion. The great gift of Christianity and Hellenestic thought is this "profound encounter of faith and reason".

We all know of Ratzinger/Benedict's deep knowledge and love of philosophy and theology, and his Western orientation - no need to beat that horse. But what Nathaniel has brought to our attention is another aspect of Ratzinger/Benedict's theology - his appreciation for the german romantics, mystics, and - especially - his Augustinian approach to the sacred.

Again, Nathaniel in post 80: "It all comes down to a fundamentally sacramental understanding of all reality (this is very much an Augustinian point of view that I think Benedict fundamentally shares): all reality, as created reality, signifies (points to) the Creator; and the new reality sparked by the Incarnation, as redeemed and recreated, effects grace in the same way a sacrament does, i.e. by being a sign that effects the signified. (See De doctrina christiana.)"

This is an Augustinian point of view, but it is also the message of every mystic I've ever encountered/read and it is the foundational encounter with the Eucharist, with which we begin this understanding and with which we end: the encounter originates in, points to, and ends in the Creator. That is why priests and religious teachers and lay Catholics need a complete understanding of the theory of the liturgy - and as 2wonderY pointed out, we as Catholics do not do a good job of this and the real meaning of the Eucharist encounter is not the tradition, not the theater of it, but a "fundamentally sacramental understanding of all reality".

My interpretation of Ratzinger/Benedict's vision of the smaller church is not a one of schismatic purge between "ultra-traditionalists" and the unorthodox: but rather I see his call to Catholics to dig deep, fully embrace your religion, to know it, to live it and to freely choose obedience to its teachings. I really don't think his is a vision of mass excommunication, or coercive removal at all, nor do I think it ever has been. And perhaps he over-estimates people (as Popes should) in that they will have the intellectual honesty and fortitude to remain open to the possibility of personal change and understanding of the Church's teachings.

>93 nathanielcampbell:

Yes, fair enough. Although that's God doing the pruning.

>95 enevada:

No disagreement and thanks for laying your analysis out. (I haven't read Nathaniel's piece yet, but clearly I should.)

Benedict's call for greater engagement and knowledge is clearly exactly what the church needs. I wish I saw it happening around me.

I over-focus on the intellectual aspect, but from where I sit the information gap is especially grave. There's a funny modern mismatch between sacramental and intellectual development. That is, the RCIA folks I know—the ones whose parents didn't baptize them, or didn't see it through confirmation and first communion—are the lucky ones. Their commitment is a given. But they have this whole fantastic program laid out for them. Frankly, when they exit it, they're going to enter a church where they're often the best-informed people in the room. We should flip it—get the Pope to declare all catechumens to be in the church, and everyone already in it to be catechumens!

I think part of the answer is simply education—lectures, classes, teaching masses, and more teaching homilies. I'm trying to accomplish some of that where I am—lining up lectures and starting a Catholic book club in my cluster. I would like to think if there were ten times as much of that, and in every parish, Benedict's call would be closer to fulfillment.

>97 timspalding: I don't disagree with this, really, and over the years I've done my fair share of trying to educate the punters in the pews. But on the other hand there are, and always have been, Catholics of "simple faith", who have had no real education but who have been brought up in the faith and who are examples to all of us. I've met many in rural Ireland, for example. We should not over-intellectualise our faith. Given that we are all sinners and our Church welcomes and has a place for sinners, what happens about those who are never really going to take advantage of the new evangelisation?

I agree with that, but I think the window for that sort of faith is closing country-by-country as pervasive Catholic culture recedes and education advances. Ireland hung onto it's Catholic culture and practice for a long time but, but the culture got cracked—especially because of its own misdeeds—and practice is plummeting.

Culture gets all the attention, but rise of education is important too. To take Vatican II as the standard goalpost, since 1962 the percentage of 20-something Americans with a high-school degree has doubled and with a college degree has almost tripled. While parts of American culture remain stupid, the average level has, I think, also experienced some big rises. (For example, regular people watch TV dramas now with much higher intellectual demands than in the 60s or even 80s.) But these trends are hardly reflected in the church. Priests are not better educated than they were in the 1960s—on the contrary, they've gone from the best educated people in many parishes to the low-middle. And most Catholic media is mind-numbingly vapid. It's depressing.

>99 timspalding: Again, I don't really disagree, but still feel cautious.

practice is plummeting

True, but while my own emphasis is on mission rather than maintenance, there must still be a place in the Church for those who only come for baptisms, marriages, funerals and Christmas - or who don't come at all but are still amongst the "sinners" who consider ourselves Catholic. I recall a Franciscan whom I heard lecturing 20 years ago saying of religious communities, "Every community must have a place for its dysfunctional members, but the dysfunctional members must not drive the community" or words to that effect. That seems to be part of the challenge for the Church.

regular people watch TV dramas now with much higher intellectual demands than in the 60s or even 80s

Hm, I'm no expert on US TV but if what I've seen while flicking through the channels in the last month is anything to go by, "the 60s or even 80s" must have been really bad. I've also realised that the appalling US shows which we get on our satellite TV in Nairobi are actually the best of the bunch compared to what I'm seeing on TV in Indiana. Looking at British TV I would tend to agree with those who suggest that there has actually been a dumbing down in the UK during the last few decades rather than "higher intellectual demands".

Coptic Catholic Cardinal to attend Conclave

Cardinal Antonios Naguib, Patriarch Emeritus of Alexandria of the Catholic Copts, confirmed his participation in the Conclave...

Three other leaders of the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite will take part in the conclave: the Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites Bechara Boutros Rai, the Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly of the Syro-Malabar George Alencherry and the Major Archbishop of Trivandrum of the Syro-Malankara Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal.

From Catholic Information Service for Africa, 6th March, e-mail.

97: " starting a Catholic book club in my cluster" - that's funny - so did I, as part of my Year of Faith effort. Ours is: Catholic Women Reading Catholic Women and johnthefireman might be pleased to know that we are starting with Immaculee Ilibagiza. Plus, we are going to start a group LT account to catalog our choices.

So, there are opportunities for us as lay people (even us largely useless bookish ones) to bridge the gap. And, thanks Tim, for the discussion - I appreciate the opportunity to learn anew.

>101 John5918:
What is meant by participation? Will they be voting? Hmmm. Cool!

>102 enevada:

Considering that we're now at least 1/3 Burundian, I think it's not going to be me who proposes Immaculée Ilibagiza!

We discussed it and decided to start as a Catholic fiction. This was partially for interest and partially because past efforts at discussing church ideas in our parish—before my time—led to a few very strident people taking over and others feeling left out. (I think you'd be amazed at how little I want to have such debates in a church setting; they are divisive, and the wrong people always take over.) I proposed that if there was a demand, we could switch from a fiction every two months to fiction and non-fiction in alternating months, probably with only some people coming to both.

So far we've done:

* The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene
* Mariette in Ecstacy by Ron Hansen
* The Moviegoer by Walker Percy

Next monday we're doing Perelandra by C. S. Lewis—yes, not a Catholic, but The Moviegoer alienated some of our less literary members, and we wanted to broaden things. The week after that we're going to be reading a few Flannery O'Connor stories, including "A Good Man is Hard to Find."

I'm interested in how you're picking yours. I basically ransacked every list I could find online—a fair number of such clubs post theirs. This led to a master list of some 25 or so Catholic novels.

Incidentally, I tend to buy 5-10 copies of everything we read off Amazon. Sometimes I'm paid back, sometimes I get the book back. If you want a half-dozen copies of the Moviegoer for your club, let me know…

#104: We’ve only just started, and we’ll be meeting in my house to begin for a couple of reasons – the one you refer to, about arguments, church settings, and the wrong types (oh, yes), and the fact that we can relax, ex cathedra so to speak, drink tea or wine and honestly discuss things. That’s also why I kept it a chick thing, because as I think we’d both agree there are church teachings that focus on women’s issues that deserve frank discussion and examination .

Because our theme is ( loosely) Catholic Women, the names are easier to choose than the individual titles, but we’ll likely tackle a few of the very familiar (Two Theresas and a Catherine) as well as the unfamiliar (Ilibagiza , Ruth Pakaluk ‘s story, etc.) Flannery would be right at home, certainly. Members bring their suggestions and we vote. There is a pretty extensive sourcebook written by Mary R. Reichardt, Catholic Women Writers: A Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook if we ever run out of our own ideas.

Thanks for the offer of extra copies, and I plan to do the same with ordering extra used copies via amazon or through a local book dealer/friend. If we do a work of fiction I’ll be sure to let you know and save the extras if your group could use them.

(Have you read Paul Elie's The Life You Save May Be Your Own: An American Pilgrimage? Might be very help in your discussions on both O’Connor and Percy. )

(can't figure out why the touchstones don't work)

>104 timspalding: I really hope you've got Morris West and A J Cronin on your list of Catholic fiction. Two of my favourites, along with Graham Greene.

Suggest one from each?

The Shoes of the Fisherman and The Keys of the Kingdom respectively. West's The Second Victory is also interesting. I would say they're all about inner struggle.

And staying with Morris West how about "Clowns of God"

I read part of the Shoes of the Fisherman. I found it a lot less engaging than the movie. But I may not have given it a fair shake.

Try The Second Victory. I haven't read Clowns of God.

Incidentally, I think reading Catholic fiction is a very clever idea, much more interesting than reading non-fiction.

I would say though that a reading group is quite selective. There are a lot of people who read very little if at all. But it's a good way of reaching at least a small percentage of the flock. I'm not saying that to be critical - I think it's a great initiative - but only to highlight the scope of the challenge of "new evangelisation".

>111 John5918:

No, of course. And I do a number of other things, FWIW. :) I do, however, try to work on my strengths—books, print design (flyers and posters), teaching, computers.

Yeah, I think the Catholic fiction draws people you wouldn't see for non-fiction. And it's "open" in a way much non-fiction is not, at least for most people. Memoir, which enevada started with, can be similar. But many people can't really or don't really want to discuss a book about history or doctrine.

Father Tissa Balasuriya obituary (Guardian)

Interesting. I once heard him speak in Oxford, though I remember little of what he said.

New African cardinal talks voting blocs, secret meetings, his vote (NCR)

Cardinal John Onaiyekan

111; 112> Tim, John,
On the fiction/non-fiction discussion, I'm still (after many years of thinking about it) puzzled by the fact that most people and most voluntary readers want fiction over non-fiction. I've never been that way in my adult years, instead seeking out information or wisdom to help me resolve some problem or another. I can and do appreciate the parables of Jesus, and some fictional movies that hold a storyline on resolution of an important universal human conflict.

My own writing reflects that same preference - I try to express, re-present and/or explain some aspect of Catholic Faith from an interior point of view, I guess to help the reader in the way that I most needed help in searching for the wisdom that endures. My first book, The Ordinary Path to Holiness, was the most basic example: the discovery of ancient, traditional Catholic spirituality was like an earthquake in my soul, re-orienting my whole perspective of and approach to trying to grow toward God in Christ, to grow in holiness, in discipleship, relationship and communion with Him. I wanted to tell, and explain, to others who were seeking as I was seeking, what I found. This ancient Catholic spirituality remains almost as hidden as it has been for centuries! But I know that my little book has helped some to find it, so I'm grateful.

If any are interested, the rest of my books (written with the same purpose and explanation as the first) are very briefly described on the "About this Blog" of my Blog here:
http://renewthechurch.wordpress.com/about/

Thomas

On the Holy Spirit, politics and pope, see now:

Time Magazine: "Does the Holy Spirit Choose the Pope?"
By James Martin S.J.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/does-the-holy-spirit-choose-the-pope/

He quotes the passage from Benedict I alluded to before, viz. "Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined."

>116 ThomasRichard: ThomasRichard

I think this just speaks to the world being diverse—some people prefer to read non-fiction, most prefer fiction. It seems to me your attitude toward reading is a problem-solving one which, obviously, is not everyone's approach to the thing. I think, however, that while there's nothing wrong with your view, it's somewhat out of step with Catholic culture, which—far more than Protestant culture—has embraced art of all sorts (visual art, music, writing, etc.) as an important aid to truth, and a medium of truth that can't or isn't best expressed propositionally.

Not to knock at you, but to suggest something to solve your puzzlement, it's long been suggested that fiction, specifically novels, improves empathy. I can't find the passage easily, but Nabokov was very much of this opinion—pointing out the contrast between the callousness of the Cervantes as against the empathy of Dickens, who puts readers in the shoes of society's cast-offs of every sort, and thereby made well-to-do Victorians care about the refuse their society was creating. Harriet Beecher Stowe did something of the same sort for slavery in the US. This motive remains today. Spending a few hundred pages in the mind of someone we are not—a convict, a single mother, a drag queen, heck even an alien—is likely to increase our range of empathy. Studies have shown this is empirically so. The most recent can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/07/reading-fiction-empathy-study

For a Catholic book club, the reason is simple—more people want it. And it is perhaps more efficacious. Most Catholics will not sign up to be lectured about theology. But, as C. S. Lewis said, "Any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people's minds under the cover of fiction without their knowing it."

Well, it starts tomorrow. Watch and pray.

Dolan said he had his A, B, and C lists. Here's mine, drawing from John Allen's profiles, and similar ones at America, the Tablet, Crisis, etc. A few key names are off, as I'm not sure of them.

A: Tagle, O'Malley
B: Gracias (Bombay), Dolan, Bergoglio, Erdõ, Tauran, Ravasi, Filoni, Bagnasco, Schönborn
C: Maradiaga, Sandri, Scherer, Scola, Oulett, Cañizares, Sarah
F: Ranjith, Turkson

I find a lot of uninspiring choices—a lot of somewhat good or somewhat bad compromises, and people without much charisma. Oulett, for example, looks great on paper, but his recent Canadian television interview was dreadful. I'm rather expecting someone from C.

I suspect there are some very holy men who aren't getting any consideration, starting with some of the eastern patriarchs. It would be amazing to see Thottunkal, patriarch of one of the Syriac-rite Indian churches, step forward at the habemus pappam.

I suspect there are some very holy men who aren't getting any consideration, starting with some of the eastern patriarchs.

Of that there is no doubt; it would perhaps be good if the Cardinals were to look outside their number, if only to broaden the pool of candidates. The Eastern Patriarchs present an additional problem, however, which is that they aren't Roman. It's hardly an insuperable barrier, but it would require a good deal of on-the-job learning about Roman Canon Law, how to celebrate the Liturgy, and so on.

I'll hold off on ranking the Cardinals. As a Canadian, I suspect I'm obliged to wear a Cardinal Oulette t-shirt for the duration of the conclave anyway.

Fr. Martin posted the litany of the saints, which they are (or just have?) singing as they enter the conclave, with the suggestion that we do likewise:
https://www.facebook.com/FrJamesMartin/posts/569152776436583

I'd like to imagine in between sessions they've having conversations like this, from The Shoes of the Fisherman. I suspect reality is a good deal less dramatic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4alJgx7MdrI

Cardinals fail to elect pope in first vote (BBC)

As if anyone ever thought they would. And so begins the next phase of the media hype...

Have you adopted a Cardinal to pray for yet?
https://adoptacardinal.org/

White smoke…

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, from Argentina, a Jesuit.

Pope Francis I

Interesting, and hopefully indicative, choice of name.

Well that was unexpected.

Just watching TV as he came on the balcony he seemed very informal — I have a feeling there are changes to come.
PS: Adding to say he came across as someone who will be his own man — although that's probably a bit superficial based on a short TV appearance.

His pre-vote NCR profile is here: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-13 . It's interesting that they picked Benedict's runner-up, and someone so old. You'd have expected him to be a compromise, not what he must have been—a rapid-riser.

His humility and simplicity came across—in his name, in asking the crowd to pray for him, in his general demeanor. So too, I think, did the accusation against him—that he doesn't smile. I'm hopeful that his obvious simplicity will substitute for lack of Dolan-style charisma.

As a Hoya, I'm stoked to get the first Jesuit.

>127 timspalding: Hoya?

>128 John5918:

Georgetown.

Lord God, you have called disciples across the ages to act as shepherds to your Church. Look with favor, we pray, on your servant Francis as he starts his tenure as Bishop of Rome and leader of the Roman Catholic Church. Grant that he may grow in wisdom and grace, and that his love may overflow with knowledge and clear insight, that he may truly be made an instrument of your peace: through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Amen.

>130 cjbanning: Amen.

>133 timspalding:

Amen indeed.

I know some of you hate commentary on such matters, but, FWIW, I think we're going to get a relatively short papacy marked by no major shifts in teaching, except perhaps an emphasis and deepening of teaching on social justice. But we're going to get a big change in style. This is a man who lives in an apartment, cooks his own dinner and rides the bus. Now taking the name Francis, declining the red thingy (the mozzetta), declining to even sing any of the prayers, and starting so simply with the Lord's Prayer and silent prayer, this is a bird of a different feather.

I guess he's not going to be reinstating the triple papal tiara.

The British media have said that the name is primarily in honour of F. Xavier, not F. Assisi.

>134 MyopicBookworm:

Whispers in the Logia interpreted it as a gesture of peace with the Franciscans, the traditional rivals of the Jesuits. http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2013/03/enter-francis.html But surely it's polyvalent.

I'm hoping that, like John Paul II he ditches the red shoes. Benedict's brought them back, together with the camauro (the one that made him look like Santa). Symbols matter.

It would be nice if he followed the example of Pope Pius V (the Dominican who introduced white instead of the customary red), and retained robes the colour of his religious habit. A Pope dressed in ordinary black would send some sort of signal...

Francis Xavier - whose Novena just ended yesterday. Lovely. Add me to the Amen chorus.

America Magazine collects some choice quotes, including:

He goes on to describe the active outreach of his Church in Buenos Aires in a way that suggests that a smaller, purer Church is not his model

Instead of just being a Church that welcomes and receives, we try to be a Church that comes out of itself and goes to the men and women who do not participate in parish life, do not know much about it and are indifferent towards it. We organise missions in public squares where many people usually gather: we pray, we celebrate mass, we offer baptism which we administer after a brief preparation.

In a forceful speech last Fall, he condemned the refusal to baptize a child born out of wedlock as "hypocritical clericalism" and "pharisaical Gnosticism" and "sacramental blackmail."

in this "hijacking" of the sacrament that marks the beginning of Christian life, the Jesuit cardinal sees the expression of a rigorous and hypocritical neo-clericalism which also uses the sacraments as tools to affirm its own supremacy. For example by rubbing the fragility and wounds of faithful in their faces or by dampening the hopes and expectations of those who supposedly do not fulfill the "requirements" in terms of doctrinal preparation or moral status. Not only are such pastoral models misleading, but according to Bergoglio, this modus operandi distorts and rejects the dynamics of Christ’s incarnation, which is reduced to a mere doctrinal slogan to serve the interests of religious power. "Jesus did not preach his own politics: he accompanied others. The conversions he inspired took place precisely because of his willingness to accompany, which makes us all brothers and children and not members of an NGO or proselytes of some multinational company."

So far I'm picking up that some on the Catholic left are unhappy because they think Bergoglio spoke up too little during Argentina's "dirty war." Obviously his comments about gay marriage also come up.

But this reaction pales compared to that of many "traditionalists."

* Bergolio prohibited the Latin Mass before Benedict made it mandatory. There are still no (Catholic) Latin masses in his diocese—one traditionalist calls him a "sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass."
* He shows little interest in the "reform of the reform."
* He celebrates mass on tennis courts, with contemporary music and even some dancing.
* He didn't wear half the accoutrements he should have worn on the balcony—he discarded the mozetta and wore his regular bishop's cross, not the gold one the Pope should wear, and he only wore his stole for the blessing. One commentator whined that he went bare although a "proper winter papal mozzetta" had been prepared for him, and that this may signal that he "may undo many of the great things and reforms of the reform of Vatican II that had been painstakingly done in the past few years."
* He referred to Benedict not as "Pope Emeritus" but as "Bishop Emeritus." (Whether he was making a theological point or a slip of the tongue is unclear.)
* He celebrated Hanukah in a Jewish temple alongside various faiths, prayed alongside protestants and etc.

Update: Slate manages to fill it's criticism hole by going to a Latin-masser, who calls him "one more in the pile of recent Catholic novelties and mediocrities" and whines "Liturgical traditionalists (myself included) can only be depressed by this election–it is almost the worst result possible for those of us who think the new liturgy lost the theological profundity and ritual beauty of the Tridentine Mass".

> 134

La Repubblica is quoting Cardinal Dolan and the Bishop of Turin as saying he took the name in honor of St. Francis of Assisi.

>138 timspalding: he condemned the refusal to baptize a child born out of wedlock

When I was working in an inner city parish in London 30-odd years ago, where more than 60% of households were from immigrant background, we had many young single mothers from the Caribbean who brought their babies for baptism. Fresh out of the seminary, I reminded the parish priest that families bringing their babies for baptism were supposed to have some connection to the community. His response was that this was possibly the first contact that some of these young women had had with the Church in their new home and he wanted it to be a welcoming experience. We baptised the babies and I learned an important lesson. The new pope would have approved of Fr Tony Brunning!

I'm less interested in the reaction of the 'outside' world - simply because there is so much to wonder at the reaction of Catholics (standing room only at Mass today - wonderful to see, and the joy was palpable, brimming over) but I was happy yesterday to see my co-workers - mostly non-practicing Protestants (although I'm not sure if they'd bother to make the distinction : ) )in tears as they watched. A curious thing - perhaps they also cry at Royal Weddings? I'm not sure.

And Tim will call me naive here, but I really think that Benedict XVI's great gift was to remind us of the 'what' of our faith: the teachings, the traditions, the intellectual heritage, etc. and I hope that Francis shows us the 'how' of it: how to live in the faith, how to let God act through us in service to others. Speaking only personally, the 'what' is completely precedent and I agree with Dorothy Day (from "Liturgy and Sociology". The Catholic Worker, January 1936)

"Living the liturgical day as much as we are able, beginning with prime, using the missal, ending the day with compline and so going through the liturgical year we find that it is now not us, but Christ in us, who is working to combat injustice and oppression. We are on our way to becoming "other Christs. We cannot build up the idea of the apostolate of the laity without the foundation of the liturgy."

Anyway, a joyful new day and there's work to be done.

One of my co-workers asked "What is he Pope of? The United States?"
completely clueless.

I like how you put that enevada; the What and the How.

Pope of the US? Oh, my. I don't even want to ask what line of work you are in. Perhaps this graphic will help your co-worker gain some perspective:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/11/world/europe/the-catholic-church-s...

And Tim will call me naive here

No, I think I agree with you.

(cue apocalypse)

#144: The St. Malachites took a hit, I think. No looming apocalypse, and we'll live to see another millennium, I guess. No easy outs, especially now that the Jesuits are in charge. ; )

>145 enevada:

I wish he'd taken the name "Peter" just to freak them out.

#146: that would have been good for a ten minute chuckle...oh well.

Also, here is Fr. Z's blog on the unpretentious persona of Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/12/whos-the-important-one/

In it, I had to smile at Benedict XVI's classification scheme between the severe and the broad-minded, which no-doubt parallel your right/left paradigm, about which I griped. I imagine that you'll be pleased with the label "broad-minded" and I'll abashedly admit to severe - but I did want to say that I really am grateful for opportunities of argument, and thus growth.

"Wow - Who Hates the New Pope?"
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/wow-who-hates-new-pope

This sort of thing is popping up all over. He doesn't say the Latin mass. He once lit a menorah. He's terrible!

> 148

Not the "new Pope". The "Newpope" of the "Newchurch". Whatever that may be.

#148: I'll see your Reporter article and raise you a Register: "Pope Francis : A Welcome Surprise to the Faithful"

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-a-welcome-surprise-to-the-fait...

But, in all seriousness, reformers rarely win popularity contests, on either extremes. But they help us find our rightful places - even if we have to work to get there.

The big question is, I think, whether he is a reformer or just very humble, and, if a reformer, what shape his reform takes. Clearly we're not in for new directives about liturgical niceties. But will he do surgery on the curia? Not clear.

Surgery on the Curia, or the nature of reform:

I think it a tricky thing to sort the man from the moment. Personality may often appear to play a bigger role than it actually does. The man or individual responds to the moment, but the moment shapes the man or individual. The Pope is the guardian of the Church, of the apostolic tradition – his first function, of many. In an institution as large, sprawling, diverse, that is, as catholic as the RCC – reform will not be accomplished by any single individual. My hunch is that Francis I will call upon Catholics at all levels to reform themselves. He will (hopefully) lead by example, in that great tradition of Francis of Assisi : “Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society.”

>147 enevada:

Father Z's starting in on him now. First he shut down comments, which were all negative, then he started in:

"There is a certain decorum that needs to be observed, consonant with the occasion and those present. There are moments when all the Roman tradition must be in full play. There will be times in the parishes in the suburbs of Rome when something else can be done. But this was the moment to go high."

And the breathtakingly patronizing:

"So, it is going to take Francis a while to learn who he is as Roman Pontiff."

>153 timspalding:: I used to enjoy reading Fr. Z because of his excellent commentary on "What does the Prayer Really Say?" (the now former name of the blog).

But he seems of recent months to have given far less attention to detailed analysis of the Church's heritage of Latin prayer and gained momentum as a hawkish political commentator little to my liking. I rarely read him now.

>143 enevada: Thanks for that interesting graphic. The centre of gravity of the Church has shifted southwards.

>147 enevada: I have to confess that I ended up not really sure what Fr Z's point was, although I'm vaguely guessing that he is being supportive of the new pope. Verbal diarrhoea?

>148 timspalding: The "Wow - Who Hates the New Pope?" link leads via another link to TRADITIO. Is this website serious? With its references to Newchurch, Newpope, Newcardinals, Newjesuits and Newvatican and its general tone, it would be hard to recognise it as a traditional Roman Catholic site. It appears to reject the tradition and magisterium of the Church, more akin to Sedevacantism in many ways. "Bergoglio is the first 'Bishop of Rome' to have been neither ordained as a priest nor consecrated as a bishop in valid Holy Orders. He was merely installed as a presbyter and a Newbishop under Hannibal Bugnini's invalid Protestantized New Ordinal of 1969". Hmmm...

Pope Francis warns Church could become 'compassionate NGO' (BBC)

Pope Francis has warned the Catholic Church would become "a compassionate NGO" without spiritual renewal...

"If we do not confess to Christ, what would we be?..."

>156 John5918: - I must confess that my first troubled thought when I began to hear of Pope Francis' concern for the poor, and that he is a Jesuit, came with fears of the Church turning toward just that: "a compassionate NGO". More social-service agencies, more soup kitchens, more lobbying for more government assistance, etc. all of course appropriately sprinkled with holy water and labeled (although with a quiet and apologetic tone) "Catholic".

I am greatly relieved, and thus guard my hopes, reading his solid grounding on the supernatural, spiritual, holy Rock who is Christ. From his homily to the Cardinals:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Third, professing: we can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ—I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy—“Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.

Walking, building-constructing, professing: the thing, however, is not so easy, because in walking, in building, in professing, there are sometimes shake-ups—there are movements that are not part of the path: there are movements that pull us back.

This Gospel continues with a special situation. The same Peter who confessed Jesus Christ, says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. I will follow you, but let us not speak of the Cross. This has nothing to do with it.” He says, “I’ll follow you on other ways, that do not include the Cross.” When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord.

I would like that all of us, after these days of grace, might have the courage—the courage—to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the Cross of the Lord: to build the Church on the Blood of the Lord, which is shed on the Cross, and to profess the one glory, Christ Crucified. In this way, the Church will go forward.

My hope for all of us is that the Holy Spirit, that the prayer of Our Lady, our Mother, might grant us this grace: to walk, to build, to profess Jesus Christ Crucified. So be it.
(end quote - translated from Vatican Radio: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2078/full_text_pope_francis_first_homily...

Praise God. "When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord."

Amen.

>157 ThomasRichard: Thomas, with all due respect, I sometimes think that you and others who seem uncomfortable with the justice, peace and charitable work of the Church actually have little understanding of Catholic Social Teaching and how it is implemented. Maybe you've seen some bad examples and generalised that as to how it is always and everywhere? For those of us who work in countries where poverty and suffering are the norm and who thus find ourselves called to implement the social teaching of the Church in a particularly intense way it is good to hear the new pope affirming what we already know, that our work is grounded in Christ. We have often used almost his very words, that the Church is not just a "compassionate NGO", in describing to collaborators, secular NGOs, the UN, governments, donors and others the "value added" that we bring to the table, and we constantly challenge our Catholic (and other Christian) NGOs to live up to it. In real life it is not Christ or compassion, it is both, with the latter stemming from the former.

>158 John5918: John, I expected "correction" of my post. In threads past you and I have expressed very different perspectives around this general issue, and I thought that we both understood or at least hoped that the difference was due to our locations and the experiences met in those different locations. I'm speaking from the US, where I have met far too many "social-justice" Catholics whose perspective is what I feared I was hearing again. If they are listening to the new Pope, I wonder what they are hearing from him. I hope that they might wake up and listen to the treasure of Catholic spirituality and life that they have been ignoring for now many years.

>159 ThomasRichard: Thanks, Thomas. Fair enough.

>160 John5918:. Listening to our new Pope, to whom do you think he is speaking, if not to Catholic "social justice" advocates and workers who have forgotten (if they ever knew) that they are to follow Christ in their works?
+++++++++++++++
Third, professing: we can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ—I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy—“Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.
+++++++++++++++++

# 158, 159, 160: We need all voices, all perspectives, provided they are honestly given and intended for good. Christ without the Church is as inconceivable, as dead-ended as Christ without the Cross. Our Catholic universe is an expansive one, and in your readings of this first homily of Francis we see both the right ordering of our foundation in faith and the order to "to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the Cross of the Lord: to build the Church on the Blood of the Lord, which is shed on the Cross, and to profess the one glory, Christ Crucified. In this way, the Church will go forward."

Personally, I need you both: the constant reminder for the reverence and the example of its application - and thanks for offering it here.

I always feel that a focus on the "poor" can forget that "the poor" ought to be understood more widely than just not having money, and that Jesus often put them in with other people who are afflicted—for example, those who grieve.

Things are different in Latin America and indeed the United States, but in much of the developed world, "the poor" in the traditional sense have ceased to exist or, if they exist, the things keeping them down aren't going to be fixed with traditional Catholic charity. Ditto health care. But grief, misery, powerlessness and so forth remain. Simple loneliness crushes tens of millions in the US every day. Francis' washing and kissing the feet of AIDS patients is a simple example of how to respond to that. But I wonder if the church in the rich, developed world isn't resting on its laurels, when human misery is scarcely less.

I would note that the alternatives to Catholicism--especially new-age religion and simple pop psychology--have often filled the vacuum when material sufficiency fails to make us happy. Go to the local coffee shop and you're sure to find some poster for an event about how to deal with loss, illness, sick parents, rebellious children and so forth. A third of those should be Catholic. Similarly, every morning I drive past an institution with the heart-breaking name "The Center for Grieving Children." I wonder "why don't we run that?" These are quirky examples, but I hope you get my point.

When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.

For example, um, Jews?

#163: Good point. Material poverty is actually easy: write the check, sponsor the child, donate the canned goods, keep writing the checks. Spiritual poverty, on the other hand, is much, much more difficult and less immediately gratifying (I know, I know, this isn't or shouldn't be about me).

Spiritual human misery is repellant, and most of it seems to be voluntary - and I'll wager that most of us don't feel confident enough in our own spiritual health to even to begin to assume that we could be agents of alleviation for others - and so we leave it to the pros: the religious, the clergy, the saints - and, most unfortunately of all, the shrinks and social workers.

The fall back, I guess, is prayer. I am committed to novenas for the rest of my natural life, and then some - and hope that maybe just asking for help, for intercession for those who either don't think of it for themselves, or - worse- don't feel they deserve it, will in fact help. There is more to do, I know, than prayer, but it is a good first step.

>161 ThomasRichard: Well, I think it's quite possible that he's talking more generally if you take that particular paragraph that you mention. Not all NGOs are involved in "compassion". They are institutions, as the Church is an institution. This paragraph could be interpreted as pointing out what sort of institution the Church is as opposed to other types of institution. I don't know. Not everything has to be adversarial. And, as I said, I found his words affirming of what, as far as I know, is already going on amongst most of those whose task it is to implement Catholic Social Teaching. With the proviso, of course, that in fact it is every Catholic's task to implement Catholic Social Teaching, which is perhaps what Tim is implying in >163 timspalding:. One should not create an artificial dichotomy between Catholic Social Teaching and Catholic spirituality; the two are entwined and mutually complimentary. As enevada says in >162 enevada:, we need both, but that in itself could reinforce the artificial division. Some of the most spiritual people I know (and here I'm talking traditional Catholic spirituality, not the new-agey "spiritual but not religious" variety) are also deeply involved in social justice. How could they not be?

Just as you have experienced in the USA some who try to practice social justice without fully understanding the Church teaching behind it (although I seem to recall that some of Jesus' disciples wanted to condemn those who did good works in his name without understanding what was behind it, and Jesus himself didn't seem at all put out by it), I've experienced many Catholics in Europe and north America who sit in their armchairs pontificating about Catholicism without lifting a finger to implement one major part of Catholic teaching, the social and charitable part. That is not aimed at anybody in this conversation, but is an attempt to balance some apparent perceptions of social justice. As Tim says in >163 timspalding:, "I wonder if the church in the rich, developed world isn't resting on its laurels?"

>163 timspalding: I always feel that a focus on the "poor" can forget that "the poor" ought to be understood more widely than just not having money, and that Jesus often put them in with other people who are afflicted

We probably move in different circles because I don't often feel that that is forgotten. Compassion is not just about the materially poor, it's about those who need compassion in any sense.

>164 enevada: Material poverty is actually easy: write the check, sponsor the child, donate the canned goods, keep writing the checks

I only wish it were that easy. Material poverty is often about systems, politics, economics, governance and a host of other things which can't be fixed by writing cheques. It needs systemic change. Both Benedict XVI and apparently Francis (in his earlier pre-papal writings) have warned against the excesses of the neo-liberal free market mentality, for example. Liberation theology addressed oppressive political regimes in Latin America and, to some extent, South Africa. The concept of social sin (both omission and commission) lends itself to this sort of analysis.

How Movements Recover (NYT)

POPE: GREETINGS FROM ISLAMIC WORLD AND CALL FOR A ‘SINCERE FRIENDSHIP’ (MISNA)

Personally, I need you both: the constant reminder for the reverence and the example of its application - and thanks for offering it here.

I'm still waiting for enevada to tell me she needs me too. ;)

We probably move in different circles because I don't often feel that that is forgotten. Compassion is not just about the materially poor, it's about those who need compassion in any sense.

I think that in the west it can boil down to soup kitchens and the like.

The concept of social sin (both omission and commission) lends itself to this sort of analysis.

The new pope has himself used this phrase. I must say I can't see it, at least as I understand its use. Sin has no meaning apart from individuals. Social sin is either real, personal sin by specific people—even if many specific people—or conditions of inequality or hardship which are not a sin for any specific person, until they they refuse to do something about it, and then it's personal sin.

I have a question for all.

Should a Catholic consider the value of their time when deciding how to contribute to charity? If you're paid $300 an hour and can make more by signing up for extra shifts or whatever, I almost feel it's a sin to go ladle soup at a soup kitchen. You should work an extra hour and buy that soup kitchen a new stove.

>167 timspalding: Sin has no meaning apart from individuals

In part I think you're right that it is sin by a collection of individuals, but its collective nature and the means needed to counter it make it useful to speak of it as social sin.

In part it's a way of understanding original sin; an individual buys in to the sin of the world even if they have never committed a sin.

But in part it's also cultural. Europeans and (par excellence) north Americans are highly individualistic, so it doesn't make sense to you. Many other cultures in the world are highly communal (and arguably that includes Jesus' own culture) so it makes a lot of sense to them.

#167: I do, Tim. The pummeling serves a deeper purpose, I’m sure.

Should a Catholic consider the value of their time when deciding how to contribute to charity?

Well, I think this is the utilitarian argument of what is most effective/what works the best/bang for buck, etc. but the works of charity (as much as the practice of prayers of intercession) are two-fold – the benefit to others, of course, but also the benefit of the practice to self. (This isn’t entirely selfish: by acting for others we can’t help but benefit ourselves), and one this reasoning alone I would think that any act of charity, any work, is valuable and the results (seen, unseen, anticipated or not) will be beneficial if the act is pleasing to God and cheerfully done.

#168: In part it's a way of understanding original sin; an individual buys in to the sin of the world even if they have never committed a sin.

This is an interesting observation, and returning to Francis’ homily and the confession of the crucified Christ in which we choose to “to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the Cross of the Lord” means that we readily accept the burden of sin: our own and of others, and do not waste time trying to ascertain who built the damn thing or made it so heavy, but just try to lift as much as we can from the Lord’s shoulders.

Pope Francis: a man of joy and humility, or harsh and unbending? (Guardian)

those seeking to pigeonhole the new pope as conservative or progressive are missing the point.

"These terms are political, not religious," he said. "It is better to look at what Bergoglio has done since becoming a bishop...

Pope Francis wants 'poor Church for the poor' (BBC)

Vatican denies Dirty War allegations against Pope (BBC)

Pope Francis declares: 'I would like to see a church that is poor and is for the poor' (Guardian)

"Ah, how I would like a church," he said, "that is poor and is for the poor."

Leonardo Boff and Hans Küng on Pope Francis

Boff: "Francis isn’t a name; it’s a plan..."

The Kung interview is here.

Pope Francis greets faithful at St. Anne Parish after mass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P7zdzyY7GU&feature=youtu.be

Wow. This guy fills me with such hope.

More hope.

From John Allen's Twitter account: "Heard from cabbies, clerks and other ordinary folk in Rome: 'I haven't been to church in years, but this pope makes me want to believe'"
https://twitter.com/JohnLAllenJr/status/313526649037672448

Not sure where to post this one - but I'll go with Benedict, as for me one of the great surprises of his retirement announcement was that he hadn't completed his encyclical trilogy: love, hope and faith. That seemed completely out of character for a formalist such as Benedict XIV. I do remember thinking that his climatic reversal (or anti-climatic ordering?) was a puzzle, rather than build up he starts at the summit and leads down. In a way, this is a hallmark of his papacy and to leave the work-plan of faith to Francis seems entirely fitting:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-will-complete-benedict-xvis-en...

I'm glad Benedict's not going to be involved. He's not the Pope anymore. Indeed, I think Francis should scrap it and, if he thinks such a document is necessary, write his own. Their differences aren't "doctrinal" in the sense that excites the media, but in all other respects it's increasingly clear they come from different planets. Their "rhetorical" styles are like night and day.

Incidentally, in the other Catholic thread going today Enevada pooh-poohs the importance of "preaching" and of the homily especially. Why then be so in favor of an encyclical, the original—and now occasional—setting for which is being read aloud during the homily itself?

I propose it's time to rediscover our tradition here—short encyclicals, long homilies! And leave the complex theology for theology books.

#176: Oh, if only the parish priests would read from Encyclicals and not from what appears to be Chicken Soup for the Catholic Soul.

Ratzinger: “My resignation is valid. Speculations are simply absurd” (Vatican Insider / La Stampa / Andrea Tornielli):

Benedict XVI responds to a letter sent to him by the Vatican correspondent Andrea Tornielli. The journalist sent him some questions regarding the alleged pressures and conspiracies which some claim led to his resignation.

There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry” and the “speculations” surrounding it are “simply absurd”. Joseph Ratzinger was not forced to resign, he was not pressured into it and he did not fall victim to a conspiracy: his resignation was genuine and valid and there is no “diarchy” (dual government) in the Church today. There is a reigning Pope, Francis, who leads the Catholic Church and an Emeritus Pope whose “only purpose” is to pray for his successor.
(...)
There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry” and the “speculations” surrounding it are “simply absurd”. Joseph Ratzinger was not forced to resign, he was not pressured into it and he did not fall victim to a conspiracy: his resignation was genuine and valid and there is no “diarchy” (dual government) in the Church today. There is a reigning Pope, Francis, who leads the Catholic Church and an Emeritus Pope whose “only purpose” is to pray for his successor.
(...)
A few weeks ago, the Swiss theologian Hans Kung quoted a passage from a letter Benedict XVI received regarding Francis. Words which leave no room for doubt: “I'm grateful to be bound by a great identity of views and a heartfelt friendship with Pope Francis. Today, I see my last and final job to support his pontificate with prayer." Some on the web questioned the validity of these words or tried to twist them. We asked the Pope Emeritus to comment on this too. “Professor Küng quoted the content of my letter to him word for word and correctly,” he wrote in his reply. He ended by saying he hoped he had answered our questions in “a clear and adequate way”.

Yeah, who made him write that? ;)

Honestly, though, it's almost a thing you can't kill by denying. The denials just "raise the question."

Happy Birthday Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI!

The Pope in the Attic: Benedict in the Time of Francis (The Atlantic)