Follow-up on Newsmakers II

This link was sent to me this morning by Monastic Interreligious Dialogue. For those interested in a good commentary on the "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church," I recommend Fr. Thomas Ryan's balanced assessment.

One aspect with which I began yesterday but did not spell out is that much depends on whether we are using a formal and technical definition of 'church' or the colloquial one. In other words, it is possible, as pointed out by Lutheran bishop Wolfgang Huber, to speak of Protestant communities as 'not churches in the sense required here' (my emphasis, in the sense that intramural discussions of Catholic theologians have special ground rules). Also, I believe that there is some importance to recognizing that the fullness of the 'Church' exists in any diocese that is in communion with the Holy Father. In other words, this discussion of 'church' is also bound up with the important advancements in the notion of 'subsidiarity', the idea that the Catholic Church is not a religious order with the Pope as superior general. The bishop is the vicar of Christ in his own diocese. In order that this teaching not dilute the importance of unity via the Petrine ministry exercised by the Pope, certain thresholds of ecclesial identity must be maintained.

'nuff for today...

Newsmakers II: The "True Church"

It has been amusing in recent weeks that many Catholics approach me and say something like, "I can't believe what the pope just did," and they might be referring to one of two different events, the new permission given for 'Tridentine' Mass and the new document supposedly affirming extra ecclesia non salus (outside of the Church there is no salvation).

This document, officially given the formidable title, "RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH," actually says very little that is new. The 2000 document Dominus Iesus was much more comprehensive and in a way challenging, especially given the sense that the official ecumenical movement has not produced much in the intervening seven years.

More than one Catholic bishop today laments the fact that governance of a diocese must always take into consideration the potentially disruptive and distorting role of the media. There is at least one priest in most dioceses who will share even a personal letter from the ordinary with a reporter, and it will become a sensation. The fact is, when one is speaking in a specialized, even closed group, one should be free to use technical vocabulary in an effort to clarify the group's self-understanding and mission. When a third party looks in over your shoulder and lacks the full context of what is being said, misunderstanding is hardly avoidable.

Non-theologians should attempt to read the Responsa in this light. Catholic theologians have a sacred duty, as do all in Holy Orders, to pass on the Traditional teaching of the Magisterium, holding in faith that it is the salvific teaching given and willed by the Lord Himself. On the other hand, the formulations given in such documents is in no way binding on non-Catholics, who should feel free to propose their own formulations according to the beliefs of their particular churches and ecclesial communities. In fact, it would be refreshing to hear some authoritative teaching come from, say, the ELCA stating clearly the defects of the Roman Church in their eyes. Would there be an outcry against such a hypothetical document? Maybe, but I would judge such an outcry to be just as wrong-headed as the current one against the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Yes, to say that Protestant communities suffer 'defects' sounds harsh. On the other hand, surely non-Catholics must in some sense hold that the Catholic Church is defective. Were it not, what would prevent unity? It is manifestly the case that on some certain points: the Real Presence, priesthood reserved for men, devotions to Mary, relics, etc, the Catholic Church is judged by outsiders as wrong. I disagree, but I judge it essential that we all be clear about this. The path to true unity as opposed to mere detente is through charity and truth; 'small t' truth in the sense that we all have to be clear about what is most important in our personal and ecclesial relationships with Jesus Christ. If the Catholic Church is not permitted to say clearly what she considers herself to have held since Apostolic times, then there can be no reasonable objections raised to that teaching. And legitimate objections can and should be raised, with the goal of coming to a profounder formulation of ecclesial dogma. This is a time-honored method practiced quite consciously since the Advent of scholasticism (every article of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa contains objections--not a single one does Thomas ridicule or dismiss outright!).

On this point, I can end with something very positive. In the worry, anger and confusion that comes from these two strong documents recently released from Rome, there is always the potential to reach a deeper understanding of the Church and a deeper faith. The keys are 1) learning to read for understanding, to read patiently and non-judgementally; and 2) to be open to the most charitable possible interpretation of the document. This is, in the words of a graduate student friend of mine, "extremely difficult!" I have found, however, that in discussions that take place clear of the goading influence of various media, every Christian I have spoken to desires this. Is there better proof that the Holy Spirit is indeed at work in the Church for full communion? God grant us all the patience and charity we need to consent to the will of Jesus Christ, "That all may be One."

Is the Ecumenical Movement Dead?

In recent weeks, I have read in a couple of places gloomy prognostications for the future of the ecumenical movement. In my very local and limited experience, the exact opposite is taking place. Whether the ecumenical movement is a reality or not depends on how one defines it, I suppose.

If the ecumenical movement is primarily 'top-down', involving officially deputed members of different groups studying historical disputes and issuing joint statements, well, there is still some activity there. We regularly hear, for example, from Evangelicals and Catholics Together. The general reaction to these sorts of things is ennui, unfortunately. I recall towards the end of my seminary days when Catholic and Lutheran theologians issued the joint statement on Justification by Faith. This should have been a momentous occasion: the issue that had separated the two had been basically eliminated. The total lack of excitement that greeted the statement astonished me, especially as I was deep into a Master's thesis on Romans.

The lesson is that while there was a time when the culture of the Church in the West, while showing some local customs, was essentially predictable whether one was in Prussia or Spain (I'm thinking of ca. 1511 A.D.). Theological disputes sundered Christian from Christian, and these divisions eventually led to genuinely different cultural expressions of faith. It is perhaps worth noting here, too, that the fact that theological disputes could split the Church has more often been a concern of bishops and emperors than of the street (though there is the great exception told by Gregory Nazianzen about fish sellers quoting the Christological disputes). Not to gainsay theology at all, but that is not the level at which most Christians operate day-to-day. It is no wonder that in our market-driven worship today, few take notice of the ends of these disputes, while the heat is really on when it comes to controversies in the liturgy (especially music!) and ethics.

To return now to the more positive aspect of the ecumenical movement: one of the more rewarding things about life in an urban monastery is that all kinds of people are drawn here. Already this calendar year, we have hosted in our guesthouse a couple from Moody Bible Institute, a Mennonite, and a Presbyterian minister (a Jewish friend has also been by, though that poses a somewhat different set of thoughts). The monastic charism, with its emphasis on Scripture, good singing, table fellowship and hospitality, has a way of bridging cultural gaps between denominations and getting at the heart of discipleship in Christ. My sense is that here, at 'street level', the ecumenical movement is making great strides: Christians are simply making friends and working partners with other Christians, learning about each other in a manner that would not have been possible even twenty years ago. I will not make any predictions about where this is going, only to say that I see in this clear evidence of the Spirit at work, Christ in the world reconciling us in our common baptism.

I alluded to theology above in a way that was perhaps too flippant. I have promised a post on ecumenism and apologetics, but have not yet written it, perhaps because I feel less qualified to speak in that area. What I wish to make clear in closing is that belief in particular doctrines is not something that can be disassociated from practice, and that full unity of Christians depends in essence on orthodoxy of creed. But that is one level abstracted from the day-to-day awareness of the average Christian. The world will know we are Christ's disciples by our love for one another; perhaps unity in doctrine will flow from this love.

Inculturation and Ecumenism

These are two topics dear to my heart. Before today, I hadn't thought much of them as being related, but a few Providential nudges hither and thither have brought their relationship into focus in my mind.

First, brief definitions and descriptions: Inculturation is the process of incarnating the gospel in a culture that previously has not received the Faith. Inculturation is analogous to translation: when someone translates, say Goethe's Faust from German into English, it becomes a slightly different work. Walter Kaufmann thought that it started to sound too serious, since the jokes in it do not translate (though this might have to do with German humor, too). On the other hand, translation can add things to the text that weren't there before and may even add to the text. Milton's translations of the Psalms turn out to be interpretations of the Psalms, not at all equivalent to the original sense, even if still faithful to it. In a similar way, inculturation requires the new culture to adopt some unfamiliar words and concepts: they simply don't translate into the new language. At the same time, the culture receiving the gospel adds to the gospel. I don't mean this in a technical sense (the deposit of the Faith is complete), but in the sense that the interpretation of the gospel is never finished, and each culture has its own inherent genius to add to the overall understanding of the gospel. Two famous examples would be: 1) the Creed's use of Greek philosophy to sort out the nature of God. The Bible guided much of the language, but so did Plato, Aristotle and Stoicism; 2) the borrowing of vestments (e.g. chasubles and miters) and other items from Roman civil religion (e.g. the word pontiff, which originally was applied to the high priest of the Roman cult).

Inculturation is tricky business and not infrequently scandalizes some who feel that the translation of the gospel into new cultures adulterates and corrupts it. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church is officially committed to it today. The recognition of the idea is relatively new: I believe that Karl Rahner coined the word in the 50's or 60's. Pope John Paul II, not surprisingly, was the first pope to use the word in official documents, including his great encyclical on missionary activity Redemptoris Missio. [BTW, is there a better website than the Vatican's?]

Ecumenism, on the other hand, is an old idea from an old word: oikos, 'house'. Ecumenism is about taking care of internal relations and workings of the Church. Today, we normally use this term when discussing the dialogue taking place between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants.

So what is the relationship between ecumenism and inculturation? At the level that I see the two today, the important link is that in both cases the 'catholic project' (that is, the goal of uniting Christians into one Church, which typically centers in some way or other on the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons) can appear threatened by diversity in cultural practice. The question, "Can we allow Greek philosophy into Christian theology" finds a parallel from the Catholic perspective in "Can we allow Lutheran devotions into Catholic practice?"

One of the great struggles faced by 'converts' (see below) to Catholicism is that they are often expected to abandon old forms of piety and adopt new, without much support for either. Personally, I believe that this is questionable. For example: I have spoken with several Protestants in recent years whose principal obstacle to union with Catholics is the rosary (prayer to Mary and the saints is a larger general problem). Now, the rosary is a great and powerful prayer, a great means to contemplation. However, it is far from essential to the Church. In fact, it is a kind of distillation of the much earlier and fundamental monastic practice of praying 150 Psalms each week (the original three decades replaced the Psalms with 150 Hail Marys). The rosary is highly recommended in Benedictine monasteries as a means of devotion to Mary, but is not required. Is it misplaced zeal that makes this a touchstone of Catholic unity and identity, and thus puts a stumbling block in front of potential 'converts'?

On a similar note: Anglicans have all sorts of practices that are very close to Catholic practices. My favorite example is Evensong. Catholic parishes are supposed to be promoting Vespers in these post-Vatican II days. Can you name two parishes (with diocesan clergy) that you know that are doing Vespers? Anglican converts I have known have frequently lamented the poor liturgy in Catholic parishes and the absence of liturgies like evensong. Why couldn't English-speaking Catholics especially find a way to incorporate this expression of praise to God?

Ditto for Lutherans who make use of Bach's cantatas: surely they have parallels in Catholic liturgy.

My main point is this: I realize that there are serious differences in theology among the different 'ecclesial communities' that I am citing here. In practice, however, many people are ultimately swayed to remain separated or take the plunge into unity based more on affective and cultural considerations (consider Chesterton's long-delayed move to Catholicism out of consideration for his wife or Evelyn Waugh's fascination with the cultural beauty of the old Catholic families). If Catholics require those seeking unity to be stripped of all former comfort and to adopt what seem like strange practices, well, that is frankly asking a lot of our fellow baptized. This is particularly odd when you considet that Catholics often seem to find it easier to deal with truly syncretistic additions to the Faith (Buddhist meditation, Teilhard's evolutionary near-pantheism, guitar music) than with pious practices of Protestants (reading Scripture [!%#$!], devotions, perhaps certain types of hospitality). I suspect that some of what drives this is simple bad feeling triggered by habitual peremptory judgments, not unlike the irritation we have getting along with a sibling (whom we know perfectly well) when we are willing to cut total strangers as much slack as they want.

Lastly, the Catholic Church stands to gain immensely by a potentially more positive approach to healthy Protestant culture. Those called to unity ('converts'--I don't care for the term: we all need conversion!) with the Catholic Church already bring tremendous zeal and energy. Are there other ways in which they can enrich the church and hasten full communion?