This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1John5918
Cardinal Carlo Martini says Church '200 years behind' (BBC)
Cardinal Martini, biblical scholar, former archbishop of Milan, dies (NCR)
And here's another outspoken archbishop:
Controversial former Seattle archbishop celebrates 50-year anniversary as bishop (NCR)
Cardinal Martini, biblical scholar, former archbishop of Milan, dies (NCR)
And here's another outspoken archbishop:
Controversial former Seattle archbishop celebrates 50-year anniversary as bishop (NCR)
2timspalding
Tablet: http://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/356/17
Someone needs to note that he was a prolific author. See Carolus Maria Martini.
Someone needs to note that he was a prolific author. See Carolus Maria Martini.
3timspalding
And Benedict decides not to attend Martini's funeral in Milan:
http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201209012104-cro-ren1072-...
Before this many speculated whether Benedict would go. The two were said to be personally close, and as the BBC put it, it would be a "powerful affirmation of Church unity." The Independent said much the same, noting that to not go would be "cowardly." I think we have our answer here.
http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201209012104-cro-ren1072-...
Before this many speculated whether Benedict would go. The two were said to be personally close, and as the BBC put it, it would be a "powerful affirmation of Church unity." The Independent said much the same, noting that to not go would be "cowardly." I think we have our answer here.
4timspalding
A choice anecdote from America magazine: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=5331
Although funny, I doubt Martini would ever have won. Indeed, it's hard to see how the church "climbs down" from its current situation—conservative popes appointing only conservative bishops and cardinals.
Although funny, I doubt Martini would ever have won. Indeed, it's hard to see how the church "climbs down" from its current situation—conservative popes appointing only conservative bishops and cardinals.
5John5918
>4 timspalding: Beautiful story.
All I can say about the climbing down is that I know there are bishops who do not fit the conservative stereotype. One extremely progressive bishop who is a close friend of mine, who has been a bishop for 20 years or so and who is currently very unpopular with Rome, has said to me openly that he has no idea how he got in. He has not changed, he has always been a progressive and outspoken champion of justice and peace (indeed his church was bombed at one point), and he can hardly believe that the Vatican secret police (or whoever they use to vet prospective bishops) let him slip through the net. Proof that there really is a Holy Spirit?(!) I know archbishops and bishops who, while theologically fairly conservative, are nevertheless men of integrity with a real pastoral concern who do try to listen to their people and their priests. And as I have often said, the African Church does not fit neatly into the western conservative/liberal dynamic, appearing conservative on some issues but progressive on others. None of these are likely to be elected pope, nor perhaps even form a majority in a conclave nor in the Vatican bureaucracy, but at least they form a counterbalance within the hierarchy.
All I can say about the climbing down is that I know there are bishops who do not fit the conservative stereotype. One extremely progressive bishop who is a close friend of mine, who has been a bishop for 20 years or so and who is currently very unpopular with Rome, has said to me openly that he has no idea how he got in. He has not changed, he has always been a progressive and outspoken champion of justice and peace (indeed his church was bombed at one point), and he can hardly believe that the Vatican secret police (or whoever they use to vet prospective bishops) let him slip through the net. Proof that there really is a Holy Spirit?(!) I know archbishops and bishops who, while theologically fairly conservative, are nevertheless men of integrity with a real pastoral concern who do try to listen to their people and their priests. And as I have often said, the African Church does not fit neatly into the western conservative/liberal dynamic, appearing conservative on some issues but progressive on others. None of these are likely to be elected pope, nor perhaps even form a majority in a conclave nor in the Vatican bureaucracy, but at least they form a counterbalance within the hierarchy.
6John5918
Was Cardinal Carlo Martini the last liberal Catholic bishop? (NCR)
From my experience the answer is "no", as I personally know some "liberal" (I prefer the word "progressive", or perhaps even "great openness of spirit", to quote Benedict XVI) bishops, but there are not too many of them, and the chances of them becoming cardinals are slim.
I tend to agree with the Jesuit quoted in the article that, the division between liberals and conservatives in the church is "forced and simplistic". I think it is usually more complex than that, and not only in the African dynamic which I mention in >5 John5918:.
From my experience the answer is "no", as I personally know some "liberal" (I prefer the word "progressive", or perhaps even "great openness of spirit", to quote Benedict XVI) bishops, but there are not too many of them, and the chances of them becoming cardinals are slim.
I tend to agree with the Jesuit quoted in the article that, the division between liberals and conservatives in the church is "forced and simplistic". I think it is usually more complex than that, and not only in the African dynamic which I mention in >5 John5918:.
7timspalding
One may indeed question terms like "liberal" and "conservative." But along certain important axes, one side has virtually ceased to exist in the hierarchy. I think Reese is right—having won the hierarchy, conservatives realize the church isn't the hierarchy, and are attempting to remake the rest of the church in its image. I don't think many are indeed "trying to push the liberals out." (Some are, most have no direct intention.) But that's the effect.
There are surely some pockets where things aren't exactly as the Conservatives might wish. The eastern Catholic churches played a powerful role during Vatican II, supporting its ecumenical outreach, patristic and anti-scholastic tone and on specific issues one might describe as "liberal." They are surely the only part of the church that resists growing papal power insofar as they jealously guard there own prerogatives, and took Vatican II's call to rediscover their non-Latin heritage to heart. Notably they remain the only part of the church that appoints its own bishops. All-told, however, that's about 5%.
It stands to reason that there'll be some sort of reaction back toward the center. But it's hard to see how.
There are surely some pockets where things aren't exactly as the Conservatives might wish. The eastern Catholic churches played a powerful role during Vatican II, supporting its ecumenical outreach, patristic and anti-scholastic tone and on specific issues one might describe as "liberal." They are surely the only part of the church that resists growing papal power insofar as they jealously guard there own prerogatives, and took Vatican II's call to rediscover their non-Latin heritage to heart. Notably they remain the only part of the church that appoints its own bishops. All-told, however, that's about 5%.
It stands to reason that there'll be some sort of reaction back toward the center. But it's hard to see how.
8John5918
>7 timspalding: conservatives realize the church isn't the hierarchy, and are attempting to remake the rest of the church in its image
Yes, I think you're right. The rise of hard-line movements such as Opus Dei, and of others which have a softer image but are equally conservative at their core, is part of that dynamic. I can't for the life of me remember the names of some of the latter, but they are spreading, have more user-friendly names and practices than Opus Dei, have their own seminaries, are taking over parishes, and have a major outreach to influence the youth.
Yes, I think you're right. The rise of hard-line movements such as Opus Dei, and of others which have a softer image but are equally conservative at their core, is part of that dynamic. I can't for the life of me remember the names of some of the latter, but they are spreading, have more user-friendly names and practices than Opus Dei, have their own seminaries, are taking over parishes, and have a major outreach to influence the youth.
9timspalding
Pulling back, we have a basic problem of globalization. The Catholic church is "geared" to a very different world. Two hundred years ago the pope actually appointed only a fraction of bishops, and communication was such that the principle of subsidiarity—that decisions be made at the lowest practicable level—was often just the way the world worked. And even where the pope had power, it was often deeply tangled in European diplomacy—keeping the Papal States alive, and not stepping on allies' toes. The last exercise of a royal veto against a papal candidate occurred a mere 109 years ago.
That world is gone. The Pope now appoints 95% of the bishops directly, and the curia can and increasingly does interfere in local affairs. The diversity of bishops and the limitations on papal power that were normal are gone, because they were practical, not theological. Unlike many similar governmental organizations, the church spent the last two hundred years dismantling theoretical obstacles to centralized power, while often losing in the practical arena. (Governments, by contrast, erected a number of theoretical obstacles while their effective power grew and grew.) Now that the church has been freed and modernity has dissolved all the practical barriers, all that's left is the theology of centralization.
There are, of course, many good things to this. But it's produced a college of bishops that's remarkably uniform in its overall ideology, and therefore prone to groupthink.
That world is gone. The Pope now appoints 95% of the bishops directly, and the curia can and increasingly does interfere in local affairs. The diversity of bishops and the limitations on papal power that were normal are gone, because they were practical, not theological. Unlike many similar governmental organizations, the church spent the last two hundred years dismantling theoretical obstacles to centralized power, while often losing in the practical arena. (Governments, by contrast, erected a number of theoretical obstacles while their effective power grew and grew.) Now that the church has been freed and modernity has dissolved all the practical barriers, all that's left is the theology of centralization.
There are, of course, many good things to this. But it's produced a college of bishops that's remarkably uniform in its overall ideology, and therefore prone to groupthink.
10John5918
>9 timspalding: I agree with all that except, perhaps, because they were practical, not theological. I think Vatican II tried hard to restore the theological principle that the local Church exists primarily in the diocese under the leadership of the bishop, and that the pope is the "first amongst equals" rather than the line manager. Vatican II also tried to empower national bishops' conferences. But you're right; in practice it hasn't worked.
Edited to add: Pope John Paul II was a champion of the theology of centralization.
Edited to add: Pope John Paul II was a champion of the theology of centralization.
11John5918
>7 timspalding: the church isn't the hierarchy
Just reflecting further on this, Tim, I think it remains the hope of the "progressive" Church. Despite the efforts of the conservatives to move into this sphere (with some success, as I say in >8 John5918:), there are all sorts of initiatives going on in parishes, religious communities (cf the US nuns as a perhaps extreme example but there are many, many others), lay communities, house churches, social outreach, educational institutes, etc, which are very much part of the Church but which are somehow relatively immune to the hierarchy. People just get on with it and either tolerate or ignore the increasingly conservative hierarchy.
Just reflecting further on this, Tim, I think it remains the hope of the "progressive" Church. Despite the efforts of the conservatives to move into this sphere (with some success, as I say in >8 John5918:), there are all sorts of initiatives going on in parishes, religious communities (cf the US nuns as a perhaps extreme example but there are many, many others), lay communities, house churches, social outreach, educational institutes, etc, which are very much part of the Church but which are somehow relatively immune to the hierarchy. People just get on with it and either tolerate or ignore the increasingly conservative hierarchy.
12nathanielcampbell
>9 timspalding:: I recently submitted for publication a paper examining the various ways modernity has interpreted and utilized Hildegard of Bingen, with a focus on Benedict, whose decision to name her a Doctor of the Church directly contradicts JPII's rejection of a popular bid to that effect in 1998. (I'm still waiting to hear on whether the paper was accepted.)
I think I could constructively quote from that paper's conclusion here:
I think I could constructively quote from that paper's conclusion here:
The history of the Western Church could, in a sense, be told through the tensions between local ecclesial communities and the ever-more centralized authority of Rome. In Hildegard’s later and more radical years, she came to see those ultimate levels of papal authority as not only dispensable but also dangerously corrosive. Yet, although she fought injustices in the hierarchy, she also never broke the fundamental bonds of ecclesiastical obedience to which she was sworn at an early age. How would Hildegard view the sometimes radical ideas of the LCWR? How would she view a Pope whose worldly authority is greatly reduced from her own day but whose ecclesiastical authority is greatly increased? How would she view that Pope who offers her the greatest validation he can by declaring her a Doctor of the Church? If she appeared to us in a vision today, how would it be? Would she be the strong leader of holy women, proudly adorned in robes of purest white silk, her hair unbound and crowned with a circlet of gold filigree, to praise the Lord in the singing of Psalms? Or would she appear like Ecclesia in the Kirchheim prophecy, her face smeared with dirt, her robes torn and blackened, and the tops of her shoes soiled and defiled?
13MyopicBookworm
The Roman Catholic Church will probably continue to offer something of value to the rest of us, provided that the Jesuits, Benedictines, Franciscans, and other religious orders continue to protect the Christian faith against the "Church".
14John5918
>13 MyopicBookworm: I think you're right to highlight the role of the religious orders. It's not only a contemporary thing; they were in the forefront of many reform movements in the past. They have a degree of freedom from the direct control of the hierarchy.
15ThomasRichard
I want to cry out, "Are you folks serious?!" But I guess you are, and "church" has fallen to become the secular, partisan power struggle you apparently see and analyze here. How dark it is.
There is, however, something much brighter and lighter, and hopeful. Thanks be to God there is.
There is, however, something much brighter and lighter, and hopeful. Thanks be to God there is.
16nathanielcampbell
>15 ThomasRichard:: "But I guess you are, and "church" has fallen to become the secular, partisan power struggle you apparently see and analyze here. How dark it is. "
Poke around at all in the history of the Church, and you will find that partisan power struggles have been a defining feature of the human institution since its beginning.
But as you say, thanks be to God for the Holy Spirit.
Poke around at all in the history of the Church, and you will find that partisan power struggles have been a defining feature of the human institution since its beginning.
But as you say, thanks be to God for the Holy Spirit.
17timspalding
>15 ThomasRichard:
I don't think it's a secular power struggle. And I wouldn't agree with "partisan" if you understood that to mean the pursuit of the interests of a party, divorced from considerations of the larger good. On the contrary, I think the Catholic church of the last 50-100 years is probably the least "secular," in terms of secular political entanglements, and the most sincere it's been for 1900 years.
What there are, however, are struggles between different sincere points of view about the church--views which have the fixity and coherence of an ideology. Such struggles have gone on within the church for millennia, and have been especially strong since the 18th century. Perhaps you disagree, but it seems to me that an objective observer, the proverbial monkey from Mars, would notice that the church since Vatican II has been marked by a certain palpable two-way conflict, and that one side of this conflict has emerged victorious on the level of the hierarchy.
As Catholics, of course, we believe that these struggles are not the church, which is indeed brighter and more hopeful. That does not mean, however, that the church at various points has not been subject to certain ideological parties, or that it (or major parts of it at least) have not passed through periods of great darkness. In some ways, I, at least, feel we are in one of those periods now, characterized by a lopsided ideological triumphalism, organizational centralism, a loss of popular authority, and a series of hellacious sexual scandals which the bishops have responded to at best poorly, and often sinfully.
My hope is in the risen Lord. This implies much about how I view the church (eg., its three marks). And it implies a great deal about how I should view and heed the bishops of the church, including the Pope. But it does not require me to believe that any given Pope, long dead or currently reigning, is a great man, or that the church is being guided in the right direction. In short, Christian hope does not require one to be a Pangloss. Indeed, Christian faith and love generally require one not be.
I don't think it's a secular power struggle. And I wouldn't agree with "partisan" if you understood that to mean the pursuit of the interests of a party, divorced from considerations of the larger good. On the contrary, I think the Catholic church of the last 50-100 years is probably the least "secular," in terms of secular political entanglements, and the most sincere it's been for 1900 years.
What there are, however, are struggles between different sincere points of view about the church--views which have the fixity and coherence of an ideology. Such struggles have gone on within the church for millennia, and have been especially strong since the 18th century. Perhaps you disagree, but it seems to me that an objective observer, the proverbial monkey from Mars, would notice that the church since Vatican II has been marked by a certain palpable two-way conflict, and that one side of this conflict has emerged victorious on the level of the hierarchy.
As Catholics, of course, we believe that these struggles are not the church, which is indeed brighter and more hopeful. That does not mean, however, that the church at various points has not been subject to certain ideological parties, or that it (or major parts of it at least) have not passed through periods of great darkness. In some ways, I, at least, feel we are in one of those periods now, characterized by a lopsided ideological triumphalism, organizational centralism, a loss of popular authority, and a series of hellacious sexual scandals which the bishops have responded to at best poorly, and often sinfully.
My hope is in the risen Lord. This implies much about how I view the church (eg., its three marks). And it implies a great deal about how I should view and heed the bishops of the church, including the Pope. But it does not require me to believe that any given Pope, long dead or currently reigning, is a great man, or that the church is being guided in the right direction. In short, Christian hope does not require one to be a Pangloss. Indeed, Christian faith and love generally require one not be.
18John5918
>15 ThomasRichard: Thomas, I'm not sure how you figure that this thread is only about "the secular, partisan". Cardinal Martini was no secularist; indeed he was apparently a potential pope. Centralisation or otherwise of the Church is a theological matter. We talk of the great monastic reforms of Church history; were they "secular, partisan"?
Nevertheless, we are a Church in, let's say, "tension", hopefully creative tension. Vatican II introduced change, which created tension as different parts of the Church had different interpretations and expectations of it. Faithful Catholics (and I use that term literally, not in the way it has sometimes been appropriated by a particular interest group) throughout the world, with their bishops, priests and religious, are working and praying to discern the way. We are a Pilgrim Church, on a journey, and it's not always clear, even to the hierarchy and those who advise them, exactly where that journey is taking us. Is that "dark"? I would argue the opposite; it's exciting, light and bright (I can't use that term without thinking of its application to firing steam locomotives; firemen are encouraged to fire "light and bright" rather than throwing on too much coal and stifling the fire; perhaps it's not a bad analogy for our topic?), and Spirit-filled.
As Tim and Nathaniel say, this is not a new thing in the Church. The Holy Spirit has led the Church thus far; do you now doubt that the Spirit can lead us onwards?
Nevertheless, we are a Church in, let's say, "tension", hopefully creative tension. Vatican II introduced change, which created tension as different parts of the Church had different interpretations and expectations of it. Faithful Catholics (and I use that term literally, not in the way it has sometimes been appropriated by a particular interest group) throughout the world, with their bishops, priests and religious, are working and praying to discern the way. We are a Pilgrim Church, on a journey, and it's not always clear, even to the hierarchy and those who advise them, exactly where that journey is taking us. Is that "dark"? I would argue the opposite; it's exciting, light and bright (I can't use that term without thinking of its application to firing steam locomotives; firemen are encouraged to fire "light and bright" rather than throwing on too much coal and stifling the fire; perhaps it's not a bad analogy for our topic?), and Spirit-filled.
As Tim and Nathaniel say, this is not a new thing in the Church. The Holy Spirit has led the Church thus far; do you now doubt that the Spirit can lead us onwards?
19ThomasRichard
>17 timspalding:
Hello Tim. No, "partisan" as I intended it is not "divorced from considerations of the larger good," but is an ideological divide. Many, I suspect, in each "party" believes that by their ideology they are driven precisely toward the common good. In the case of groups in the Church today, these ideologies are well-sprinkled with "holy water" so as to appear righteous and faithful. The deceit is often hidden from the soldiers advancing the cause, I suspect - but some must surely be conscious and aware of the lie - and the partial truths that disguise the lie.
Hello Tim. No, "partisan" as I intended it is not "divorced from considerations of the larger good," but is an ideological divide. Many, I suspect, in each "party" believes that by their ideology they are driven precisely toward the common good. In the case of groups in the Church today, these ideologies are well-sprinkled with "holy water" so as to appear righteous and faithful. The deceit is often hidden from the soldiers advancing the cause, I suspect - but some must surely be conscious and aware of the lie - and the partial truths that disguise the lie.
20ThomasRichard
>18 John5918: - Hello John. I got your message today. I apologize for posting and then forgetting about the thread - I was, frankly, somewhat discouraged and tired by the partisanship that is driving the USA into the ditch - and by the corresponding battle of half-truths that divides the members of the Church. So I posted and forgot about the thread (and this site) for a while.
Both the liberals and the conservatives of the Church have their set of partial truths - and they continue to oppose and mistrust one another, frustrating the prayer of Jesus that we be one. Proper resolution is in Him, but that seems very far away. Much less talking, and much more listening is needed! And I don't mean listening to one another, but listening to Him. The Truth is not a blend of liberals and conservatives; the Truth is Jesus. We have far too much talking, I think, and far too little prayer and listening to Holy Truth.
A priest I once knew offered me this counsel: "expect attack from both the liberals and the conservatives in the Church." Another spoke of the proper resolution of the struggle as "dynamic orthodoxy." The struggle that I characterized as "partisan" is certainly not new, and neither is it the oneness in mind and heart that is true.
Both the liberals and the conservatives of the Church have their set of partial truths - and they continue to oppose and mistrust one another, frustrating the prayer of Jesus that we be one. Proper resolution is in Him, but that seems very far away. Much less talking, and much more listening is needed! And I don't mean listening to one another, but listening to Him. The Truth is not a blend of liberals and conservatives; the Truth is Jesus. We have far too much talking, I think, and far too little prayer and listening to Holy Truth.
A priest I once knew offered me this counsel: "expect attack from both the liberals and the conservatives in the Church." Another spoke of the proper resolution of the struggle as "dynamic orthodoxy." The struggle that I characterized as "partisan" is certainly not new, and neither is it the oneness in mind and heart that is true.
21John5918
>19 ThomasRichard:, 20 Thanks, Thomas. I can agree with much of what you say, and I like the phrase "dynamic orthodoxy".
I think you are a little too cynical about the motives of those in each "party". As you say, most believe that they are working for the common good, which is a pretty good place to start from. I'm not sure where deceit comes in there. Some might turn out to be misguided or wrong, but that's not the same as deceit. I think you are also a bit of a pessimist when you say there is too little prayer; most of those I know who have deep views on issues within the Church are very prayerful.
Agreed that the Truth is in Jesus (or I would prefer to say in the Christ), but nevertheless the Church has to interpret that Truth and here again there are different interpretations, even within the hierarchy, and particularly about things which have not been defined as infallible dogma.
The Truth is not a blend of liberals and conservatives
I have frequently said on LT that the liberal/conservative dynamic within the Church is by no means universal. I think it is very strong in the USA, where it seems to be a general cultural dynamic, and maybe also in Europe, but in Africa and perhaps elsewhere this western framework does not adequately describe the dynamic. Bishops might be very "conservative" theologically and very progressive pastorally, or conservative on some theological issues and progressive on others. I would say the same of many individuals that I know, even amongst western Catholics.
I think you are a little too cynical about the motives of those in each "party". As you say, most believe that they are working for the common good, which is a pretty good place to start from. I'm not sure where deceit comes in there. Some might turn out to be misguided or wrong, but that's not the same as deceit. I think you are also a bit of a pessimist when you say there is too little prayer; most of those I know who have deep views on issues within the Church are very prayerful.
Agreed that the Truth is in Jesus (or I would prefer to say in the Christ), but nevertheless the Church has to interpret that Truth and here again there are different interpretations, even within the hierarchy, and particularly about things which have not been defined as infallible dogma.
The Truth is not a blend of liberals and conservatives
I have frequently said on LT that the liberal/conservative dynamic within the Church is by no means universal. I think it is very strong in the USA, where it seems to be a general cultural dynamic, and maybe also in Europe, but in Africa and perhaps elsewhere this western framework does not adequately describe the dynamic. Bishops might be very "conservative" theologically and very progressive pastorally, or conservative on some theological issues and progressive on others. I would say the same of many individuals that I know, even amongst western Catholics.
22ThomasRichard
>21 John5918: Hello John. I'm glad you appreciate that phrase "dynamic orthodoxy" - it holds and expresses a great deal, for me. It avoids the incomplete, competing and binary labels that are commonly used as repositories to stuff people into (liberal/conservative), and focuses on the living truth.
I realize, of course, that liberals and conservatives presume that they "have" the right perspective on reality, and the "other side" is missing something essential. Man has ever been in search of his enemy! He has, from the beginning, looked in the wrong places both for his true good, and for his enemy. Jesus shows us something different, thanks be to God.
I realize, of course, that liberals and conservatives presume that they "have" the right perspective on reality, and the "other side" is missing something essential. Man has ever been in search of his enemy! He has, from the beginning, looked in the wrong places both for his true good, and for his enemy. Jesus shows us something different, thanks be to God.
23John5918
>22 ThomasRichard: "dynamic orthodoxy" ... avoids the incomplete, competing and binary labels that are commonly used as repositories to stuff people into (liberal/conservative)
I couldn't agree more. As I intimated in >21 John5918:, I really know very few people who fit precisely into one camp or the other. I also think the terms themselves can be misleading. "Traditionalist" is another one which irritates me. It has come to mean "conservative", or those whose idea of tradition stretches back only as far as the Council of Trent. And yet I like to consider myself a "traditionalist" in the fuller sense of the word, someone steeped in the tradition of the Church going back to the earliest times, a tradition which contains many different strands and which is indeed dynamic in its orthodoxy.
I couldn't agree more. As I intimated in >21 John5918:, I really know very few people who fit precisely into one camp or the other. I also think the terms themselves can be misleading. "Traditionalist" is another one which irritates me. It has come to mean "conservative", or those whose idea of tradition stretches back only as far as the Council of Trent. And yet I like to consider myself a "traditionalist" in the fuller sense of the word, someone steeped in the tradition of the Church going back to the earliest times, a tradition which contains many different strands and which is indeed dynamic in its orthodoxy.
24timspalding
I am perfectly happy to embrace "dynamic orthodoxy." Of course, the reason we can all embrace it is surely that the word means different things to different people.
To spell it out, "dynamic" has connotations of force, strength, movement and change--four terms which cover the length of one important axis of debate within the church. To vigorously deny "practicing" homosexuals communion would be "dynamic" in the first of these senses. To recognize that the central--and therefore deeply orthodox--theological virtue of love might lead the church in new directions on homosexuals would be "dynamic" in the fourth sense. Unfortunately, they are practically opposite sentiments.
Even so, let's keep the term and embrace it. Polyvalence is not ultimately a bug, but a feature. Catholic thinking is littered with such terms and concepts. Such terms are themselves are "dynamic"--forceful but changing. They are how a large, diverse, moving institution can keep itself in meaningful communion.
To spell it out, "dynamic" has connotations of force, strength, movement and change--four terms which cover the length of one important axis of debate within the church. To vigorously deny "practicing" homosexuals communion would be "dynamic" in the first of these senses. To recognize that the central--and therefore deeply orthodox--theological virtue of love might lead the church in new directions on homosexuals would be "dynamic" in the fourth sense. Unfortunately, they are practically opposite sentiments.
Even so, let's keep the term and embrace it. Polyvalence is not ultimately a bug, but a feature. Catholic thinking is littered with such terms and concepts. Such terms are themselves are "dynamic"--forceful but changing. They are how a large, diverse, moving institution can keep itself in meaningful communion.
25ThomasRichard
>24 timspalding:
Well, Tim, you have completely diluted, polluted and confused what had been a precious term to me! Goes to show ya, I guess. No word, no term, has a meaning that cannot be misunderstood. I guess one had to be there in context when the term was presented.
Well, Tim, you have completely diluted, polluted and confused what had been a precious term to me! Goes to show ya, I guess. No word, no term, has a meaning that cannot be misunderstood. I guess one had to be there in context when the term was presented.
26timspalding
Well, I'd love to hear what the term means to you.
27ThomasRichard
Here is one of our major problems: the relativism and subjectivism of everything! It really doesn't matter what it means "to me," if the term is so fluid as to admit of such radically different hearings. I guess I presumed that the word "orthodoxy" would have grounded, or anchored, the phrase firmly on the authoritative teachings of the Church. I would not have anticipated that the addition of "dynamic" would have moved the reference point from rock to sand, or jello.
This age is so profoundly confused, that one's subjective sense of things is of such great importance - and the reality of what IS is not even recognized as existing. Please don't hear me as jumping on you, Tim, I really am not. I am frustrated with the insanity of these times, and I am venting. I need to return to my cave.
Blessings.
This age is so profoundly confused, that one's subjective sense of things is of such great importance - and the reality of what IS is not even recognized as existing. Please don't hear me as jumping on you, Tim, I really am not. I am frustrated with the insanity of these times, and I am venting. I need to return to my cave.
Blessings.
28timspalding
I grow weary of hostile mischaracterizations. I don't believe in either the subjectivity or relativity of everything. Neither of us is a relativist or a subjectivist. Words have different connotations. That's not relativism! Honestly, if you take that from what I asked, I question your ability to understand others as they are, rather than recapitulate your fixed opinions of them.
I asked what exactly you meant by the term because I wanted to know what it conveyed to you. "Dynamic orthodoxy" is a term of art, at best, and a slogan at worst. It needs explaining. You have explained, I think, what "orthodoxy" means—acting and believing things based "firmly on the authoritative teachings of the Church." I suppose we'd come to slightly different conclusions as to what is and is not absolutely authoritative—you seem to be to be something of a maximalist on that score—but no matter, I still don't know what you mean by "dynamic." I think, perhaps, some of us might see the two terms as in a certain sort of fruitful tension with each other, and you do not.
I asked what exactly you meant by the term because I wanted to know what it conveyed to you. "Dynamic orthodoxy" is a term of art, at best, and a slogan at worst. It needs explaining. You have explained, I think, what "orthodoxy" means—acting and believing things based "firmly on the authoritative teachings of the Church." I suppose we'd come to slightly different conclusions as to what is and is not absolutely authoritative—you seem to be to be something of a maximalist on that score—but no matter, I still don't know what you mean by "dynamic." I think, perhaps, some of us might see the two terms as in a certain sort of fruitful tension with each other, and you do not.
29ThomasRichard
"I grow weary of hostile mischaracterizations."
.... "you seem to be to be something of a maximalist on that score..."
I am very weary of it as well.
.... "you seem to be to be something of a maximalist on that score..."
I am very weary of it as well.
30timspalding
My apologies. I didn't think of that as hostile, but I concede it does sound so. I think I could fairly be described as a minimalist on that—statistically speaking—for what it's worth.
31ThomasRichard
Nor did I intend to express hostility to you, Tim, as I explicitly said in my post: "Please don't hear me as jumping on you, Tim, I really am not. I am frustrated with the insanity of these times, and I am venting. I need to return to my cave."
32John5918
>31 ThomasRichard: I need to return to my cave
There's dynamic orthodoxy for you - back to the Desert Fathers!
There's dynamic orthodoxy for you - back to the Desert Fathers!
33timspalding
I vote for pillar-sitting!
34nathanielcampbell
>33 timspalding:: Just sitting? Yours, my friend, is a lackluster spiritual endurance. REAL Christians stand upon their pillars .... for thirty years ... without sitting!
35timspalding
Yeah, I prefer Simeon the Sylites' first effort—pretending to be a root vegetable.
36ThomasRichard
reply to (1):
"200 years behind" suggests a wrong solution to the wrong problem. The problem is not that we are behind in the progress that secular culture measures, and so the solution is not that we should catch up with the culture. I think it is a fact, sadly, that many in the Church do use secular and cultural criteria to judge the Church - but that is blindness. Our standard is truth, not "up-to-date-ness".
Vatican II had the right idea - to consider how to make the eternal truths of Christ more accessible, more understandable to the modern world. Fortunately, the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" that sent the Church into an identity crisis that lasted for decades, has begun to subside. Many of the zealous but misguided advocates have died out, and the "spirit" is being replaced by the Spirit whose true reforms are now more clearly prescribed in the new Catechism, and are now more faithfully being implemented.
Benedict sees the problem and the solution clearly. This current "Year of Faith" is an intervention into the life of the Church that, if lived rightly, can help. We need to overcome the pervasive ignorance of Western Catholics with faith and with knowledge: knowledge of Him, and of the sublime teachings He has entrusted to us.
The great problem, IMHO, is that ignorance - and the poor shepherding on the diocesan and parish levels that has enabled and perpetuated the ignorance. Catholics have been sacramentalized, but neither evangelized nor catechized. That must change. Well, it ought to change. It can, with God's grace.
"200 years behind" suggests a wrong solution to the wrong problem. The problem is not that we are behind in the progress that secular culture measures, and so the solution is not that we should catch up with the culture. I think it is a fact, sadly, that many in the Church do use secular and cultural criteria to judge the Church - but that is blindness. Our standard is truth, not "up-to-date-ness".
Vatican II had the right idea - to consider how to make the eternal truths of Christ more accessible, more understandable to the modern world. Fortunately, the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" that sent the Church into an identity crisis that lasted for decades, has begun to subside. Many of the zealous but misguided advocates have died out, and the "spirit" is being replaced by the Spirit whose true reforms are now more clearly prescribed in the new Catechism, and are now more faithfully being implemented.
Benedict sees the problem and the solution clearly. This current "Year of Faith" is an intervention into the life of the Church that, if lived rightly, can help. We need to overcome the pervasive ignorance of Western Catholics with faith and with knowledge: knowledge of Him, and of the sublime teachings He has entrusted to us.
The great problem, IMHO, is that ignorance - and the poor shepherding on the diocesan and parish levels that has enabled and perpetuated the ignorance. Catholics have been sacramentalized, but neither evangelized nor catechized. That must change. Well, it ought to change. It can, with God's grace.
37John5918
>36 ThomasRichard: Catholics have been sacramentalized, but neither evangelized nor catechized. That must change. Well, it ought to change
I agree completely. And that was one of the intentions of Vatican II, I believe. I remember the "mission v maintenance" debate which seemed to be going strong in the 1970s and '80s. But it seemed "maintenance" won the day. As you say, it must change.
I agree completely. And that was one of the intentions of Vatican II, I believe. I remember the "mission v maintenance" debate which seemed to be going strong in the 1970s and '80s. But it seemed "maintenance" won the day. As you say, it must change.
38ThomasRichard
Exactly right: "maintenance" won out, it seems, as the default position. I sympathize with the Cardinal on some of his observations, dealing with great concern by some in the Church with externals yet blindness to matters within - but it seems he too missed something essential.
39timspalding
I think there's a deep—like shelves of books big, anyway—question about the relationship of the church's truth to that of culture. Personally, and simply, I wouldn't draw the walls as high. If one looks at, say, the degree of "inculturation" of the first few centuries, it's pretty staggering. Christian belief, which initially (eg., in the gospels) shows reasonably scant connection to Greek or Roman high culture is profoundly transformed by its philosophy, rhetoric and aesthetics within a few generations, affecting every nook and corner of its belief and practice.(1) While something like the ultimate truth of the godhead remains--to the degree we may know it--the whole Christian approach to understanding it is profoundly Greek. To speculate, if Indians, not Greeks, had been the first "receiving high culture," and had as much influence on its categories of thought, we might well have a Nicene creed involving references to the dharma. Anyway, although not about being "up-to-date" per se, it was about being "up-to-culture" and the transformation was far more profound than anything attempted since. Anyway, I think this ought to give some pause whenever we come to act as if the distinction between truth and culture is either simple or clear.
On the question of being 200 years behind, wouldn't it be fair to say that the church was X years behind at any point? The paradigmatic case would be, perhaps, Galileo. Similarly, might one not appreciate that Vatican II's teaching on the Jews, or on the relationship between church and state (ie., no longer wanting monarchies and calling democracy a heresy!) might have something to do with the times?
1. Of course, one may say, with some Greek nationalists and Victorians, that Greek culture was basically created by God and kept around like a man on first base to become the ultimate vehicle of primitive Christianity. But I find this a rather narrow view, and anyway, similar logic might lead one to believe that modern culture was in a similar place.
On the question of being 200 years behind, wouldn't it be fair to say that the church was X years behind at any point? The paradigmatic case would be, perhaps, Galileo. Similarly, might one not appreciate that Vatican II's teaching on the Jews, or on the relationship between church and state (ie., no longer wanting monarchies and calling democracy a heresy!) might have something to do with the times?
1. Of course, one may say, with some Greek nationalists and Victorians, that Greek culture was basically created by God and kept around like a man on first base to become the ultimate vehicle of primitive Christianity. But I find this a rather narrow view, and anyway, similar logic might lead one to believe that modern culture was in a similar place.
40John5918
>39 timspalding: wouldn't it be fair to say that the church was X years behind at any point?
I think it would be fair to say that the Church is conservative and does not change quickly. This can be seen as a good thing, in that the Church doesn't rush into things and bow to every passing fad, but consults widely within itself and lets things be tested by time before coming to a decision. It can also be seen as an inevitable consequence of being such a large and unwieldy institution, with huge historical and geographical depth. And it can also be extremely frustrating!
Edited to add: Your comment on early inculturation is interesting. Inculturation was an important part of modern missiology when I was studying it 30-odd years ago.
I think it would be fair to say that the Church is conservative and does not change quickly. This can be seen as a good thing, in that the Church doesn't rush into things and bow to every passing fad, but consults widely within itself and lets things be tested by time before coming to a decision. It can also be seen as an inevitable consequence of being such a large and unwieldy institution, with huge historical and geographical depth. And it can also be extremely frustrating!
Edited to add: Your comment on early inculturation is interesting. Inculturation was an important part of modern missiology when I was studying it 30-odd years ago.
41timspalding
I just don't buy that Vatican II was only to make Catholic truth "more accessible, more understandable to the modern world." Indeed, I think that's a clear—and provably clear—misinterpretation and distortion. As a significant starter to showing that I merely note that bring the church "up to date"—despite the scorn heaped on it above—isn't some crazy notion invented by wild-eyed liberals. Pope John XXIII himself used the term (aggiornamento, literally "up-to-dating") to describe the very purpose of the council on multiple occasions. To deny this and reduce the council to a mere restatement of form cannot make adequate sense of quite significant doctrinal developments and is, ultimately, to remake the council to conform to your preferences.
42ThomasRichard
41 - Tim - your or my opinions may be interesting (at least to us), but more important I'd say, is that of Benedict XVI who was there. He recently said, of the Council:
"This constantly updated vitality, this 'aggiornamento', does not mean breaking with tradition; rather, it is an expression of that tradition's ongoing vitality. It does not mean reducing the faith, debasing it to the fashion of the times using the yardstick of what we like and what appeals to public opinion. Quite the contrary, just as the Council Fathers did, we must mould the 'today' in which we live to the measure of Christianity. We must bring the 'today' of our times into line with the 'today' of God."
Longer report here:
http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/aggiornamento-does-not-break-with.html
"This constantly updated vitality, this 'aggiornamento', does not mean breaking with tradition; rather, it is an expression of that tradition's ongoing vitality. It does not mean reducing the faith, debasing it to the fashion of the times using the yardstick of what we like and what appeals to public opinion. Quite the contrary, just as the Council Fathers did, we must mould the 'today' in which we live to the measure of Christianity. We must bring the 'today' of our times into line with the 'today' of God."
Longer report here:
http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/aggiornamento-does-not-break-with.html
43sullijo
>42 ThomasRichard: I don't think Tim's statement is at odds with the Holy Father's. There was certainly an "updating" of the Church's teachings at the Council -- not to keep it in conformity with "the fashion of the times," but in recognition of the development of the Church's understanding of liturgy, the universal all to holiness (which, while not a new doctrine, is certainly one that needed to be brought again to the fore) and her relationship with (among others) the Jews, the Eastern Churches, and non-Christian religions.
Recognizing legitimate "updating" (or, as Cardinal Newman called it, the development of doctrine) is not to give a pass to that which the Holy Father is critiquing.
Recognizing legitimate "updating" (or, as Cardinal Newman called it, the development of doctrine) is not to give a pass to that which the Holy Father is critiquing.
44ThomasRichard
>43 sullijo: Really? Did I misread something? Tim, are you and the Holy Father on the same page re: Vatican II?
45timspalding
>42 ThomasRichard:
As usual, much depends what "tradition" is composed of. I would certainly agree that the Council in no way changed "capital-T Tradition"—those teachings which, while basic to Catholic truth, were not "committed to writing" in the Scriptures, or which are merely implicit in them and took time to "unroll"—the tradition that, together with scripture, makes up the Deposit of Faith of the church. Much church teaching, however, has not been understood or has been found to have no such a basic and direct a relationship to Tradition, and has developed over time in ways that far exceed mere changes in expression.
Vatican II saw a number of significant developments along this line. Before the council, for example, it was regarded as settled Catholic doctrine—taught in all the textbooks—that "error has no rights." Where the state was Catholic, it must actively suppress heresy and deny non-Catholics religious liberty, but where the state was not Catholic, it must allow Catholics full religious liberty. That the state may stand apart from such claims, or that Protestants have every right to worship as they see fit was repeatedly condemned by Popes and councils as "insanity" and "heresy," and Catholic theologians regularly presented this as unchangeable doctrine. This opinion was not dead at the council either, but was passionately argued by conservatives like Ottaviani, Browne, Lefebvre and the Spanish bishops.
Like it or not, however, Vatican II, did something close to a 180 degree turn on this issue in its "Declaration on Religious Freedom" (Dignitatis humanae), embracing religious liberty for all, Protestant or Catholic and the religiously neutral state. The conservatives hit the liberals over the head with the word "tradition," as many do today. But as Cardinal Bea, a leader of the council fathers—a council father, not merely a non-voting theological advisor to one—frankly admitted, "This is not a traditional teaching. But life today is not traditional."
Similar examples could be multiplied (sullijo mentions some above). A concern for accuracy and intellectual consistency cannot square them with the distortion that the council merely worked to "to make the eternal truths of Christ more accessible, more understandable to the modern world." Put simply, the council blazed new theological ground—ground that in no way contradicted the Deposit of Faith, for sure, but new ground nevertheless.
Tim, are you and the Holy Father on the same page re: Vatican II?
I think I'm on the same page as at least three of the last five holy fathers, including the two who actually presided over and approved the council documents. Pope John Paul II is complicated, but it's hardly a secret that Benedict XVI represents one side of a long and bitter theological debate inside the church (Concilium vs. Communio). Unlike many of his partisans, the Pope is often careful to delineate the different layers of church teaching and their relative weight. But I don't think an honest intellectual history of the papacy would fail to notice he represents (indeed, led and leads) that school of interpretation of Vatican II that maximizes continuity and minimizes development.
As usual, much depends what "tradition" is composed of. I would certainly agree that the Council in no way changed "capital-T Tradition"—those teachings which, while basic to Catholic truth, were not "committed to writing" in the Scriptures, or which are merely implicit in them and took time to "unroll"—the tradition that, together with scripture, makes up the Deposit of Faith of the church. Much church teaching, however, has not been understood or has been found to have no such a basic and direct a relationship to Tradition, and has developed over time in ways that far exceed mere changes in expression.
Vatican II saw a number of significant developments along this line. Before the council, for example, it was regarded as settled Catholic doctrine—taught in all the textbooks—that "error has no rights." Where the state was Catholic, it must actively suppress heresy and deny non-Catholics religious liberty, but where the state was not Catholic, it must allow Catholics full religious liberty. That the state may stand apart from such claims, or that Protestants have every right to worship as they see fit was repeatedly condemned by Popes and councils as "insanity" and "heresy," and Catholic theologians regularly presented this as unchangeable doctrine. This opinion was not dead at the council either, but was passionately argued by conservatives like Ottaviani, Browne, Lefebvre and the Spanish bishops.
Like it or not, however, Vatican II, did something close to a 180 degree turn on this issue in its "Declaration on Religious Freedom" (Dignitatis humanae), embracing religious liberty for all, Protestant or Catholic and the religiously neutral state. The conservatives hit the liberals over the head with the word "tradition," as many do today. But as Cardinal Bea, a leader of the council fathers—a council father, not merely a non-voting theological advisor to one—frankly admitted, "This is not a traditional teaching. But life today is not traditional."
Similar examples could be multiplied (sullijo mentions some above). A concern for accuracy and intellectual consistency cannot square them with the distortion that the council merely worked to "to make the eternal truths of Christ more accessible, more understandable to the modern world." Put simply, the council blazed new theological ground—ground that in no way contradicted the Deposit of Faith, for sure, but new ground nevertheless.
Tim, are you and the Holy Father on the same page re: Vatican II?
I think I'm on the same page as at least three of the last five holy fathers, including the two who actually presided over and approved the council documents. Pope John Paul II is complicated, but it's hardly a secret that Benedict XVI represents one side of a long and bitter theological debate inside the church (Concilium vs. Communio). Unlike many of his partisans, the Pope is often careful to delineate the different layers of church teaching and their relative weight. But I don't think an honest intellectual history of the papacy would fail to notice he represents (indeed, led and leads) that school of interpretation of Vatican II that maximizes continuity and minimizes development.
46ThomasRichard
>45 timspalding: - Tim: "the council blazed new theological ground—ground that in no way contradicted the Deposit of Faith, for sure, but new ground nevertheless."
of B16 - "he represents (indeed, led and leads) that school of interpretation of Vatican II that maximizes continuity and minimizes development."
That does sound like a "No, not on the same page" to me. I hear something more important to you, Tim, than merely nuance concerning how to understand the Council. What "new theological ground" is important to you, that is not a matter of the Faith? Do you assert the the matter of religious liberty is a "new" teaching?
of B16 - "he represents (indeed, led and leads) that school of interpretation of Vatican II that maximizes continuity and minimizes development."
That does sound like a "No, not on the same page" to me. I hear something more important to you, Tim, than merely nuance concerning how to understand the Council. What "new theological ground" is important to you, that is not a matter of the Faith? Do you assert the the matter of religious liberty is a "new" teaching?
47timspalding
Do you assert the the matter of religious liberty is a "new" teaching?
Absolutely, as could be demonstrated by any number of conciliar and papal texts, not to mention Fathers of the church, such as Augustine, which proclaim the legal toleration and equal treatment of heresy by the state—let alone a separation of church and state—to be heresy. (If it was not "new" then the church went through almost 2,000 years of false "new" teaching, before recovering the "old" teaching—Protestantism here we come!) Obviously, I don't think this teaching conflicts with the Deposit of Faith, but, yes, it was essentially a new teaching, considerably at odds with millennia of official church teaching. Would you like to see the evidence, or is evidence not really the point in such debates?
Absolutely, as could be demonstrated by any number of conciliar and papal texts, not to mention Fathers of the church, such as Augustine, which proclaim the legal toleration and equal treatment of heresy by the state—let alone a separation of church and state—to be heresy. (If it was not "new" then the church went through almost 2,000 years of false "new" teaching, before recovering the "old" teaching—Protestantism here we come!) Obviously, I don't think this teaching conflicts with the Deposit of Faith, but, yes, it was essentially a new teaching, considerably at odds with millennia of official church teaching. Would you like to see the evidence, or is evidence not really the point in such debates?
48ThomasRichard
47> - Really? Where?
"Leo XIII, in "Immortale Dei," did warn against coercing
consciences (DS 3177): "The Church is accustomed to take care that no one
be forced to embrace the Catholic faith when unwilling, as Augustine wisely
reminded: "A person cannot believe if he does not do it willingly." Cf. DS
3246, 3251."
The above from this paper:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LEFEBVRE.TXT
"Leo XIII, in "Immortale Dei," did warn against coercing
consciences (DS 3177): "The Church is accustomed to take care that no one
be forced to embrace the Catholic faith when unwilling, as Augustine wisely
reminded: "A person cannot believe if he does not do it willingly." Cf. DS
3246, 3251."
The above from this paper:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LEFEBVRE.TXT
49timspalding
>48 ThomasRichard:
I'm sorry to have to state the obvious, but not coercing people to join the faith is not the same as religious toleration. For starters, it doesn't address the question of apostasy and heresy, which involve not joining the faith, but leaving it, and against which the Catholic church long sought or directly provided legal punishment. Not to speak of the oft-commended normal pre-modern response—execution—pre-conciliar Catholic teaching unwaveringly supported state discrimination against Protestants and other heretics, and condemned religious liberty and the separation of church and state, except if toleration was necessary for the sake of a larger good or to prevent a larger evil. The notion that men have a "civil right" (direct quote) to religious liberty, which even a Catholic state has a duty to uphold in law, is quite novel. You might start by reading though the text you cite, Immortale Dei, which is implacably hostile to religious liberty for any but orthodox Catholics. To imagine that it and Dignitatis Humanae are saying anything like the same thing is to embrace a craven and dishonest hermeneutics. One does not defend truth by calling an eggplant a tomato.
That the council fathers did not intend to "develop doctrine" on this issue—or any—is contradicted by the direct words of council documents themselves.
I'm sorry to have to state the obvious, but not coercing people to join the faith is not the same as religious toleration. For starters, it doesn't address the question of apostasy and heresy, which involve not joining the faith, but leaving it, and against which the Catholic church long sought or directly provided legal punishment. Not to speak of the oft-commended normal pre-modern response—execution—pre-conciliar Catholic teaching unwaveringly supported state discrimination against Protestants and other heretics, and condemned religious liberty and the separation of church and state, except if toleration was necessary for the sake of a larger good or to prevent a larger evil. The notion that men have a "civil right" (direct quote) to religious liberty, which even a Catholic state has a duty to uphold in law, is quite novel. You might start by reading though the text you cite, Immortale Dei, which is implacably hostile to religious liberty for any but orthodox Catholics. To imagine that it and Dignitatis Humanae are saying anything like the same thing is to embrace a craven and dishonest hermeneutics. One does not defend truth by calling an eggplant a tomato.
That the council fathers did not intend to "develop doctrine" on this issue—or any—is contradicted by the direct words of council documents themselves.
"Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society." (§1)
50John5918
Development is not against the Tradition, as long as any new developments are not directly contradictory to the Deposit of Faith. Our tradition is one of development and change, right from the earliest days. My seminary professors used to say that the Church does not answer questions that have not yet been asked. Every period of history has raised new questions which the Church has answered through reflection on Scripture and Tradition, and one could say that the 20th century threw up a particularly large batch of new and urgent questions... or one could argue that the period from the Council of Trent until Vatican II was an unusually stagnant period as far as Church Tradition was concerned.
Benedict XVI who was there
I had the privilege of knowing and working with some bishops who were there as Council Fathers. Their reflections have influenced me and my attitudes to Vatican II.
Benedict XVI who was there
I had the privilege of knowing and working with some bishops who were there as Council Fathers. Their reflections have influenced me and my attitudes to Vatican II.
51timspalding
>49 timspalding:
"the Church does not answer questions that have not yet been asked" — I think this is true enough. But it's also true that the church comes up with truly different answers at different times—as witnessed by the change in Catholic teaching on religious liberty. No, it doesn't come up with different answers on core questions (the "fundamental Christian faith"), but it certainly comes up with different answers on non-core ones. The Catholic church is not Zeus, whose every statement whatever the context is equally unalterable, and Catholics need not play Semele, burned up by the fire of an ill-considered declaration.
Benedict XVI who was there
One might note that Benedict himself changed his tune a good deal, as time wore on.
"the Church does not answer questions that have not yet been asked" — I think this is true enough. But it's also true that the church comes up with truly different answers at different times—as witnessed by the change in Catholic teaching on religious liberty. No, it doesn't come up with different answers on core questions (the "fundamental Christian faith"), but it certainly comes up with different answers on non-core ones. The Catholic church is not Zeus, whose every statement whatever the context is equally unalterable, and Catholics need not play Semele, burned up by the fire of an ill-considered declaration.
Benedict XVI who was there
One might note that Benedict himself changed his tune a good deal, as time wore on.
52John5918
>51 timspalding: Benedict himself changed his tune a good deal, as time wore on
I still love, and often cite, this quote from him, which was brought to my attention by a bishop a few years ago. I wonder whether Benedict XVI in 2012 would express this differently from Joseph Ratzinger in 1967?
Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., (Ed) Herbert Vorgrimler
I still love, and often cite, this quote from him, which was brought to my attention by a bishop a few years ago. I wonder whether Benedict XVI in 2012 would express this differently from Joseph Ratzinger in 1967?
Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.
Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., (Ed) Herbert Vorgrimler
53sullijo
I think what we're seeing is that the Council's own self-understanding developed over the course of the four years. In the beginning there was a strong faction (led by the Roman Curia) which sought merely to restate the teaching of Trent and Vatican I. Gradually, the Council Fathers (by all accounts encouraged by John XXIII) asserted their own authority over the proceedings, resulting in the 16 documents that were produced.
Does the inclusion of development in doctrine contradict John XXIII's statement that the principal concern of the Council is "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously?" I suppose an argument could be made. On the other hand, the pope is not the sole arbiter of what a council should be about. The bishops, in communion, have the authority to establish doctrine, so they were certainly within their rights to do so.
Of course it doesn't really matter what John's aims were since, in the end, it wasn't up to him but Paul VI (who actually ratified the documents of the Council). Which makes me wonder if Paul ever laid out what his objectives for the Council were.
Does the inclusion of development in doctrine contradict John XXIII's statement that the principal concern of the Council is "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously?" I suppose an argument could be made. On the other hand, the pope is not the sole arbiter of what a council should be about. The bishops, in communion, have the authority to establish doctrine, so they were certainly within their rights to do so.
Of course it doesn't really matter what John's aims were since, in the end, it wasn't up to him but Paul VI (who actually ratified the documents of the Council). Which makes me wonder if Paul ever laid out what his objectives for the Council were.
54ThomasRichard
52> "I wonder whether Benedict XVI in 2012 would express this differently from Joseph Ratzinger in 1967?"
- How can you wonder that? He is in accord with our Catechism.
Catechism 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
- How can you wonder that? He is in accord with our Catechism.
Catechism 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
55timspalding
>54 ThomasRichard:
He isn't merely "in accord" with it—he was the principal editor of the Catechism!
Besides, there is an perfectly clear difference between "one must obey one's own conscience above all else" and "he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience." The former is a moral injunction to follow ones conscience, the latter is a question of right not duty, and is ultimately about state force. The parallel statement is, rather, "In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right," which is rather weaker and less explicit than Ratzinger's formulation, although akin to it.
He isn't merely "in accord" with it—he was the principal editor of the Catechism!
Besides, there is an perfectly clear difference between "one must obey one's own conscience above all else" and "he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience." The former is a moral injunction to follow ones conscience, the latter is a question of right not duty, and is ultimately about state force. The parallel statement is, rather, "In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right," which is rather weaker and less explicit than Ratzinger's formulation, although akin to it.
56ThomasRichard
>55 timspalding: I'm not sure I follow all the shades of distinction you point to. Conscience is not always simply and clearly "Do this!" - "Don't do that!" When it is, then yes obedience is the right word. When conscience is troubled by conflicting inclinations ("conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them", Rom 2:15), obedience is not appropriate but time is needed to resolve and clarify if possible. There are times when personal conscience is unclear, but trust in His Spirit in the Church is clear.
I think I'm trying to say that "conscience" is not an individualistic refuge for autonomy, but is a sometimes unclear guide that, when it speaks must be listened to. Conscience has an ally now, through the Spirit of Truth entrusted to the Church. Conscience must be formed in the Truth.
I think I'm trying to say that "conscience" is not an individualistic refuge for autonomy, but is a sometimes unclear guide that, when it speaks must be listened to. Conscience has an ally now, through the Spirit of Truth entrusted to the Church. Conscience must be formed in the Truth.
57John5918
>55 timspalding:, 56 It just seems to me that he expressed it rather more strongly in 1967 than he does in the catechism, so I think my question still stands as to whether he would express it differently now. I chose the word "express" carefully, as it doesn't have the connotation of dogma; simply how he chooses to express that dogma. In that sense, it appears that he has expressed it differently.
58nathanielcampbell
>45ff: "Benedict XVI who was there ... One might note that Benedict himself changed his tune a good deal, as time wore on. ... I wonder whether Benedict XVI in 2012 would express this differently from Joseph Ratzinger in 1967?"
I hate to put it this bluntly, but I think @ThomasRichard is failing to see the nuances and shifts in perspective that occurred both at the time of the Council and in the half-century since.
What developed as the majority (as sullijo describes in 53) in the Council utilized an interlocking set of perspectives on "change" to effect John XXIII's call for aggiornamento--"up-to-dating" combined with "development of doctrine" and ressourcement ("going back to the sources") to produce especially a style of Church governance radically different from what it had been seen since the time of Trent. It was a style of Church governance that sought to reinvigorate the horizontal and peripheral aspects of the Church, rather than the vertical, hierarchical, centralized, and monarchical vision that, by the early 20th century, had practically identified the Church with the person of the Roman Pontiff.
This is where the style of Vatican II (I hesitate to use the vexed term "spirit") is so crucial. The Second Vatican Council was fundamentally different from every other ecumenical council in the history of the Church in that the documents it issued were "pastoral", phrased in positive statements of what the Church teaches. Every other council in the history of the Church issued juridical documents ("canons") that were phrased in the negative, e.g. (from the Council of Trent's Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass), "If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema."
Vatican II issued no canons, declared no anathema sit.
Furthermore, the Council Fathers made a deliberate decision to change the verbal style of the Council's communications. Rather than the neo-scholastic style of propositions, objections, and refutations that had become the hallmark of theological manuals (the so-called "Roman theology") of the previous hundred years, they chose to embrace a style reminiscent of Scripture and the Church Fathers. Indeed, in the early weeks of the First Period (in 1962), Cardinal Frings sent the Council of Presidents a letter encouraging them to adopt just such a "pastoral" style -- and the memorandum was partially written by his personal theological advisor, Joseph Ratzinger. The next year (the Second Period of 1963), Ratzinger was officially made a peritus, or theological advisor to the Council -- but he was never a Council Father and never a voting member.
He was, however, a leading theologian of the "majority", which advocated for the ground-breaking new style and substance of the council in the face of obstinate opposition by a small but determined "minority", led by men like Cardinals Ottaviani (the head of the Holy Office) and Browne. In the Council itself, this new style that responded to John XXIII's call for aggiornamento was characterized by the minority as a "break with Tradition", as a move of discontinuity; while the majority characterized it in terms of continuity -- but continuity that develops through time, continuity that addresses "the signs of the times", and continuity that rescues from history the fundamentals of Tradition that had been covered over by encrustations and accretions (ressourcement). The classic example of this from early on in the Council was Sacrosanctum Concilium, which was deeply imbued with the spirit of the "Liturgical Movement" that had sought since the late 19th century to rescue the ancient liturgical practices of the Church from being drowned in a sea of private novenas and other devotions.
Conversely, in the decades since the Council, it is (supposedly) the liberals who have sought to emphasize, in turn, the discontinuities, while the conservatives have sought to regain continuity.
Finally, it should be understood that Ratzinger was far more daring and "liberal" (a term I use with reservations) when he was younger theologian at the Council and afterwards. His writings from the 1950's, 1960's, and into the 1970's betray a much more boisterous and radical vision of reform in the Church than his papacy would indicate today. Much of that reflects his different places within the Church: as a professor of theology, he was much freer to explore new ideas, push boundaries in search of new solutions -- or actually, for him as a historical theologian, much more to explore old ideas in search of new applications. After entering the hierarchy--and especially with the moved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1982)--he understood his role in the Church to have changed a bit, from explorer to preserver.
But we should take care in all of these discussions not to push any one line of interpretation too hard. It's not like Ratzinger simply flipped a switch with the move to Rome -- he continues to be an active theologian to this day. Furthermore, it is not hard to see that the "German Shepherd" softened upon election to the Throne of St. Peter -- he regained a pastoral character that had not often been shown to the world in his years as doctrinal watchdog. Finally, as Tim has noted, Ratzinger has a far better theological mind and a far deeper grasp of nuance and the inherently fertile tension between continuity and innovation, divergence, and renewal than most of his supposedly "conservative" confreres in the Roman Church today.
Indeed, counter-examples to the Pope's supposed "conservatism" abound. The German bishops petitioned several times from the late 1970's through the 1990's for Pope John Paul II to declare Hildegard of Bingen a Doctor of the Church -- and each time, the request was refused. No request, however, was put forth a year ago to prompt Pope Benedict to make the declaration, which was made official in October. If you know anything about Hildegard's reception in the modern world, you must surely know that her popularity is driven by feminists and New Agers -- indeed, the defrocked Matthew Fox was her greatest English-language champion before the millennium. That's one of the reasons Benedict's decision caught those of us who study Hildegard by complete surprise -- as much as we desired for her to be made a Doctor of the Church, we thought that her radical tendencies and radical reception by feminists and New Agers made such a declaration impossible in the current doctrinal climate.
I hate to put it this bluntly, but I think @ThomasRichard is failing to see the nuances and shifts in perspective that occurred both at the time of the Council and in the half-century since.
What developed as the majority (as sullijo describes in 53) in the Council utilized an interlocking set of perspectives on "change" to effect John XXIII's call for aggiornamento--"up-to-dating" combined with "development of doctrine" and ressourcement ("going back to the sources") to produce especially a style of Church governance radically different from what it had been seen since the time of Trent. It was a style of Church governance that sought to reinvigorate the horizontal and peripheral aspects of the Church, rather than the vertical, hierarchical, centralized, and monarchical vision that, by the early 20th century, had practically identified the Church with the person of the Roman Pontiff.
This is where the style of Vatican II (I hesitate to use the vexed term "spirit") is so crucial. The Second Vatican Council was fundamentally different from every other ecumenical council in the history of the Church in that the documents it issued were "pastoral", phrased in positive statements of what the Church teaches. Every other council in the history of the Church issued juridical documents ("canons") that were phrased in the negative, e.g. (from the Council of Trent's Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass), "If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema."
Vatican II issued no canons, declared no anathema sit.
Furthermore, the Council Fathers made a deliberate decision to change the verbal style of the Council's communications. Rather than the neo-scholastic style of propositions, objections, and refutations that had become the hallmark of theological manuals (the so-called "Roman theology") of the previous hundred years, they chose to embrace a style reminiscent of Scripture and the Church Fathers. Indeed, in the early weeks of the First Period (in 1962), Cardinal Frings sent the Council of Presidents a letter encouraging them to adopt just such a "pastoral" style -- and the memorandum was partially written by his personal theological advisor, Joseph Ratzinger. The next year (the Second Period of 1963), Ratzinger was officially made a peritus, or theological advisor to the Council -- but he was never a Council Father and never a voting member.
He was, however, a leading theologian of the "majority", which advocated for the ground-breaking new style and substance of the council in the face of obstinate opposition by a small but determined "minority", led by men like Cardinals Ottaviani (the head of the Holy Office) and Browne. In the Council itself, this new style that responded to John XXIII's call for aggiornamento was characterized by the minority as a "break with Tradition", as a move of discontinuity; while the majority characterized it in terms of continuity -- but continuity that develops through time, continuity that addresses "the signs of the times", and continuity that rescues from history the fundamentals of Tradition that had been covered over by encrustations and accretions (ressourcement). The classic example of this from early on in the Council was Sacrosanctum Concilium, which was deeply imbued with the spirit of the "Liturgical Movement" that had sought since the late 19th century to rescue the ancient liturgical practices of the Church from being drowned in a sea of private novenas and other devotions.
Conversely, in the decades since the Council, it is (supposedly) the liberals who have sought to emphasize, in turn, the discontinuities, while the conservatives have sought to regain continuity.
Finally, it should be understood that Ratzinger was far more daring and "liberal" (a term I use with reservations) when he was younger theologian at the Council and afterwards. His writings from the 1950's, 1960's, and into the 1970's betray a much more boisterous and radical vision of reform in the Church than his papacy would indicate today. Much of that reflects his different places within the Church: as a professor of theology, he was much freer to explore new ideas, push boundaries in search of new solutions -- or actually, for him as a historical theologian, much more to explore old ideas in search of new applications. After entering the hierarchy--and especially with the moved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1982)--he understood his role in the Church to have changed a bit, from explorer to preserver.
But we should take care in all of these discussions not to push any one line of interpretation too hard. It's not like Ratzinger simply flipped a switch with the move to Rome -- he continues to be an active theologian to this day. Furthermore, it is not hard to see that the "German Shepherd" softened upon election to the Throne of St. Peter -- he regained a pastoral character that had not often been shown to the world in his years as doctrinal watchdog. Finally, as Tim has noted, Ratzinger has a far better theological mind and a far deeper grasp of nuance and the inherently fertile tension between continuity and innovation, divergence, and renewal than most of his supposedly "conservative" confreres in the Roman Church today.
Indeed, counter-examples to the Pope's supposed "conservatism" abound. The German bishops petitioned several times from the late 1970's through the 1990's for Pope John Paul II to declare Hildegard of Bingen a Doctor of the Church -- and each time, the request was refused. No request, however, was put forth a year ago to prompt Pope Benedict to make the declaration, which was made official in October. If you know anything about Hildegard's reception in the modern world, you must surely know that her popularity is driven by feminists and New Agers -- indeed, the defrocked Matthew Fox was her greatest English-language champion before the millennium. That's one of the reasons Benedict's decision caught those of us who study Hildegard by complete surprise -- as much as we desired for her to be made a Doctor of the Church, we thought that her radical tendencies and radical reception by feminists and New Agers made such a declaration impossible in the current doctrinal climate.
59timspalding
I will never forget the night I fell asleep with public radio on and awoke gradually in the middle of something beautiful and strange I had never heard before, something about "feather on the breath of God," which turned out to be her, of course.
60John5918
>58 nathanielcampbell: the "German Shepherd" softened upon election to the Throne of St. Peter -- he regained a pastoral character that had not often been shown to the world in his years as doctrinal watchdog. Finally, as Tim has noted, Ratzinger has a far better theological mind and a far deeper grasp of nuance and the inherently fertile tension between continuity and innovation, divergence, and renewal than most of his supposedly "conservative" confreres in the Roman Church today
Well put. Thanks, Nathaniel.
Well put. Thanks, Nathaniel.
61sullijo
>58 nathanielcampbell: I'm not sure if Ratzinger/Benedict softened or if his new role allowed his pastoral nature to be revealed to the world. By all the accounts I've read he's always been a warm, friendly person. His role as head of the CDF didn't always allow that to shine through.
But I definitely agree: I think everyone has been surprised at the character of his pontificate. I certainly have been.
But I definitely agree: I think everyone has been surprised at the character of his pontificate. I certainly have been.
62MyopicBookworm
Aside:
When I stayed in a Benedictine monastery for Holy Week some years ago, they were hearing daily passages from Cardinal Ratzinger as a Lenten penance...
When I stayed in a Benedictine monastery for Holy Week some years ago, they were hearing daily passages from Cardinal Ratzinger as a Lenten penance...
63plaris
Myopic=narrow minded. This blog is amazingly shortsighted. The essence of what the church is seems to escape these bloggers. I do not know what you guys have read, but you should certainly need to read a LOT more.
Right, you do not have to post that. I would not stay in this group even if you paid me.
Right, you do not have to post that. I would not stay in this group even if you paid me.
64timspalding
I would not stay in this group even if you paid me.
It's not a group. Apparently it's a blog!
It's not a group. Apparently it's a blog!
65John5918
>63 plaris: plaris, thanks for posting, but to be honest your post makes no sense to me whatsoever. Would you care to explain what you mean, why you think this conversation is short-sighted, what you think the essence of the Church is and how it escapes us, and what makes you think that some of the posters here have not read widely on the Church? Otherwise I'm afraid your intervention is not really very helpful in terms of exploring the issues raised in this thread.
Join to post
