Growth in Christ
The discussion regarding Pope Benedict’s new book, Light of the World, will doubtless be engaged at many levels over the coming weeks. In the up-till-now most cited passsage, the part that I found particularly typical of the Pope was this:
this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.
Reading it, one of the thoughts that struck me was that moral theology needs to be intimately connected with spirituality: that living the Christian life depends on an ongoing intimate relation with Christ. But this is a never-completed journey in spiritual maturation — at least while we are “in statu viatoris.”
I was further reminded of this when I re-read today a chapter from Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth. In chapter five, reflecting upon “The Lord’s Prayer,” Benedict writes:
We are not ready-made children of God from the start, but we are meant to become so increasingly by growing more and more deeply in communion with Jesus. Our sonship turns out to be identical with following Christ. To name God as Father thus becomes a summons to us: to live as a “child,” as a son or daughter.
Father Imbelli, thank you for this post. I look forward to further insights from you on Pope Benedict’s Light Of The World.
When I read the words “first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants,” I don’t really think of prostitutes as the most likely examples of people in a position to do this. The impression the pope’s words give is that prostitutes are among the most amoral and “liberated” people on the planet, who selfishly say, “I can do anything I want, and nobody’s going to stop me! So there! All I care about is me me me!” When I think of prostitutes (especially female ones), I think of human trafficking, pimps, and drug addiction. I have also read that 80% of women who become prostitutes were sexually abused as children. Another statistic is that “victims of child sexual abuse are 27.7 times more likely to be arrested for prostitution as adults than non-victims.”
Someone who has to take a “first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants” sounds more like a sociopath (or in the terminology of psychiatry, someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder).
As far as moral culpability goes, I wouldn’t rank prostitutes as the lowest of the low. I think prostitutes are at least as likely to be victims as villains. If I were St. Peter, I would be quicker to let prostitutes into heaven than to admit Bernie Madoff, or any rich person who made a fortune by swindling innocent people illegally or legally.
As I noted over on Vox Nova, the question the pope was asked was, “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?” Did the pope:
A. Answer in the affirmative? (“Yes, you got my drift. The Church is not opposed in principle.”)
B. Answer in the negative? (“No, don’t put words in my mouth. The Church is opposed in principle.”)
C. Not really answer the question?
I think the pope’s words were clearly aimed beyond male prostitutes, and were to apply to any of us.
I wonder, though, if rather than the fruit of a deeper spirituality the Pope’s words reflect the benefits of a greater pastoral connection among human beings. His comments about condom use and Humanae Vitae and other topics always seem to point to a relational development of the Christian life, and that seems to be his point about the male prostitute or any of the other instances — that we become aware of the dignity of the other person, and ourselves.
Moreover, I think the argument that he made this personal turnabout on condoms after his experience in Africa of AIDS minsitry (which he mentions in Light of the World) is quite plausible, and shows him as perhaps speaking of himself (“a beggar before God,” in his affecting phrase) as well. It would be hard to think of a more Christological Christian than Benedict, yet it may not have been until he saw the lived experience and suffering of Christ’s brothers and sisters that he took a different step on his own pilgrimage.
It may be a stretch — but I can’t resist — but I wonder if the Newman beatification and the attendant focus on Newman’s ideas of change and develoment may also have had an impact on Benedict, pushing him to this interesting pass.
. . . this personal turnabout on condoms . . .
David,
I will believe there has been a “turnabout” when Catholic HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment organizations begin incorporating condom use into their operations with official permission from Rome.
Father Imbelli,
Setting aside my considerable skepticism for a moment, I wonder if it isn’t too fanciful to suggest that there was something a bit Jesus-like in the pope’s response. There are a number of times when Jesus is confronted with a tricky question (for example, whether it is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar) when, if you look carefully at his response, you see he hasn’t exactly answered the question. The pope seems to have responded to the question of whether the Church opposes condoms “in principle” by making an observation about moral and spiritual development occurring within a person rather than citing a rule about condoms to be imposed from without.
The African bishops show no signs of having perceived a turnabout. They continue to tell their people that of course the Pope does not approve of condoms.
Jesus said something about prostitutes preceding us into the Kingdom, and I believe He knew whereof he spoke.
A ‘beginning of moralization,’ when a prostitute uses a condom to protect herself or her client? I’m not clear as to how this is a pastorally or spiritually sensitive expression. In fact, as the US bishops have discovered to their embarrassment, nothing is clear in Benedict’s Delphic comments on this hot-button issue.
To be sure, Jesus could be quite Delphic too. But I’m afraid Delphic utterances often leave their intended audience sprawling in the dust, like the two tramps at the end of Bunuel’s great theological satire, La voie lactée. Are Popes supposed to be enigmatic? How wonderful to think of a Fichte on the Throne of Peter! But what would the message be for common humankind: “Don’t bother me with your moral conundrums, use your common sense and your conscience to sort them out for yourselves!”?
I have been reading the book and the interview with great interest. I think that Pope Benedict is very wise in his overall approach. His vision is very, very large, and very much faith based. While I may quibble with a particular move, there is no question that he is calling the community (faith and secular community) to a richer discernment of a complex issue.
I have been struck by how deeply the necessity of faith, grace, and encounter with God as the primary first step in an ethical or human endeavour suffuses all of his conversations. At issue is not so much condoms, but the Church’s role in calling everyone to greater conversion.
I think he is wise not to get bogged down in these details.
In another context, speaking of his ecumenical relationship and commonality in faith with the Russian patriarch, Benedict says, “We are no moralistic but, standing on the foundation of faith, we are bearers of an ethical message that provides a compass for mankind”.
Ethics cannot be interpreted as moralism but has to be interpreted as Levinas suggested as a first philosophy, a response that precedes reflection. I think what Benedict is driving at is that it is Christ who initiates always and we respond albeit imperfectly. The proclamation of the risen Christ who comes is what is important. All these things will be added later. However, the recapturing of that essential message is what is essential.
By the way, I am impressed with the Benedict who emerges from these pages. I still think he underestimates himself and the occupant of the papacy but his humility is refreshing.
Wise not to get bogged down in these details? But he is up to his neck in them! African bishops are reciting his remarks as a vindication of their opposition to the use of condoms to stop Aids (with the exception of a thoughtful hierarch here and there, such as one Cardinal in Ghana), Filipino bishops organize condom burning ceremonies and threaten politicians with excommunication if they distribute condoms. Hamletian musings on a situation in which the Church is responsible for a great number of preventable deaths are not a sign of deep spirituality.
Maybe it would be helpful if we could develop a system of marking commentary on “Licht der Welt” as (A) discussions about the sentence about condoms or (B) discussions about the rest of the book. That way, people who think they have already heard enough about condoms could find the rather sparse material on the rest of the book. I don’t know if this system would be very popular, though. The mainstream media are still trying to figure out why the book’s title isn’t “All About Condoms.”
However, not being a monster, I want to agree with David Nickol, that the choice of a HIV-positive prostitute as somebody who “believes everything is permitted” is appalling. Callous, ignorant, and brutal. A better example of somebody who thinks all is permitted (as long as you have the right collar) would be the archpriest at St. Maria Maggiore. IMHO, obviously.
Felapton, I agree there is much much else of interest in the book, and indeed, I may be committing journalistic heresy, but the story I was preparing on the book did not mention condoms in the lead or even close to it. But it was the Vatican’s own publishing organs (ahem) that put the condoms issue front and center, and set the die for how the book would be received. That’s was very unfortunate, IMHO.
David, if you are going to committ journalistic heresy, you might as well reveal who in the Vatican is responsible, IMHO.
Joseoh O’Leary, there are no prostitutes in Heaven. In order to enter into God’s Kingdom, we must repent and be transformed by The Truth of Love.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians6.htm
Nancy,
There is no mystery about who is “responsible” for L’Osservatore Romano publishing excerpts from the interview with the pope. They did it with permission of the Vatican Publishing House. See John Allen in NCR.
Joseoh O’Leary, there are no prostitutes in Heaven. In order to enter into God’s Kingdom, we must repent and be transformed by The Truth of Love.
Nancy,
Your argument is with Jesus (Matthew 21:31-32), not with Father O’Leary.
David – there are “former” prostitutes in heaven who have repented – prostitutes knew what they were doing was wrong – they knew they had to repent – the religious leaders thought what they were doing was right, thus making it more difficult for them to see the truth and even consider repenting.
David, to believe in the way of righteousness, is to believe in The Truth of Love.
Sure there are “former” prostitutes in heaven as well as “former” embezzlers, murderers, liars, etc,etc. My understanding of the spiritual dimensions of morality is that it is process of loving what is good more deeply and truly as life goes on. This is from Thomas Aquinas. As a catechist I have found that both children and adults are attracted to such a process and have had many energetic discussions along these lines. As a general rule, I think the moral horizon needs to be set by what we love not by what we are against.
My understanding of what “sinner” refers to in the context of the New Testament is not people who are on their way to reforming – even Pharisees believed this was possibility. Instead, a sinner was one who had absolutely no intention of changing. This is precisely why it was such a scandal for Jesus to be associated with sinners.
In this context, Benedict, is quite correct that the person who uses a condom for the purpose health indicates that this is “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward discovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”
He touches on the issue of priests and suggests that the problem is an overly soft (I am paraphrasing) approach to discipline by leaders. Being tougher and imposing stricter standards of conduct on abusive priests by leaders would have helped. Certainly, Benedict can and should be much more vigorous in this regard and I agree that a more substantive discernment on clericalism and certain institutional issues is still necessary. However, the overall point is growth in Christ as the title post indicates.
David, to believe in the way of righteousness, is to believe in The Truth of Love.
Nancy,
Love means never having to say you’re sorry.
How do you people know who is in heaven, and where can I get this information? Is there a wiki that lists all the names?
Christ promised that whatever the Church binds on Earth is bound in heaven as well. Therefore, all officially canonized saints are known to be in heaven. You can look their names up in the calendar in the back of your missal.
Felapton ==
Do you mean that? (I just wonder how somebody who has such a sophisticated understanding of modern physics can think what you just said is literally true.)
“… recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”
This phrase instantly transported me back to 1951; the first night of the “men’s mission” preached by some fire-breathing Redemptorist. Myself and three other be-cassocked altar boys awaiting the end of the sermon and the beginning of Benediction, with ears pressed against the sacristy door (we had been solemnly charged not to listen) heard the doom “just because you’re married it doesn’t mean you can do whatever you like …” If memory serves me correctly the good preacher did not elaborate, he simply left the conviction that if it were pleasurable it was most certainly sinful. The may have also used the phrase “abominable crimes” but maybe that memory comes from somewhere else.
And now I hear it again: vintage 1950′s sexual morality and the B16 is still stuck there. At least JPII took some flights of fancy in his Theology of the Body (it was beautiful if largely removed from reality) but Benedict gives us it straight from the mouth of Augustine.
Brian Carroll,
are you arguing the affirmative: “everything is allowed and one can do whatever one wants?”
I’d say Sinai’s “Ten Words” anticipated Augustine by some centuries.
Hi Ann,
I know it by faith, because Christ’s Church teaches that it is so. Obviously, knowing things by faith is not quite like knowing them in the ordinary way. For one thing, one has much less of a sense of certainty.
I have been reading St. Augustine’s Civitas Dei lately, not for the theology (I’m still in the first half.) but because I admire his Latin style and am trying to improve my own. And I find myself becoming gradually somewhat more pious under the influence of the saint. But, don’t worry, as soon as I finish AA., I’ll pick up Davy Hume.
If you or David N. or somebody like that had raised the question, I probably would have thought about the underlying epistemology a bit more. In this case, it sounded like a just another Tighty-Righty troll logging into dotCommonweal to take some cheap shots. So I threw him the sort of tasteless, nutritionless bone the TR’s love best; something he can cut-copy-paste from his (otherwise unopened) catechism into a combox. Believe it or not, that’s considered “rational argument” and “apologetic” in some circles.
If you’re talking about me, I’m straight-up MOT, so shelve all of the TR talk. Frankly, I was flabbergasted by the presumptiveness of people who were so bloody certain about who they wouldn’t have the distasteful experience of rubbing elbows with in heaven.
Having just deleted one comment that I found inappropriate, we’ll close comments and leave “growth in Christ” for another day.