“Without having seen him, you love him”
Recently, I wrote about the powerful effect made by the images of the Pope during his visit to the States. I drew particular attention to his meeting with children suffering from disabilities and to his encounter with survivors and family members at Ground Zero. Indelible images for those who witnessed them.
But the challenge now before the Church in the United States is to ponder and take to heart the rich texts he has left us. Peter Nixon in his post, “Veritas,” (below) has insightfully initiated this meditation. Now Peter Steinfels, in today’s New York Times, offers his own reflection.
Steinfels’ thoughtful and respectful column requires careful reading. But here is his conclusion:
Will addressing the God crisis, perhaps with the pastoral sensitivity Benedict demonstrated on his visit, spontaneously generate responses to the church crisis? Or is addressing the structural dimension of the church crisis a prerequisite to successfully addressing the God crisis?
The lasting impact of Pope Benedict’s visit may hang on the answers to those two questions.
What I find myself pondering, however, is a third “crisis” which may actually underlie the two which Peter identifies. Call it “the Jesus crisis.”
One cannot read a homily or a pastoral address of the Holy Father without sensing that the proclamation of Jesus as “Lord and Messiah” is the very heart of his message. Let one example, from his address in Washington to the Representatives of other religions, suffice:
Confronted with these deeper questions concerning the origin and destiny of mankind, Christianity proposes Jesus of Nazareth. He, we believe, is the eternal Logos who became flesh in order to reconcile man to God and reveal the underlying reason of all things. It is he whom we bring to the forum of interreligious dialogue. The ardent desire to follow in his footsteps spurs Christians to open their minds and hearts in dialogue.
But Benedict does not merely bear witness to this. He, in season and out of season, invites Christians to enter into ever-deeper relation with their Savior. Again, but one example — from his address to young people at St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie:
Dear friends, truth is not an imposition. Nor is it simply a set of rules. It is a discovery of the One who never fails us; the One whom we can always trust. In seeking truth we come to live by belief because ultimately truth is a person: Jesus Christ. That is why authentic freedom is not an opting out. It is an opting in; nothing less than letting go of self and allowing oneself to be drawn into Christ’s very being for others.
We can argue ceaselessly about why there is something rather than nothing or about the ultimate foundation for human rights. We can passionately debate structural reform in the Church. But in the quiet hours of early morning or late night do we not ultimately wrestle with the question: do I love him?
In the New Testament, a rich, but sometimes neglected text is the First Letter of Peter. We are, of course, reading it during this Easter Season at Sunday Eucharist. Peter joyfully exults in the faith of his (newly baptized?) hearers: “Without having seen him, you love him!” (1 Pet 1:8).
Is Peter’s successor posing this to us as a question: “Without having seen him, do you love him?”
If so, the Lord himself provides the precedent: “Simon Peter: Do you love me?” Peter, dense like us, had to be asked three times (Jn 21:15-19).
Dear Father Imbelli
Back to Dante! It is quite possible to love Jesus, to love God, to love the poor, yes, even to love the church, and at the same time to have the doubts about the present ecclesiastical structure and the behavior of some of its prominent personnel. Father Reese has addressed the question of structure brilliantly. What do you make of his case?
I found David Gibson’s reflections at Benedictions also thoughtful and respectful and I migh tadd quite pointed for issues about the American Church.
Gibson notes the Veritas thread here.
He raises the extremely vital point of women’s role (or non-role) in the Papal visit and in the church If how the Church treats someone is symbolic to them of God’s design, this is indeed not only an important structural but also basic theological issue – still hanging and a major divider in the Church.
A third try at submitting a comment.
Fr. Imbelli’s third “crisis” fits readily with the two crises that Peter Steinfels brings up. Thus: A basic responsibility of the Church is to talk well about God and the love that He has for us, a love that Jesus made clear and that makes it possible for us to respond lovingly to all that the Trinity does for us.
I don’t want to focus on the pope’s visit and what he said during it. I want to focus on the Church’s responsibility.
I take it that one of the most important things that the pope does as Universal Pastor is appointing bishops. It is the bishop and the clergy that he assigns to minister to us that matter most to us in the practice of our faith. What traits does the pope look for in a bishop and what does hes expect the bishop to do?
In my limited experience, the Church, at least in the U. S. is not discharging its basic responsibility very well. Consider its talk about God. To talk well about God takes hard work. It’s not evident that our clergy realize that to talk about creation, redemption, sin, revelation, etc. is hard. They all too often seem to think that trotting out just any old “pious” story is good enough. Intentionally or not they fail to show respect for their congregations.
Or, to change the focus a bit. The clergy all too often present the Church as an institution that imposes a multitude of rules and beliefs. All too often they fail to help people see the point of the rules and to distinguish between the essential rules and the others. Similarly, they fail to take into account the questions about Catholic doctrine that are widespread in our culture and that the people unavoidably have to deal with somehow. Again, no evidence of ability or willingness to do the hard pedagogical work.
I have no illusions that tons of people want to hear more from their clergy about anything. But that’s just a further indication of the poor state of catechesis in the Church today.
By way of a conclusion, I suggest that we think again about the remarks attributed to Cardinal Tauran in the thread “Crossing the Bridge to Iran.” It exemplifies, at the highest levels, the arrogant simplemindedness that insists that the church (i.e., clergy) need not listen. All they have to do is talk.
I can’t resist adding a very personal gripe about preaching. Last weekend one of my grandsons received his First Communion. In the “sermon” to these second graders and their relatives, some of whom no doubt were far from ardent in the practice of the faith, the priest first told us how fortunate he had been on his vacation to have a rented car equipped with a navigation device. It helped him to get where he wanted to go and to avoid mistakes. Then he told us that Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life, is our navigation device. So we should be glad to have Him. End of ” sermon.”
I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t have the guts to walk out! But I do hope, agains the evidence of my experience, that this “sermon” was an anomaly.
It is not too much to say that the pope should do all that he can to appoint bishops that will make foolishness of this sort rare.
Peter says: “The pope’s silence about all such institutional nuts and bolts is not surprising. For one thing, he believes that church structures must evolve, as he says, “organically” rather than by grand design.
His suspicion of structural changes goes further, however. He often dismisses them, especially liberal ones, as “power games” or as superficial diversions from the foundational God crisis and the interior transformation it entails.”
The argument that change must be “organic” if it is to be legitimate or useful raises the question: What are the criteria for a change’s being organic? One may suspect that proposed changes of which Benedict does not approve will turn out to be not “organic” enough. It is history that tells us how we got to be the way we are. Many things have changed over two millennia. Have all those changes been “organic”? This question needs serious and lengthy consideration.
As for the accusation that proposals for change are “power games” this is the well known attack on motive as a substitute for serious consideration. Those who oppose change are also likely to have motives connected with power. Does that entail that their opposition to change is unjustified?
As for interior transformation, of course that is primary. There has often been corruption in the church–”scandals must arise”–but there have also been saints. We are all called to be saints. One can want to be holy and also be opposed to strucural obstacles to the work of the church. It is an excellent example of the ad hominem fallacy to accuse advocates of change of being indifferent to sanctity.
Actually in John Jesus asks three times not because Peter is dense but because he has denied Jesus three times.
I think it interesting that today’s NYT, Week In Review, carried a two page full insert from the Templeton Foundations “big questions” on the topic: Does Science Make Belief In God Obsolete?”
Lots of different answers from different scholars and much more athe website.
A worthy example of how the question ogf God and truth and our ever growing scientific knowledge fit and worthy of a broad BXVI kind of response.
But Joseph Gannon is right aboiut the problem of”organic” change.
While many of the masses migh thave expected BXVI to be a harsh critic, all the advance notice was he was coming to give a positive presentation -and he did.
Any accentuation of the positive and elimination of the negaticve, though, seemd to imply change and that’s not what we got and the impact could well result in _ as they say, “About what was expected, less than hoped for.”
You cannot have a healthy church without strong and clear episcopal leadership and without intelligent lay participation. Both of these were destroyed by John Paul II through systematic undercutting of the authority of bishops and systematic appointment of yes-men, on the one hand, and throught the promotion of elitist lay movements that recognize no authority but that of a totemic Pope and who look down on the ordinary laity, on the other. Benedict is complicit in these distortions, which have taken the Church very far from the ecclesiology of Vatican II. Feel-good get-togethers with the Pope will not remedy this systemic damage.
One sad thing about Benedict’s silence on issues like the debate over structural change in the church is that this is one area where he might be able to make a positive difference with relative ease. Making amends for the kind of isystemic damage Fr. O’Leary reminds us about would be a real achievement, and an appropriate agenda item for someone whose time as Pope would seem likely to be briefer than his predecessor’s. The clock is ticking on these urgent issues.
Sorry. That should have been “systemic damage” in line three above.
Given my comment about the “sermon” at my grandson’s First Communion, I now have to eat a bit of crow. Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to go to Mass at Old St. Joseph’s in Philadelphia. It was so reverent, priest and congregation obviously praying together. The homily hit me right where I needed to be hit. The priest reminded us that we are blessed by being united in Christ and His love. Our redemption comes not from the competence or good sense of our fellow believers, clergy or lay, but from this unity with Jesus. Competence and good sense are, of course, greatly to be esteemed. But in the end, unity in love is of the essence. That, I take it, was Fr. Imbelli’s point in starting this thread. I needed to be bopped in the head with it, again.
Dear Professor Dauenhauer,
A good friend of mine lived near Old St. Joseph’s and when I visited him, I also found a lovely and prayerful liturgy. I’m glad that was your experience as well.
I’m glad too that you recognize the thrust of my post. I certainly think we could profit greatly from better episcopal leadership and enlightened lay participation in the Church. But I believe the question, the challenge goes deeper. It goes to the very roots of our identity as a faith community.
I find it significant that at the end of their lives, two great Dominican theologians and ecumenists, Yves Congar and Jean-Marie Tillard, found themselves haunted by the same New Testament text: “But when the Son of Man comes again, will he find faith?”
Yes, and one might wonder whether there will ever be a future Bishop of Rome who will have sufficient faith in the working of the Holy Spirit in others beside himself to enable him to see the wisdom of Pope Celestine’s saying in the matter of bishops that “one who is to be head over all should be elected by all”.
I was reminded of Msgr. Harry Byrne’s comment during Benedict’s visit that the Holy Father sees hhimself and his bishops as above canon law.
The folk at this blog and the folks calling for structural change are deeply involved in their faith otherwise they wouldn’t post here or even bother with the issue.The risk of faith needs a rational bais: the actions of the Church impinge on the credibility of the Message heavily.
It’s not only Benedict obviously on structural isues.
Our Episcopal leaders are busy with parish closings, often much to the hcagrin of those who dearly love their Church, their parish and find nourisjhment there. Some have even risen up in severe protest over what they see is close to their life of faith.
Lastly, I note all the side comments in the Egan/Guiliani thread about the Eucharist for divorced/remarried Catholics. From what I see ther eare folk who pay no attention to the injunction not to receive and approach the table, often with quite deep faith despite the canonical rules.