Benedict in Africa (Update)
John Allen continues his fine coverage:
In Cameroon today, Benedict XVI seemed infected with an “ad extra” spirit, concentrating on how the gospel message can transform the broader culture. He delivered a largely outward-looking message during his open-air Mass before an enthusiastic crowd of 40,000 at a downtown sports stadium in Yaoundè, then visiting the Cardinal Paul Emile Léger Rehabilitation Centre to express solidarity with a group of disabled and ill people.
He also today presented the instrumentum laboris, or “working paper,” for the upcoming Synod for Africa. Speaking of the church in Africa, the working paper declares that “she ought not to retire into herself,” and calls for a “more prophetic role” in the social and political life of the continent. (Read more about the synod document: Pope unveils African Synod preparation paper.)
One clear emphasis of the document is that the lay faithful working in politics, finance, and other sectors ought to transform African societies from the inside out.
The Mass this morning amounted to a celebration of Catholicism in Africa, the continent where the church has seen the most dynamic growth over the last century. African drums kept up a steady beat throughout the liturgy, native dancers presented the Book of Gospels, and worshippers danced, swayed and sang throughout the Mass.
Later in the day, at the Cardinal Léger Centre, the Pope spoke to the sick and disabled and their families:
In the presence of such torment, we feel powerless and we cannot find the right words. Before a brother or sister plunged into the mystery of the Cross, a respectful and compassionate silence, a prayerful presence, a gesture of tenderness and comfort, a kind look, a smile, often achieve more than many words. This was the experience of a small group of men and women, including the Virgin Mary and the Apostle John, who followed Jesus in the depths of his suffering at the time of his Passion and his death on the Cross. Among them, the Gospel tells us, was an African, Simon of Cyrene. He was given the task of helping Jesus to carry his Cross on the way to Golgotha. This man, albeit through no choice of his own, came to the aid of the Man of Sorrows when he had been abandoned by all his followers and handed over to blind violence. History tells us, then, that an African, a son of your continent, took part, at the price of his own suffering, in the infinite suffering of the one who ransomed all men, including his executioners. Simon of Cyrene could not have known that it was his Saviour who stood there before him. He was “drafted in” to assist him (cf. Mk 15:21); he was constrained, forced to do so. It is hard to accept to carry someone else’s cross. Only after the resurrection could he have understood what he had done. Brothers and sisters, it is the same for each of us: in the depths of our anguish, of our own rebellion, Christ offers us his loving presence even if we find it hard to understand that he is at our side. Only the Lord’s final victory will reveal for us the definitive meaning of our trials.
Vatican Radio has the full text, as well as the other addresses.
Update:
John Allen has a nuanced reading of the Pope’s time in Cameroon and the differing perceptions it has evoked:
It’s almost as if the pope has made two separate visits to Cameroon: the one reported internationally and the one Africans actually experienced.
In the U.S. and many other parts of the world, coverage has been “all condoms, all the time,” triggered by comments from Benedict aboard the papal plane to the effect that condoms aren’t the right way to fight AIDS. In Africa, meanwhile, the trip has been a hit, beginning with Benedict’s dramatic insistence that Christians must never be silent in the face of “corruption and abuses of power,” and extending through a remarkable meeting with African Muslims in which the pope said more clearly and succinctly what he wanted to say three years ago in his infamous Regensburg address, and without the gratuitous quotation from a Byzantine emperor.
Vast and pumped-up crowds flocked to see the pope, and Benedict seemed swept up in the enthusiasm. Twice he referred to Africa as the “continent of hope,” and at one point, this consummate theologian even mused aloud about a new burst of intellectual energy in Africa that might generate a 21st century version of the famed school of Alexandria, which gave the early church such luminaries as Clement and Origen.
The rest is here, including his fascinating interview with Archbishop Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria.
Drums…in the service. Heh, heh.
Now….when will Mary Lou Williams’ Mass and other liturgical compositions be taken seriously by the Vatican and accepted as truly reflecting Afro-American spirituality?
Mary Lou Williams, a superb jazz musician, a very devout Catholic, was ignored by the Vatican. Perhaps, if the Vatican was media savvy, they could pay attention to her.
Also…Sarah Vaughan sung Pope John Paul’s poems, The Mystery of Man.
Can a resurrection of Misa Luba, Misa Criola, and Misa Flamenca be far behind?
Not in the US, of course … we can’t have THAT kind of music in our sacrosanct eurocentric high gothic liturgies, can we?
How can I say this to get a rational discussion going? Did Paul speak or refer to Peter in every Epistle? Doesn’t our constant coverage of the pope reek of some kind of idolatry? When Benedict was elected Joe K wrote (apparently in disappointment) “The pope is not the church, the pope is not the church.” Well said I thought even if Joe has tried his best to be sympathetic since. No question one tends to look at what the leader has to say everyday. Therefore the president is usually on the front page of the mainline newspapers mostly everyday. So the pope is important.
Yet how important is the president or the pope? George Bush certainly did not exemplify America. Does Benedict personify Catholicism. Is there more to the faith than him? Benedict even said that himself that the Holy Spirit seemed absent in many pope’s election. Many have told me of extraordinary examples of faith and community in America and throughout the world. Do we pay adequate attention? Is our only recognition the occasional article and then it is Benedict 24/7. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture.
Granted I am a fierce critic of Benedict and the bishops. But objectively is it possible to cover and celebrate the rest of the church?
I mean even Peter never got the attention that modern day popes get. Sure we have instant global communication. But that does not seem to help any attention given to those marvelous people in Catholic Relief Services and others that we know little about.
How many out there are showing the freedom and joy of the Children of God? There seems to be something to all this. Can anyone augment, amplify or clarify?
The Papacy, as a monarchial, hierarchial, authoritarian institution, is a last remnant of Christendom. That being said ….
“Loren Mead of the Alban Institute in his The Once and Future Church advances the thesis that over its 2,000-year history the church has operated on one of two dominant paradigms, the Apostolic and Christendom. The Apostolic paradigm understood the church as a people called out of the world to live by the values and power of Jesus. The church was not only called out of the dominant culture but also sent into a hostile world to bear witness to God’s love in Christ. In the Apostolic paradigm the mission field began at the doorway of the church. The laity of the church were the primary enactors of the church’s mission and witness, and the congregation was the central reality of the church.
All this changed in the generations following Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity. A new paradigm came into being: Christendom. Mission was no longer seen as at the door of the church but as at the political boundary of the empire, and mission became the special province of the missionary (in the religious realm) and the soldier (in the political realm). No longer were the laity the primary enactors of the church’s witness in a hostile world. Being Christian was equivalent to being a loyal, law-abiding citizen. One no longer decided to be a Christian. One was a Christian by birth – if one was born in the empire. Finally, the congregation was replaced as the primary reality of the church’s life by the parish – a geographical designation. One did not so much belong to a congregation as reside in a parish.
Christendom is now over, and what will replace it is not yet clear. The church finds itself in an environment that is ambiguous – partly antagonistic, partly indifferent and partly supportive. No longer can it be assumed that everyone is Christian. No longer does the community, through public schools, community festivals and associations, reinforce Christian values or beliefs. No longer is the mission field at the political boundary. It is now, again, nearer the door of the church. All kinds of challenges and possibilities are hidden within the demise of Christendom. Being a Christian becomes more a matter of decision and a vocation, a choice among alternatives. Once again the laity are on the front lines of mission. It will be several generations before a new paradigm is in place.”
Anthony B. Robinson’s book review of Leander Keck’s “The Church Confident,” Christian Century, 9/22-29/93.
“But objectively is it possible to cover and celebrate the rest of the church?”
I would say that the news media gives us only a very thin and gauzy slice of what the church really is. The rest is for us, not to consume through the media, but to live – through prayer, liturgy, devotions, service, relationships, veneration, contemplation and all the rest.
John Allen says that one clear emphasis of the pope’s message “is that the lay faithful working in politics, finance, and other sectors ought to transform African societies from the inside out.”
The Church as a human organization is, and has consistently sought to be, a significant factor in the political, financial, and cultural life of the societies in which it has institutions. Does this not entail that the pope is calling for lay people to play an active role in determining how the Church as human organization functions in society. Would this not amount to calling upon the laity to exercise some oversight concerning the political, financial, and cultural activities of the Church?
Or is this not more relatively empty lip service to the Vatican II talk about the laity’s role in the life of the Church?