Popes & Intellectuals: Some Questions
In a recent comment elevated to a post Peter Steinfels wonders at “some Catholic intellectuals” who have pictures of certain recent popes hanging on their walls.
On one level, I have no argument with that–there can be no doubt that Catholic intellectuals can adopt a position of uncritical adulation toward a pope who seems to align with their particular agenda.
But Peter’s comment raises a couple concerns and questions.
First, I am not sure that the adulation of John Paul II or Benedict XVI on the part of conservative Catholic intellectuals is any different from adulation of John XXIII on the part of liberal Catholic intellectuals.
In short: the culture wars we have with us always.
Second, Peter says that while it is OK for ordinary people to have pictures of popes and political figures on their walls (as signs of “loyalty, gratitude, and hope”), to see intellectuals doing the same is disturbing.
I sense danger here.
Are Catholic intellectuals called to some sort of Olympian detachment — some height of austere critical consciousness — that we cannot hang the picture of a pope on our walls as the common people do?
Which raises the fundamental question I want to ask — a question that I personally struggle with.
Catholic intellectuals should not be uncritical toward popes. Granted.
But what about the other side of the question? Is it possible to be so critical, so detached, that as Catholic intellectuals we lose some affectivity toward the bishop of Rome that we should have?
How can criticism and loyalty, attachment and detachment, co-exist?
And where do we turn to find the theological and spiritual resources to answer these questions?
The pope has the forum and the receptivity of the people. It is up to him to gain respect. Jesus gave the example when he washed the feet of the disciples. He also mixed in with the faithful and sinners and was on the side of the poor and downtrodden. He criticized the established leaders when they sought to dominate rather than serve.
The papacy has become a cult with the active participation by too many Catholic leaders who should know better. What is wrong with them answering the words of John the way Jesus did; “…the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM.”
If the pope or any leader cannot show this then they are not worthy of our respect. In fact in some ways recent popes have failed this test. When that occurs they must be held accountable.
Gregory Wolfe’s welcome questions were posted while I was writing my response to the many comments on my own post. If you find those below, you will see I’ve answered some of Greg’s questions. My concern applies to liberals as well as conservatives, for instance. But I think that the questions about affectivity, attachement and detachment, and the needed spiritual resources are very good ones.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=6702&cpage=2#comment-63621
“Is it possible to be so critical, so detached, that as Catholic intellectuals we lose some affectivity toward the bishop of Rome that we should have?”
Is that really a point of contention? I think as Peter put it, reflexively treating popes like Torquemada “seems childish. It gives a bad witness to the maturity and the integrity of our faith.”
Personally, I wouldn’t disagree with that.
What Peter said above, and below…!
David: yes, I think there are still bones of contention and I do not think they can simply be dismissed out of hand.
I think we have a lot of spiritual and intellectual work to do — dare I say, ascesis to perform?
If Peter’s own qualms have any meaning at all, then yes, there are still issues that ALL Catholic intellectuals need to be working on.
We live in a hyper-politicized environment — that in itself is now the single greatest obstacle to meaningful conversation in the church.
Excessive detachment is every bit the problem the excessive adulation is — but in the context of THIS community, we do not discuss the dangers of detachment often enough and honestly enough.
Please do not dare to say ascesis.
I withdraw ascesis. You’re right, Grant. I don’t know what I was thinking. We’re fine just as we are.
Greg-
A very valid point to raise. I so tire of people who want to demonize B-16 or JP-2 as well as those who want to immediately canonize them (or at least JP-2). Moderation, in all things, except, of course, charity.
Anthony
Perhaps we can look to the first pope for answers to this question. Peter was rather clumsy, rebuked often by Jesus, usually said the wrong thing, bewildered and generally seemed lost. He certainly does not look like the subject of adulation by a long stretch. Yet God chose him to be a leader so that the power of God can become manifest.
So it is the leader who exhibits God that is the determinant. Not the leader who plays God.
“Are Catholic intellectuals called to some sort of Olympian detachment — some height of austere critical consciousness — that we cannot hang the picture of a pope on our walls as the common people do?”
The asceticism of an intellectual can be–often is–presented as a solitary journey. But is that the asceticism that Catholic intellectuals should aspire to? Or is there more asceticism in the difficult work of being a member of a community “of one heart and mind”?
I’m afraid the intellectual’s temptation is to stand outside the community, above it, as its critic. But is this really satisfying?
I’m unclear about affectivity towards the Pope or Bishops etc.
There is clearly an amount of respect sdue to the title/position.
If we lived in the days of the Miedici Popes, I wonder about affectivity then.
Well in today’s divided world, where there is much discussion about power and control, it strikes me that the critical eye needs to be fixed.
I think Mr. Steinfels approach was that a line was crossed into too much adulation(not idolatry) which hampers genuine discssion.
I guess I feel whether there’s too much detachment here is a matter for whose ox is gored ecclesiologically in looking at problems.
Perhaps that’s the case because we are operating in a (Church) world where we say something is so because I say so.
The post says: “Are Catholic intellectuals called to some sort of Olympian detachment — some height of austere critical consciousness …” This reminds me of Pope Benedict’s speech prepare for La Sapienza students:
But truth is not only theoretic. In correlating the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mountain and the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Isaiah 11, Augustine asserted the reciprocity of scientia and tristitia. For him just knowing is source of sadness. In fact those who only see and learn all that happens in the world end up becoming sad.
I though t”Olympian detachment” was an overkill.
Is there a problem with someone who enjoys reading the intellectual and stimulating blogs of all of you (and some of your books and articles) and finds spiritual fulfillment, yet reaches for the The Imitation of Christ or a work of Columba Marmion – someone who will meditate on John’s Gospel and yet enjoys the richness of saying three rosaries a day reflecting on those mysteries and walking the stations of the Cross in Church – I do not hang the photo of either of the last two Popes yet have been stirred by their writings, especially Benedict XVI – as for John Paul II, did he just charm the everyday Catholic – we love him because we saw the face of Christ in him – Paul tells us “all that matters is that one is created anew” – we are all finding our way to the new life
Who is going to tell us if they have a picture of the current pope, previous popes, or other such figures, and what those pictures mean?
Or, if you could get a good picture of someone to hang in your study (or whatever), whose picture would it be? And why?
I have no such pictures hanging in my apartment or my office, and I can’t think of whose I would want, off the top of my head.
I have a woodcut of Dostoevsky hanging in my study!
Kathy and Claire: thank you for these thoughts. There really are large issues involved here.
Real philosophical and theological issues are at stake.
For example, to cite an analogous issue: is theology a detached “science” or should it be something closer to what von Balthasar calls “kneeling theology” (which he opposed to “sitting theology”)?
Critics of von Balthasar, whose apporach is shared by Benedict XVI, will say that “kneeling theology” is tantamount to a totalitarian enforcement of orthodoxy.
But critics of “sitting theology” will say that theology itself cannot be detached from a fundamental spiritual loyalty/piety toward the magisterium.
Personally, I believe that we must pursue a kneeling theology — but in doing so we should never put our critical sensibilities to sleep. There should be an affective loyalty to the pope on the part of Catholics that is different from the way we respond, say, to a political leader.
But that loyalty and affectivity should never cross over to papalotry, as Peter rightly insists.
My concerns have more to do with the development in the past 140 years of centralization and “undue” focus on all and any papal pronouncements e.g. almost as if there is no distinction between types of papal prounouncements; everything becomes “infallible”, etc.
Also, doubt that the typical European or colonial parish focused on the pope the way we catholics in the pew are “forced” to here about current popes, their every thought, the fact that many priests dwell on their own admiration of a particular pope, etc.
Does this really focus and highlight our catholic mission, charism, and the gospel imperative?
This may be a bit obvious, but remember it’s always the other guy who’s idolatrous.
I don’t think BXVI is receiving undue adulation. I do think, however, that JPII fully and consciously participated in what I would refer to as the modern cult of celebrity, that his manipulation of his celebrity, whether intentionally or not, made it difficult for Catholics — intellectuals or otherwise — to publicly hold his doctrinal statements up to the light of critical review because the loyalty to his personal attributes was so great, and that one of the consequences of that seems to be a more generalized belief that the Pope should be above critical challenge, and that those who challenge him are disloyal Catholics. I don’t think this is good for the church. There are simply too many non-Catholics who are ready and able to point out when the emperor has no clothes. Jesus did not rebuke those who challenged him simply on the basis of their challenge. If he had not addressed their doubts and questions we wouldn’t be here today.
David N.: I have a picture of my wife’s horse above my desk. He’s kind of a dolt, and I’m pretty sure he’s to blame for her shoulder bursitis–nobody likes to be de-wormed–but he’s terrifically photogenic.
I think you can’t make a one-size-fits all judgment. What’s the context? To whom is the intellectual talking? In what medium? If there’s criticism, what’s the basis of the criticism–saying, for example that a particular work on the part of a pope or bishop distorts or misstates an earlier aspect of the tradition is far different from saying, “I don’t like it.”
My question: Before whom are we kneeling? Jesus Christ? Yes. Absolutely. Each and every occupant of the See of Peter? I’ll give you standing with respect for the office, but not kneeling.
Let’s be clear — the most dissent-loving uber-pointy-headed Catholic intellectual is among the most vociferous believers in papal infallibility. The only thing is, they believe themselves to be a pope unto themselves.
Put up pictures of the Pope? Ha! Where would there be room. They have too many pictures of themselves, too many mirrors in which they can gaze upon their own images with admiration.
“Let’s be clear — the most dissent-loving uber-pointy-headed Catholic intellectual is among the most vociferous believers in papal infallibility. The only thing is, they believe themselves to be a pope unto themselves.”
I remember hearing a joke about Hans Kung in that vein in graduate school.
I looked up pointy-headed in urban dictionary.com. Here’s what I got. Sounds like the blogosphere as a whole is pointy-headed. But, Bender, I don’t know about “vociferous.” You might want to be careful! It is is a rather long word!
1. A person who, whilst most likely possessing above-normal intelligence, nevertheless annoys the living crap out of their friends and acquaintances due to a tendency to expound ad infinitum upon uninteresting topics, using lots of long words.
Talking of this issue in terms of affectivity is to introduce a distortion, just as von Balthasar did in launching the meme of “the anti-Roman affect”.
The real issue is that church structure has not reformed according to the intention of Vatican II. The Pope and his Curia enjoy more centralized power now than ever in history — thanks to the modern media. Bishops are now the direct creations and puppets of the Curia. This is a massive counter-sign.
Thanks once more to fr. O’Leary for raising up the interelated and critical question of the use of power (often presented as ‘service.”)
I’d just add that it’s not just affectivity but loyalty that’s in play in that context, especially when loyalty means you can’t question or openly disagree.
Is BXVI “circling the wagons?’ See the thread below with 91 pots and counting.
(My final footnote:
since my younger days, there’s been a disparagement of being too “intellectual” too nerdy, it’s not cool.
In my high science high PHD community, I hear it from folks workin gwith the post docs.)
Some of this discussion here then is limited by the limitations of blog space wher eextended person to person is really hampered to some degree.
I think that limits then the semantics of how we talk abouthierachy, clergy, etc. and the papacy in particular.
On my wall there’s a photo of Jesus (actually Jeremy Sisto playing Jesus). Ignatius of Loyola used to be up there too but he lost his place to a photo of my cvats. No popes.
“Personally, I believe that we must pursue a kneeling theology.”
I would have to agree. If we’re here not to be served, but to serve, then a kneeling theology seems more in tune. I think it is evidence of and helps foster an equanimity of soul that opens the heart to God. For some reason, blessed are the poor in spirit conjures up an image of kneeling more than sitting or standing.
Question: If it’s possible to idolize a Pope, is it also possible to idolize a council? Is that just as bad?
ISTM that undue adulation happens largely because people, especially men (pack animals that you are) need leaders, and this leads many men into wanting heroes. If you had seen the men in New Orleans the last couple of days you’d know what I mean. And many women need heroes too.
I think that this urge carries over into religious groups, hence undue adulation for some popes by some people.
It also seems to me that we must distinguish between respecting a person and having affection for him/her. I respect Cardinal Newman greatly in important ways, but based on what I’ve read about him I hardly like him at all. In fact I actively dislike parts of him. And so what? Loving our neighbors does not always include liking them.
Yes, we ought to respect the office of pope a very, very great deal. However I see no reason why we should automatically have affection for the particular men who hold it, and I see no reason why both respect and affection cannot be for only parts of their characters and performance.
Complexity, complexity.
It might be useful to offer a definition of papolatry. I think that we should all love the pope–but then I think we are supposed to love everyone–and we should all respect the office of the Bishop of Rome among the offices of the church founded by Christ. But I think there are some among us who go, unreasonably, rather far beyond these two requirements. Some seem to regard every word of the pope as if it were the word of God himself and every action of the pope as if it were the action of God. They even imagine that the Holy Spirit dictates who will be elected pope and thus, as it were, pre-approves all that follows from that election. To those who are so minded, criticism of the pope is tantamount to criticism of God himself. I would say that those who harbor such views are suspect of papolatry. In effect, if not in intent, they conflate the pope with Christ. Anyone who has any knowledge of the history of the papacy must smile at such misguided piety.
If Megan Fox were pope there would be a lot more papal pictures on walls.
“men (pack animals that you are) need leaders”
True, men need leaders. Women don’t need leaders; they have men.
“How can criticism and loyalty, attachment and detachment, co-exist? And where do we turn to find the theological and spiritual resources to answer these questions?”
If I may, I’d like to paste here one of the paragraphs from #25 of Lumen Gentium – the passage that states that we owe the Holy Father “religious submission of mind and will.” I would think that for an intellectual, with her intellectual powers well-formed in the power of critiquing, it is precisely this “submission of mind” that poses a problem. (Submission of will can be another problem, but one which perhaps doesn’t afflict intellectuals more acutely than the overall population). I’m presenting the entire paragraph because I think it helps sketch out some of the context in which owe this submission.
“25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
Thus, as Cathleen and Fr. O’Leary state, it is to the magisterial office we owe submission – perhaps more precisely, the exercise of that office. Venerating the Pope isn’t quite the same as veneratiing a saint, because a saint is deserving of veneration by the sanctity of her life. The pope’s claim to adulation is of a different sort – it is not because he is an admirable person (we know that some were not). Rather, it is precisely because he performs an essential service for us: he teaches us the Gospel, and safeguards the deposit of faith.
Beyond that, the papacy is a resonant symbol of many things: for example, the People of God unified amid all its diversity, and the fidelity of Christ who promised that he would never forsake us. Those are also good reasons, I’d think, to embrace the papacy, even if the person himself repels us.
Viz Kathy’s post: I wouldn’t consider myself an intellectual, but I’m certainly not a “people person.” I find dealing with my fellow Christians the most challenging part of the whole deal. I wouldn’t say I feel above the Church, just outside it, mostly by choice.
(Jim, Jim, Jim. Stop looking at that stupid ad.)
This is a fascinating discussion, and I’ve posted a link to it here on our “In All Things” blog to alert other readers: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=54455453-3048-741E-1688298798362255
But to answer Gregory Wolfe’s final question, “Where do we turn to find the theological and spiritual resources to answer these questions?” [Edited for heretical content.--GG]
As far as Hans Kung is concerned, the Catholic world was shocked when he showed that the pope is not infallible. Now few Catholics, intellectual or not, believe in infallibility.
Another bad effect of papa idolatry is how that power is used to damn great theologians like Schillibexx, Rahner, Congar, Balisuriya, Kung, Curran, Haight, Collins and others. What a great loss this has been to the Catholic community that so many good people influenced by Rome have never read these great theologians. Some pope in the future will apologize for the shabby treatment given such outstanding servants of the church.
In short, Jim, the magisterium decreed that we owe religious submission of mind and will to the magisterium.
At least we’re lucky that they’re consistent. Imagine what a pickle we’d be in if the magisterium had decreed that we must not obey the magisterium.
In short, Jim, the magisterium decreed that we owe religious submission of mind and will to the magisterium.
:-)
Actually, Claire, it’s a little more complicated than that, for a couple of reasons. First, because the document gives us a specific context in which we owe religious submission of mind and will: when they are exercising their teaching office. I’d think there are instances where they are not doing so, and so we don’t owe them that sort of submission.
Also: the process of submission is deserving of more discussion. For me, it isn’t a switch that I can just turn on and off. Occasionally it is very difficult to submit to a teaching that I don’t understand or agree with – it can the journey of a life time to come to terms with some things that are taught.
If it were just a raw exercise in power, I’d think papal documents would be a lot shorter, and have a lot fewer footnotes. Istm that, at least in modern times, they are meant to persuade and inspire, not merely decree. Not that, as a genre, they couldn’t be a good deal more inspirational!
Ultimately, I guess my view is that God gave us brains to use them, and an instance of papal teaching rises or falls on its own merits, not merely because the Pope said so.
Greg,
There is nothing wrong with doing theology on a kneeler as long as the theologian does not abandon his or her critical faculties. Fuzzy piety is not theology and neither is papal adulation. Even dissenting theologians are part of the community of faith; in fact the community of faith needs their dissent to keep it intellectually honest. It is hard for me to distinguish blind faith from blindness itself.
Grant,
You cannot tantalize without providing details. How does de-wroming a horse contribute to shoulder bursitis?
“Ultimately, I guess my view is that God gave us brains to use them, and an instance of papal teaching rises or falls on its own merits, not merely because the Pope said so.”
Right you are, James. Even tho Peter writes that the bishops disagree with Rome but are afraid to publicly do so, the problem is deeper than that. The bishops have been trained not to use their brains but to adopt everything coming out of Rome. At Vatican II we had wise and holy bishops and pastors who were confident and generous about the faith. The long restoration, with lip service to the spirit of V2, of Trent like obedience has produced what O’brien calls the worst crop of bishops in American history. Despite fantasies that the reform of the reform is working, church leadership has never been so barren.
This is why Catholic lay leaders now know that the leadership has to come from them.
This is probably the best discussion I have ever read on this site. Bravo.
Y’know, I don’t think its any accident that the word “fidelity” is used to describe both the Catholic’s relationship with the Magisterium and a husband and wife’s relationship to each other. People tend to think of fidelity (as least as it applies to marriage) in purely sexual terms (as in, “I won’t sleep around with other people) and it does mean that, but it means more than that. In a broader psychological sense, “fidelity” is the acknowledgement that if I am to become the person I was created to be I am obliged to stick with you.
That obligation to “stick with”–as applied to the church–doesn’t mean I check my brain at the door any more than my obligation to “stick with” my wife doesn’t mean I never have feelings for any one else. BUT it does mean that I have to exercise a certain discipline with regard to those ideas and feelings and constantly consider them in light of the person i am truly called to be. Fidelity to the Church means considering all ideas in the light of the question, “How does this idea (be it religious or not) help me be a better living breathing example of my baptismal call to bear Christ’s light to the world?” just as fidelity in marriage means, “How does this relationship (or career, or hobby, etc) help me be a better living breathing, servant to this person God has asked me to care for and be cared for in return?”
I think too many people think of “fidelity” as something “commanded” of us by some external authority against which we are obliged to live in pertpetual adolescent rebellion to prove our “other-ness” to ourselves and others. But this isn’t really fidelity at all. That’s merely disgruntled subservience and I don’t think either the Church or a spouse wants that. Much more than some kind of obedience to an “other” fidelity is really an exercise in the actualization of our identities. It is a gift we give ourselves so that we can become the gift to the world (or our spouse) that God calls us to be.
Thanks for a great conversation.
G
Jim Pauwels
Benedict has made it clear, I think you will agree, that he believes the proper way to receive the eucharist, as it is offered under the appearance of bread, is on the tongue. Do you take this to be his teaching? If so, are not we all bound to follow it? If not, why not?
Let’s see now: VII says without qualification that we must assent to/accept/submit to whatthecpppes and other teach and command. VII also says that sometimes we must dissent.
OK, guys, which is it? We really can’t have it both ways. We cannot assent and at times not assent, accept and at times not accept, submit and at times not submit.
Oops – should be: what the popes and other bishop teach and command
I last read Michael Mott’s biography of Thomas Merton probably a dozen years ago. One passage that remains with me is Mott’s discussion of Merton’s complex relationship with his longtime abbot, Dom James Fox. “Merton needed Dom James,” Mott said. Within that relationship, which was not without its problems and misunderstandings, Merton was able to serve the community, continue his quest for God, and develop as an intellectual. This was a kind of discipline that Merton chose, the relationships of obedience and service of monastic life. It seems to me that they were good for him, though he often expressed frustrations at their restraints. Mott said that for his part, Dom James called Fr. Louis “a most obedient monk.”
Aside from theological questions of the foundations and scope of authority within the Church, I wonder if there could be a reasonable expectation that obedience relationships can be a help to growth. A single mind, grinding away alone, tends to get stuck in gear. The mere experience of another mind, voicing a different opinion, can be in itself stimulating. Couldn’t it be all the more helpful if that mind belongs to someone whose basic job description is helping me and others to live out our baptismal calling?
A certain respect is certainly due to any Pope unless he proves, in practice unworthy of it. What I think of as papolatry is the starry-eyed and mindless adulation offered to holders of the office regardless of their actual performance. Here in New York there seems to emanate from our seminary a cult of Pope John Paul “the great” that I think is uncritical and unwarranted. There is some strange pathology at work, and I think it is more troubling than a mere ” pack ” mentality. I do agree (this time) with Jim: God gave us brains to use them.
I keep going back to the question of rhetoric. for example, what does the honorific “the Great” with respect to John Paul II do in a particular conversation?
Obviously, nothing at all for JPII=he’s in heaven.
So it’s meant to help the speaker’s cause. The speaker is meaning, by the honorific, to communicate something to the audience. What? One possibility is that the speaker is claiming that extra-special obsequium magnum is due to JPII — because he is “the Great.”
But who interprets JPII’s thought? Usually, what’s at stake is a particular aspect of JPII’s thought, emphasized at the expense of other aspects. Say, Evangelum Vitae, not Solicitudo Rei Socialis. Or a particular interpretation of EV? In the end, it often seems as if the speaker’s attempt at labeling JPI “the Great” is meant to bolster the speaker’s interpretive credentials with respect to JPII. “I think he’s WONDERFUL. . . so you should listen to me about what he REALLY means.” A romantic sense of knowledge, in the end.
I am cynical about such efforts–because I see them as essentially self-interested.
Pope Benedict, in his book about Jesus, makes a minimal request:
“It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.”
The reviews I saw by and large displayed goodwill. But evaluating the reviews on the continuum from adulation to condemnation would yield some surprises. Peter Steinfels, for example in the Commonweal review, is quite supportive of the Pope’s work, judging the the book to be persuasive and deeply helpful.
“Benedict constantly weaves the events, prayers, and symbols of the Old Testament with those of the New, producing, to me at least, powerful and fresh insights.”
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/face-god-0
Lest this positive appraisal lead to potentially dangerous, unfounded adulation one might consider the more critical approach to the Pope’s efforts adopted in the First Things review by Richard B. Hays:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/08/001-benedict-and-the-biblical-jesus-2
Moral of the story: to keep your adulation in check don’t avoid reading First Things.
1. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language, Third Edition, 1992, these are accepted definitions of “idolatry” and “adulation”:
“idolatry, second meaning: “blind or excessive devotion to something.”
“adulation”: “excessive flattery or admiration.”
I fail to see the fastidious parsing between the two uses. I don’t see how “idolatry” in its second meaning is beyond the pale in the context of the discussion at hand.
2. Now we have three active posts that address, more or less, the same topic. Why was it thought necessary to supersede the post of Peter Steinfels?
3. I am grateful for Cathleen Kaveny’s comment at 5:13 pm, Joseph Gannon’s at 5:58 pm, Alan Mitchell’s at 7:31pm, and Susan Gannon’s at 10:49 pm.
Noctem quietam, et reliqua.
Again, I’m not sure about the argument of this post either, but it may be over my head, or too abstract for my journalistic tastes.
Greg, this statement does seem striking, however:
“Excessive detachment is every bit the problem the excessive adulation is — but in the context of THIS community, we do not discuss the dangers of detachment often enough and honestly enough.”
How so? Examples?
David: I’m not sure what’s abstract about this. As Peter Steinfels pointed out in his comment/post, there is a long-running debate about the role of intellectuals in society — and of course within the Church.
Peter raised the issue of Catholic intellectuals who professed uncritical adulation of certain popes, for essentially political purposes. I agree with his concern but in his response I noted a couple dangers.
And so I raised the other side of the coin: if being un-critical is a problem (and it is), then is being hyper-critical also a problem?
When Catholics intellectuals talk about the Pope as if he is a sitting President (of the opposition party), then I think there is reason to raise some questions about whether we should re-connect to a different way of thinking about the Church.
This whole question opens out into larger issues that are definitely above my pay grade. How do you avoid the reductionism that sees everything through a “hermeneutic of suspicion”? How do you balance critique with commitment?
As a leading center of liberal Catholic thought, this community’s particular challenge is the danger of detachment/critique rather than boosterism. I think that is a safe statement to make without getting myself into trouble citing specific examples and opening up several other digressions from this thread.
Please understand that I write this from the perspective of a refugee from conservative Catholicism. I know that set of problems and failures. I just don’t want to err by going to the opposite extreme. I’d like to think this community has the courage and dynamism to occasionally engage in self-critique. To me, that would be a sure sign of life and hope.
Sometime back (April 9, 2007) Mornings Minion quoted Ratzinger in a comment here on dotCommonweal on the influence of the Holy Spirit on Papal election. “I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined….. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked.” (emphasis mine)
Then there is this from Karl Rahner (which I have posted earlier)
“The true lights of the Church, those who are most important for the eternal salvation of mankind as well as of individuals are not the Pope, the bishops or the cardinals in their red cassocks, but those who possess and radiate most faith, hope and love, most humility and unselfishness, most fortitude in carrying the cross, most happiness and confidence. If a Pope does all this as well or perhaps even better than, for example, John XXIII, well, then he is not only a Pope but a wonderful Christian, then it happens that, if I may say so, the president of the chess club is for once also himself a great chess player. But this would be a happy coincidence which God is not bound to bring about and which he has not guaranteed. If we are looking at the Church in this way, we shall not find it difficult to accept that the cashier is responsible for the finances and the president of this holy society directs its activities. But we ought to remain conscious of what is both our pride and our burden, namely that the Church depends ultimately on ourselves. ”
(Grace in Freedom – http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2079&C=1960 )
Oops. I tried to put the line “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked” in bold. Didn’t work
John Page raised a question: “Now we have three active posts that address, more or less, the same topic. Why was it thought necessary to supersede the post of Peter Steinfels?”
A further question occurs to me: who elevated Peter’s post from a comment on Paul’s thread to a free-standing post? and why?
Gregory Wolfe concludes his original post with another question: “And where do we turn to find the theological and spiritual resources to answer these questions?”
As I ponder that question (and his helpful further comment at 1:54 this morning) it strikes me that the issue of “affectivity” (not sentiment or emotion) has a crucial part to play in our discernment. What affections should characterize the members of the body of Christ?
My original post, which seems to have been the inadvertent and remote cause of these varied outpourings, suggested that “gratitude” must characterize our common life in the body of Christ. Nowhere do I suggest that there is no room for ongoing discernment. But all depends on the eucharistic center and climate that is the source and measure of such discernment. We risk becoming, in our attitudes and behavior, a non-eucharistic people: not “in sacramento,” but “in re.”
It is at the Eucharist that we pray (earnestly I hope) for Benedict our Pope. And it is at the Eucharist that we try to learn to speak the truth in love.
Gregory, you asked for resources. One suggestion is that one might begin with Second Corinthians 6: 11-13.
Thanks for initiating a much needed conversation.
“But all depends on the eucharistic center and climate that is the source and measure of such discernment. We risk becoming, in our attitudes and behavior, a non-eucharistic people: not “in sacramento,” but “in re.”
Bob, I don’t know what this means. I guess my question is: who’s denying the centrality of the Eucharist?
But talking about the Eucharist isn’t the Eucharist. Talking about the sacraments and earnest prayer isn’t earnest prayer. It seems to me one can go to mass, and earnestly pray–but not want to do that on the blog. In fact, you can’t go to mass on the blog. And it would be very bad (although not impossible) to blog during mass.
In fact, probably not an intrinsically evil act, although very wrong by reason of circumstances.
Here is how adoration develops for parish priests as I have seen it: first the parish greets the new priest with reserve or indifference or very tentative respect; Then he catches their attention, then their respect, then their affection and trust. Note that, crucially, all those are not given a priori because of his status, but won over time because of who he is, what he says and what he does: he has won us over. Then he has a growing “fan club”. And then people start developing blind spots and some kind of idolatry, thinking that their pastor can do no wrong and refusing to entertain the possibility that he is not perfect.
The way I see it, it is our affection for him that makes us want to think well of him, desire to agree with him, and sometimes be willing to follow him even if we do not quite understand what he is doing and are not sure he is on the right track. And that’s how I understand the “submission of mind and will”.
The meditations of Pope Benedict that I have read have certainly caught my attention, opened up new insights, and won my respect of and admiration for his intellect. I was eager to learn more about him and waiting with some hope for what would come next. In that sense, as far as I was concerned he successfully passed the first phase. But his executive decisions and his pessimistic pronouncements about our society and people’s way of life, as reported by the (untrustworthy) media, have sometimes, and repeatedly, repelled me. He has not won over my affection, and I do not love him. The closest he came to it was when he met with victims of sexual abuse by clergy, in a surprise move that fleetingly endeared him to me and made me wait in hope (and in vain) for what would come next. I have been waiting largely in vain for his academic and spiritual gifts to seep into the world of management and leadership in the church as an organization. At this point I am beginning to lose hope and I am starting to wait for the next pope.
In my observation it’s hazardous either to say something positive about Benedict or to say something negative (except from the left) about Obama on this website.
I can only imagine the outrage to follow if one post somehow combined the two sentiments.
“In fact, you can’t go to mass on the blog. And it would be very bad (although not impossible) to blog during mass.”
Cathy:
I confess to await, with some anticipation, the next revelations. In the meantime, may I continue to recommend Second Corinthians.
My point: Don’t assume people don’t pray and don’t appreciate the Eucharist, just because they’re not blogging about how much it means to them. This is a blog–a place to discuss ideas. It’s not a place of worship. So some people may want to worship elsewhere, and then blog here.
Greg P: I think too many people think of “fidelity” as something “commanded” of us by some external authority against which we are obliged to live in pertpetual adolescent rebellion to prove our “other-ness” to ourselves and others. But this isn’t really fidelity at all. That’s merely disgruntled subservience and I don’t think either the Church or a spouse wants that.
Jean: I think this is right on, but I also think that, for most mature people, there’s a fair amount of ground between “perpetual adolescent rebellion” and the kind of joyful fidelity the Church (and our spouses) expect.
Some days a sense of grudging obligation to our sacred vows is the best we can muster, knowing that outside those vows lies chaos and empty hedonism. On those days, one asks God for a sense of gratitude, the ability to “look on the bright side of life,” as per “The Life of Brian.”
Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don’t.
Jean,
Well said.
Regarding whether a blog should be eucharistic: “Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the fount from which all her power flows. For the goal of apostolic endeavor is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of his Church, to take part in the Sacrifice and to eat the Lord’s Supper.” (Vatican II, SC 10)
I have an autographed photo of John Henry Newman in my office, along with three of priests who helped shape and liberate my mind in the course of my education.
To be a Catholic is to be in union with with Peter and his successors. It may be helpful to say that the pope is not infallible but execises the charism of infallibility on occasion. Nonetheless, when the pope speaks it is importtant tolisten when he addreses those in union with him. The theologian’s primary duty is to listen and reflect upon the Word of God as it is read in the community of faith. That the pope adds to this listening is patent but what he says cannot be detached from fidelity to the Word of God as it is encountered in faith. Listening to what the pope says is part of the theological task.
A Postcript: I keep a framed photo of Thomas Merton in my office and icons.
Thanks to Cathleen Kaveny for providing a concrete example (JP the “Great”) of papalotry–it helps ground the discussion a bit for me. I frequently refer to Pope JPII as John Paul the Great. Not that I don’t recognize what I see as his shortcomings, among them: passing the ball to his brother bishops when the Holy Spirit called the play for him, moving a bit too fast on sainthood for some (in some perverse way, this seems like a lack of faith–God forgive me for saying that), and his handling of the Legion of Christ affair (I forget the founder’s name). I think too often he may have let hope triumph over experience. So, I am convinced he’s not divine.
But I do call him Great. I think I do it because of the great things he’s accomplished. I’m far from an expert in the field, but consider: the advancement in Jewish-Catholic relations, the collapse of the USSR, the way the old man connected with young people, the insights of his theology, etc. I think I do it because of the man’s radiant personal holiness. I think I do it because, yes, being Polish, there’s a sense of ethnic pride. I think I do it precisely because not all popes have been great, good, or even average, and this pope stands out–far out. I think I do it because I believe if both Catholics and non-Catholics alike would read about his life, study his theology, and try to emulate him, the world will be a better place.
But maybe I just do it for my own selfish reasons–the devil is a sly one.
PS To Gregory W and Gregory P, I really enjoy your contributions, but I can’t (yet) call you Gregory the Great.
By all means tell everybody what’s hanging on your wall, but this is starting to look like a pious one-ups-manship to me.
FWIW, I keep a copy of the BCP and Hunter Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” on my bedside table. When one doesn’t work, the other usually does.
This may be a bit late in the discussion, and perhaps I’ve missed something above (though I have read and contemplated every word!), but I find the use of the word affectivity elusive. Sometimes it’s used as a contrast to detachment, sometimes to being critical, and almost always the opposite of intellectual. If being intellectual exposes us to the danger of detachment, doesn’t affectivity expose us to the danger of nostalgia?
Jean, let me help: I also have a photo of my favorite MTA sign, which a friend captured about ten years ago. It reads, “At Night and on Weekends, Your Train May Run on Routes It Never Ran on Before.” Maybe I should post it at the top of this thread.
Ha!
And I have photos and paintings of my home country. I indulge in France-olatry!
It is worth noting that there is a persistent situation, perhaps “polarization”, in the church that effects attitudes toward the papacy. There are those who believe that a highly centralized scheme of governance, to put it simply, governance by the pope and those he has appointed, is the best way for the church, and some will claim it was intended by Christ to be this way and has been fostered by the Holy Spirit. Others believe that the church is best governed in a more collegial spirit with some degree of local control and local say not only on the part of the bishops but also on the part of the lower clergy and indeed also of the laity, and that there are historical grounds for arguing that this approach is more authentically Christian. Those who are of the latter party will have a rather different, but not necessarily less orthodox view of popes and the papacy, than those of the former party.
Damn. Too many of my kid’s pre-school scrawlings on my wall!
I have icons, and prints by Vermeer, Klee and Rothko. The pope’s picture is my computer background.
“on those days, one asks God for a sense of gratitude, the ability to ‘look on the bright side of life’.”
Regarding Pope Benedict’s Freising remarks, perhaps it was just one of those days.
I understand the beauty of Corinthians 6:11-13. But Paul did not ignore the cries of children who were abused by children. He did not send a Cardinal who shamelessly covered up abuse of children to be in charge of a Basilica. Nor did he continue to ignore the abuse of the church in Ireland. Seconly, to align Eucharistic theology with the affection one must have to a particular pope is fishing for straws in the extreme.
Are we good in asking pointed questions as to who initiated the blog but silent when we are asked pointed questions? You talk about discernment. Give us one example when you ever criticized Benedict XVI or John Paul II?
Oh, I don’t think it’s just nights and weekends, Grant. Today’s a snow day in much of the Midwest and East. I’d keep a close eye on those routes in the next 24 hours.
“I do agree (this time) with Jim: God gave us brains to use them.”
Susan, I am delighted that we agree, and note that your parenthetical qualifier surely identifies you as an intellectual :-)
“Benedict has made it clear, I think you will agree, that he believes the proper way to receive the eucharist, as it is offered under the appearance of bread, is on the tongue. Do you take this to be his teaching? If so, are not we all bound to follow it? If not, why not?”
Hi, Joseph, I take that to be a good example of a personal preference (if indeed it is his preference) that is *not* an exercise of the magisterium. On this particular matter I believe we’re bound to follow liturgical law and custom, not his personal preference. He possesses the authority to revise liturgical law, or to direct it to be revised, and until that happens I don’t think I owe his preference any more than a respectful acknowledgement.
Fr. Imbelli: thanks for the 2 Corinthian reference. Very helpful.
Peggy S: Of course, “affectivity” is an elusive term and prey to its own form of abuse as nostalgia and sentimentality. Maybe even gullibility.
But I don’t know how to live without it.
I am not a Protestant: I don’t believe there is a Catholic church in theory. I need to be connected to this human being and thus to those who are connected to him.
That “connection” has to have some element of “affectivity” to it, even if that needs to co-exist with an unflinching critical sensibility.
Put it this way: if anyone was to put a hard case to me and ask: “So, Greg, are you saying that you’d always have a picture of the current pope on your wall? Even Alexander VI?”
My response would be: “Yes, I’d find a prominent place in the house for a picture of that son of a bitch.”
My computer screen just has icons, none of the religious sort. I have requested a picture of my daughter’s cat Toby to add life to screen, which I expect to receive soon, No, of course I am not an aelurolater (cat worshiper) and rumors to the contrary not withstanding I have never claimed to have been an Egyptian prince in a previous life.
Greg: “I need to be connected to this human being and thus to those who are connected to him.”
I think that’s the problem….that this human being connects you to the rest of us. Seems improbable.
Jean: Some days a sense of grudging obligation to our sacred vows is the best we can muster, knowing that outside those vows lies chaos and empty hedonism. On those days, one asks God for a sense of gratitude, the ability to “look on the bright side of life,” as per “The Life of Brian.”
Greg: I agree. I don’t mean to imply that one always has to be happy about fidelity to the Magisterium or be a cheerleader for the pope (or one’s spouse, to continue my metaphor). I just think that we ought to consider our relationship to fidelity in light of our obligation to our own integrity rather than something that is being demanded of us by some ecclesial big daddy in a pointy hat. That said, I also think that while one needn’t act as if a pope walks on water, as the Vicar of Christ, we owe his words, life, and ministry a certain amount of charitable consideration. If that means somebody things well enough of a pope’s words life or ministry to actually have a picture of him on the wall, I don’t think that ought to make his or her intellect suspect any more than having a picture of your spouse (or, David G, your kids’ drawings) on the wall mean that you can’t see your spouse’s flaws (or that your kids aren’t Picasso).
I am not sure how to understand matters of fidelity or loyalty when it comes to intellectual matters. Greg Popcak makes an analogy to marriage and says “‘fidelity’ is the acknowledgement that if I am to become the person I was created to be I am obliged to stick with you.” But surely sticking with a spouse or sticking with the pope doesn’t imply intellectual agreement.
Obviously, if one is a committed Catholic, one will have a great deal in common with the pope. And since the pope is the leader of the Church, a faithful Catholic will be in some ways a follower. It does strike me, though, that Catholics across the entire spectrum from left to right don’t hesitate to use all the “wiggle room” they can possibly find when a pope says something they disagree with. What immediately comes to mind is George Weigel’s take on Caritas in Veritate, in which he identifies “authentic” passages (attributable to the pope) and the passages that may be discounted (attributable to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace).
I am still very much under the influence of my Catholic education (“this is what you have to believe, even if you can’t understand it and we can’t explain it”), which quite naturally reminds me of this:
It strikes me that there are huge areas of Catholic Social Teaching that are implausibly interpreted by conservative Catholics (someone on Vox Nova seriously told me that the Declaration on Procured Abortion was “screamingly Republican”), and I wonder how many Catholic employers in the Unites States set wages according to the market as opposed to paying a “living wage.” It does not seem to bother conservatives that the pope periodically denounces capitalism.
A couple of tjhoughts:-the attribution of Great to JPII is hardly appreciated unanimously here.
In my parish, the JPII priest renamed our religious ed center for JPII”The great.”
Given the divide, I think it’s a kind of adulation serving as mantra for a particular point of view inside the Church.
And semantics here in this discusiion is perhaps central
A word not mentioned much here – but vital -is clericalism – how the clergy, all the way up the line, are perceived in our relationshops to them.
If this conversation were happening in Ireland today, i wonder how much talk of affectivity and loyalty the’d be. (I see there’s even a call for a second resignation of Cardinal Law. With Victim groups here and in Germany and Australia, there’d be lots of focus on accountability -
relationships depend to a great degree on the match of words and deeds.
The sex abuse issue opened up for many the problems of clergy which had been previously handled (and probably still is or is wanted to be in many Church quarters) by tammping down any hint of scandal.
So there’s been movement on how judgement of Church leadership happens.
Susan’s comment on the new York clergy is disheartening and it’s not only in New York.
Loyalty is what’s critical from what I hear -certainly not questioning.
And when Jim’s boss in Chicago at the last USCCNB meeting wants to bring the Catholic media and universities imto line (putatively in the name of sertrvice, not power), the semantics of affectivity and loyalty seem odd.
And finally, BXVI in talking to the Scotch Bishops I think last wek again laid it on the line he wants the magisterium adhered to by all.
Again, i think the issue of clericalism – clerical power undergirds thje semantic issues here.
It’s also part of the theological impasse we’ve talked about and will talk about again. It’s not going to be solved by saying you’ve got to see it my way.
Greg, you wrote:
I think my difficulty with this thread is that I don’t see the blindness you do — and perhaps because I am blind! I do think there is such self-criticism here, though there is always room for improvement. But I think Peter’s post certainly reflected that attitude of self-criticism, as does your own. How is it that a blog that fosters your point of view (and that of Father Imbelli’s or the many posts from various viewpoints, not to mention the hugely varied comments) would be a program of “boosterism”?
Then again, self-criticism could be seen as an aspect of the “liberal” project, true. And as an institution, the Vatican and the Papacy are not habituated to the same dynamic.
In that light, a final observation would regard your invocation of the “hermeneutic of suspicion.” I know that is often a favorite phrase deployed by conservatives to deplore critical analysis, and I believe it is a legitimate danger to be aware of.
But such a “hermeneutic of suspicion” can cut both ways, as the Vatican and the Pope and Catholic officialdom can, and often seem, to have a reflexive suspicion of anything that seems to spring up outside of their ambit or of commentary that includes criticisms.
A problem with the focus on affectivity for Rome and the Pope — which is I think legit — is that affectivity, like all genuine human relations, must be a two-way street.
Along the lines of papal power or idolatry; here are two articles about papal power by an Australian:
links: Part One – http://onlinecatholics.acu.edu.au/issue65/commessay1.html
Part Two – http://onlinecatholics.acu.edu.au/issue66/commessay1.html
A few years back there was a series of books, articles, opinions about the US governmental system – checks and balances – as becoming distorted by the executive branch – known as the “Imperial Presidency”; which distorted the proper goals of the democratic process.
This blog started with the historical church balance between papacy/heirarchy, theologians, and sensum fidelium. It raises serious questions about whether this process has become skewed; if not ingrained to the point that any type of criticism, dissent, etc. marks you as a “bad catholic”.
“I think that’s the problem….that this human being connects you to the rest of us. Seems improbable.” (Peggy S)
I know, Peggy — and I stake my life on that improbability. Pretty crazy, huh?
The alternative, it seems to me, is…Presbyterianism.
Pretty crazy all right. I hope you do not suffer future disillusion.
Since I am not a Presbyterian, I leave that conclusion to your greater knowledge.
About disillusion, or perhaps tutored perspective. When I was a junior in college, Loyola had a semester abroad program in Rome and I was lucky enough to be included. Naturally there was a papal audience for our motley crew. The council had been called, but not yet convened. We all knew that John XXIII had done something unexpected and amazing in announcing it. So imagine my surprise, and that of a few others, when he was ushered into the room by two gigantic monsignori, probably 2.5 times his height. They seemed to wheel him around like a toy (and irreverently the image of “The Little King” popped into my mine [that being a favorite Sunday comic strip]). He addressed us as if were 13 years old and told us to obey our mothers and fathers. Not bad advice! But we were twenty-two year olds. He blessed us and was wheeled out.
Only human! But that image of being ushered about has always rested in my imagination along with gratitude that Vatican II happened and that he had called for it, though he only lived to see the first session. They are only human, the popes.
Lovely story, Peggy.
I’d just ask you to remember that I am 50; you don’t have to warn me about disillusionment as if I were 22….
Just kidding!!!!
“Only human”: that’s the mystery, isn’t it, from Peter on down? The non-Presbyterian mystery?
Presbyterians? Huh?
“The alternative, it seems to me, is…Presbyterianism.”
Are we still fighting the thirty years war? Where Presbyterians do the will of God, certainly God is present there more than in Catholic places where the will of God is not. It is God through Jesus that is our faith. The emphasis on pope and hierarchy are relics of religious wars and empire building. We really can reach heaven without the bark of Peter. It really helps when Peter is a good example. The pope and bishops are nothing according to Paul. (Tell that to your bishop) As Paul points out it is God and Jesus who are most essential.
Cor: 1:3ff While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, 3 are you not of the flesh, and behaving in an ordinary human way?
4
Whenever someone says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?
5
What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one.
6
I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.
7
Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.
David: while I think this thread is running out of steam I didn’t want to ignore you. (I will ignore Cathleen instead. JUST KIDDING.)
I don’t recall using the word blindness. I’ve been speaking about how communities can develop blind spots. You may not think this community has any blind spots.
But if the pope is “only human,” then I would say communities like this one are “only human,” and have blind spots.
Even if you and everyone else here thinks the notion that liberalism errs on the side of “critique” is utterly wrong, the truth is that such a perception is widespread. At the very least it seems to be worth talking about from time to time.
Hey. .. . some of my best friends are Presbyterians!
They’re probably very nice, too, but Presbyterian polity and Catholic polity are two very different things.
I hesitate to stir up a pot that seems to be cooling down, but I have a dreadful, soul-splitting confession to make: I am the one who slipped Bob Imbelli a copy of the Pope’s Freising address, not in an underground parking garage but via the less thrilling medium of e-mail. Bob Woodward must be devastated to be outside the loop on such a weighty matter.
I stopped reading dotCom nearly two years—apart from infrequent visits when friends send links to a post—and have not missed it. I did so because, apart from the demands of a growing family, I found that, with some noteworthy exceptions, it was too often a shrill place, filled with predictable responses to predictable posts.
Benedict is not beyond criticism (my office has two ‘ecclesial’ photos in it: Benedict and the late Dominican Jean-Marie Tillard, who sparred with Cardinal Ratzinger on ecclesiological and ecumenical matters; no Shepard Fairey prints, alas.). And, papolatry surely exists across the ideological spectrum (for that matter, how many know that John XXIII’s motto was ‘Obedience and Peace’?) Zenit—my source for the Freising address—can read like Pravda in its dutiful recording of ecclesiastical matters and its complete avoidance of institutional criticism.
But, much of the response to Bob Imbelli’s post struck me as disproportionate and even ugly. Benedict may not be everyone’s cup of tea—many neoconservatives, for instance, prefer John Paul II and find Benedict’s liturgical concerns to be so much distraction from the public square—but at least engage him in the spirit of Ignatius of Loyola, who knew firsthand the excesses of the Inquisition (which today takes place in various forms on the left and the right): “Let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.”
In addition to the picture of my wife and kids, I have a photograph of Charles Schulz on my wall.
“I stopped reading dotCom nearly two years—……and have not missed it. I did so because, apart from the demands of a growing family, I found that, with some noteworthy exceptions, it was too often a shrill place, filled with predictable responses to predictable posts.”
Excuse us, Christopher Ruddy. Or is the real reason that your posts were often critiqued here? If you are so above all at your young age now, how snobbish will you be when you get old?
For someone asking fairness you appear to most unfair. I defy you to point to a Catholic blog that is as tolerant, or better, will even print so many diverse views.
Bill, are you being shrill on purpose? :)
Christopher, do you have a suggestion of a better blog that mixed Catholics of several shades more harmoniously?
A picture of the cathedral of Freising over one’s desk might prove inspiring (affecting?). The sound of its bells (available on the web) will keep heretics at bay.
If there’s still room one could add a picture of the Cistercian bishop, Otto of Freising (d. 1158), an early historian who traced the rise and fall of monarchies and civilizations in a manner similar to Toynbee (or Benedict).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_of_Freising
Dear Bill,
You hurt my feelings! I’m taking my laptop home and telling my mommy about you!
Criticism is not the problem. Its tone is, if one cares more about addressing a problem rather than venting or scoring points. I receive criticism regularly from students, colleagues, peers, and bosses (and wife and four sons). If I don’t respond to it constructively, and with full awareness of my flaws and the weakness of my arguments, I won’t have a job or professional respect (or a healthy marriage) for long. On top of that, my Queens roots mean that I see criticism, even insult, as a form of affection!
Commentators are right that at its best dotCom can give voice to a range of intelligent commentary that is unequaled elsewhere in the religious blogosphere. This is precisely why I find its shortcomings problematic. There are plenty of blogs where one can go and fill oneself with ammunition instead of ideas (a nice phrase of Peter Steinfels’), but I and a lot of others expect more from the Commonweal ‘brand.’
I was struck, when I worked at the magazine (back in my roaring twenties, Bill!), by how much the editors tried to refrain in print from invective and posturing (the lunch-table was sometimes a different matter!). Argument, not assertion, was the order of the day. Anyone who has been edited by Peggy Steinfels or Paul Baumann or Pat Jordan knows how demanding they can be. DotCom is not Commonweal the magazine, as has been said many times, but surely the blog’s contributors and commentators can do better than two-sentence retorts and blithe or even nasty dismissals, topped off by some with facile references to Matthew 25 and Augustine the Donatist Killer (I have already optioned the movie rights to that latter one).
Good Pope John once said, “A caress is better than a scratch.” That’s the kind of papolatry I can support.
Greg W. –
About the problem of affectivity -
The medievals recognized the will as one of our specifically rational powers. Being directed to what is good, it is our highest affective power. But just as the intellect can fail to reach the truth and cans even be mistaken, so the will can fail to appreciate what is truly good.
Not only that, we seem to have a propensity to confuse what we know with what we *feel* about a thing. If I have contempt for someone’s behavior and have negative feelings against him, I am not very likely to appreciate his new theological insights (think Tillich). And vice versa — if I dislike a theologian’s new nsights I might be inclined to view him as dishonest or at best a sycophant. (That sometimes happens on this list.)
And beyond these psychological failings I think that the lng-dominant philosophy of Aquinas is not quite up to the job of analysing all of the complex issues nvolved in the relation of truth and goodness and, therefore, of cognition and affectivity. Duns Scotus did better. I think think we still don’t have the intellectual tools — abstractions — to even analyze the problems, much less solve them.
So I agree with your basic points: a better appreciation of affectivity itself is needd, and logic is not the sum total of rationality.
A Jesuit friend suggests that Aquinas was autistic, and that had he not been made the supreme exemplar of orthodoxy we would have a very different picture of him as a human being.
Okay. Aquinas is autistic. I think it’s time to post that sign, Grant.
Kathy, many great geniuses were autistic — I don’t use it as a smear word.
Oh, sorry, how silly of me. Thanks for clearing that up.
“… but surely the blog’s contributors and commentators can do better than two-sentence retorts and blithe or even nasty dismissals, topped off by some with facile references to Matthew 25 and Augustine the Donatist Killer (I have already optioned the movie rights to that latter one).”
Hi Chris,
Ouch! Are you caressing or scratching me with the above? Especially since no one quotes Matt 25 or slams Augustine more than I do here.
Eric made a point here that civility sometimes masks injustice. So it is a fine line between whose Ox is being gored or what one’s proclivity is.
At any rate, I appreciate your humor and find the fact that you are from Queens redeeming.
I also found your admission of giving the Freising address to Bob innocuos since after all it was the triumphing not the reporting of the speech which sparked the discussion. On the other hand if you are willing to admit that you authored or colloborated on the review of Chaput’s book for Osservatore Romano, then we might have something…….
Well!
I’m sure I’m not going to waste my time talking to people Christopher Ruddy hasn’t bothered with for two years because (with a few exceptions) they’re a bunch of dumbasses.
I’m going to do something improving, like hang up pope pictures and hone my Olympian detachment.
Kathy,
Temple Grandin and Daniel Tammet — both autistic — are two of my heroes. Let’s not be unkind about autism.
I keep hearing about this endemic hostility to opposing points of view around here, but it’s difficult to cultivate an atmosphere of receptivity when those so-called unpopular views are so frequently contained in comments that start out with some variation on “That’s the trouble with you people…” And end with “…but of course you all are going to attack me just for saying so.”
My recommendation would be for those who feel their views are underrepresented in the comboxes here to try sharing those views without the defensive armor. For example, Chris, perhaps you could have written a comment explaining what you found noteworthy about Benedict’s Freising address, back when that was being discussed, instead of waiting till now to explain why everyone else’s reaction was disappointing and predictable. (One could also try not reading the blog at all, of course — but, as Chris has demonstrated, there’s no guarantee that will work! So perhaps just don’t read the comments? They’re not mandatory.)
For those who, like me, read David N’s 5:45 post and said, “Who?” Check out the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet
No offense to the autistic people that people google, but when a Jesuit diagnoses a Dominican, it’s usually not a compliment.
Not to mention that when people contrast “the supreme exemplar of orthodoxy” with “a very different picture of him as a human being,” it’s usually not a compliment.
“I keep hearing about this endemic hostility to opposing points of view around here”
I just think it’s heartbreaking to find an intelligent person whom you like and respect (or even dislike and despise) disagree with you.
There are a number of defenses.
One, as you note, is to robe the comment in a hauberk or kevlar underwear.
Another (which I am wont to do) is to couch an opinion in all sorts of “seems to” or “may be”, thus watering down said opinion so much that it’s scarcely worth consuming the calories to type a rejoinder.
Another (to which I am also prone) is to eschew replying unless one has some preconception of what the objections are likely to be and has an “aha” loaded and ready for when the anticipated objection appears. (And then to be bitterly disappointed when nobody objects or, worse yet, demolishes the comment with some unforeseen argument).
I can only imagine what it must feel like to be a poster here. Lisa Fullam posted something once – I’m not sure if it was her first post – and, I thought, got ripped to shreds by the commenters. I was silently screaming at the computer, “Hey! Take it easy – this is a real person here! We know her – she posts thoughtful comments all the time!”
I really don’t know which side to take, since I make my living focusing on the pope… But you all can take a guess.
Somehow, this seems relevant–but the the Onion always is.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/clint_eastwood_continues_desperate
We do what we do–the best we can. Some people will like us, others won’t. It’s not the end of the world. It’s not high school, after all.
Hey Bill, let me say that I like your comments. I got used to your blunt style and the content is interesting. Jim, I like your comments too. They’re often informative but not as intimidating as Bill de Haas or Rita Ferrone or Cathleen Kaveny’s learned contributions. Kathy and Ken, I like to read your comments too. They give me a different perspective (that I usually disagree with, but no matter, they’re interesting anyway). David N. and Bob Nunz, I like your comments too, more or less for the same reason (except that I agree more often). Fathers Imbelli, Komonchak et al, I like your comments too. They give me a sense that this blog is not far from orthodoxy – you give it respectability. Jean, I enjoy your comments, but you don’t need recognition from me: you know everyone always like to hear from you. Father O’Leary, it’s often a healthy shock to read your comments. They’re challenging in a fun way (usually). Ann, I love your contributions when I am not too tired to think. Patrick, it would be nice to hear from you more often, then I’d have something to say about your comments. I have to go, else I would continue browsing through the names of commentators to see what I get from their contributions.
So now we hear that Jesuits are saying Aquinas was autistic. I can only imagine what the Dominicans are saying about Ignatius.
What’s with Claire? Those French! So uncritical!
One Jesuit, Eric, just one.
Claire– thank you :-) I really like yours too, and it’s so good for the blog to have comments from someone with another perspective. (Is that what’s unique about the Roman Church — so many different perspectives through such a long time?)
Does anyone know to what evidence the Jesuit pointed as the basis for the judgment that Aquinas was autistic?
Vive le (la?) dotCommonweal!
In one of those delicate non-sequiturs for which he is known, a (very) frequent contributor to these threads has outed my dirty little secret. Caught in flagranti delicto, I can only fess up to the charge: I did review Archbishop Chaput’s “Render unto Caesar” for L’Osservatore Romano.
The fact that the review appeared in the issue of August 11, 2008 may not make it immediately available at your local library. So, in a flush of affectivity (so as not to wander too far from the original post), I will happily send a copy of the review to the first three dotCommonwealers who so request.
However, be sure to read the fine print for potentially harmful side effects.
All I can say is that this is my second post with over 100 comments. (Which I find a little overwhelming.)
I guess I’m either doing something right or something very, very wrong.
(Sometimes I get the feeling that my original post is not even essential to the process.)
In any case, I’m grateful to one and all.
Amen to David!
If Christopher is unhappy here, that’s Ok. We are not happy with his post either about the quality of critique and discussion here.
One things that bugs me is Greg’s his Catholicism or Presbyterianism view -though my Presbyterian buddies have lots of intelligent things to say and many useful practices of trying to live in a Christlike manner.
To be brutally frank, there are folks who try to preent (persceive?) themselves as the centrists here by saying that both sides have their faults without tackling the divisive issues.
But if those are the only choices one perceives one has, I think there’s a really ympoverished view of how Catholic Catholicism is.
I think any (useles) discussion of Thomististic autism should be postponed til the new diagnostic manual arrives in 2013, Kathy and Joe should direct their input to the American Psychiatric Assn. in the meantime.
Well, gee, Bob, thanks for the advice. Must Fr. O’Leary join as at the APA?
Father Imbelli,
For your penance, the Scala Sancta the next time you are in Rome. And now make a good Act of Contrition.
Aquinas autistic? Well there is a theory that Wittgenstein was autistic and Aquinas and Wittgenstein have a lot in common. I agree with Fergus Kerr on this, So even a Jebusite can get something right even if he is trying to be offensive. The best compliments are unintentional like not being cited by Claire as among her favorites. C’est la vie.
John Page,
I see you yourself are not in the penitential mood: you did not request a copy of the review. Vergogna!
Bob, Save your stamps! Google is your friend. (Imbelli review Chaput–presto!)
Catholic Online reprinted it in toto:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28877
Why don’t we just chalk this all up to the snow, and go to bed?
The snow in northern Westchester is minimal. Fr. K has perhaps escaped entirely!
“In one of those delicate non-sequiturs for which he is known, a (very) frequent contributor to these threads has outed my dirty little secret.”
Bob Imbelli,
We have already outed you on this blog with reference to the review in Osservatore Romano.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/206226?eng=y
Non sequitors perhaps. But avoiding dialogue might be a greater flaw. I do acknowledge that it is smart politics.
Nevertheless, I wish you continued success in your association with the Vatican where your affectivity certainly does not go unnoticed nor unrewarded.
For what it’s worth, my Jesuit friend pointed to the biographical details about Aquinas’s personality, not any “evidence of absence” in his writings. I suppose he meant such things as Aquinas’s abstention from community life and worship, his intellectualist trances during conversation etc. Myself, I think Aquinas is the model of the sanctified mind, but in the complete absence of affectivity — such as we find too abundantly in Augustine or even in Scholastics like Bonaventure.
Btw, Jesuits seems to me very open to psychoanalysis of Ignatius.
Our non-sequituring friend surpasses Captain Ahab in his monomaniacal pursuit of evil and evildoers.
Will any of his shipmates try to reason with him or is that a hopeless and thankless task?
Fr Imbelli, where can one find the original English version of your review of Cardinal Francis George’s book, “The Difference God Makes”, which appeared last week in L’Osservatore Romano? The dotCommonweal community might find the final lines particularly interesting.
“Per alcuni versi il nuovo volume del cardinale intraprende un colloquio, a volte esplicito, con il libro provocatorio di Peter Steinfels A People Adrift, pubblicato nel 2003, nel quale l’autore sostiene che “la narrativa sulle diagnosi contrastanti sulla salute del cattolicesimo è obsoleta e inadeguata”. The Difference God Makes di George si può leggere come uno sforzo importante di fornire una diagnosi più accurata e indicare la direzione per una narrativa più promettente.”
(©L’Osservatore Romano – 5 febbraio 2010)
Back to the original post….
I found it a bit disquieting. First, I agree with the comments that affectivity is part of the intellectual life and having a picture of the Pope could be a sign of affective association with the Catholic community (like having a picture of the Archbishop Williams might have with the Anglican community, the Dhali Lhamma with that community and so on). It does not necessarily imply uncritical acceptance of everything said by the Pope or anyone else.
For the record I have no such photographs, a collection of crosses and crucifixes, First Nation art and contemporary icons and on my computer one of Julian of Norwich.
I don’t think people should be judged by what they choose to decorate their offices with. And i don’t think there needs to be “rules” for intellectuals and different “rules” for the unwashed masses.
In reflecting on the issue of judgement about religious decoration I thought of an apposite (and opposite) anecdote. A social worker I know who was not raised religiously, is fairly progressive in her views, is attracted to the kind of new age eclectic Avatar like spirituality of the age was perplexed when she was in an American city working. Knowing my Catholic background, she wondered how all these Latina girls could have picture and posters of the virgin mary plastered over the apartment and at the same time have kids with multiple fathers, etc. , etc. I explained as best I could the culture and that everyone is human, etc, etc. and that contrary to public perception the Church, in my experience at least generally does not club people over the head over sins of the flesh, you repent move on do the best you can.
I think the same holds true for pictures of the Pope. It does not necessarily imply being a party person. It is simply a sign of respect for the leader of the community. Afterall pictures of Obama are hung in federal buildings all over the USA (I found that odd – no picture of the Prime Minister in Canadian federal building). Does that mean that all federal workers are uncritical, worker drones taking the lead from the President (il papa)? or that they are not intellectual.
Oh and by the way, in some positions in the provincial government, employees do have to sign a document saying that they will not participate in groups actively criticizing the government. This is why many could not participate in grass roots social justice activity.
Mollie: I understand your concerns, but think that they are misplaced in this case. I found out last night about the whole Freising affair via America’s blog and so had no occasion to post earlier. Few views are missing on dotCom, but the tone of some posts by contributors and subsequent pro and con comments can undercut whatever legitimate points might be made. That’s why I criticized not so much the substance of some comments, but their accompanying invective and snideness; that goes for the left, the right, and those who claim the center. The Irish Jesuit Michael Paul Gallagher’s “Clashing Symbols: An Introduction to Faith and Culture” describes spiritual consolation as open hands, not clenched fists. I offer a test: can you say with an unclenched face your comments to someone else’s face, and do your words invite a conversation instead of a retort? If that’s Olympian detachment, as Jean Raber put it, then I hope all dotCommers medal in Vancouver.
Cathy K.: The Onion and Joseph Pieper’s “Leisure: The Basis of Culture” battle it out in my heart for the title of “Fifth Gospel,” so I appreciate the Clint Eastwood link; as Dirty Harry said, “Man’s got to know his limitations.” But, I wouldn’t be so sure about leaving high school behind. In 1997, Commonweal honoree Mark Shields accepted a lesser award of a Notre Dame honorary degree and gave the commencement address, wherein he said (I paraphrase): “Most commencement speakers will tell you that life isn’t like college. They’re right. [Pause] Life is like high school.”
Robert Mickens,
As an avid reader of “America,” I thought you would have remembered that it appeared originally in the issue of November 2nd. The attribution was, unfortunately, but inadvertently omitted from the OR reprint, but hopefully has been included in the English language edition that was published yesterday. Could you verify that, since copies won’t reach the States for a while?
Fr Imbelli,
Thank you! Yes, in the fall books issue of AMERICA.
I’m afraid that, as so often happens with the Pope’s paper, the edited and translated version does not quite capture the excellence of the original.
Traduttore, traditore.
As to your question… you’ve exposed me.
I cannot tell you the last time I even saw the English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano.
Mr. Mickens,
I am sure that what you so generously say, about my original review, may apply, mutatis mutandis, to the pieces you submit to “The Tablet.”
To (perhaps) bring this excellent thread to a happy denouement (says he hopefully), do you suppose, now that P.S. has appeared in the Pope’s paper, a new photo will appear on his (P.S.’s) desk?
“Will any of his shipmates try to reason with him or is that a hopeless and thankless task?”
Patrick, it is obvious who your shipmate is. Certainly, you do not appreciate how much your continuous knocking of dot.commonweal does not omit you from these pages. Nor has your shipmate ever defending this blog. Instead he talks about Commonweal Ground but never monologues rather than dialogues. Instead of dialoguing about affectivity he wants to know who made the comment a post.
So be honest, Patrick, it is a question of shipmates. And the fact is that my “shipmates” have frequently “reasoned” with me whereas there is not a trace of reasoning with your “shipmates.”
“That’s why I criticized not so much the substance of some comments, but their accompanying invective and snideness; that goes for the left, the right, and those who claim the center.”
Sorry, Christopher.
Your comments criticized the left, not the right. You can keep your prejudices. Just be honest about it.
Everybody needs to cut Mr. Ruddy some slack.
Having lived in Michigan’s U.P. for many years, where we get more than 100 inches of snow in a normal winter, I know that being locked in with the Family Unit for several days can make you a bit stir crazy. For those in regions that just aren’t used to it, why, such a thing could drive you to go over to blogs you haven’t visited for two years just to tell people off.
People who live in big snow areas know this form of venting is therapeutic and prevents violent crime. So, welcome back, if only temporarily, Christopher; certainly you can’t say you’ve been ignored.
And, let’s give credit where due: I didn’t come up with the phrase “Olympian detachment”; that was in the original post, hence my feeble attempt be humorous while at least giving a nod to the original poser.
But I don’t even know what this thread is about anymore, and anyway the roads have been cleared of the 18 inches of snow we got (Michigan is at least prepared for this type of thing), so I’ll be about my biz to everyone’s relief.
I think this thread is about whether a Catholic sense of local ecclesial community is at odds with a global Catholic consciousness. What some of us are saying is that they cannot be divided. Love my parish, love my bishop, love my pope–no need to choose. Love my chickens, love my dog, love my spouse, love my pope. As the kids say, it’s all good.
Jean, maybe this thread is now about “Our Town,” draft version; I can see parts of it on the stage with snow falling slowly in the background. There could be some solo pieces, but also two and threes gathered under the spotlight smartly making their points. A little editing, a little rewriting–what do you think, a Broadway hit?
NYC seems to be up and about this morning, sun shining, people bustling off to work…DC?? seems to be snow bound still.
Yes, Margaret, we here in this southern city are wimps when it comes to snow. But we did get two feet last Saturday that you were spared. So now it’s about three feet here, and the winds are gusting up to 40 mph.
Let me know when tryouts begin. I’d like to take a stab. Part I’m hoping for? Just a minor role, but I can sing.
Yes, in DC we have snow in biblical proportions. 2.10.2010 brought blizzard conditions; around here the storms have been dubbed Snowmageddon. Georgetown University, which has not shut down because of snow in some years, has been forced to close since Monday. And as you know, the federal government has not been to work either.
John Page: Can you sing “Onward Christian Soldiers” –perhaps at the end of the First Act.
Along with the Broadway hit perhaps someone can arrange a screening of the Michael Haneke film that Paul Baumann’s learned friend urges upon Benedict in the hope that the Pope won’t make such a complete fool of himself again.
Erudite instructions on the difference between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft would serve the same purpose, along with denunciations of Heimat and Heimweh sentiments.
Our Town is a musical?
Yes Jim; there’s a spot for you. Music director?
“I don’t even know what this thread is about anymore,” wrote Jean Raber.
“I think this thread is about whether a Catholic sense of local ecclesial community is at odds with a global Catholic consciousness. What some of us are saying is that they cannot be divided. Love my parish, love my bishop, love my pope–no need to choose. Love my chickens, love my dog, love my spouse, love my pope. As the kids say, it’s all good,” wrote Kathy.
That the questions at the heart of this post (and my previous one) have been long submerged in 18 inches or 3 feet of comments, sometimes witty, is obvious. Maybe that is inevitable with blogs.
Kathy’s heroic effort to recenter the discussion has my admiration. But it really won’t do, because (a) some people have problems of affectivity regarding their parish as much as regarding Rome and (b) love my dog, love me, it all goes together, it’s all good, is really not a satisfactory formula for a life (substitute: friendship, marriage, child-raising, vocation) of any complexity.
I still think that the questions we started with are worth pursuing more systematically. This may not be the place. But I won’t give up. I guess that’s a threat.
Peter
You might try questions along these lines. How many people on the blog here have been to Rome? How many have not but would like to visit Rome? For those who have visited Rome or would like to, what do they take to be the most important things to do, e.g., places to visit, when in Rome? Then, why have they singled out the things or activities they have?
On Rome, see the comments by Ann,Carolyn and John at the papalotry thread just below.
Makes one wonderi f papalotry is an outshoot of the disease Romanita? Or vbice versa?
A footnote on autism – APA is working to braoden its definition of various autism like or related syndromes for its revised diagnostic ma ujal (to come out in 2013); several geniuses who under the current labelization (e.g. Emily Dickenson) would not fit the current diagnostic and therapy.
See the NPR report this week -worth listening to.
Finally, thanks once again to Peter for attempting to refocus here -his issue is quite important and I for one think he desrves the gratitude (whether agreeing or not) of all who blog here!
Bill Mazzella is about as interested in dialogue as the pope is in empire.
Peter,
Thanks for engaging the issues.
Interestingly, though, I feel that my version of the way things are and ought to be for Catholic intellectuals is more complex than the dichotomous view that is usually advanced by the left, and often enough by the right. One American prelate recently argued that collegiality is opposed to curial government. One finds this view all over.
But not, in fact, in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
JC,
Ex ore tuo te judico. If you have exhibited dialogue in any of your posts which were all derogatory that would be the eighth wonder of the world. But maybe your “mates” can reason with you on this one.
As a new entrant to this thead, I’m surprised that there has been no direct comment until now on Prof. Cunningham’s post at 9:16 a.m. on 2/19:
“To be a Catholic is to be in union with with Peter and his successors. It may be helpful to say that the pope is not infallible but execises the charism of infallibility on occasion. Nonetheless, when the pope speaks it is importtant to listen when he addreses those in union with him. The theologian’s primary duty is to listen and reflect upon the Word of God as it is read in the community of faith. That the pope adds to this listening is patent but what he says cannot be detached from fidelity to the Word of God as it is encountered in faith. Listening to what the pope says is part of the theological task.”
I think the balance struck by Prof. Cunningham seems the right one, but of course the devil is the details as to what would constitute “detach[ment] from fidelity to the Word of God as it is encountered in faith.”
I’m an armchair theologian at best (and one who easily falls asleep in armchairs), but I wonder if the papolatry of Catholic intellectuals that Peter Steinfels first raised would change substantially if there were to be reunification between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. I remember reading recently that there has been recognition by the Greek Orthodox Church, at a minimum, that the pope would have some as yet undefined elevated stature in a reunified Church. But given that disagreement about he stature of the pope among bishops was one of the factors behind the the break in the first place, it would seem to me that there could be some diminishment in the pope’s role after reunification. If I remember correctly, BXVI has said that he would not oppose some structural realignment in papal authority, but whether that would impact the pope’s spiritual, pastoral, or temporal roles, I don’t know. However, to the extent there might be some diminution in papal authority, there might also be a corresponding decrease in papal adulation among intellectuals.
Sorry, Prof. Cunningham’s post at 9:16 a.m. on 2/10.
Bill, I wonder what kind of diminution would actually happen should Catholic and Orthodox reunite. I don’t think the pope (any pope, in fact) would agree to become one of many patriarchs. It seems to me–reclining-chair theologian that I pretend to be–that reunification would be predicated on a non-inflation of the pope’s role. In other words, he would retain his authority over all the Western churches, but would not expect to exert the same authority over the Eastern churches. Perhaps he would consult with the other patriarchs more fully than he does now. Perhaps we would see some pronouncements coming from some sort of council of patriarchs. Perhaps, even, the Eastern patriarchs would end up establishing their own chief among equals, who would collaborate with the pope. But I would be very surprised to see any pope agree to become just one of many Western patriarchs.
I don’t say this cynically, either. I simply can’t see how all of our ecclesiology, including the ecclesiology of VCII, could be rewritten so dramatically.
So would papolatry diminish? Probably not–at least not among the average papolators. But it would not expand.
Should the kind of allegiance Catholics are supposed to give to the Pope and the Magisterium — were it given by people in other religions to their leaders and institutions — prevent those people from ever converting to Catholicism? If, ultimately, a Catholic must say, “I don’t understand this, but I must assent to it,” then a Catholic can never justify leaving the Church. I am sure many Catholics would be perfectly happy with that. But what about people outside the Church who are trying to be faithful to their own religions? Must they, to be faithful, never suspect that their religion is not true, or not entirely true?
As Cardinal Kaspar meets in Rome with heads of other religions, it’s said he’s on outs with the curialists and this is his sawn song.
So I wonder if ecumenical unity, if possible, would solve the issue.
For the critique of thecuria and Romanita is one that is very much embeded in this time and space as is the question issue s brought forth here.
Kathy – I would make a distinction between curial, pope, and collegiality. In fact, Vatican II posited the early church notion of collegiality (ressourcement) but, it appears, that the curia has derailed any actual attempts to implement the notion of collegiality expressed at Vatican II. There have been some books and efforts made by retired cardinals/bishops to suggest ways of reforming the curia and focusing on the (what I call three legged stool) – magisterium/pope; theologians; people of God. Per the comments just above, would suggest that the curia also makes the rapproachment with the orthodox more difficult.
In terms of papalotry – the key leg of the stool is how “pope” is understood in the church by all sorts of folks – conferences of bishops; the balance between a bishop and the pope; the concept of hierarchy – pope = bishops but is also in leadership/authority; the concept of the sensus fidelim and the purpose of pope listening to the people of God.
Papalotry to me raises issues around an imbalance (my image of the US government and a sense that at times we live with an “imperial presidency” that hinders effective democracy and the common good because the US three legged stool is out of kilter) of power and authority; the recent 150 year history and dogma of infallibility; appointment of bishops, curia, etc.; the role of curial centralization which at times falls under the name of the current pope (whether he agrees or not).
So, if I understand Mr. Steinfels correctly, for the appropriate and proper balance in the church, all of the various legs of the stool need to responsibly exercise their own expertise, roles, and power……if a theologian were to allow his/her “affectivty” for a pope to skew their professional work, then the church and the people of God are diminished.
Guess the “affectivity” or respect for the office of pope needs to be there but it would be a fine line and a constant balancing act.
Sorry, Mr. Steinfels, if my understanding and comments are WAY OFF BASE.
Mark–
I hope I didn’t convey the impression that there would likely be parity among the pope and the bishops in a reunified Church. What I gleaned, I hope correctly is that some Orthodox leaders appear ready to recognize the pope as the first among equals, but that there would also have to be greater emphasis in a reunified Church on conciliarity, a key component of the structure of the Orthodox Churches. Perhaps diminution or diminishment in the authority of the pope are the wrong words to have used in my earlier post, but with an increase in conciliarity (which I think is a good thing), it seems to me that there could be a significant change in the dynamic of the structure of the Church. Important decisions might be arrived at by consensus, for example. The pope might have veto power, and perhaps absolute power over some issues, but decisionmaking would involve a broader base. (And daresay some role for the laity?)
The Orthodox/Catholic commission (I forget its proper name) is lookin next at the papal primacy issue, with both sides agreeing to trying to identify with specificity the role and authority of the pope in the years before the Great Schism. I thought it was a great leap forward (no pun intended) for BXVI to agree to the scope of the commission’s inquiry on this issue. Reunification is something we should hope and pray for; the role of the pope may or may not significantly change post-reunification, but if conciliarity were to increase, it seems possible to me that adulation, papalotry, etc. would decrease. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
Arriving after 166 posts (!!!), I can only respond re criticism of the papacy with words of my betters:
“We have reached an extraordinary state in the Church when to recall that there are limits to papal power is regarded as dangerously subversive. But that makes the duty to point it out all the more incumbent. ” Peter Hebblethwaite.
“The true lights of the Church, those who are most important for the eternal salvation of mankind as well as of individuals are not the Pope, the bishops or the cardinals in their red cassocks, but those who possess and radiate most faith, hope and love, most humility and unselfishness, most fortitude in carrying the cross, most happiness and confidence.
If a Pope does all this as well or perhaps even better than, for example, John XXIII, well, then he is not only a Pope but a wonderful Christian, then it happens that, if I may say so, the president of the chess club is for once also himself a great chess player. But this would be a happy coincidence which God is not bound to bring about and which he has not guaranteed.
If we are looking at the Church in this way, we shall not find it difficult to accept that the cashier is responsible for the finances and the president of this holy society directs its activities. But we ought to remain conscious of what is both our pride and our burden, namely that the Church depends ultimately on ourselves.”
(Karl Rahner, Grace in Freedom –
http://www.religion online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2079&C=1960 )
“Sorry, Mr. Steinfels, if my understanding and comments are WAY OFF BASE.”
Bill Haas,
Is this a sign of affectivity when you call Peter “Mr. Steinfels?” Or is that an affectation on your part? Or are you affected by the snow? Jean Raber where are you when we need you!
Bill – I’m from Texas; it is called civility and respect of your betters.
For the record, the term sometimes tossed around in this post and the earlier one is papolatry and not papalotry. The analogue is idolatry.
Bill–
This sounds all well and good, but I still think it’s hoping for too much. I can’t help but think about the recent welcome mat set out for disaffected Anglicans. Those who will leave Canterbury for Rome will be functioning in their own semi-autonomous ecclesial structure. Like the Byzantine, Ruthenian, and other Eastern Catholic churches, they will have their own parishes, their own liturgies, and their own ordinaries. All will be in communion with Peter, but it remains to be seen how the ordinaries will relate to the Latin ordinaries. At the risk of sounding disrespectful, it may well be as if the pope as CEO had just acquired a new company. I think that may be the way a Catholic/Orthodox reunification works as well. So collegiality may function within the Orthodox “Rite” of the Catholic Church more fully than it functions within the Latin Rite. Or at least that’s how the Latin curia will view the arrangement.
Reading John O’Malley’s recent book on Vatican II opened my eyes to how deeply entrenched the idea of papal centrality is in the church. The last chapters of the book broke my heart as I read about the back room maneuvering that gutted the idea of collegiality. If Paul VI, who was moderately progressive, could not take another step in trusting his brother bishops, what hope is there for the next few successors of Peter–especially given the makeup of the current episcopacy and college of cardinals?
But I could be wrong. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will wait a little bit longer so that a new generation of leaders is in place to bring East and West together in a more thorough way.
Thank you, Alan, for clearing that up. I wasn’t sure, and my online dictionary didn’t help.
Bill DeHaas,
I assume that people’s screen name is how they want to be called, so I usually go by that in addressing them. Hence I would talk to “Margaret O’Brien Steinfelds” but simply to “Kathy”. No disrespect meant to either.
The new Anglican Ordinariates will not be like the Eastern Rite Churches, since the ordinaries will be vicars of the Pope, not of Christ. This may not be obvious in practice, but will make a huge difference in theory, as in the comparison of the Anglicans with the Orthodox. (see quotes at end of this note.)
One of Benedict’s earliest acts was to abandon the title “Patriarch of the West”. This did not diminish his status with respect to the other western patriarchs in Venice, Lisbon, and elsewhere.
If I am not mistaken, Cardinal Kasper is already 77, 2 years past retirement age, which is a sign that he still valued by the Pope. If ‘the curia’ wanted him gone, he would have been gone at 75.
Kasper and Ratzinger carried on a public conversation on the relation between local and universal church a few years ago that says a lot about individual commitments to their local versus the universal Church. Both, I am sure, would agree that the relationships coincide and are complex, and that there is much to be explored in this area of thought.
On the new Anglican ordinaries, Rome wrote:
“The power (potestas) of the Ordinary is…
b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff;”
Lumen Gentium 27 explicitly states
“The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to [bishops] completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.”
“But I could be wrong. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will wait a little bit longer so that a new generation of leaders is in place to bring East and West together in a more thorough way.”
The West is really not together. So does mere recognition of each other’s faith bring unity? The Holy Spirit is the same, yesterday, tomorrow, and today. It is lust for power and those who profit from that power that circumvents the Spirit.
Your local Holy Name Society is usually a bunch of business people seeking leads rather than spiritual unity and growth.
Here is a stab at getting back to the thread as suggested by Peter Steinfels. At every Mass we pray for the bishop of Rome and the local bishop by name. To omit the name of the bishop of Rome is to say, in effect, that this particular community is not in union with the bishop of Rome. Thus, the question is this: not whether the pope is the “head” of the Church (If I read Paul rightly, that is Christ) but whether as a community are we in union with Peter’s successor? By beginning with the liturgy we might then begin to inquire as to the significance of that dual mention.
Here is an excellent article that highlights the difficulty of theologians or theological thought being dependent or in “awe” of a pope: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=27944603-3048-741E-6720211751000482
Ah, the thread lives on – I thought it had ended and we had moved to what folks meant in the threads and posts we deal with.
I do think Prof. Cunningham’s view needs to be read in conjunction with Jimmy Mac’s citi ng of Hebblewhite and Rahner – ah. balance( if that’s possible anymore today.)
Bill DeHass,
Thank you for linking to that article. It is important in this discussion because of the way itcalls into question the “theological integrity” of the Vatican. The mantra of “confusing the faithful” has been used to silence theologians and to suppress theological innovation. In fact, the faithful using common sense are rarely confused about these matters and think more clearly on them than the Vatican does. It is a Vatican shell game. Ironically, the faithful are more confused by the Vatican’s position on this question. If the Vatican does not act in good faith in these matters, how can it legitimately accuse theologians of the same?
The Vatican’s hesitation on condom use when apparently many in Rome feel it is justified because of aids, is a striking example of how it favors its own status over the needs of the church. A striking example why adulation can cause real harm.
This thread has been revived because of a significant article in America。Commonweal should look to its laurels. America may have its finger on the pulse of real concerns in church and worlｄ。.
“It could say: 1) the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of Aids is not contraception, and therefore morally licit if the intention is to prevent infection; 2) infected men are nevertheless called to chastity, because condoms sometimes fail, and failure is fatal”
That’s from the America article. If someone can morally parse it for me, I’d be much obliged.
Mark Proska,
I understand 1 to state a principle that invokes intentionality to allow the use of condoms. If the intended use of condoms is to prevent disease and not to prevent conception, then they are not contraceptive and are not intrinsically evil (according to standard Catholic teaching). Number 2 expresses a desire to limit possible infection in the case of condom failure. Chastity seems to mean here a limitation of sexual intercourse on the assumption that the odds that a wife may be infected are increased with condom use, because the frequency of condom use increases the possibility of failure. Failure is not defined here, so it is difficult to determine the author’s meaning. Is failure do to a misuse of condoms, i.e. properly deployed, or to possible breakage, or the the unscientific claim of some (including Vatican officials) that microscopic size of HIV can actually pass through the condom? The argument is in part flawed because condom failure is not always fatal. The critical point seems to be made in number 3, that monogamy would prevent the contraction of HIV, to the extent that men who transmit HIV to their wives would not be promiscuous with women who are not their spouses. Thus 3 (which you omitted to mention) would be the desideratum, but since that ideal is difficult to achieve 1 would offer a solution as long as 2 reduced the increased risk. Did I get it right?
A thread of its own on the vatican and condom use to prevent HIV?
And no thread yet on the irish Bishops meeting in Rome to solve that problem (with 7 minutes eacj\h to speak to the Holy father?)
The brief NPR report this morning on that might start off a discussion. if we have one.
If not , papalolatry?
“The Orthodox/Catholic commission (I forget its proper name) is lookin next at papal primacy issue….”
William, this past October (2009) the Orthodox-Catholic International Commision held their eleventh plenary in Paphos, Cyprus. At this meeting the Commission members “explored the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the church in the first millennium.”
At an earlier meeting at Revenna (in 2007), the Commission asserted, according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (member of the commission), that on an official level “the Orthodox accepted in principle the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome.” In their most recent meeting in Paphos, Cyprus, they explored how far the Pope during the first millennium exercised over Eastern Christendom a jurisdiction that was not only appellate but direct and “ordinary.”
To my knowledge, the results of this meeting have not yet been published. Of the dialogue, Ware says this: “The dialogue is now, for the first time, confronting face to face what is the primary difficulty between Latin West and the Orthodox East: the ‘diakonia’ (‘serving role’) of the Bishop of Rome in the universal church. Yet our progress is slow. As was said by a great Orthodox pioneer in the ecumenical movement, Fr. George Florovsky: ‘The highest and most promising ecumenical virtue is patience.’ We may add: an impatient patience.”
Ware says this, too: “If the primacy is to be spelled out in terms of mutuality and reciprocal concord, of co-responsibility and interdependence” then the “episcopal college cannot act without their head, the Pope; but equally the Pope cannot act without members of the episcopal college.”
Anyway, I am sure the final report will be impatiently received whenever it does come out.
… [Trackback] …
[...] There you will find 20077 more Infos: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=6725…