Dialogue and Proclamation II
As a follow-up to Robert Imbelli’s stimulating post, see a young Joseph Ratzinger in 1964 discussing why Christians need the Church. I found this rather moving. A snip:
The question we have to face is not that of whether other people can be saved and how. We are convinced that God is able to do this with or without our theories, with or without our perspicacity, and that we do not need to help him do it with our cogitations. The question that really troubles us is not in the least concerned with whether and how God manages to save others.
The question that torments us is, much rather, that of why it is still actually necessary for us to carry out the whole ministry of the Christian faith—why, if there are so many other ways to heaven and to salvation, should it still be demanded of us that we bear, day by day, the whole burden of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical ethics? And with that, we are once more confronted, though from a different approach, with the same question we raised yesterday in conversation with God and with which we parted: What actually is the Christian reality, the real substance of Christianity that goes beyond mere moralism? What is that special thing in Christianity that not only justifies but compels us to be and live as Christians?
ht: Whispers in the Loggia
What is this, the Pope as Hamlet?
So the future pope asked why “it is still actually necessary for us to carry out the whole ministry of the Christian faith.”
He may as well ask this question today. Why? Because I see so many events in the Catholic Church that do not reflect any kind of “ministry of the Christian faith.” Reflect, for example, on the most unchristian examples of hierarchs in St. Louis, Kansas City – St. Joseph, Philadelphia, and God-only-knows elsewhere. Power grabs, attempts to grab power, haughtiness, arrogance, legalisms, lies, deceit, coverups, hypocrisy, threats.
And, yet, we are a church that proclaims itself Catholic. Trouble is, we are catholic in name only, that is, only when it is convenient for us — ordained and non-ordianed alike — to so proclaim. We can worship just about anyplace in the whole wide world. We have an elaborate code, a universal liturgy, special liturgies for various non-Western cultures/peoples who proclaim the same faith, religious orders all over the world, bishops and priests all over the world, etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, when a hierarch excommunicates Catholics who refuse to turn over legal control of parish assets, or turns a diocesan administrative structure upside down and inside out (with many good servants kicked out), or adamantly refuses to turn over incriminating evidence to proper civil authorities, the rest of us in other places/dioceses merely say “Screw the guy” and then go on our merry way. After all, “it’s their problem, not ours.” So much for catholicism. So much for Ratzinger’s view of why “Christians need the [let's face it, institutional] Church.”
In sum, we do not need THE church. We need A church. “Catholic” and “Christian,” to boot! Really, there’s gotta’ be times, I would guess, when Jesus looks on this establishment and wonders, “Just what the hell is going on down there?!?”
I know I do.
…and I’m down here in it!!!
:(
Anyone who has looked into the history of the Church must know that there have always been scandals and follies, and I do not see any reason to believe that there will not continue to be scandals adn follies. We should look at them and not flinch and go on to do the best we can. I like that line from the hymn we used to sing in church often: “the Church’s one Salvation is Jesus Christ her Lord”. Wesley could write! I say no more about hymns.
I think that should read: “The Church’s one Foundation …..”, but the message is still as valid today and in Wesley’s time.
I won’t dispute the truth in that hymn, but I think Jesus would expect us to DO something about the “foundation.” And I don’t see much. And what I do see is a hierarchy hopin’ that groups like CTA, VOTF, etc. will simply go away or be ignored.
Sadly, the name of the game in the church is still pray, pay, and obey (with emphasis on the latter two).
As long as we pay and obey (or just pay!), we can see a continuation of the same old samo-samo.
And, of course, we have our religious — err, make that “realty” — heritage. Our forebears et al worked their holy butts off to pay for brick and mortar, stained glass windows, organs, statues, etc. No one wants to see the bishops sell off church properties: too many wonderful memories involved, not to mention investments of time, money, and labor over the years.
So we’ll continue to pay because not to do so would result in ——— LOSS (temporal, that is)!
And the System wins.
And the hierarchs wipe their brows.
And Jesus continues to frown and shake his head.
And we continue to put our faith in him (as if HE’s gonna’ solve these problems).
And everybody has managed to avert another “threat to Holy Mother Church.”
This may, indeed, may be one time when Jesus WILL help those who help themselves!
Let me get back to John McGreevy’s, and Fr. Imbelli’s, important posts. By the way , what they say has some bearing on the “intentional Christian” issue.
I hope that I’m right about the following, but would be glad to be corrected if I’m not.
First, the Church is a sacrament, a sign of the Holy Spirit’s making the life and work of Christ continuously effective in the world.
Second, the Church, all of us Catholics united in our faith and worship, exist for the world. We are a sign to the world, so it is important that we give expression to that sign in its fullness.
Third, we all exist in an ongoing history. To be an effective sign to the others in the world we have to be in serious dialogue with them about what it means to be human and what are the aspirations toward that which lies beyond us. Rahner argued that every person is inclined toward a transcendence to something or someone above and beyond him or her and their fellow humans.
Fourth, in this ongoing history, we Catholics have been, willy nilly, associated with an imperialism that has deep reprocutions. Perhaps now, as much as ever and perhaps more than usual, we as a Church can only really be for the world if we admit that we can learn important things about the divine from others. To admit this does not require us to deny anything in our tradition, at least as far as I can see. But it does mean that we can only serve the world properly if we are also prepared to take seriously what its peoples say about their spiritual yearnings. We need not only to hear them, but to examine carefully whether and how their experience can enhance our own appreciation of the work of the Holy Spirit both in our community and in the world.
Francis of Assissi tried to teach us long ago. It is not flouting our resume with signs and symbols. It is making clear to others our common humanity, our sinfulness, our love for them, our equality with them, our eagerness to serve them—-that we draw others to ourselves and God.
Please let me add to what I said yesterday.
I’ve just finished reading the “conclusion” to Yves Congar’s second volume of “I Believe in the Holy Spirit.” Section C’s title is a pithy expression of the thrust of this whole book The title is: “The Spirit of God Fills the Universe: He Gathers Everything that Exists in It for the Glory of the Father.” This “all” includes human knowledge, art, etc. The documentation that Congar gives in his endnotes is most impressive.
For those who want to talk about the relationship between the Church and the world, I can’t recommend this material highly enough.
Furthermore, what Congar says is certainly relevant to the blogging about “intentional disciples.” What he says makes abundantly clear the folly of speaking with assurance about the relationship between those who are described as not being “intentional disciples” and God.