“Duc nos quo tendimus”
Some decades ago, Albert Descamps, a fine Belgian scripture scholar and later rector of the Catholic University of Louvain, wrote a fine essay on teaching authority in the Church. With a fine touch of humor, he quoted from a verse of the Panis angelicus, “Per tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus. Ad lucem quam inhabitas.” (“Along your paths lead us where we tend: To the light in which you dwell”), in order to make the point that there is a view that has no difficulty acknowledging the authority of a person who leads us where we already want to go–the Duc nos quo tendimus notion of authority. I thought of that when I observed how in a thread below the recently expressed views of Cardinal Schonborrn were attributed to the Holy Spirit, who blows where he will, and I hope David Gibson will forgive me for wondering whether the claim doesn’t illustrate that notion of authority. Others on the thread obviously disagree with what the Cardinal said and, not wishing to go where he leads, would also be likely to deny that the Holy Spirit was leading him.
Which all raises the question of discernment, on which there is an immense literature, starting perhaps with Jesus (“By their fruits shall you know them”; “every one who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light lest his works be reproved, while he who does the truth comes to the light so that his works may be made manifest because they are done in God”) and with St. Paul (“Extinguish not the spirit. Despise not prophecies. But test all things; hold fast that which is good; keep clear of whatever kind is evil”; I Thess 5:19-21; see 1 Thess 2:13– “we thank God that when you received from us the word of the message of God you accepted not a word of men but, what it really is, a word of God”– and the whole of 1 Cor 14) and continuing on throughout the Christian spiritual tradition. Different currents within the great river have devised their own rules for discernment, the best-known being perhaps those of St. Ignatius Loyola.
The ability to discern divine authority is itself a gift of God. The First Vatican Council, often dismissed as infected with a kind of theological rationalism, taught that saving faith is impossible without the light and inspiration of the Holy Spirit that make assenting to and believing the truth a free and meritorious act of which the word “suavitas” [pleasantness, delight] may be used. St. Augustine spoke of the need of “inner eyes”; St. Thomas said that the principal cause of faith is the inner impulse of the Holy Spirit; Pierre Rousselot wrote of “the eyes of faith” and Bernard Lonergan of faith as “the eyes of love.”
All of which I take to mean that nothing can take the place of conversion, intellectual, moral, and religious (Lonergan again). The converted are likely to discern correctly who may and should be trusted and to trust them; the unconverted are likely to trust the untrustworthy and not to trust the trustworthy. Unfortunately, it is also the case that people who occupy posts that only the trustworthy ought to occupy sometimes are not themselves trustworthy because they are not converted, intellectually, morally, religiously, and when that happens in the Church, a grave crisis can ensue. There really is no substitute for conversion, and that is the work of the Holy Spirit.
“Suavitas” is connected with “suadeo”. urge, make a thought or action attractive to and “persuadeo”. persuade, make so attractive that one respond to that quality in what is being urged upon one. Perhaps the sweetness (suavitas) of what is proposed makes the acceptance sweet.
There is a fine, accessible book on discernment called Weeds Among the Wheat – Discernment: Where Prayer and Action Meet, by Thomas H. Green, SJ.
Not uniquely, he makes the point that one of the marks of a true prophet in Israel was the un-welcomeness of the prophetic message.
one of the marks of a true prophet in Israel was the un-welcomeness of the prophetic message. Isn’t that why one of the marks of a true prophet is that he or she has to personally suffer a great deal in consequence?
For example, our pacifist clergy who are willing to go to prison for their beliefs.
The vast literature on discernment to one side, as an ordinary, “in the pews” Catholic, it seems to me that common decency is not a bad guideline to apply to assessment of the behavior of the clergy , the hierarchy, and the papacy.
I agree, but I hadn’t been thinking mainly of behavior.
I was thinking that the exercise of authority — in the light of discernment– is a form of behavior.
Good follow up to your thread below. Would just add that conversion also seems the opposite of leadership by fear or from fear; leadership that defines conversion as complete obedience to authority; leadership that places hierarchy first; conscience second.
O’Malley’s book about Vatican II and Weakland’s autobiography both have long sections that describe Paul VI and his style of leadership and curial appointments as one in which he strove to balance the “sides” in the curia…..those who wanted to push beyond Vatican II and those who continued to have reservations about Vatican II. These descriptions of papal strategy seems to miss your concept of conversion completely and replaces it with some internal pattern of balancing political power.
A fine post, with several avenues…
First, all is forgiven — though absolving a priest is above my pay grade. (smile emoticon here)
In fact, my invocation of the Holy Spirit blowing where it (is it always the neutered form?) will was not so much an endorsement of Cardinal Schoenborn’s statements — though yes, they are welcome in their open approach as well as content, to me — as a reflection in my view that both he and Archbishop Grings could be said to be channeling the Holy Spirit, though for what ends we cannot always see. Perhaps it is for development in the church, perhaps it is for our own conversion. I don’t know. But I’ve always believed the Holy Spirit was the animating force in the writing-straight-with-crooked-lines aphorism.
That said, is it a commonplace that the Holy Spirit is, as seems to me, the somewhat neglected element of the Trinity? If so, has it always been thus? Is it because the HS is a bit dangerous? (Witness John XXIII and the council, and the saying that the Holy Spirit enjoys its jokes — where is that from, and what is the correct phrase, if there is one?) Pentecostalism has always seemed to unnerve the Catholic Church a bit. The Holy Spirit doesn’t seem very liturgically placid. But those are musings for another time.
I do most firmly believe, as Father K writes above and as Matt Boudway muses below, that we always try to identify our desires with those of a higher power, be it human or divine. And those who contradict us are against the Spirit. Or so we think. Hence my problem with much of America’s feel-good Christianity. Atheists (and I think Hauerwas, in several places) complain that once in a while they’d like to hear Christians talk about how their faith has made their lives tougher, not happy and prosperous.
Several recent threads here have also gotten at the issues of conversion and discernment and change, both corporate and individual. I am somewhat obsessed with notions of conversion, and our discussions are very very Catholic in this sense of ongoing conversion. I like that, but not all Christians do. And the idea of a lifelong, ongoing pilgrimage of faith can be disconcerting to many. For me, it’s my only hope. Though I wish the Holy Spirit would take a more active role in my own life. A flash of insight or a mighty wind of change would be nice once in a while
I have a few questions. Is conversion transparent to the one who has it? If conversion confers neither infallibility nor impeccability, what does it confer? Total purity of heart? A general orientation in the right direction? An openness to the Spirit?
One of the favorites of the Vatican that we have not heard for awhile is that what the magisterium teaches at the moment must be firmly held and internally consented to. If there was a ever a heresy this is it. Such illusions of grandeur have permeated Rome since the fourth century. Those Catholics who are constantly quoting the pope in adulation and not challenging him continue the problem. When we see that Rome is more obsessed with its own power than the spiritual welfare of the church renewal can be more genuine. The spirit is always working within a humble person. Here is a beautifu passage from Romans 8 on the workings of the spirit.
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.
David N., it is important to understand that wherever The Holy Spirit is, so too, is The Father and The Son. Wherever The Holy Spirit is, so too, is The Word of Love.
Bill M., perhaps you can explain to us why Christ would Found His Church and not ensure that The Word of God remain consistent?
Nancy: the Word of God (Jesus) remains constant and consistent. Scripture remains constant but is constantly subject to interpretation and reinterpretation based on the advancement of studies in theology, science, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, etc.
To equate each and every papal pronouncement or magisterial statement with the word of God borders on heresy.
Nancy,
You clearly are ignoring history where popes have contradicted each other. The Word of God comes to all who seek the Spirit. We do not need the magisterium for that as much as EWTN and the Empire would desire that.
I scarfed the following from Carolyn Disco’s post on another thread:
[Someone said] 25% (?) of Germans [had withdrawin] from the Church, something like 6.25 million, if I recall. Anyway the numbers were staggering and I thought that is the kind of needed shock to wake folks up.
Could this be the Holy Spirit trying to tell us something about conversion and discernment? Why should the Holy spirit operate solely within the confines of the Church? After all, God’s got a whole universe to tend to and it doesn’t revolve around Rome.
Antonio: Well, yes, it could be, but how does one tell? Is it the Holy Spirit at work?
If we had a humbler Rome and not one infused with domination and empire it would be acknowledged that the Spirit works in so many ways. It is the obsession with Empire that says that all graces come through the clergy and the bishops. It is so clear that throughout history the clergy have lacked that generosity which is love and what Paul calls the most important quality. The pomposity and eliteness must stop and let service, truth and love prevail.
Talk about discernment. A priest who is on a leave of absence in Boston from his parish duties is doing “reconciliation work.” But he will not be allowed to do it if he returns to active parish life:
“In the fading light of day in the center’s chapel, Mr. Bowers said he remained torn about his future. Some of his family and friends are encouraging him to rejoin the active ministry.
“I have proposed that in different ways to the leadership in the archdiocese, but they say I’d have to leave my reconciliation work,” he said. And he does not want to go back to the ministry the way it was. ”
Read the rest here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/09priest.html?hpw
I’m gonna be sorry I opened my mouth here (figuratively), I’m sure, and I don’t know that this is even what Joseph G. means by his questions but:
“I have a few questions. Is conversion transparent to the one who has it?”
Yes, totally. You know exactly what it is. It’s not something you can bury up and pretend was ambiguous.
“If conversion confers neither infallibility nor impeccability, what does it confer? Total purity of heart? A general orientation in the right direction? An openness to the Spirit?”
It may be like a magnet, a slow irresistible pull that causes you to do things that seem out of character but are really in your true character. Or it may come in a split second that tears the veil between us and God.
The aftermath is quite frustrating. Exactly why has such an experience occurred? And to what end?
One can join a church, the Church. (I tried both.) But next to that type of conversion experience, a lot of what men (and women) say about God and Truth strikes one as somewhat imperfect, like trying to remember a dream imperfectly. One’s own notions get in the way, too.
It’s not that anyone’s ideas are entirely wrong, but that there are missing bits and pieces. Important ones, but the conversion doesn’t reveal what they are.
I don’t know. It probably sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo. Certainly, I was happier when I could think of things like this as mumbo jumbo. It puts a burden on you. It’s like the difference between suspecting your neighbor beats his wife and actually seeing him do it. Now you have to do something about it. Except the “what” is a lot more unclear than dialing 911. (One thinks of that old hymn, “Operator, long distance, get me Jesus on the line.”)
Joe Gannon: I don’t think that there are any general answers to your questions; I suspect that you’ll get different answers reflecting different experiences. Jean’s description above reminds me of one of Lonergan’s descriptions of it as “a vector, an undertow, a fateful call to a dreaded holiness. Perhaps after years of sustained prayerfulness and self-denial, immersion in the world mediated by meaning will become less total and experience of the mystery become clear and distinct enough to awaken attention, wonder, inquiry. Even then in the individual case there are not certain answers. All one can do is let be what is, let happen what in any case keeps recurring. But then, as much as ever, one needs the word–the word of tradition that has accumulated religious wisdom, the word of fellowship that unites those that share the gift of God’s love, the word of the gospel that announces that God has loved us first and, in the fulness of time, has revealed that love in Christ crucified, dead, and risen” (Method, 113).
He didn’t think fundamental religious experiences occurred with the name “God” or “religious experience” attached to them. One finds oneself differently oriented, loving what one hadn’t loved before, standing where you hadn’t stood before, with a horizon, a world, broader and larger than you had known before. Others may see the change before one does oneself. One might even be in love before one knows it or names it as such, even to oneself, never mind to the beloved. When did the “I” become a “We”?
In this life, there is nothing irrevocable or definitive about it; authenticity is always a withdrawal from inauthenticity, and it is a very precarious achievement (Lonergan, again).
Fr. Komonchak, I would like to learn more about Lonergan’s thought, and this would be, I hope, a good place to begin. Where can I find in Lonergan’s writings what you share with us?
Perhaps after years of sustained prayerfulness and self-denial, immersion in the world mediated by meaning will become less total and experience of the mystery become clear and distinct enough to awaken attention, wonder, inquiry.
Well, ‘prayerfulness and self-denial’ aside, this sounds like something Richard Feynman might say. Is there a convergence here?
Antonio: Well, yes, it could be, but how does one tell? Is it the Holy Spirit at work?
In Italy, so I’m told, they simply leave the church doors open and people walk in spontaneously on the way to or from work. Such informal interludes seem quite popular. (I see a metaphor coming on). But, of course, that’s Italy. I wonder though if the desperation I sense regarding the Vatican’s pronouncements about dwindling church membership is a manifestation of sinful pride, in which the official Church sees itself as being indispensable for salvation. It seems to me that no institution is immune from the temptation arising from the ‘will to power’. Just sayin’.
There is another type of conversion that runs counter to the Pentecostal Prosperity Gospel: ducet quo non vis
Thank you Fr. K. for the Lonergan reflection. I am still torn concerning the relationship between the notion of the Spirit drawing us towards what we naturally desire (or vis-versa, us being drawn by the Spirit towards our vocation through the use of our deep down desires) and the notion of being led where our nature (or at least lower faculties) might not want us to go.
Sophy Burnham who wrote the best selling The Excstatic Journey, is an interesting case of “conversion” and exotic journey. She claims to have had a mystical experience and may well have. Yet was she right to leave her husband because he could not compete with God.
God does touch each of us I believe in profound ways. Yet we must avoid the temptation, because we have had such an experience, to start acting infallible in many matters. The experience does not mean one can do such things. One is different from the other. This is what I believe happened to Augustine, Sophy Burnham, John Paul II and so many others. Paul knew it was something to cherish and to be humble about and not to project from that.
The experience of God is the greatest thing in the world. Humility should be the corollary. Not domination or overbearingness.
Ken: My quotes were from Lonergan’s “Method in Theology.” There’s a good introduction to his thought by Tad Dunne, “Lonergan and Spirituality.”
I’ll put in another plug for Rosemary Haughton’s book “The Transformation of Man,” which is a brilliant exploration, built around vignettes, of the relationship between formation and transformation. Formation cannot guarantee transformation, and transformation is unlikely to persist unless one comes into contact with a community that has a language for the transforming experience, enables you to trust it, has others who have had similar experiences, can assure you that you’re not crazy, etc.
Fr. K. Thanks! Your response rings true. I had been thinking of the difficulties that some followers of Calvin–I’m not blaming Calvin himself–had in trying to figure out if they were among the elect.
Joe Gannon: The conviction that one is already saved seems to be an essential part of evangelical Protestantism in the US. Catholics tend to reserve the word “saved” for the final stage, after the “whew!” of passing the final test!
Thanks, Fr. K. Another book I add to my list to read. Realize I jump to practicalities but your summary of the book’s major thesis – formation can not do transformation w/o an ongoing community leads me to reflect upon a number of recent issues and threads – implementation of the Red Book (okay, expensive formation process in place vs. 35 years of a community experience?); implementation of the Dallas Charter 2002 but 60 years of documented and now revealed trail of victims, hurt, outrage, damage and no real transformation by the bihops or Rome much less communities (or the world church) as an on-going community to support transformation.
Between the converted and the unconverted is a pretty sizable number of folks who –like me–are partly converted and partly not, at any given moment in time. I say this with reference to Fr.. K’s final paragraphs. It’s the murkiness of the waters and the murkiness of the discerner that make discernment so difficult so often, and consequently we can find all sorts of claims competing for allegiance. A good admixture of listening and deciding and revising positions in everyday life accompanies us along the way. And to second what was said above in this thread, a community of self-aware and self-critical folks discerning as best we can with the eyes of love makes a whole lot of sense (in the ancient meaning of Logos).
Fr. Komonchak wrote: The conviction that one is already saved seems to be an essential part of evangelical Protestantism in the US. Catholics tend to reserve the word “saved” for the final stage, after the “whew!” of passing the final test!
Jean says: Evangelical and fundamental salvation is predicated on belief. You are “unsaved,” as my niece once explained when she was little, the moment you stop believing. And then if you “get saved again,” you have to be rebaptized.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists are also big on tests of one’s belief. And the notion that there’s an Everlasting Sadist sending us “tests”–deaths of loved ones, miscarriages, job loss, chronic illness, marital problems, addictive personalities–to pass or fail is one I think is just utterly wrong. Maybe that’s not what Fr. Komonchak meant to imply, and if I missed the point, I apologize in advance.
Certainly life’s circumstances force us to confront the depth of our faith (which I see as the thing that sustains us on those days when our belief falters), and our faith can help us through these times and even give us the impetus to become better than we are in the face of adversities.
I think salvation is a mystery, something in God’s hands. You do your best, but you’ll never really know how or why it happens in this life. Maybe that’s what was meant by “the final test”?
Jean: No, by final test I meant the accounting known as the Last Judgment.
Sorry if I’m being impertinent. I just don’t see the Last Judgment as a test so much as a reckoning up by criteria we can fully understand in this mortal coil.
For me, the blog is the “community that has a language for the transforming experience,” but I always sense I’m a pest on your threads, so I’ll try to stay off them.
Correction: “by criteria we canNOT fully understand”
Jean: Please don’t stay off my threads. I’ve never thought of you as a pest, quite the opposite in fact.
You’re right, of course, that the final judgment is a final accounting. Maybe I’m thinking of going into class the day the teacher gave us our grades on the text we had taken the day before. But I won’t push the metaphor.