Institutional vs Intentional
Michael Liccione, of Sacramentum Vitae, has a very interesting meditation on institutionality versus intentionality. Here is an excerpt from his thoughtful post:
. . .the Catholic Church, at least in this and other developed countries, is just too bloody institutional. That accounts for a great deal, if not most, of what bothers me. What got me thinking about this are two facts of which I have lately been reminded: the indulgence of Archbishop Wuerl of DC in Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's "celebration" Mass at Trinity College, where of course the pro-abortion pol received the Eucharist, despite USCCB and Vatican guidelines; and the explosive growth of Pentecostal churches throughout the Christian world. The former, discussed in an informative and lively threadat Amy Welborn's Open Book, exemplifies not rocking the boat against powerful cafeteria Catholics; the latter now presents us with what is arguably the numerically largest form of Christianity next to Catholicism itself. The former signifies institutional thinking; the latter signifies that such thinking is missing something.
Read the rest of it here.
Although he doesn't come right out and say it, perhaps the 'something missing' is intentionality--in formation and discipleship. We've talked a little bit about the reasons why Pentecostal Christianity seems to be the fastest growing section of the Church today, but one of things it does seem to have is an emphasis on encounter and relationship with Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Like Michael, I too don't believe that the Church can survive without its institutional side. Christ embraces the whole of our humanity--"stuff" matters. The reality is that where two or three are gathered in Jesus' name both Christ and politics are in their midst. The question is which will we follow?
So often, we, the members and leaders of the Spouse of Christ, the Church, act as if we were the Widows of Christ--stumbling along purely on our own human effort--forming and calling committees and commissions, acting as if we can deploy merely institutional resources toward particular issues.
So, I do have some questions:
Why are the pentecostal and other evangelical denominations growing at an explosive rate relative to our own?
Does intentionality matter?
How do we bring that intentionality into our own communities? What are the concrete things that can be done to accomplish this?
Discussions regarding who is or who is not eating in the "cafeteria" are not helpful to the dialogue, but I would imagine just about anything else is.
posted by Keith Strohm @ 7:41 AM
28 Comments
Links to this post
28 Comments:
I think you're mixing things up here. I don't think it's a conflict between the institutional vs. the charismatic or however you wish to dichotomize it. Pentecostalism probably appeals to people because of its immediate gratification, whether there is an institutional backdrop or not. I don't see how "intentionality" relates to Pentecostalism, either. The Roman Catholic Church has its own ethos and its own "intentionality," which is different from Pentecostalism. I don't see how watering that down or adopting the culture of Pentecostalism would help Catholicism in the long run. It would only create a tertium quid.
Janice,
Thanks for starting off the conversation!
I'm not trying to draw a distinction between institutional and charismatic. I believe their is an intentionality in pentecostal Christianity that focuses on an encounter with Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. There is an intentional focus on that relationship with God enabled by the Holy Spirit.
I would like to understand further your distinction between Catholic and Pentecostal intentionality. I think examining that question might be fundamental to a deeper understanding of intentional discipleship in the Catholic Tradition.
As I understand Pentecostalism, they do not predicate salvation on membership in a particular Church. That's the first problem. The Catholic Church absolutely believes that it is the repository of Truth and salvation. The second problem would be their rejection of the sacraments and the notion of the priesthood of all believers. I believe a third would be Scriptural literalism.
I think all of this comes in with an adoption of Pentecostal methods of intentionality, i.e., message follows method. One reason Pentecostalism is so attractive is that it imposes many fewer things on "believers." It is free-form and undemanding. It is non-hierarchical, i.e., "non-institutional." So of course it will be more attractive to those who do not want restrictions. But if those who profess Catholicism take Pentecostal methods to further the Catholic faith, they are, in substance, taking Pentecostalism and mixing it with the Catholic faith and creating a syncretistic, non-Catholic faith.
Janice,
I think Keith's initial point isn't about whether pentecostalism is or isn't in accordance with Catholic teaching. It was (1) to recognize the reality of the phenomenon and (2) ask why does it attract. Because, whatever its errors are, something in there is corresponding to people. And to be able to address it, one must first know what it is.
In that way, I would say that I don't think that what corresponds is the notion that it is "free-form and undemanding". I readily acknowledge that on some level, and probably not entirely consciously, the nature of how protestants handle the issues of authority (and the fact that it focuses on the internal and not the external, if you'll indulge my characterization) may have a certain appeal. But I know of few people who have ever told me that that's why they left. What I always here is more what Keith mentioned: the attractiveness of the intense encounter with Christ and a personal relationship with Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. I think that the issue and role of sentiment is an important one to discuss. Pentecostalism I think overemphasizes the role of sentiment in the human experience and the nature of the relationship with God. But I think we make a big mistake if we conclude that they left for libertine reasons. Frankly, that runs the risk of being self-indulgent and an excuse to avoid examining our own problems.
As for "adoption of Pentecostal methods of intentionality", what precisely are you referring to?
As an aside, On Integrity, I did a partial series on the question of parishes "versus" movements (with a question mark, of course, about whether that dichotomy that people tend to make is a true one). But one of the posts was a reflection on Ratzinger's comments about the nature of the Church's institutional and charismatic dimensions. It's fascinating because he says that the institutional is fundamentally charismatic in that the only fundamental institution of the Church is a sacrament. I'll find the post and add the relevant commentary to Intentional Disciples tonight.
This post has been removed by the author.
I didn't say anyone left for "libertine" reasons. But there isn't a dichotomy between an intense love of Jesus Christ and doctrinal positions or "institutions" and I don't understand why the people on this blog keep stressing that.
There is something to the notion that people respond more readily to less demanding forms of religion. There is also somehing to the notion that authority and structure is less attractive to many people. But, as Cardinal Ratzinger also noted in his debate with Cardinal Kasper, authority is not automatically equal to "the Vatican" or to "Roman centralism" or to "structures." Catholicism, at some point, does require some level of understanding of authority. That's the way it is. It is a hierarchical faith. Cardinal Ratzinger also said that. That does not, in any way, preclude an intense relationship with Jesus Christ. But it does impose certain obligations and certain ways that things are to be done. And all that canon law and doctrine really are, in the end, are summary statements of what Catholics believe, as a result of having enountered and having loved and loving Jesus Christ. So I really do not see what continually imposing the false dichotomy of Jesus vs. whatever gets you. Because in the end, you still have the Church, which as Tertullian says, Jesus always has with Him, and it is what it is.
To understand the attraction, it's necessary to understand the age in which we live – an age of dissociation, of fragmentation, an anaesthetized age. We want to know we are alive yet we cannot do so in isolation. What we Catholics are failing at is communio, at accompanying each other, at presenting Christ's face to each other and the world. The Incarnation is a fact, an intentional event. And it intentionally occurs in the community of a family, continues in the community of the disciples, in the community of the twelve, culminates in the community who witness Jesus’ ascension. The Church is community but, to great extent, we have lost that.
I have had some involvement with Foccalare and Cursillo, have some current involvement with Communion and Liberation and have come to understand the appeal of the movements. In the parishes, community is difficult, even non-existent. For many, Mass has no connection to the rest of life and certainly has nothing to do with community. In the movements, friendships develop, community develops. I am also very, very fortunate to be at a parish with others who value and nurture community and to have other sources of Catholic community in my life. But my experience is rare and comes out of an intentional search and intentionally taking action to find and build what I needed.
The Evangelical Protestant experience of encountering Christ generates intense feelings. (After spending a number of years with a Southern Baptist foster-father, I’d say sentiment is a bit of an understatement.) And it seems to answer our human longings. But in reality, Protestantism offers an easy high which, if sustained, feels great but is actually a DIY religion focused on personal feelings. If the high is not sustained, the DIY aspect remains and there is still a tendency to focus personal feelings – on regaining the lost experience.
One encounter isn’t enough, one must have a life of encountering Christ and that can only happen in community so that Christ is experienced as an ongoing event that includes each one of us each and every day. In community we can relax and be ourselves: we discover who we are. If we witness the ongoing evidence of lives lived in Christ, which are lives that can only be lived in community, we will attract others who want the same thing.
Janice wrote: "But there isn't a dichotomy between an intense love of Jesus Christ and doctrinal positions or "institutions" and I don't understand why the people on this blog keep stressing that."
Janice, I am at a loss to know where you see examples that people on this blog are promoting the notion of this dichotomy. I'd be happy to clarify, but to do that I need to know where you see us saying "A" when all I see is us saying "Not A".
Drusilla, you said it so much better than me. Thank you.
In a previous thread, someone was complaining that the only questions he got were about doctrine, not about the experience of Jesus. My point is that there is no dichotomy between the two. Doctrine simply summarizes the obligations and worldview that come with encountering Jesus. It's as simple as that.
But the reasons people choose Pentecostalism may involve things that the Roman Catholic Church cannot countenance. I really wonder why the focus here is not on using the 2000 year old treasury of wisdom that we have at our disposal. One of the previous threads was on memorization of Scripture. And Sherry brought up the "Roman Road." Why wasn't the lectio divine brought up, instead? The Catholic Church has incredible resources that are uniquely Catholic and yet, many times on the blog the go-to suggestions are Protestant. I have to wonder why. If someone wants to evangelize in the name of the Catholic Church, I think the suggestions for inculcating Catholicity ought to be uniquely Catholic items. To be a Catholic is a unique thing in this world: it has a specific liturgy, worldview, stance on issues, etc. And it has the indigenous resources to articulate each of these. Why go outside?
Janice,
Thanks for continuing the conversation.
You wrote:
But if those who profess Catholicism take Pentecostal methods to further the Catholic faith, they are, in substance, taking Pentecostalism and mixing it with the Catholic faith and creating a syncretistic, non-Catholic faith.
I respond:
The heart of the question is what are "Pentecostal methods." In my original post, 'intentionality' referred to fostering an encounter with Jesus and cultivating that personal relationship--as he is experirenced through the Church and in the soul of the individual. That's what I meant by intentionality in formation and discipleship.
No member of the Catherine of Siena Institute or contributor to this blog is suggesting that we jettison the richness of the Catholic Tradition (sacraments, spiritual disciplines, the hierarchical nature of the Church, etc) in favor of a watered down, quasi-protestant, quasi-Catholic "stew." What we are suggesting is that the Church has focused on sacramentalizing before evangelizing its members and does little (in an intentional way) to actually help them live out a sacramental life in a way that allows the grace of God to unfold in their lives.
The notion of nurturing and supporting intentional discipleship is not protestant methodology, but rather squarely in the Catholic Tradition. We need to reappropriate that once again.
Janice wrote:
I didn't say anyone left for "libertine" reasons. But there isn't a dichotomy between an intense love of Jesus Christ and doctrinal positions or "institutions" and I don't understand why the people on this blog keep stressing that.
I respond:
I don't think anybody on this blog believes that there is a dichotomy between intense love for Jesus and doctrinal positions--and we shouldn't try to jettison one to support the other. What I do believe, however, is that doctrinal statements mean very little to someone without a living relationship with the Source of those doctrines--Jesus Christ.
We need to help other people encounter Christ for the first time and help them nurture and deepen that relationship throughout their lives. That can't only be done with theological precision and transmission of doctrine.
It's the classic Catholic both/and--the issue is that the Church has done very little with the 'and.'
Janice wrote:
Catholicism, at some point, does require some level of understanding of authority. That's the way it is. It is a hierarchical faith. Cardinal Ratzinger also said that. That does not, in any way, preclude an intense relationship with Jesus Christ. But it does impose certain obligations and certain ways that things are to be done.
I respond:
I agree with you 100%. The thing is, in order for obligation to make sense, there must be relationship. The structure of the Church does not preclude an intense relationship with God, but to understand and appreciate the richness of the Church's structure--the institution--depends on one's relationship with Christ.
There is no separation between Christ and His Church--that's exactly why one needs to have an intentional relationship with Christ to "live" this reality.
I would submit that very few people are moved to enter a relationship with Christ solely by a doctrinal approach. The statement "God is Love" is relatively meaningless until a person experiences that Love on an intensely intimate, personal level (one that includes, but is not simply limited to one's emotions).
Fostering that initial encounter and supporting people as they explore that relationship is something that the Church as a whole does not focus on. We prep for sacraments and then we say, "good luck."
Rereading this thread, I think I should have also mafe it clear that when I use the word "institutional," I am not referring to the structure of the Church as divine and human. Rather, I (and I believe the origibal poster) were using the word to refer to the mindset that sees the bishop's role (for example) as a manager of a company, so to speak.
I am not suggesting that there is an issue with the structure of the Church, but rather the praxis of the Church--the way that it is sometimes lived out.
Drusilla,
You said so many wonderful things so eloquently. Thank you for sharing your insight with everyone.
Janice, once again thanks for continuing this conversation. It really is an important one.
Janice wrote:
In a previous thread, someone was complaining that the only questions he got were about doctrine, not about the experience of Jesus. My point is that there is no dichotomy between the two. Doctrine simply summarizes the obligations and worldview that come with encountering Jesus. It's as simple as that.
I respond:
I agree--but someone has to have an encounter first to integrate and understand that worldview. The fact is many (if not most) Catholics have not had that encounter. There is a reason why so many people leave Catholicism for protestant denominations and we should take seriously the experience of these men and women, try to understand their journey and figure out the best way to present the spiritual riches of the Church in a way that fosters and nourishes their relationship with Christ.
Oh, and regarding, Sherry's "Roman Road" reference, it was a joke. Sherry wasn't suggesting that Catholics adopt the Roman Road approach. She was commenting on the irony of a protestant method used for evangelization having Rome (which most associate with Catholicism) in its title.
I don't think people understand the notion of being "sacramentalized" and how that fosters a profound relationship with Jesus Christ. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, there is not a dichotomy between sacrament and evangelization. The sacraments represents a deep relationship with the living Christ. They offer both a material and a spiritual point of access as well as a personal and communal way of encountering God in the person of Jesus Christ. I really tire of hearing that Catholics are "sacramentalized, but not evangelized." That statement tells me that sacramental theology is not understood and that the Catholic ethos, in terms of the sacraments, is not appreciated sufficiently. And in the sacraments you have the hierarchical Church, with its orders, ecclesial and lay, its various gifts [by the way, "charism" is not really a word], and the community of believers who can nuture and support each other.
Well, do you suggest lectio divina as a way of drawing closer to Jesus Christ? I know Pope Benedict has suggested it twice as a way to do so in his Angelus addresses? And it is a bona fide Catholic way of approaching Scripture.
Charism isn't a word?
Janice,
No one needed to suggest lectio divina as a way, because you did! You are part of this conversation, and I am glad. But grant us the charity of not assuming that if we haven't yet suggested some discipline or practice you find very helpful or think should be more widely promoted that it must be because we are against it or that we favor "protestant" means.
You also wrote, "I really tire of hearing that Catholics are "sacramentalized, but not evangelized." That statement tells me that sacramental theology is not understood and that the Catholic ethos, in terms of the sacraments, is not appreciated sufficiently."
You need to explain this more, Janice. Do you recognize the phenomenon that we are speaking of when using this phrase that you object to? If the phrase isn't helpful to you, no biggie. More important to me is whether you recognize the reality of what we are talking about when we use that phrase and what we are trying to address.
The presumption on this blog appears to be that Catholics are insufficiently evangelized in terms of friendship or communion with Jesus Christ. I have also heard/seen the phrase "Catholics are sacramentalized, not evangelized." I think this is a false dichotomy. And I don't think you have clarified sufficiently what you mean a) by evangelizatin and b) how it differs from catechesis or c) where it overlaps into catechesis.
Also, your comment that you didn't need to mention lectio divina because I brought it up troubles me. Your stated purpose is that you are doing evangelization. If you dont' mention lectio divina to the people you evangelize, then who does?
Janice,
I would invite you to read the blog over again. What is meant by the phrase "sacramentalized, not evangelized" has been discussed in some detail. See the discussions of the kerygma. I would also invite you to examine your own experience, in your parish and amongst those you know who identify as Catholics but don't go to Mass, etc. Because if your experience is like most of ours, what you will see are only 30% of the Catholics in your area attending Mass regularly, and a good chunk of those doing so culturally ("I was raised Catholic and this is what Catholics do") yet giving clear indications that they do not have a recognition on a personal level of who Christ is or of choosing to follow Him. And that many of the Evangelicals in your area are ex-Catholics, not people with no previous religious background.
This is the phenomenon on the ground that we are trying to speak about. I struggle in responding to your posts because I fail to see indications that you recognize this phenomenon as real.
As for lectio divina, it is a storied tradition in the Church. But it is not the only way to approach the Scriptures. Evangelization doesn't hinge on whether people do or do not practice lectio divina, although I don't doubt that the discipline would be a help to many in their Christian maturation. But most people would not be troubled by the the fact that lectio divina was not mentioned in Fr.'s one post or in the few comments that preceded your introduction of it (comments that were at the time dealing with a joke!). Seriously, cut us some slack.
Evangelization is the proclamation of the Gospel. Catechesis is what comes after evangelization.
"Catechesis aims at knowing Jesus concretely. It is theoretical and practical initiation into the
will of God as revealed in Jesus and lived in the community of the Lord's disciples, the family of God. On the one hand, the necessity of catechesis follows from the intellectual dimension of the gospel itself. The gospel addresses itself to reason [...] But the actual living out of this doctrine is an essential component of it, and man's intellect sees properly only when the heart [not mere sentiment, but the whole person] is integrated into the mind. Consequently, catechetical instruction also includes a pilgrim fellowship, a gradual familiarization with the new life-style [Balthasar would say 'form of life'] of Christianity." (Joseph Ratzinger: Gospel, Catechesis, Catechism, 56-57).
Sacramental instruction, by contrast, limits itself to a theoretical or abstract understanding of Christianity (in a sense presupposing that the Gospel has already been proclaimed) combined with pragmatic instruction on how to receive the sacraments: when to kneel, what to say, etc.
Teaching personal prayer including lectio divina, the rosary, etc, should be an integral part of catechesis - but it's not even addressed by most programs of sacramental education (let alone adult education). Most people discover lectio divina through contact with Benedictines or Jesuits.
Regarding sacramentalizing versus evangelizing, le me clarify. We are not defining sacramentalization as the following:
The lifelong process of disposing oneself for proper reception of the sacraments so that the graces of those sacraments might take root in us and lead us closer to Christ and, therefore, to holiness.
We are not saying that the sacraments are ineffectual or simply community celebrations of the presence of Christ in our lives.
What we mean by sacramentalized is exactly what Deep Furrows presented: The theoretical and abstract understanding of Christianity--specifically the sacraments--combined with pragmatic instructions on how to receive the sacraments.
We prepare people on how to receive the sacraments, but we don't help them connect what those sacraments do and mean for their lives.
I think Deep Furrows had it right. The Church tends to presuppose that it's individuals are evangelized.
What we are saying is that in order for the sacramental graces to be unleashed in their fullness, individuals must have an intentional relationship with Jesus Christ. And this is the area where the Church needs better praxis.
Thanks, Keith. I have responded.
Best,
Mike
Let me try, Janice.
Reading over the comments it sounds like people using the same words, but in a different language, so communication isn't happening.
Evangelization is proclaiming Jesus, the Risen Lord. Peter's speech on the first Pentacost. The Good News.
I may have heard one such speech in my life, in a homily, in Church. From my experience, the institutional Church doesn't do evangelization. Judging by what my Catholic friends and acquaintances say, they agree.
I've found it more in reading, usually necessarily from Catholic writers.
The institution teaches the Sacraments, not Jesus in person and in relationship with you. It's very easy to miss the fact that Jesus is right there in them. I certainly managed to miss it for years, but eventually got it. I mean getting it on am emotional level as opposed to intellectual. I knew it, but it didn't mean much to me.
Getting it on that level is what I see as evangelization's task. The catechesis is how we ought to live with that relationship with Jesus. What I see institutionally is a Church that assumes evangelization has happened, when, judging by the people on the ground/in the pews, it hasn't for a lot of them.
Does this help?
Once I did understand, I made a great effort when I was teaching about the Sacraments in CCD to convey that, because the text book was ...um... not as clear as it could have been about that. (It was the Blest Are We series, which the Aquinas & More bookstore blog has been excoriating recently.)
I've quit CCD, so it's not an issue now.
In my experience if you mention lectio divina to J Random Catholic, eyes glaze over. It's Latin, it's foreign, it's unfamiliar. People get memorization, so I would start there and suggest (using English) the practice that is called lectio divina.
Janice,
As was mentioned in some previous posts, where intentional discipleship is important is in effecting the proper disposition to recieve the sacraments. This doesn't mean that what we recieve in the sacraments is different relative to our disposition- everybody who comes forward to recieve communion recieves the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. However, in the Church's theology of grace it is held that we, as free beings, can reject the grace that God freely offers us. Though a person goes forward to partake of the body and blood of Christ, if that person is at emnity with God (or, more likely, indifferent to Him), such an encounter will not yield good fruit. In fact, according to St. Paul it may result in sickness and death. Working towards a proper dispositon for the sacraments means removing all the obstacles that we put in God's way through our willfullness and lack of faith. What we mean when we say "sacramentalizing versus evangelizing" is this: a necessary condition for the proper disposition to recieve the sacraments is a vital and living faith- which, or course, is the fruit of discipleship, formation, evangelization (all the things which are stressed here at the blog). The purpose isn't to downplay sacraments and institutions, it is to dispose people to the former and breath life into the latter. In this regard perhaps it would be less misleading to say "sacramentalization WITHOUT evangelization"
Br. Matthew, OP
I should add the caveat that it goes the other way around as well: the presence of the theological virtues (the activity of which is what I mean when I speak of a vital and living faith) are given in baptism. However, it is possible that the vitues infused in us through baptism are not actively and consciously taken up- this is where evangelization and discipleship come into the picture.
BTW- it is simply not true that 'charism' is not a word. Besides the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and various papal documents, you can find the word and its definition at para. 799- 801 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Br. Matthew
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home