What Is Catholicity?
I have been participating as a guest blogger here at Intentional Disciples for coming on three weeks now and the experience has been wonderful. And has brought some surprises.
One of the things that I didn't expect was the reaction some would have whenever mention is made on this blog about Evangelicals or other Protestants or some of the things learned from observing their life. Don't get me wrong. I fully appreciate caution. If people were posting things like, "Look at this wonderful Four Spiritual Laws booklet that some Protestants use as an evangelization tool! Catholics should use that," I would be among the first to say, "no" (while making the hand motions of Mortimer, Randolph and Coleman from the movie Trading Places when Billy Ray asks if he should break anything else).
But nobody at Intentional Disciples is doing that. Instead, what we are trying to do is learn from experience. The phenomenon of Catholics becoming Evangelicals is real. We would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge it and ask why. And when you look at the reasons these individuals give, it isn't that they were looking for a church that demands less of them, that imposes fewer rules. Time and again, they focus on the fact that they encountered Christ in this new environment. That's what they identify as missing. And what breaks my heart is that it usually accompanied by a doubt about whether He is present in the Catholic Church. As I commented over at Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed, when Scot looked at the same Fr. Mendoza article that was mentioned earlier on Intentional Disciples: "I share the need and desire that many are expressing wasn’t being met in the Catholic Church, but I lament the judgment that resulted from it, because it resulted in their leaving the Church, where I know they truly could find that desire fulfilled and so much more."
Given that purpose, the real suspicion that some have of these references to Evangelical or other Protestant practices caught me off guard. And as Michael Liccione wondered over at his blog, I similarly wonder if it is a misunderstanding of what catholicity is, seeing what we are suggesting as "incompatible with affirming the truth of distinctively Catholic doctrine, especially concerning ecclesiology and the sacraments."
In my School of Community last night, we took a look at what catholicity is. The lesson left me with a lot to think about. Quoting, Henri de Lubac: "... a universal is a singular and is not to be confused with an aggregate. The Church is not Catholic because she is spread abroad over the whole of the earth and can reckon on a large number of members. She was already Catholic on the morning of Pentecost ... Catholicity has nothing to do with geography or statistics. (Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man)" And Luigi Giussani: "Catholicity [is] the profound expression of [the Church's] pertinence to human matters and all the variegated forms they take. ... Catholicism declares its simple correspondence with all that comprises man's destiny (Why the Church?)." And Karl Adam: "The Church is not one society or one church alongside many others, nor is she just a church among men; she is the Church of men, the Church of mankind (The Spirit of Catholicism)."
It is this sense of catholicity that allows us the freedom to look into a culture and acknowledge the truth that may be present there without fear that somehow we are compromising our Catholic identity. For what we highlight that might be true and good in these Evangelical circles, in truth, properly belongs to the Church herself. Giussani gives the examples of the early Christians' engagement with Hellenistic thought and the history of monasticism as great examples of what we are talking about. I know some may find the ground less comfortable here in that the culture that we sometimes are pointing out is one of a religious community, but our purpose and method of engagement is no different.

9 Comments:
What you didn't point out here is that the Church has her own unique culture. As Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out: "This cultural subject church, people of God, does not coincide with any of the individual historic subjects even in times of apparently full Christianization as one thought one had attained in Europe. Rather the church significantly maintains her own overarching form. . . . Whoever joins the church must be aware that he is entering a cultural subject with its own historically developed and multi-tiered inter-culturality. One cannot become a Christian apart from a certain exodus, a break from one's previous life in all its aspects (Christ, Faith, and the Challenge of Cultures, 1993)."
Cardinal Ratzinger also pointed out here that we do "baptize" elements in other cultures that are true and can buttress the faith.
My point here is not that you are recognizing the good in other cultures. I agree with DeLubac. But when every other word on this blog is Evangelical or Pentecostal at the expensen of going back to the Church's own treasury, as DeLubac would have been the first to do and as ressourcement theologians have been doing since his time (including Pope Benedict, who, I know, like Communion and Liberation), then I think there's a sort of disconnect between seeing the "true" in other cultures and imposing other, incompatible paradigms on the already-established culture of the Church.
You might also refer to the Regenburg Address of Pope Benedict, where he refers to the "culture" of thought already established in the Gospel of John. This was rejected by Protestantism (deHellenization). Tthere is a basic incompatibility between Catholicism and Protestantism at the very core of their conceptions about God. Therefore, to take inspiration from Protestant communions, when there is such divergence at the core of our beliefs seems to me to be problematic at the very least.
Love for Jesus Christ has consequences in the Catholic Church. Our belief structure involves issues like the Real Presence, which Protestants also do not share and which the various ecumenical commissions have not had any real success in affirming in a Roman Catholic sense.
It is vital to encourage an intense relationship with Jesus Christ. But there are real, incompatible differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations that devolve out of this love for Jesus Christ. And I am not convinced that medium and message are not intertwined or that you could not find equally-compelling ways to evangelize in the Church's own long tradition.
You quote Fr. Giussani as follows: ""Catholicity [is] the profound expression of [the Church's] pertinence to human matters and all the variegated forms they take. ... Catholicism declares its simple correspondence with all that comprises man's destiny (Why the Church?)."
I don't believe that this means that this means that we want people importing their Evangelicalism or Pentecostalism, etc., into the Catholic Church. Of course human affairs are variegated. But if Giussani meant nothing more than syncretism, then why are the ecumenical talks, supported by Benedict XVI, a C&L supporter, being restricted and more sharply defined than ever before? It's because the Church has its own "culture" and set of beliefs as to what the love and encounter with Jesus Christ means as one lives it out in the world.
Janice,
I found this statement, in particular, to be a challenging one for me:
there is a basic incompatibility between Catholicism and Protestantism at the very core of their conceptions about God.
The name for the conception that the Pope repudiated at Regensburg is voluntarism: the notion that revelation trumps experience, or that religious experience and common experience are incompatible.
In absolute voluntarism, there can be no foundation for dialogue among religious people: God may have commanded some folks to believe one thing and others to believe something else: God may be arbitrary or contradictory.
The Pope to the contrary proposes that experience is reasonable (one) and that reason should respect experience. This is realism: that revelation and experience both testify to the same truth, the same reality. The realist has nothing to fear from the experience of anybody: the experience of the atheist scientist or the voluntarist Protestant can both help us attain a fuller understanding of reality.
What is sad is when Catholicism itself is held as an individual, subjective revelation that has nothing to do with the experience of its members or anybody else. Three orthodox Catholics may work together and yet be unable to propose a common judgment anything. In such a case, the Church is not present as a unity but has allowed herself to be reduced to individual consciences.
Fred
Fred, I think you misunderstand the Pope. What the Pope said was that God is inherently reasonable and bound to truth and goodness. Acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature and this is not simply a Greek idea.
No one is saying your experience or the experinces of the religious traditions are invalid. And I'm not saying we have to fear it. But what the Pope is saying is that the atheist and voluntarist are both seriously lacking a full experience of reality, which many do not realize and with which many are beguiled. This is why I am deeply suspicious of importing Protstantism into Catholic evangelization. And it's not enough to say: yes, we can discuss it reasonably. Of course, we can. But if you notice, the Church also has a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to ensure that voluntarism is not imported into the Church.
And your statement that Catholicism can be reduced to subjective revelation seems to me to be a non-sequitur. Are you trying to reduce the danger of Protestant voluntarism by making an equivalent judgment for Catholicism (at least some part of it)?
Reason, as Pope Benedict points out, does not, ipso facto, mean that every thougt or statement coming out of anyone's mouth, is immediately reasonable. Experience in Catholic theology is always backed up by Scripture and tradition and evaluated by recourse to both. It is not always validated, as various CDF documents in the recent past can attest.
Janice,
I am glad that you responded to the post; I just wished that it wasn't more of the same.
Let me point out some of the things that are becoming a stumbling block for dialogue as I fear that anything I write will receive the same response from you.
You wrote: "What you didn't point out here is that the Church has her own unique culture."
From the start, you begin by critiquing what I didn't say. There are a lot of things that are true about the Catholic tradition and the Catholic experience that won't make it into every post of mine. Can we accept that, and at least give the benefit of the doubt that their omission isn't to deny them? Because, you see, it isn't that you are introducing something else to the topic that expands the discussion or highlights another dimension. You are introducing it to ultimately get back to your theme that we should never refer to Protestant things on this blog, because that's dangerous.
But even in this comment, you make part of my point. Because what do you mean by "unique culture"? If it is consitent with the theme of what I have quoted in this post, then sure I can agree with that. But if it is more the level of language, custom, etc., then I acknowledge that those things exist, and they may be recognized as distinctively Catholic, but they aren't what makes the Church catholic. That is the point of those quotes.
You wrote: "But if Giussani meant nothing more than syncretism....
Giussani doesn't. And I am bothered that you conclude that that's what I think he is saying or that he is suggesting that. I can only think that the reason why you go there, is ultimately because of the following thing you wrote:
"But when every other word on this blog is Evangelical or Pentecostal at the expensen of going back to the Church's own treasury,..."
I just don't see this Janice. I'd love some examples. But, taking my own posts, nothing I have written I think reflects that. And looking at the others' posts, even accounting for the hyperbole, I don't think it comes close to this. So unless you can start providing some concrete examples, I'm at a loss to respond to a criticism that seems driven more by an adopted schema that seems resistent to the facts.
As for your and Fred's discussions, you are both in a sense right. The correction I would make to your point Janice is that Scripture and Tradition never invalidates experience. It doesn't reject the real. What it doesn't always validate is the judgments we render about experience.
"even accounting for the hyperbole" should be "even accounting for the hyperbole of your comment"
Janice,
I may well have misunderstood the pope. And I thank you and Jack for correction here.
Far from minimizing the danger posed by Protestant forms of voluntarism, I'm disturbed that voluntarism seems to be victorious even among otherwise orthodox Catholics: voluntarism, not as an abstract thesis, but as a habitual way of looking at and responding to life.
The situation today is not unlike that described in Louis de Wohl's historical novel, The Quiet Light: "faith and reason were divorced so completely that they were like parallels in mathematics" (64, Chapter III).
The problem is not that Catholics don't hold to the correct doctrine, but that they don't expect this doctrine to be verified in their experience. And thus, they have no certainty in proposing these doctrines to others as something that could be verified in their experience.
This implicit voluntarism is quite pernicious because it makes faith rest solely upon the individual conscience. If challenged, this faith is as weak as a dead leaf upon a branch waiting for the first tempest to shake it free.
Fred
I think it is important to distinguish between the introduction of Protestant theology and the introduction of techniques/methods to reach out to people and challenge them to enter into a deeper relationship with Christ.
We also have to realize that the world of Protestant Theology is not totally incompatible with Catholic Theology. To the extent that there is an overlap we ought to be careful about having knee-jerk reactions to Protestant that have us denying those things that are also Catholic.
I think the important question is what causes these fallen away Catholics to "find Christ?" I think the answer will not be found in Protestant theology but in three simple phenomeon:
a. The person was challenged to spend more time thinking about God and praying to Him.
b. Someone who was confident in their faith took a personal interest in them and helped them learn more about their faith
c. The Protestant also convinced them that the reason they didn't find Jesus in the Catholic Church was that the Church kept them from finding Jesus. [Nevermind the fact that they never really looked very hard when they were Catholic}
Bottom line is that there are elements of the Protestant method of evangelizing which are independent of their theology that appeal to people today. There is no reason that we cannot adopt these methods -- discipleship, challenging people to make a greater commitment to study and prayer than one hour a week on Sundays, challenging people to live their faith 24/7 and integrate it into their life, etc.
None of these things have anything to do with theology; they do have a lot to do with humans and how we relate to God or others. Or to put it in computer jargon: garbage in = garbage out. If we don't give God our best, how we can expect to enter into deep relationship with Him?
As a last comment, I know a fair number of Catholics who are quite happy to keep their faith a very personal and private affair between God and themselves. They don't want to be talking about "Jesus." They don't want to be so on fire that they can't help but wish that their neighbor also come to know the greatest Good any human can know. They want to do a few good deeds, show up for an hour on Sunday, and reserve the right to disagree with the Church on moral issues. They are minimalists and this serves them well until someone shows them how much they are missing.
Now the question is: do we just let our uninformed Catholic brothers and sisters stay uninformed and ready to be cherry picked by the next Protestant who crosses their path OR do we get off our proverbials and knock their socks off with the fulness of the Catholic Faith? We don't say "no" to all of his many gifts and graces. Therese
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home