EXCERPT:
Did anyone notice?
Amid the pomp and pageantry that surrounded the royal wedding, the simple words of the Wedding Sermon by Dr. Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, were probably lost on most viewers (emphasis mine):
You have both made your decision today – “I will” – and by making this new relationship, you have aligned yourselves with what we believe is the way in which life is spiritually evolving, and which will lead to a creative future for the human race.
We stand looking forward to a century which is full of promise and full of peril. Human beings are confronting the question of how to use wisely a power that has been given to us through the discoveries of the last century. We shall not be converted to the promise of the future by more knowledge, but rather by an increase of loving wisdom and reverence, for life, for the earth and for one another.
As my readers know, this is precisely the vision I have long attributed to Vatican Council II: the profound challenge of harnessing a wisdom that can guide the modern world’s newfound powers toward a future of promise rather than peril. These words, woven into the fabric of a ceremony filled with echoes of past glories, cast an unblinking eye on the future of Christianity in the modern world.
But Christianity’s ancient wisdom does no good if the modern world ignores it. To yoke power to wisdom, the Christian church must become what I have called a “global force for good.” I have written that Vatican II called for the Church to become less Roman so that it could become more catholic, less Latin so that it could be more universal.
But has that happened? Are there signs of a renewed Catholicism that is less European, Latin, imperial, and Roman - - and more international, multicultural, popular, and catholic?
In some respects the answer is: yes - - with a vengeance!
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
#325: “It Was A Hell Of A Crossroads”
EXCERPT:
One Hundred and Fifty years ago last week, Confederate gunners fired on Ft. Sumter, ushering America into civil war...The more I watch and read, the more convinced I am that, in many ways the Civil War parallels the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, these parallels are instructive: they help us better comprehend both events!
Both events began small: the bombardment of Ft. Sumter killed but one horse, and John XXIII’s announcement of the Council to a few cardinals triggered only stony silence. No one expected much of either event: Americans in 1861 thought any war would end quickly; the bishops leaving for the Council in 1962 counted on a short stay in Rome.
Yet both events defied such expectations. If Ken Burns wrote, “No one could have predicted the magnitude of the explosion that rocked America following that opening shot,” we Catholics know that no one foresaw the seismic shift the Council unleashed on Catholicism.
Even today, many fail to fathom the profound importance of these events, as if they are simply past history with no present impact. But even then, the men in charge knew better.
Abraham Lincoln called the War “A New Birth of Freedom,” which justifies those who label it our “Second American Revolution.” Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, meanwhile, both called the Council “A New Pentecost”--thus justifying us who regard the Council as the “rebirth” of the Catholic Church….
For both events, the stakes could not have been higher. The War would determine whether the original United States would remain intact into the future; the Council would determine whether Catholicism’s 1500-year dependence on the legacy of the Roman Empire would remain its paradigm for the future. The War preserved the Union; the Council outgrew the Empire.
Both events brought radical change. The War saved the Union only by imposing the historical verdict that slavery, and the plantation economy built on it, were obsolete. The Council reached the historical verdict that the Church’s reliance on Imperial ways was also obsolete.
Thus both events shed light on how past accomplishments had limited present action and future prospects. Before the War, America had a “Union” on paper, but in reality remained two divergent regional cultures. Before the Council, the Church was “Catholic” in name, but in reality had become too dependent on a single (Latin) culture to be truly universal.
Nevertheless, both events involved some who staunchly defended the status quo. Many southerners feared the future without slavery and limited states’ rights would be no future at all. Many traditionalist bishops believed the Council’s efforts were destroying the Catholic Church. Both groups include those who, to this day, feel betrayed by history and refuse to accept defeat.
Thus both events have fallen prey to endless interpretation and reinterpretation; both have defied our ability to establish a consensus understanding of what happened and what it all meant.
Yet both events had unmistakable effects. Historians note that, before the War, Americans commonly used the plural for their country: “The United States of America are….” After, the verbs shifted to singular: “The United States of America is….” The Union was now a reality, not merely a paper term.
Similarly, Catholics no longer experience their Church as a mono-cultural institution, because it now speaks, not in the singular, bygone language of an obsolete empire, but in the plural languages of all the cultures of the world. Before, we professed to be “Catholic” but we acted Roman; now we acknowledge our Roman roots but have become truly Catholic in our worship and teaching and practice.
Those who resist these realities preach the virtues of “continuity” over “discontinuity,” harkening back to the pre-War and pre-Council periods, hoping to retrieve some longed-for mythical “golden age” while pretending that neither event really changed anything….
Ironically, the War left the nation more centralized than ever, while the Council opened the mother of all central hierarchies to a less centralized structure of national conferences and local councils.
Ironically, too, both events followed the adage “If at first you don’t succeed…try again.” When the U.S. Constitution failed to produce the “more perfect union” it proclaimed, the War became the nation’s second attempt at Union. And when the Church’s dependence on Imperial ways bumped up against the limits of European culture in a post-colonial era, the Council became the Church’s second attempt at global reach.…
Of course, while both events changed the face of their respective histories, they could not guarantee a change in the hearts and minds of their people. So both events continue to provide disputed interpretations, applications, and evaluations (Confederate flags and Latin Masses still compete with Union Jacks and vernacular liturgies). But one thing is clear: both events were historic watersheds defining the contemporary scene…
Thus today’s America is, for better or worse, the battle-forged national Union that the Civil War made it. And today’s Catholic Church is, for better or worse, the change-charged global body the Council created.
So as American Catholics note this year’s 150th Civil War anniversary, we might also do well to ponder: how can we best observe next year’s 50th anniversary of Vatican Council II?
One Hundred and Fifty years ago last week, Confederate gunners fired on Ft. Sumter, ushering America into civil war...The more I watch and read, the more convinced I am that, in many ways the Civil War parallels the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, these parallels are instructive: they help us better comprehend both events!
Both events began small: the bombardment of Ft. Sumter killed but one horse, and John XXIII’s announcement of the Council to a few cardinals triggered only stony silence. No one expected much of either event: Americans in 1861 thought any war would end quickly; the bishops leaving for the Council in 1962 counted on a short stay in Rome.
Yet both events defied such expectations. If Ken Burns wrote, “No one could have predicted the magnitude of the explosion that rocked America following that opening shot,” we Catholics know that no one foresaw the seismic shift the Council unleashed on Catholicism.
Even today, many fail to fathom the profound importance of these events, as if they are simply past history with no present impact. But even then, the men in charge knew better.
Abraham Lincoln called the War “A New Birth of Freedom,” which justifies those who label it our “Second American Revolution.” Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, meanwhile, both called the Council “A New Pentecost”--thus justifying us who regard the Council as the “rebirth” of the Catholic Church….
For both events, the stakes could not have been higher. The War would determine whether the original United States would remain intact into the future; the Council would determine whether Catholicism’s 1500-year dependence on the legacy of the Roman Empire would remain its paradigm for the future. The War preserved the Union; the Council outgrew the Empire.
Both events brought radical change. The War saved the Union only by imposing the historical verdict that slavery, and the plantation economy built on it, were obsolete. The Council reached the historical verdict that the Church’s reliance on Imperial ways was also obsolete.
Thus both events shed light on how past accomplishments had limited present action and future prospects. Before the War, America had a “Union” on paper, but in reality remained two divergent regional cultures. Before the Council, the Church was “Catholic” in name, but in reality had become too dependent on a single (Latin) culture to be truly universal.
Nevertheless, both events involved some who staunchly defended the status quo. Many southerners feared the future without slavery and limited states’ rights would be no future at all. Many traditionalist bishops believed the Council’s efforts were destroying the Catholic Church. Both groups include those who, to this day, feel betrayed by history and refuse to accept defeat.
Thus both events have fallen prey to endless interpretation and reinterpretation; both have defied our ability to establish a consensus understanding of what happened and what it all meant.
Yet both events had unmistakable effects. Historians note that, before the War, Americans commonly used the plural for their country: “The United States of America are….” After, the verbs shifted to singular: “The United States of America is….” The Union was now a reality, not merely a paper term.
Similarly, Catholics no longer experience their Church as a mono-cultural institution, because it now speaks, not in the singular, bygone language of an obsolete empire, but in the plural languages of all the cultures of the world. Before, we professed to be “Catholic” but we acted Roman; now we acknowledge our Roman roots but have become truly Catholic in our worship and teaching and practice.
Those who resist these realities preach the virtues of “continuity” over “discontinuity,” harkening back to the pre-War and pre-Council periods, hoping to retrieve some longed-for mythical “golden age” while pretending that neither event really changed anything….
Ironically, the War left the nation more centralized than ever, while the Council opened the mother of all central hierarchies to a less centralized structure of national conferences and local councils.
Ironically, too, both events followed the adage “If at first you don’t succeed…try again.” When the U.S. Constitution failed to produce the “more perfect union” it proclaimed, the War became the nation’s second attempt at Union. And when the Church’s dependence on Imperial ways bumped up against the limits of European culture in a post-colonial era, the Council became the Church’s second attempt at global reach.…
Of course, while both events changed the face of their respective histories, they could not guarantee a change in the hearts and minds of their people. So both events continue to provide disputed interpretations, applications, and evaluations (Confederate flags and Latin Masses still compete with Union Jacks and vernacular liturgies). But one thing is clear: both events were historic watersheds defining the contemporary scene…
Thus today’s America is, for better or worse, the battle-forged national Union that the Civil War made it. And today’s Catholic Church is, for better or worse, the change-charged global body the Council created.
So as American Catholics note this year’s 150th Civil War anniversary, we might also do well to ponder: how can we best observe next year’s 50th anniversary of Vatican Council II?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
#324: What Are We Supposed To Think?
EXCERPT:
What am I supposed to think when I get e-mail from the right-wing evangelical site OneNewsNow running the headline Support for “Gay” Rights Rising Among Catholics? Am I supposed to think Catholics think differently from other Americans? Am I supposed to think they differ with their own hierarchy? Am I supposed to think this is a bad thing?
The story beneath the headline was not much more helpful. It reported on the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) releasing what it claims to be “The most comprehensive portrait of Catholic attitudes on gay and lesbian issues assembled to date.” The report finds Catholics more supportive of gay rights than the general public and other Christians. Specifically, it reports that among Catholics:
• 73% favor legislation to protect homosexuals against workplace discrimination.
• 63% favor legislation allowing homosexuals in military.
• 60% favor legislation allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.
• Only 22% oppose all legal recognitions of same-sex couples (for example: civil unions or same-sex civil marriage)
At the same time, Catholics expressed highly negative opinions of their own hierarchy’s performance: only 39% give the official church high marks in its handling of homosexuality, and 70% agree that messages from churches contribute (either a little or a lot) to suicides by homosexuals.
The initial impression the coverage gives is that something is amiss here, that Catholics are out of step. In fact, Dr. Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI, opines:
It may come as a surprise to many that rank-and-file Catholics are more supportive of rights for gays and lesbians than other Christians and the public.
And OneNewsNow’s Charlie Butts reports Jones noting that “A gap exists between the Vatican and Catholic Bishops… and rank-and-file Catholics.”
Really? Is that what we’re supposed to think?
For me, the statistics beg for a clear-eyed interpretation rather than distortion.
It seems to me that, in order to measure any supposed “gap” between the hierarchy and the rank-and-file, we need to start by comparing the statistics above with official church positions. Here they are, drawn from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and from statements by the Vatican and the US Bishops:
1. Homosexual orientation is most often experienced as given and discovered,not chosen--and is not in itself morally wrong or sinful.
2. Given the inherent dignity of every human person, the Church teaches that homosexual persons, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights.”
3. Violence in speech or action against homosexuals “deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”
4. “Every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
5. Nothing in the Bible or Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward homosexual persons.
Of course, Catholic moral teaching also finds no justification for homosexual acts. But the moral objections are essentially the same as the Church’s objections to masturbation, artificial contraception, pre-marital sex, adultery, coitus interruptus, oral and anal sex, etc.—namely, that only marital procreative sex is morally legitimate. Everything else violates natural law.
In other words, official Catholic morality opposes all those acts but not the people who perform them. Such opposition therefore provides no grounds for treating those people differently from anyone else--and that goes for homosexuals as well as for all the others!
What am I supposed to think when I get e-mail from the right-wing evangelical site OneNewsNow running the headline Support for “Gay” Rights Rising Among Catholics? Am I supposed to think Catholics think differently from other Americans? Am I supposed to think they differ with their own hierarchy? Am I supposed to think this is a bad thing?
The story beneath the headline was not much more helpful. It reported on the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) releasing what it claims to be “The most comprehensive portrait of Catholic attitudes on gay and lesbian issues assembled to date.” The report finds Catholics more supportive of gay rights than the general public and other Christians. Specifically, it reports that among Catholics:
• 73% favor legislation to protect homosexuals against workplace discrimination.
• 63% favor legislation allowing homosexuals in military.
• 60% favor legislation allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.
• Only 22% oppose all legal recognitions of same-sex couples (for example: civil unions or same-sex civil marriage)
At the same time, Catholics expressed highly negative opinions of their own hierarchy’s performance: only 39% give the official church high marks in its handling of homosexuality, and 70% agree that messages from churches contribute (either a little or a lot) to suicides by homosexuals.
The initial impression the coverage gives is that something is amiss here, that Catholics are out of step. In fact, Dr. Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI, opines:
It may come as a surprise to many that rank-and-file Catholics are more supportive of rights for gays and lesbians than other Christians and the public.
And OneNewsNow’s Charlie Butts reports Jones noting that “A gap exists between the Vatican and Catholic Bishops… and rank-and-file Catholics.”
Really? Is that what we’re supposed to think?
For me, the statistics beg for a clear-eyed interpretation rather than distortion.
It seems to me that, in order to measure any supposed “gap” between the hierarchy and the rank-and-file, we need to start by comparing the statistics above with official church positions. Here they are, drawn from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and from statements by the Vatican and the US Bishops:
1. Homosexual orientation is most often experienced as given and discovered,not chosen--and is not in itself morally wrong or sinful.
2. Given the inherent dignity of every human person, the Church teaches that homosexual persons, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights.”
3. Violence in speech or action against homosexuals “deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”
4. “Every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
5. Nothing in the Bible or Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward homosexual persons.
Of course, Catholic moral teaching also finds no justification for homosexual acts. But the moral objections are essentially the same as the Church’s objections to masturbation, artificial contraception, pre-marital sex, adultery, coitus interruptus, oral and anal sex, etc.—namely, that only marital procreative sex is morally legitimate. Everything else violates natural law.
In other words, official Catholic morality opposes all those acts but not the people who perform them. Such opposition therefore provides no grounds for treating those people differently from anyone else--and that goes for homosexuals as well as for all the others!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)