Scattering Musings on Twentieth Century and Contemporary Catholicism

[I’ve been thinking a fair amount about Catholicism of late, reading a fair number of articles on the subject, but especially this past week since I’ve read both a Chesterton book, and a book long interview with Joseph Ratzinger, taken about ten years before he became Pope. These musings, ramblings more like, are mostly inspired by those two books. I apologize for the stream of consciousness quality; it wasn’t intentional, but necessary, as I’d rather post something to prompt discussion now, rather than wait, and probably never get around to editing these thoughts. All of the references and citations to the two Catholics belong to the two books cited at the end. I apologize, too, for the length of my senseless wanderings. I’d be shocked it some of this makes any sense whatsoever. Welcome to the life of my first drafts.]

The Catholic world, surprisingly, seems to be experiencing some sort of rejuvenation of late. Of course I likely imagine trends, rather than quantify them. Perhaps, though, I merely have paid more attention to the news of late, but it seems Catholicism, and articles on exclusively Catholic themes seem to be surfacing more often in the news. I hear, too, and from a large variety of sources that Orthodox, and even, I think, Catholic Churches, are growing as a result of current splintering in Protestant denominations as churches fight over such issues as the ordination of homosexuals. Increasingly liberal liberals distance themselves from continuingly conservative traditionalists. There’s little room for dialogue, it seems, in many Christian traditions, and people like myself (and it seems Brett) are increasingly attracted to the seeming, or at least claimed, universality of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is, well, catholic; Catholics across the world read the same missals, and celebrate the same rites. There is an incredible draw to this normality, or traditionalism, or whatever what opines to label it. That everyone partakes in the same tradition avoids the seeming pandemic of individualism I see in American Evangelicalism (and I know, again, that Brett and I have had numerous conversations over this subject). That Catholicism simply isn’t so focused on the self, on one’s own personal choice in worship, in devotionals, in marketing faith to our own particular Chicken Soup life-style seems somewhat refreshing. A little compromise, even in faith, cannot always be the worst of solutions.

The (formally) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger emphasized this Catholic emphasis on liturgy, and on universality, on the transnational and intercommunity aspect of faith and Christianity. “We need…a new liturgical education, especially of priests. It must once again become clear that liturgical scholarship doesn’t exist in order to produce constantly new models, though that may be all right for the auto industry. It exists in order to introduce us into feast and celebration, to make man capable of the mystery. Here we ought to learn not just from the Eastern Church but from all the religions of the world, which all know that liturgy is something other than the invention of texts and rites, that it lives precisely from what is beyond manipulation. Young people have a very strong sense of this” (177). His mention of mystery reminds me, naturally, of that staggering Catholic genius of the early twentieth century, that G. K. Chesterton, of course, whom I have been reading again this week. The genius of Chesterton is a genius which upsets social norms and conventions; precisely by taking the mundane, and rendering it the most wild and unconventional of activities, and by magically reducing anarchy into an undesirable and boring normality, Chesterton turns logic on its head, and laughs in the process. For Chesterton, common sense is gone strangely awry, and the illogical has become strangely logical. Chesterton, like the Catholic Church, does not take tradition lightly, and in embracing the traditional, and the universal claims of the Church, one begins to attempt something truly radical. “The upshot of this modern attitude is really this: that men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm because they are afraid to look back” (What’s Wrong with the World). Or as Ratzinger echoes, “The Catholic Church also contributes something important to humanity in that she keeps these worlds together, different as they are, within a basic consensus and thereby also creates bridges from world to world” (130). The Catholic Church’s goal seems to be to unite, to bridge gaps, rather than permit fracturing. And I might add, on a pessimistic note, that Protestantism seems to be entirely based on nit-picking and fracturing; entirely new churches are formed for the slightest divergence of theological opinion; that’s a luxury and a liberty (and a vice) Catholicism cannot indulge.

The universal ideals of the Catholic Church do exist in confusion, and tension, Ratzinger does admit. “Uniformity and division exist in mutual dependence. Greater and greater outrage with one another develops paradoxically with more and more uniformity” (229). But as I saw it reading through the long interview Peter Seewald conducted with the Cardinal, the genius of his Catholicism was and is an ability to draw limits on one’s own personal ideas, and that of the church. Seewald constantly emphasized the Cardinal’s close relationship with the Pope, and frequently asked the German priest of conflicts between the two priests. Ratzinger made no secret that the two disagreed, but that his opinions were just that—opinions, and that he could not hope or dare to enact only his own ideas in the face of the Pope’s and of the Church’s. Part of faith and of Catholicism is simply submitting oneself and one’s own ideas to another. Faith, says Ratzinger, is to join a community larger than oneself, and thus, “To believe means that we become like angels, they say. We can fly, because we no longer weigh so heavily in our own estimation” (28), a statement, of course, reminiscent of Chesterton’s celebrated “Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.” Thus Ratzinger does conclude that “If there is no willingness to subordinate oneself to a whole that one has recognized and to let oneself be taken into its service, then there can’t be any common freedom. Man’s freedom is always a shared freedom. It has to be borne together, and it therefore demands service” (79-80).

The genius of twentieth century Catholicism—and we see it in the Catholic novelists of the midcentury, too, François Mauriac, to an extent, and Georges Bernanos—is driving spirit to take the struggles, the trials, and confusion of life, and accept this complexity, attempt to frame life around the inexplicable sorrows and pains; something it seems Benedict is willing to do. It’s a willingness to take one’s concerns, one’s objections, and simply deal with them, or to recognize the greater issues of the Church. One’s own personal issues cannot always be the most important. The current Pope seems to me to be doing a convincing job of addressing the common Catholic citizen, at least in the very little I’ve followed of his papacy. Benedict XVI seems to be doing a substantial amount of convincing and important work from his papal see, though much of his work has been somewhat overshadowed by the sexual abuse scandals (but a recent, and criticized, study, seems to downplay the scandals http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/18/136429556/study-finds-homosexuality-celibacy-did-not-cause-catholic-sex-abuse-crisis). Of course, though, somewhat un-observed, Benedict has managed to accept—somewhat tacitly—the theory of macroevolution; and two years ago he welcomed defecting Anglicans into the Catholic fold. He’s brought John Paul II largely and significantly on his way into beatification. And apparently, just recently, he’s brought the Catholic Mass into a slightly new variation; a new translation of the Latin version of the mass will be introduced into parishes this Fall, one supposedly more accurate to the nuances of the original texts. Benedict, in many of these moves, seems to be attempting to bridge the gap between contemporary factions of the Catholic Church; his various actions can appeal equally often, if not always at the same time, to both liberal and conservative parties. He appears to want to engage theological issues of great importance at the same time as making small and important changes which the daily parishioners understand, see, and enjoy. This emphasizing of universality of the Catholic Church seems to be his stated goal and aim, even from long before his papacy.

And to me, this call, this charge to embrace a reality, a community larger than one’s own personal views on infant baptism or what-have-you is really the most compelling part of faith and of Catholicism. Really, Christianity isn’t so much about what the individuals think but about losing oneself so one can find a truer self, a self in a communion. And perhaps this is why so many people (rightly) call for the next Pope to be a non-European. The Church, particularly the Catholic Church is a global one; it crosses ethnic and continental borders. For the time being, though, under the leadership of Ratzinger, Catholics seems to be in something of a stable but interesting place. The Catholic Church will greatly change and evolve during his papacy, but his commitment to tradition and to the universal appeal of the Church should help it weather some difficult storms. I am reminded, again, that I really am after all very much of a Pope-ite.

J.W.

For lack of a better place, or lack of volition to find that better place which I know is sitting several paragraphs up, I should close with one final citation from Chesterton: “There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, any more than in offering to fight one’s grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers. The only true free-thinker is he whose intellect is as much free from the future as from the past. He cares as little for what will be as for what has been; he cares only for what ought to be.”

-“Catholics Around the World Celebrate John Paul II” (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=135884651; this one’s got some nice photographs)

-“Le nouveau pouvoir des cathos” (http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/religion/le-nouveau-pouvoir-des-cathos_984322.html)

-“Pope John Paul II beatified before massive crowd” (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/01/us-pope-johnpaul-idUSTRE73Q2HT20110501)

-“Study finds Homosexuality, Celibacy Did not Cause Catholic Sex Abuse Crisis” (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/18/136429556/study-finds-homosexuality-celibacy-did-not-cause-catholic-sex-abuse-crisis)

-Salt of the Earth, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in conversation with Peter Seewald

-What’s Wrong with the World, G. K. Chesterton