This continues my explication and response to Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga's essay and talk, "The Church of Mercy of Pope Francis." Previous parts are
here and
here.
“The Church of Mercy with Pope Francis” (cont'd)
2.3. The Finish
Point: The Church of Mercy
We walk as Church towards a deep and global renovation. [I think “renewal” is what he means.] For this renovation to be sincerely
Catholic, it must encompass all of the historical dimensions of the Church.
Specifically, there is no true ecclesial renovation without
a transformation of the institutions [Here he begins to
say things that seem to contradict what he has already established. Especially, it’s not at all clear what it
might mean to “transform” the essential institutions of the Church – namely,
the hierarchical-apostolic order, the organization into dioceses/parishes/religious
houses, and all that serves the sacramental and pastoral care of souls – in any
sense that would remain “Catholic.”]; of the quality and focus of the
activities; of the mystic and the spiritual. Usually, renovation begins with
pastoral activities. For it is there where the inconsistencies of a certain
“model” of the Church and reality are primarily experienced. The missionaries,
the evangelists on the “margins” of the Church, are the first ones to notice
the insufficiency of the “traditional” ways of action; the pastoral criticism
begins with the experience of the mission in the “peripheries.” Changes and
adjustments begin there. [This, too, is curious,
because the “margins” of the Church (Asia, Africa, the pro-life movement, the
pro-traditional-liturgy movement, etc.) seem quite consistently to want
something much different than this next paragraph calls for:]
After Vatican Council II, the methods and content of
evangelization and Christian education change [not
always for the better]. The liturgy changes: local languages are adopted,
some rituals and symbols change, measurements are taken for a greater
participation, etc. The missionary perspective changes: the missionary must
know the culture, the human situation; the missionary must establish an
evangelizing dialogue with those realities. “Social action” changes, it is no
longer just charity and development services but also struggle for justice,
human rights and liberation… [Some notable false
dichotomies in here. One thinks, e.g., of the first generation of Jesuit
missionaries in Asia in the 16th century, of whom it certainly could
not be said that they did not learn and value the culture, the language, the
people, etc.; nor is “the struggle for justice, human rights, and liberation” a
new thing in the Church in the later 20th century. But since these efforts have always been
there, too, this paragraph implies either a repudiation of the Church before
Vatican II, or a confusion about what the Church did for its mission in
previous generations. In either case, it
is quite superficial and misleading to present it in this manner.]
For Christian coherency, certain institutional and
organizational changes are contemplated simultaneously: new functions require
new suitable institutions. [Again, it’s not at all
clear what “new functions” he means.]
The Council propelled institutional renovations, following
the logic of the Spirit. [Note the dangerous
implication that the Church before the Council was not following the same
logic.] These reforms encompass
all levels of the ecclesial organization: the religious congregations or
missionary societies —whose “Chapters of Renovation” multiply— the diocesan and
Vatican Curia, Episcopal Conferences, the Synods, the parishes, the pastoral
areas, the presbyteries, the lay apostolic institutions, the teaching of
theology, the seminaries, the catholic schools… New institutions for missionary
dialogue emerge: ecumenism, Jews, other religions… Everything in the Church
changes consistent with a renewed pastoral model. [Exaggeration
for effect? Clearly, not everything in the Church changes. But it’s important to note, I think, what
he’s eliding here by implication, namely, the apostolic and sacramental order
labelled “Tradition.” This therefore could be taken to contradict what he
sketched out in Part I, above.]
Maybe some thought that the Church renovation was only that.
But the institutional and functional changes —alone in themselves— proved
insufficient, superficial. [This language becomes quite
dangerous. Note how he now implicitly
pits “the Church before the Council” and “the Church after the Council” against
each other, in just the manner Pope Benedict taught must not be done (e.g., in
the 2005 Christmas address to the Curia).] Sometimes they created new
problems and crises both unnecessary and deep. Any change in the Church
eventually requires considering a renovation of the motivations that the new
options inspire. Without deep-rooted, living and explicit motivations, no human
group, no institution and no society can survive for a long time, much less
renovate itself. Motivations answer to the fundamental “why” of the options,
the enterprises, the demands, and the same reason for being of the institution.
The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point
where it becomes irreversible. The wind that propels the sails of the Church
towards the open sea of its deep and total renovation is Mercy.
For the Church, the motivations are more than essential;
they are its identity stamp. The “why” of its organization and its action
cannot be decisively explained by the human sciences or the pure historical
rationality: they refer to Jesus and his Gospel as the global, indispensable
and predominant motivation. It is the motivation of the Spirit. Therefore, to
speak of motivations in Christianity is to speak of the mystical, of
spirituality. [Right.
In Part I, he seemed to agree that it is of the essence of the Church
founded by Christ that this “why” goes to the reception of grace/mercy and the
journey of conversion, via Scripture and Tradition, the Sacraments, and the
works of mercy. Now, he’s hinting at some new “why,” some new relationship in
the Church between “mercy” and “concrete love,” that would change the essential
shape of Tradition.]
The institutional and functional renovation of the Church
requires a renovation of its mystical dimension. And at the roots of the
mystical is mercy.
2.4 The Maternal
Heart of Mercy
Catholic spirituality in history, due to its same incarnate
nature, never takes place as an “activity” isolated from the pastoral, the
theological, the social and the cultural conditions. [That’s
certainly true of the Sacraments, too.] Since
one of its dimensions —it is not the only one— is to motivate believers to
follow of Jesus. This following acquires renovated nuances, demands and topics
consistent with the mission and with the human experience of the believers.
While the life of Christ and the Gospels are always the same, the experiences
and the options that inspire are always historical. [What
does this mean for Tradition?]
Spirituality is not a science nor one more praxis in the
Church. It is the “nourishment” of the pastoral, the theology and the
community, whatever their “model” is. [But in this
broad sense, “spirituality” must be unchanging,
part of what comes to the Church immediately
from God. He seemed to accept this in
Part I, but now he seems to contradict himself.]
When this was forgotten by the process of ecclesial
renovation, [I’m guessing he missed the implication
here that it was not forgotten by the
Church before the Council...] this
caused “schizophrenia” in some Christians, which is one of the causes of many
failures. In a short time, they progressed in all of the levels of the
renovation. They changed many pastoral, theological, and disciplinary categories.
The image and the mission of the Church changed. Likewise, its concept that
related faith with history and society changed; therefore the social and
political options became more important.
In this context, there was no mystical renovation and it
remained “traditional,” consistent with another vision of the faith and of the
mission, and inconsistent with the new ecclesial experiences. [And there it is: “traditional” = “bad.” Notice how he now elides Tradition by
labeling it merely “another vision of the faith the mission” – as if the
fundamental orientation of the Church were so malleable! Again, in his argument in Part I, he seemed
to accept Tradition; now, he is claiming that “traditional” spirituality,
rooted in the “traditional” understanding of Scriptures, apostolicity,
sacramentality, devotions, etc., is no longer fit for the Church. So, either this section of the essay is
confused and unhelpful, or else his real argument is this: If our fundamental
spiritual “experience” and “vision” remains that of the Apostles, the Fathers,
and the Councils, then we are “schizophrenic” and “inconsistent!”]
In this context, a spirituality does not motivate, it
becomes irrelevant. It ends up being perceived as a useless appendix and ends
up being abandoned, since a mystic that does not nourish the human experience
stops having meaning; a spirituality that is foreign to the ecclesial model
that is being lived leads to the crisis of the Christian “schizophrenia.” Many
abandonments of the ecclesial life, and even of the faith, are rooted there. [Even granting this “being foreign to the ecclesial model” to
be true (which I don’t), this does not follow:] The only answer is not
in abandoning all mystic or reversing the renovation of the institutions or
options (due to fear of a collapse of the Christian values), but in deeply
renovating the faith and spirituality starting from love to reach mercy. [Assuming he really means what he says here, this is an
extraordinarily sweeping claim. He’s saying that the “traditional” model of the
Church, and the spirituality that underpins it, do not “start from love to
reach mercy.” So the whole of Church history, all the works of all the great
saints and mystics of the past, the whole sacramental order and experience of
the Church for 19 centuries, that was not really what God intended for the
Church. But now, somehow, almost ex nihilo, suddenly this tiny handful of
people understand everything better and clearer than all the doctors of the
Church and the whole of the faithful...] That is what the Pope wants. [And just in case you’re not convinced, he pulls out the
argument from authority. The (current)
Pope is claimed to want it, so it must be right.]
In that regard, on July 28, 2013, Pope Francis said
(speech): “She gives birth, suckles, gives growth, corrects, nourishes and
leads by the hand… So we need a church capable of rediscovering the maternal
womb of mercy. Without mercy we have little chance nowadays of becoming part of
a world of ‘wounded’ persons in need of understanding, forgiveness and love.” [This quote doesn’t support what he claims. Since “the Church is always in need of
renewal,” the Pope is quite correct (in that sense) to say this; but such “rediscovery”
means a return to what the Church has always done, in evangelical and apostolic
integrity, not a substitution of some new ecclesial vision for the “traditional”
one.]
On December 9, 2014, at the Chapel of the Santa Marta Guest
House I heard the Pope say loud and clear what I will share now: “I ask myself,
what is the consolation of the Church? [2 Cor 1:3-5 -
he paraphrases thus:] Just as an
individual is consoled when he feels the mercy and forgiveness of the Lord, the
Church rejoices and is happy when she goes out of herself [offering the same mercy and forgiveness to those who long,
even inchoately, for reconciliation with God; as said above, this ultimately
leads to full sacramental participation.]. In the Gospel, the pastor who
goes out goes to seek the lost sheep – he could keep accounts like a good
businessman. [He could say]: ‘Ninety-nine sheep, if I lose one, it’s no
problem; the balance sheet – gains and losses. But it’s fine, we can get by.’ No,
he has the heart of a shepherd, he goes out and searches for [the lost sheep]
until he finds it, and then he rejoices, he is joyful.”
“When the Church does not do this [Has
there ever been a time or place when the Church, qua Church, has not done this?
Or does he mean, when the members of the Church don’t?], then the
Church stops herself, is closed in on herself, even if she is well organized,
has a perfect organizational chart, everything’s fine, everything’s tidy – but
she lacks joy, she lacks peace, and so she becomes a disheartened Church,
anxious, sad, a Church that seems more like a spinster than a mother, and this
Church doesn’t work, it is a Church in a museum. The joy of the Church is to
give birth [i.e., to new disciples]; the joy of
the Church is to go out of herself to give life [i.e.,
by those new disciples’ sacramental participation and sharing in the mission];
the joy of the Church is to go out to seek the sheep that are lost; the joy of
the Church is precisely the tenderness of the shepherd, the tenderness of the
mother.”
“May the Lord give us the grace of working, of being joyful
Christians in the fruitfulness of Mother Church, and keep us from falling into
the attitude of these sad Christians, impatient, disheartened, anxious, that have
all the perfection in the Church, but do not have ‘children.’ [This is good. As
disciples, any of us might experience discouragement and loss of zeal, and we
need this prayer continually.] May
the Lord console us with the consolation of a Mother Church that goes out of
herself and consoles us with the consolation of the tenderness of Jesus and His
mercy in the forgiveness of our sins.” [Again, these
words of Pope Francis do not support the supposed argument about Tradition the
Cardinal is possibly trying to make. The Pope is saying that we’re not good
enough disciples, that we’re distracted by all kinds of weakness and sin from
carrying out the mission of the Church consistently. That’s true and always has been, and yet God
works through us in spite of it. This is
quite a “traditional” thing to say. But
it doesn’t follow from this that “traditional” spirituality is faulty or
inadequate.]
These are words accompanied by gestures of the Pope that
speak of coherence. His actions and his harmony with those who need consolation
are small pieces of encyclicals, they are itinerant “Pope Magisterium,” [Argument from authority again. Moreover, if Pope Francis’s “gestures” and
“small pieces of encyclicals” constitute this “itinerant papal Magisterium,”
then so, logically, did those of Pope Benedict XVI, Pope St. John Paul II, and
all the popes... which obviously leads to conflicting claims and irreconcilable
differences within the Magisterium. So
this becomes a reductio ad absurdum,
and is clearly not tenable. See LG #22, 25; Heb 13:9; Mt 7:15; etc.] they
are prophetic gestures that arouse admiration and cause the holy emulation of
what he does, because he does it as Christ did and Peter summarizes it at
Cornelius’ house: “He went about doing good” (Acts 10: 38).
