Thy Kingdom Come!
Deus Caritas Est
The release of Pope Benedict's first encyclical was certainly something I had long anticipated. He had been one of my favorite theologians to read long before his election, and one of my first thoughts on that thrilling day in April was, "I can't wait to see the encyclicals this guy will write!"
Deus caritas est certainly seems to meet expectations, while at the same time showing that Pope Benedict is hard to predict. The conventional wisdom, which certainly made sense to me, was that a pope's first encyclical gives a sort of program for his pontificate (though a "platform" or "agenda" might be too strong a word). Such was the case with Pius XII's Summi Pontificatus, Paul VI's Ecclesiam suam, and certainly John Paul's Redemptor hominis. But Deus caritas est (DCE) doesn't make any such claim; it simply presents a little theological reflection, and that on two themes (sexual love and the Church's charitable efforts) which would at first appear unrelated to each other. Pope Benedict doesn't seem to see much need to present a full-scale review of the state of the Church, and what he plans to do about it--which could be because he figures John Paul already said most of needed to be said on that score, or perhaps because he is still honestly trying to discern what specific goals the Holy Spirit is seeking to accomplish through his unexpected pontificate.
The encyclical strikes one as typically Ratzingerian in the bold way it dives right into one of the most profound problems of philosophy and theology: the nature of love, and the relation of the love of eros to the love of agape. In getting directly to the heart of the matter, and facing unblinkingly the toughest objections that could be leveled (this is probably the first encyclical whose first footnote is a reference to none other than Friedrich Nietzsche!), Pope Benedict shows that he has no intention of abandoning the vigorous, clear-thinking style of his vast theological corpus. (Perhaps it's my German ethnic bias, but, with no disrespect intended to John Paul the Great, I find Benedict's writing style much easier to follow than that of his predecessor. And it is nice to see that one can have an encyclical without randomly italicized phrases on every page:) Benedict does, however, follow the John Paul precedent in closing with a lovely and poetic prayer to Mary.)
In terms of content, Deus caritas est is wonderful. It may not be a program for a pontificate, but Benedict certainly knew what he was doing starting off with the most fundamental truth of Christianity: the love of God in Christ, which must inform all of a Christian's dealings with others. In treating of eros in its relation to agape, Benedict chooses to give an essentially positive take on the nature of married love, which is at the heart of so much controversy today. In the encyclical's second portion, Benedict speaks of the relation between the Church's work of charity and the political quest for social justice, showing the need for both sides of the equation, but clearly rejecting the Marxist distortions which have sometimes obscured the true nature of the Church's social teachings. Those who recall the CDF's 1980 interventions regarding liberation theology will certainly recognize Ratzinger's voice here.
What has been most surprising has been the major media's reaction to the encyclical. The big story for the NY Times seemed to be that Benedict chose to avoid "divisive issues" such as contraception, divorce, and abortion (!). This would seem to be the main reason that the encyclical got glowing praise from those, like Hans Kung, who screamed bloody murder when the Pope was elected.
It is understandable that some in the secular world would be surprised. Knowing Ratzinger only as CDF prefect, they thought of him purely as a conservative who cracked down on heretics (though that isn't even a complete portrayal of Ratzinger's CDF role). They naturally expected his papal writings to have a harshness somewhere between Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors and Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam, and are surprised to find that the "Panzerkardinal" actually believes in love as the heart of the Gospel. This, however, is not particularly newsworthy to those of us who have long been Ratzinger readers; anyone who knew him beyond the stereotypes would have realized where his heart was.
On the other hand, there is the more disturbing possibility that dissenters are interpreting Benedict's focus on a relatively uncontroversial subject like love as an indication that he doesn't intend to be as serious about orthodoxy as his predecessor. Such a speculation is rather absurd, when one thinks about it. After all, John Paul largely steered clear of controversial subjects in Redemptor hominis, sticking to the subject of Christian humanism. No doubt, some at the time still thought that he would turn out a "progressive" pope. The honeymoon was over soon enough, as John Paul eventually made himself very clear on the hot-button encyclicals that hadn't figured in his inaugural encyclical.
I'm afraid that some on the left who are hailing Deus caritas est for avoiding "divisive" topics are indulging the vain hope that Benedict will try to be a "uniter" by avoiding counter-cultural pronouncements. Of course, in a way, I think Benedict IS trying to unite. Knowing that one attracts more with honey than vinegar, he has wisely chosen to present the beauty of the gospel of Christ's love. But the point is always to attract to the fulness of the truth about God and ourselves, and when the times come, as they will, that Benedict must come out clearly on the topics that make up the "canon of dissent", I'm afraid the honeymoon will be over for him too. But for now, I'll be content to try to enter into the Holy Father's vision of Christian love, and hope people are ready to listen just as eagerly when the message is not so popular.
Thy Kingdom Come!
Roe at 33
This year marked the first time since I became a seminarian that I wasn't able to attend the March for Life in Washington, D.C. While my brother and several other friends headed off on a crazy whirlwind road-trip (34 hours round-trip) to the March, I stayed here to do the "mundane pastoral stuff" in the parish. Not that it wasn't worth doing, because in fact one of those mundane pastoral duties was giving a talk to our parish RCIA on the subject of the Church's pro-life commitment. Nonetheless, as I sat on Sunday night and watched on EWTN as the hundreds of seminarians, priests, and bishops processed to the altar in a National Shrine jam-packed with young people, I did somewhat regret missing this great annual gathering of the pro-life movement.
Then again, that's a disturbing thought, isn't it? "Annual?" Most of us have come to take for granted the fact that, just as every December brings Christmas and every spring brings Easter, so every January 22 or so brings the March for Life. Which can, I think, lead some of us to a self-defeating complacency. If we fully realize why it is we are marching, if the pro-life cause isn't just something we bandy about as a slogan, then we have to seriously desire that this March for Life be the last. To presume otherwise would be to acquiesce in the idea that our nation will go another year allowing children to die without legal protection.
I don't dispute that all who are on the March want abortion to end ASAP, nor that even after Roe is overturned, such events will be still be needed, as the battle won't be over. Yet there is always the danger that we in the pro-life movement can institutionalize ourselves to the point of forgetting why we exist. We don't engage in pro-life endeavors because it feels good and gives us something constructive to do; we do it because our nation is tolerating an evil which we as Christians cannot tolerate, and our dearest wish is that it would end and we could all go home and find something else to do.
The danger of letting our pro-life convictions lose their urgency is particularly insidious in the political realm, where it is so easy to let our pro-life convictions be tied up with the fortunes of a party. Of course, the different parties do view life issues very differently, and, for instance, the fact that George Bush is president rather than John Kerry has concrete effects in this struggle, as witness the "right-ward" tack that the Supreme Court seems to be taking right now. Yet we can never think it's enough to have "our" people in office as long as the slaughter continues. Nor can we put our hopes in political action alone and forget that this is spiritual warfare. A seminarian (now a priest) whom I know once expressed this in a particularly striking manner. He pointed out that a few blocks north of the White House stands a Planned Parenthood facility. On the day of the March for Life, when Washington is swarming with pro-life activists, he and a handful of others stopped to pray outside the abortion mill--and found themselves almost completely alone. This, my friend said, summarizes exactly what's wrong with the pro-life movement in America. "Here we have this horse and pony show up at the Mall, with all the legislators patting themselves on the back, although in 33 years not a single child has been saved from abortion through political means! Meanwhile here at the mill, where the real battle is going on, there's just a handful of people."
I don't know if I totally agree with these sentiments. Certainly, political action has to be undertaken; we may even now be seeing events in the making that could lead to a Court that would overturn Roe. And while after 33 years, the March seems to be having little effect, it at least keeps the issue before public consciousness; imagine what message it would send if we stopped going! And yet, there is some truth to the fact that political activism alone can lead one to forget that this is about individual human lives that are at stake every day right in our communities. I know I am the first to stand convicted in this regard: how much easier it is to sit and watch Senate hearings on C-Span than to get up on a Saturday and walk the few blocks to pray outside the Planned Parenthood right here in my neighborhood!
I guess this little ferverino has been addressed mostly to myself, to remember that being pro-life is about saving individual human lives and souls for whom Christ died, and not just about debates on Constitutional law and political action. But I would be remiss if I didn't add that it isn't just activist rhetoric that recognizes that things are more hopeful now than they used to be. I could certainly feel it last year when I was at the March. There was a growing sense that it wasn't a matter of if Roe would go, but simply when. And the pro-abortion side knew it too; they were present in greater visibility than I could recall, and with a vitriol that suggested they know their time is running out. Perhaps the legal battle will be over sooner than we think. Yet I fear the battle for the conversion of hearts will last as long as I and my brothers are priests on this earth.
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
European Union Threatens "Homophobia"
The story linked below is quite distressing. I don't entirely understand how the European Union works, but if it can make real such a brazen threat against anyone who dares to oppose the homosexual agenda, it would seem that the Communist empire has indeed been replaced with a far more insidious "dictatorship of relativism."
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=18376
Thy Kingdom Come!
Happy New Year:)
Well, now for my monthly blog post...I really do apologize for the ever-growing gaps between postings; it reminds me of various periodicals I receive which, due to the erratic nature of the postal service, will not arrive at all for several weeks, and then will arrive three issues at a time. Since I last wrote, there's been Christmas, and a New Year, and our annual seminary retreat, preacahed by Bp. Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, who has a wonderful mix of sanctity, kindliness, intelligence, and plain-spoken courage. Here I am, back at the Cathedral with my internship over halfway done. It's shown up a lot of areas where I could grow, but it's also helped me to appreciate very concretely the gifts I have and the wonderful vocation that I'm pursuing, by God's grace.
Today is the feast of St. Agnes, who is one of those odd saints, like Martin of Tours, who, despite being ranked in the calendar as memorials, are treated almost as feasts in the Office: proper antiphons at morning and evening prayer, feast day psalms, etc. In Agnes' case, it has a lot, I think, to do with her extreme youth; she was said to be only twelve years of age when she died a heroic death. What struck me is the appropriateness of this; in a sense, all of us must be childlike if we want to have the courage of martyrs. A twelve-year-old girl doesn't die for an abstraction or a theory: she would only die for someone who is real to her as the one who she loves with all her heart. And the same goes for us all: Jesus has to be someone real in our lives, as real and concrete as the friends and neighbors we see, if we are to have the courage to persevere in giving him all.
End of ferverino; hopefully as I settle back into something like a routine I can find time to give random thoughts on current events, the liturgy, and whatever other aspects of life I find worth blogging on.
today
July 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
Template by motime.com 
