The Neocatchumenate is arguably the most passionate, profound and promising ecclesial development of our time. It is the strongest medicine for several reasons. First, for those in deep crisis, far from the Christian life, facing the abyss, it is a powerful, long-term program. Second, it is the most militant, rigorous program for laity in the Church. Lastly, it forms enduring, resilient communities that promise to survive even in persecution. But it presents a difficult challenge to the traditional parish.
The previous blog essay highlighted the centrality for the Church, since Constantine, of the local parish as the locus of Eucharist as liturgical Event and enduring Presence. The multiverse of Catholic orders, movements, devotions and associations all accompany, complement, and enrich the parish; they never undermine or compete with it. They may offer an alternate "way" for a select group (eg. monasteries, friaries, convents) but these respect the primary integrity of the local parish. If there is tension, the sovereignty of the bishop over the diocese and the pastor over the parish is clear (although the papacy has often been the patron of innovative movements).
This new "way" is paradoxical. It defers to the bishop and pastor as it only operates with explicit permission of both. It's goal is to renew the Church, at the parish level. This deference flows from a genuine filial trust in the hierarchy; it is not some Machiavellian political calculation. There is here a deep trust in the teaching authority of the magisterium and the efficacy of the sacramental economy.
But practically, institutionally, it is a challenge to and even a competition with the parish worship system as received. It is passionately Eucharist-centered as it builds small communities around a tripod of Eucharist, the Word of God and community. It reconfigures the life of faith around the small community as center. The Saturday evening Eucharist becomes the defining event of the week: preparations of Word, bread, wine, flowers, and obtaining a priest characterize the week. This weekly celebration (as described in an earlier post) is a clear pivot away from the mass as sacrifice, altar, temple-type solemnity, kneeling, and silence toward the liturgy as Passover-type meal, festive, participative, lively with witness, exhortation and song.
The Final Aim of This Way
What is the final goal? The articulated goal is renewal of the parish through an itinerary of formation in the faith. But the actual goal is implicit in its practice: transformation of the parish into a "community of smaller communities." The primacy falls upon the intimate fraternity. Almost all important activities occur within the small fraternity. All the communities gather, regularly but not frequently, for major feasts, especially the Easter and Pentecost vigils, as well as periodic penance and similar services. But the liturgical life of this association remains entirely detached from the "ordinary" parish.
So what we have in effect are two parallel cultic systems: the ordinary Sunday parish masses and the Saturday evening community gatherings. There is no real organic unity between them.
In an instruction almost 10 years ago, Pope Benedict (arguably the world's greatest authority on Catholic liturgy) directed that these gatherings are "not strictly liturgical" but they are part of a "itinerary of formation" which prepares people for participation in the ordinary parish life. This assumes their self-description as "itinerary of formation" and implies a temporary educative experience that terminates and directs the graduates into normal parish life.
Of course, that is not what happens. The small community structure is clearly a permanent institution, indeed THE foundation of the new, emergent Church. This small, intense, intimate association becomes the essential ecclesial unit, replacing the parish in primacy. The parish becomes an umbrella, a community of communities, but one's constitutive communal identity is with the smaller group.
As a community matures, and after it completes the itinerary, (which takes 20-30 years),it does indeed become missionary in the formation of new communities. Thus it grows this new model, in connection with the parish, but it does so by creating an alternate model and spirituality.
For example: imagine someone with no Catholic background walking in this way for six years. Habituated to weekly Saturday Eucharist, he is advised to attend the parish mass on rare occasions, holidays not celebrated by the communities such as the Assumption or All Saints. But there is little energy or emphasis on this. So, if he travels, he may wonder if there are Saturday community liturgies in the area. He is less than likely to seek out a parish Sunday mass. He may know that he should; but he is not practiced in that.
Furthermore, he is likely to have little interest in the perpetual presence of Christ, physically, in the tabernacle. While the theology of Kiko is fiercely orthodox, the liturgy (of Carmen?) reflects some unfortunate post-Vatican II tendencies including a dismissal of the value of this perpetual presence. Like the "spirit of Vatican II" liberal and in contrast to the late Tridentine Catholic, the Neocat is unlikely to think about making a "visit" to the Blessed Sacrament.
Cardinal Arinze's Directive to Participate in the Sunday Parish Mass
In 2007, Cardinal Arinze on behalf of Pope John Paul II, after two years of consultation and work with seven cardinals, directed that the participants attend parish mass at least one Sunday of the month. Regarding the other Sundays, the alternate rituals are permitted based upon dialogue with the local bishop.
This was a positive move towards integration into normal parish Catholicism. This is the direction stressed by Pope Benedict: that the goal was integration into the parish, as received, rather than the creation of a new type of parish. If I were bishop I would insist upon two monthly masses with the parish and direct that no community liturgies be held on the first and third Saturday evenings of the month.
What happened after that? Nothing...as far as I can tell. (I am only a distant observer and not greatly knowledgeable.) The directive was apparently ignored. The Vatican did not enforce it. (Enforcement was not Pope Benedict's strength: witness his clear directive to McCarrick which was also disregarded in this same time frame!)
The motives of Kiko and Carmen are understandable: to protect the integrity of their charism. Dilution and compromise do threaten to weaken it in power and identity. But the problem: it remains detached from, and an alternative to, "ordinary" parish life.
We can start to understand why this program is not welcomed into many dioceses; and why it has been disinvited from others, including NYC where I was catechized by the first community in the country. It is not the fault of the catechists or the pastors! There is a fundamental structural competition between the two cultic systems.
Apocalyptic Time
In an important article which was published with the statues, Giuseppe Gennarini, initial catechist in the USA, retrieved writings of Karol Wojtyla from the 1950s that see our civilization has entered an apocalyptic time in which societal institutions are collapsing, Christianity is under attack, and a ferocious spiritual battle has commenced. In my reading of John Paul II, he also radiated a striking hope about the imminence of a new civilization of love. However this dystopian view of our world, including the Church, is implicit in the praxis of this way. All energies are directed to the community and the family: there is a muted but firm devaluation of all other institutions including politics, education, career, technology, and science. This is not directly stated, but it implied by the flow of attention and interest. The sense is that we are moving into chaos and disorder and our sole security is in our faith as shared in family and immediate community. This is the "benedict option" on steroids, if not articulated in that way. Additionally, the liturgical practice, centered in small communities, implies that the disappearance of the traditional parish...Church building, tabernacle, priest...would not be catastrophic as long as the communities continue to gather, however covertly, like those of the early, persecuted Church. This apocalyptic vision has become widespread in the Church, especially among zealous groups like charismatics (e.g. Ralph Martin.)
Are these prophets of doom correct: are we moving into a new dark age? The answer to this is a clear YES. I believe in no "arc of history"...be it Marxist dialectic, Darwinian evolution, technological progress, or Whig triumph of liberalism. But certainly the most powerful cultural/political forces across the globe today are: Communism (China, North Korea, Cuba), Islamic Fundamentalism (in various flavors), and the Cultural Liberalism of the West. These three outdo each other in their aversion to classic Christianity. Across most of the globe, Catholicism is persecuted. In the West, Christendom as we have known it is shrinking, defensive, and endangered. In the dark times we have already entered, the formidable communities of this Way may be our best hope.
The Eucharistic Vision of St. Charles de Focauld
With that said, however, it remains that this new network of communities is in tension with the classic, post-Constantine Catholic adoration of the enduring, parochial, Eucharistic presence as sovereign over a Christendom, however decadent. We see two contrasting Eucharistic practices. The traditional is parish based, sacrificial, formal in a temple-like fashion, largely impersonal (assuming social needs are net outside of worship), and aware of the abiding presence. The alternate is event-full, communal, personal, stimulating and interactive, reverent in a more relaxed and meal-like fashion, detached from the broader parish and the abiding presence in the tabernacle.
As we move more deeply into dystopia, must we decide on a hard binary? Or can the two mutually enrich each other in a conjugal embrace? The Catholic reply can only be the later.
Consider the Eucharistic mysticism of newly canonized St. Charles de Focauld. He buried himself in the middle of the Sahara amidst wandering Bedouins as a solitary, hidden witness to the Gospel, but with great confidence in the abiding Eucharistic presence. He had a sense that the vast Sahara, with almost no Christian presence, was mysteriously luminous with the presence of that small, white, quiet host.
It is curious that Kiko was inspired by Charles burying himself in the Sahara to do something similar with the gypsies of Spain, but he does not seem to have emulated liturgically this strong devotion to the abiding presence. This was possibly due to Carmen and her acceptance of the liturgical fashion of the early 1960s.
Moving forward, the Catholic impulse will surely be to integrate the two practices. Catholic practice can be enriched by the lively, intense, intimate, interactive liturgy of this way. On the other side, the tripod will be enriched in its Eucharistic practice as it moves more deeply into parish worship on a regular basis and grows in devotion to the abiding presence.
The future looks good: with the eventual demise of the founder and the increasing number of neocatechumenal priests who, loyal to both their way and the local church, there will be energy and focus to integrate the two more fully.
Since we have just started, this past Corpus Christi, a three year Eucharistic revival, led by our American bishops, it is a good time for all of us to deepen our adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
No comments:
Post a Comment