What Constitutes the Church?

What Constitutes the Church? In his customarily creative, intuitive, suggestive, provocative but vague and confusing fashion, Pope Francis last week spoke of “synodicality” as constitutive of the Church. The suggestion seems unhelpful to me as it is tied to a limited, juridical institution, the synod. A broader, deeper concept is that of “collegiality” which properly understood is far broader and deeper than the judicial structures of the synod or even the hierarchy but derives from the “communio” reality of union with the Trinity in Christ as it permeates every reality of ecclesial and human existence: the family and sexuality, friendship, economics, politics and culture as well as the visible, sacramental Church. But his comment did provoke me to wonder: What does constitute the Church? The Church, bride of Christ, is constituted by the Bridegroom’s loving action upon herself. But this infinitely dense, profound, fecund and symphonic mystery has several dimensions, dynamics, currents or movements that cannot be separated because they mutually infuse each other but can be distinguished so we can marvel with clarity of vision at the SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH. Seven such currents are clear: four are primary or fundamental in that they will continue after this life and history itself into eternity; three are essential but secondary in that they will disappear with this life and this world. The primary movements that create the Church in the love of Christ are: the work of the Holy Spirit (pneumatic); the Word of God which is the person and event of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, as infallibly articulated in Scripture and Tradition within the Church (evangelical); the life of worship and prayer (the liturgical); the holiness of life perfectly expressed in the body and soul of Mary and those in communion with her, especially the consecrated (Marian); and the community of love in all its fecundity, richness and variety (Johannine) as evident in family, ecclesial community, friendship and all wholesome, holy expressions of human communion. The three movements which are essential in this life but temporary are: office or hierarchy, sinfulness and consequent contrition/repentance and pardon/mercy, the missionary impulse and concrete actions of mercy. The hierarchical Church will prevail until the end of history; but not afterwards. It is infallible in teaching and efficacious in the sacramental bestowal of sanctifying grace, but is subservient to and expressive of the pneumatic, evangelical, marian and johaninne. Likewise sinfulness pervades every human dimension of the Church: each person, community and institution including the Pope and the holiest among us. And so, confession, repentance and reparation as well as forgiveness and patience (with self as well as others) is constitutive of the Church in time, but not in eternity. And so also with the missionary and agapic or active dimension of the Church: it defines the Church in history, in flesh and time, but not in heaven. There is a temptation to elevate these three subordinate, if definitive, but penultimate dimensions to a position of dominance over the higher four. The result can be clericalism (office), activism (mission and works of charity), and pessimism (a Calvinist or Jansenist obsession with sin). This understanding of the dynamics of movements infusing the Church incorporates the breath and catholicity evidence by the "models" approach of Cardinal Dulles while overcoming that approach's extrinsic, Kantian tendency to define the dynamics against each other rather than indwelling each other mutually. Finally, we might see that the Church of history is quintessentially constituted by the Eucharist in which Christ's conjugal love for His bride, at once spiritual and physical, temporal and eternal, perfectly expresses every dimension: the pneumatic, the evangelical, the liturgical, the marian, the hierarchical, the penitential/confessional, the missional/activist.

One and a Half Cheers for Free Markets; One and a Half Cheers for Government

In an insightful piece cleverly titled "Two Cheers for Capitalism" (NY Times, Friday, July 31, 2015), David Brooks identifies the emerging left/right debate: the former moving beyond re-distribution and enhanced social services to a deeper critique of the inequality and irrationality of unchecked capitalism while the later remains enamored of the vitality of market freedom and the deadening effect of state control. Locating myself just to the left of Brooks and dead center on the political spectrum, I give one and a half cheers for both the free market and the state: both have vitality and purpose; both are inclined to disfunction. Both have become too large and complicated; both are cancerous in their over-growth; both need to be viewed with a delicate balance of confidence and skepticism.

List of the Greatest Saints

Who are the greatest saints? Is this a stupid question? I think not; I think it is interesting and worth pondering! The Church does not rank its saints but it doesn't prevent me from doing so. So here goes: 1. Excepting our Blessed Mother who is exceptional as Queen of Angels and Saints, primacy of place must go to St. Joseph because of his intimacy with Jesus and Mary. This is an easy choice! 2. John the Baptist is my number 2 even though Jesus said he is less then the least in the Kingdom of God. We know Jesus had a habit of exagerating things to make a point. John was cousin of Jesus and since Jesus had no siblings, he must have really loved his cousin; he was the first believer (after Mary of course) with his leap of Joy; he was the culmination of the Old Testament; the first celibate, first martyr, last prophet; he is an icon of Joy, austerity, penance, courage, and truthfulness. He is unique and unequaled. And he was not worthy to lace the sandals of his Lord! 3. Next we must go with Peter, Paul, John and the Apostles who are the foundation of the Church. Peter and Paul are favorites also because their sins were so blatant; John for the opposite reason that he was so close to Jesus, even at the cross, in his innocence. 4. John draws us back to those who prepared the way and first place here goes to Moses, the meekest man on earth, the one who spoke face-to-face with God. Second here is Abraham, father of our faith. And third I go with Elijah who stands for all the prophets as he did at the Transfiguration. 5. King David has a special place of honor because he was such a blatant sinner, especially with women. But his repentance (Psalm 51) was so fervent, his Joy and Loyalty so fierce, that he is a favorite. He is surely a patron saint for those of us who struggle with chastity! 6. Now it gets more subjective and difficult. I am going with Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas because they were holy and wise and their teaching is the basis for what we believe, at least in the Western Church. (I show my intellectualist bias here!) 7. Next I see those handful that received such a strong charism that it still flourishes through the centuries in religious orders: Saints Francis, Benedict, Dominic and Ignatius are prominent among them. 8. Eigth place goes to the great and extraordinary mystics: St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Theresa of Lisieux. 9. Ninth place goes to a select group who manifested holiness, a striking mission/charism, and an appealing humanity: St. Fancis deSales, St.John Bosco, St. John Vianney, St. Vincent De Paul, Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, and St. John Paul II. 10. Tenth place goes to all martyrs who consciously accept torture and death for their faith in Christ. Within that large group, however, pride of place goes to virgin martyrs who gave their femininity in spousal intimacy and surrendered their bodily selves doubly, in consecration and in death. 11. My next choice may be controversial: those Christian, non-Catholic martyrs who were violated by the Catholic Church. For example, we Catholic honor the martyrs in Elizabethan England but in that era the Church also persecuted holy Protestants so we need to grieve and honor them in awareness of the fallibility of the Church in her human dimension. 12. Lastly I will honor all Jews who were killed for their Jewishness because I see in this their identification with the Crucified Jew, even if they were not conscious of this identification. Queen of this group, of course, is St. Theresa Benedicata of the Cross, who was a Jew (agnostic for much of her life), a virgin, a doctor of the Church, and a martyr. She has a very, very, very special place. She is also a leader of the contingent of holy 20th century women: St. Faustina, St.Maria Goretti, Dorothy Day, Mother Theresa, Catherine Dougherty, Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, Elizabeth Eliot, and Adrienne von Speyr! This list is, of course, intended to be playful and provocative and invites response: who have I ignored, underrated, overrated?

Four Loves: Another Version

I have long found C.S. Lewis's famous four loves (affection, friendship, agape and eros) a rich source of illumination into the unfathomable, inexhaustible and fascinating Mystery of Love. Lately, however, I have been considering a different model, rooted in the logos or structure of the family, which always entails four quite distinct, if interrelated loves: filial, paternal/maternal, fraternal-sororial, and spousal. For us as creatures, the primal love is filial: receptive, trusting, respectful, obedient and grateful. This is the love of child for father and mother, and of course for God. It is love as needy, poor, endearing and precious. This love, also known as piety or pietas, expresses itself as loyalty and affection to country, Church, family, the boss, older friends and siblings, priests and a variety of superiors and communities. The obverse of this love is paternal or maternal love as: generous, delighted, nurturing, protective, and tender. This is love as gentle strength. It finds expression far beyond biological parenthood in a myriad of spiritual, emotional and social relationships: boss, teacher, coach, priest, leader, and so forth. This love can be understood as a fusion of elements of what Lewis called affection and agape. Fraternal love is thelove of equals, brothers and sisters, who share the bond of blood and family, and cooperate and compete with each other accordingly. Normally, of course, one sibling is older and therefore a filial and parental dimension presents itself. But this love is essentially "philia" or friendship as understood by Lewis and entails a sharing of interests, values, and intentions and essentially an equality of status before the shared good. Lastly, spousal love as the love of husband and wife includes but is not exhausted by eros, desire for intimate union with the beloved. Spousal love, alone among these familial loves, includes sexual communion, but is much more also. As faithful and loyal love it is informed by agape as sacrificial and generous love. Spousal love is at once agape and eros: without agape it is fickle and self-destructing, without eros is becomes dry, sterile and joyless. Every love relationship is a mix of all four in an infinitely delightful diversity of surprise and delight. For example, the spousal relationship needs to be friendship more than eros, but at times either husband or wife properly become filial or parental towards the other. Likewise, every rich and thrilling friendship will partake, at times, of the filial, parental or spousal. Clearly, however there is an abiding structure to the family as it arises (as God intended) from the sexual union of the spouses and all other relationships are preserved in uncompromising chastity. These loves, in contrast to those of Lewis, are more real, concrete and less abstract. In this year of the Synod of the Family and the Supreme Court's deconstruction of family, these loves deserve our deepest reflection.

Priorities

With his usual insight, David Brooks of the NY Times last week contrasted two conservative reactions to the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage: Rod Dreher and similar "traditional radicals" call for a retreat into our own communities of faith and family while Robert George and kindred spirits associated with First Things urge us to continue the fight as we have with the abortion war. Brooks admits he is to the left of us on these cultural issues but identifies with conservatives and advocates a third option: engage with those who are most hurting in the restoration of family life and wholesome moral and communal values. My opinion is that the Church has to do all three...and at the same time. And people will be called to focus on different concerns. But given the limitations of energy and stamina, we need to set priorities. From where I stand, Dreher and the "trad-rads" are right: first and foremost we must strengthen and thicken our Catholic identity and solidarity in the face of an increasingly hostile society. Secondly, we need to follow the leadership of Pope Francis in going out to the peripheries and reach out to share our (spiritual, moral, emotional, social, intellectual) wealth with the needy (including the most needy...the 1 percent!). Isolation like the Amish is not possible for the Catholic Church. Actually the Mormon paradign (despite its narrow "Americanist" focus) is more helpful. At this point, it is probably good for us to divert energies from the Culture War and enter into a "cold war" phase in which there are less heated, inflamatory clashes even as we stand firm in our own beliefs. We will persevere in the culture war but in more covert, subtle and subversive fashion, much like the way St. John Paul II fought the Nazis, the Communists and later the Cultural Liberals. Focusing more on micro than macro-politics, we must be modest about how much we can directly impact the broader society as we avoid the twin ideological temptations to attribute saving efficacy to the state (the left) or free markets and individual freedom (the right). Regarding Church policy, we must avoid setting our current pontiff against his two predecessors. Rather, let us cherish the JP-Benedict heritage even while we follow Francis to the margins of society. They need not be in conflict. A genuinely CATHOLIC ethos will include both in a mutual enrichment.

Homosexual Marriage

While hardly a fan of Jesuit Tom Reese, I largely agree with his view (NCR July 2,2015) on the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage. He is right: we will learn to live with this as we have with other now-commonplace misguided practices like divorce-and-remarriage, cohabitation and so forth. Homosexual practice is basically in the same boat as premarital sex, pornography/masturbation, contraception in marriage and other varieties of sterile, non-unitive, extrinsic and mutually manipulative interplay. It is no better and no worse! The sin of Sodom is essentially the same as that of Onan. My own view is that intercourse between two men in a faithful, tender and generous relationship is a thousand times less disordered than the Clinton/Lewinski dalliance which was at once a desecration of his marriage, a predatory violation of a young woman who could be his daughter and abuse of his unbounded presidential, which is to say paternal status and power. The court's ruling is not an unmitigated evil and it is helpful to look on the positives: some may well benefit from a faithful and sanctioned relationship; many young people may experience enhanced self-esteem with the lifting of the social stigma; and lastly, the development is itself a strange and confused witness to the deep appeal of marriage. Perhaps because I am aging, aware of the limitations of my energy, and less the cultural warrior I was 20 years ago, I see that we must marshal and use our stamina in positive ways. As a "communio" Catholic and protege of St. John Paul II and Benedict, I see our first priority as deepening our own spiritual union with Christ our Bridegroom. Secondly, we need to strengthen our own marriages, vows, families and communities of faith, including our service of the least. Thirdly, we must remind ourselves that very few have been give the grace to understand the deepest, sacred and iconic meaning of sexuality and marriage and so we grow in gratitude and surrender to this blessing. Forth, we are free to appreciate those we love who experience and live out this attraction, as we deepen our own allegiance to what we know to be true. Lastly, we are clearly moving towards a more counter-cultural position as the society becomes actively hostile to the gospel vision of sexuality. Our disappointment and even alienation from the mainstream must surrender to our deeper Joy in our communion with Christ in His Church, our families and communities.

Masculine Loneliness

Loneliness and solitude, it seems to me, structure the masculine psyche in a most pronounced manner. I am only a man and know the feminine psyche only from a distance so my thoughts are tentative. Perhaps some women will enlighten me! Consider these three: First, paternity, in contrast to maternity, involves greater distance from the strange, fascinating and discomforting little creature. Intrinsically, naturally, the father lacks the enveloping intimacy the mother shares in the womb, on the breast, with the overflow of oxytoxin, and the entire maternal endowment (physical, social, emotional and spiritual). Secondly, the baby boy of necessity needs to break this profound bonding, already by the age of two or so, in order to develop a masculine identity. The female, by contrast, maintains a more integral, unfractured communion with Mom. Last, partially as a result of the previous two, the male psyche is characterized by enhanced independence and autonomy and an inclination to separation, solitude, and competition in contrast to woman's propensity for cooperation, inclusion, and communion...in friendship, family, work and all relationships. This male loneliness can finally be eased in a twofold manner: communion with God and a plurality of wholesome relationships including friends, family, and spouse-or-celibacy/virginity. Being-in-love with God and with others are distinct but mutually infuse each other: without the one, the other will be insufficient and defective. A man loves Mom first, then Dad, then brothers and sisters and friends, then mentors, and then spouse (or sublimated spouse which is Christ and His bridal-Church) and then children and spiritual children. But at some point (or actually, at many points) the man goes into the desert, and faces loneliness and sadness, and confronts the devil and his own poverty, and surrenders in love to our heavenly Father. When this surrender in love to God and friend is incomplete, the male faces one of two contrasting temptations: towards weakness and passivity or towards violence. Those of a weaker constitution will be drawn to regress to the breast and womb in things like lust, pornography, inebriation through chemical substances, laziness, inaction, isolation, and general discouragement (lack of courage, lack of strength, lack of spirit!) Those endowed with excessive testostronic energies will seek release in the opposite direction: aggression, violence, dominance, high-risk behavior like gambling, workaholism and reckless and irrational activism. On the one hand, the man is demasculinized and impotent, on the other he is disordered and destructive in a bogus machismo. The path to authentic masculinity...to gentle, loving, tender, paternal and Christ-like strength...is the cultivation of wholesome relationships of all sorts. But particularly, the man must own his loneliness, his sadness, his isolation...and bring this into a trusting intimacy with our Lord and our heavenly Father in the Holy Spirit.