Friday, March 21, 2008

The Cross as the "Birthplace of the Faith in Jesus as the Christ"

Benedict XVI has introduced the American reading public into the perennial mystery of the relation between history and the absolute. It was announced with his post-consistory remark (April 2005) of the “dictatorship of relativism” (history) and the absolute, the Kingdom of God, as the divine Person of Jesus Christ.

The Modernist controversy centered on this debate. To a man, those who were accused of falling into the “heresy of heresies” (“Modernism”) railed against the so-called tyranny of scholastic abstractionism and dogmatism in favor of finding the real and dynamic ontological reality and Revelation by the deployment of the existential pulp unearthed by the critical-historical method. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger explained it: “Within that newfound freedom of thought into which the Enlightenment and launched headlong, dogma or church doctrine appeared as one of the real impediments to a correct understanding of the Bible itself. But freed from this impertinent presupposition, and equipped with a methodology which promised strict objectivity, it seemed that we were finally going to be able to hear again the clear and unmistakable voice of the original message of Jesus. Indeed, what had been long forgotten was to be brought into the open once more: the polyphony of history could be heard again, rising from behind the monotone of traditional interpretations. As the human element in sacred history became more and more visible, the hand of God, too, seemed larger and closer.”[1]

However, what actually has happened, by the very nature of the method, is the inability to find the Person of Jesus as the Christ. How could it be otherwise when we subtract the supernatural ipso facto as standing outside the proper field of the critico-historical method that can only measure sensible phenomena? How does one quantitatively measure non-sensible phenomena like a divine Person? Jesus of Nazareth simply could not be Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God – by the very restrictions of the method. Ratzinger remarked: “(W)ithin Christianity itself, Christology has been losing its meaning. It started with the effort to rediscover the man Jesus behind the gilded background of dogma, to return to the simplicity of the Gospels. Of course, it quickly became evident that the figure of Jesus in the Gospels cannot be reduced to that of a bland philanthropist – that precisely the Jesus of the Gospels, too, burst open the framework of what is merely human, posing questions and demanding decisions that challenge man to the very depths of his soul…. Today in broad circles, even among believers, an image has prevailed of a Jesus who demands nothing, never scolds, who accepts everyone and everything, who no lopnger does anything but affirm us: the perfect opposite of the Church, to the extent that she still dares to make demands and regulations.”[2]

Ratzinger concludes: “The presence of the figure of Jesus itself is becoming diminished – also with regard to the non-Christian contemporaries who surround us; the figure is transformed from the ‘Lord’ (a word that is avoided) into a man who is nothing more than the advocate of all men.” He continues importantly: “The Jesus of the Gospels is certainly not convenient for us. But it is precisely in this way that he answers the deepest question of our existence, which – whether we want to or not - keeps us on the lookout for God, for a gratification that is limitless, for the infinite. We must again set out on the way to this real Jesus.”[3]



Neither Dogmatic Formularies Nor Scientific History”[4][Alone]

Rather: Both Dogmatic Formularies And Scientific History


If I may be permitted to use the insight of Maurice Blondel concerning the two horns of the dilemma between what he called “extrinsicism” (scholastic Hellenism) and “historicism” (positivism), Marvin O’Connell paraphrases the presentation: “’Extrinsicism’ – a barbarous invention to be sure – is the method adopted by the Scholastics, for whom the historical facts recorded in the Scriptures have only an ‘extrinsic’ value. According to this view, dogma expresses revealed truth by an exclusively deductive procedure, which has only an accidental or ‘extrinsic’ relation to the world of fact. Thus, New Testament miracles ‘prove’ the divinity of the Christian message; but that proof is merely ‘a sign, a label, which has been detached from the facts and placarded over the entrance of the dogmatic fortress’ whose battlements have already been secured. ‘The Bible is guaranteed as a whole, not by its content but by an external self of the divine. Why bother to verify its details? It is replete with absolute science, fixed in its eternal truth. Why search out its human conditions and its relative senses? Perhaps such an attitude was defensible in earlier, simpler times. ‘But not the day has come when, thanks to the discoveries of archaeology and philology, the past has been resurrected, … and has confronted hide-bound deductions with facts that give the lie to them, not just on matters of detail but on a whole section of teaching extracted form the Bible. A dangerous crisis has become inevitable.’
“Nor did the solution lie in ‘historicism’ – Blondel’s second ‘incomplete’ solution. Here, though he does not name him, the object of Blondel’s criticism was Alfred Loisy. ‘Can one pretend that [history] is self-sufficient” Obviously not; it depends upon a number of other sciences.’ The historian’s claim to autonomy is a delusion. Moreover, ‘no one should think that history by itself can know a fact which would be no more than a fact or which would be the whole fact. ‘History deals with human life, and ‘human life is metaphysics in act. To claim that the science of history is innocent of any speculative preoccupation, or even to imagine that the smallest details of history could be, strictly speaking, a simple matter of observation, is to fall victim to prejudice under the pretext of an unattainable neutrality.’ What Loisy has offered in his exegetical works – his explanation, for example, of the imminence of the kingdom or of Christ’s self-knowledge as understood by his first disciples – is an ‘historical positivism’ which ‘seems to provide a means or even the means of attaining the reality of history.’ But this too is a delusion, a kind of disguised Scholasticism: ‘Historicism tends to take the external act, the expressive trait, the concrete image for the [real] object itself, to substitute surreptitiously the fact for the actor, the testimony for the witness, the portrait for the real person.’ And so a historicist like Loisy only ‘registers the effects of phenomena’ and situates them in an evolutionary pattern from which they receive an artificial intelligibility.”
“Neither of these soi-disant solutions to the contemporary religious crisis, Blondel concluded, could really answer the fundamental question: ‘How does it happen that legitimately the Bible supports and guarantees the church, and the church supports and interprets the Bible? Neither dogmatic formularies nor scientific history – though both have their uses - can avoid in this matter falling victim to a vicious circle.”[5]


The Cross as the “Birthplace of the Faith in Jesus as the Christ”[6]


“Today we can establish with some certainty that the birthplace of the faith in Jesus as the Christ, that is, the birthplace of `Christ’ –ian faith as a whole, is the cross. Jesus himself had not proclaimed himself directly as the Christ (`Messiah’). This certainly somewhat – to us – surprising assertion now emerges with some clarity from the frequently confusing quarrels of the historians; it cannot be eluded even if, indeed especially if, on e faces with an appropriately critical attitude the hasty process of subtraction current in present-day research into Jesus. So Jesus did not call himself unequivocally the Messiah (Christ); the man who gave him this name was Pilate, who for his part associated himself with the accusation of the Jews by yielding to this accusation and proclaiming Jesus on the cross, in an execution notice drawn up in all the international languages of the day, as the executed king (=Messiah, Christus) of the Jews. This execution notice, the death sentence of history, became with paradoxical unity the `confession of faith,’ the real starting-point and rooting-point of the Christian faith, which holds Jesus to be the Christ: as the crucified criminal this Jesus is the Christ, the king. His crucifixion is his coronation; his coronation or kingship is his surrender of himself to men, the identification of word, mission and existence in the yielding up of this very existence. His existence is thus his word. He is word because he is love. From the cross faith understands in increasing measure that this Jesus did not just do and say something; that in him message and person are identical, that he always already is what he says. John needed only to draw the final straightforward inference: if that is so – and this is the Christological basis of his gospel – then this Jesus Christ is `word;’ but a person who not only has words but is his word and his work is the logos (`the Word,’ meaning, mind) itself; that person has always existed and will always exist; he is the ground on which the world stands – if we ever meet such a person, then he is the meaning which sustains us all and by which we are all sustained.
The unfolding of the understanding that we call faith thus happens in such a way that Christians first hit upon the identification of person, word and work through the cross. Through it they recognized the really and finally decisive factor, before which all else becomes of secondary importance. For this reason their confession of faith could be restricted to the simple association of the words Jesus and Christ – this combination said it all. Jesus is seen from the cross, which speaks louder than any words: he is the Christ – no more need be said. The crucified `I’ of the Lord is such an abundant reality that all else can retire into the background. A second step was then taken and from the understanding of Jesus thus acquired people looked back at his words. When the community began to think back like this it was forced to note, to its amazement, that the same concentration on his `I’ was to be found in the words of Jesus; that his message itself, studied retrospectively, is such that it always leas to and flows into this `I,’ into the identity of word and person. Finally John was able to take one last step and link the two movements. His gospel is, as it were, the thorough reading of the words of Jesus from the angle of the person and of the person from the words. That he treats `Christology,’ the assertion of faith in the Christ, as the message of the story of Jesus and, vice-versa, the story of Jesus as Christology indicates the complete unity of Christ and Jesus, a unity which is and remains formative for the whole further history of faith.”[7]

Via Crucis [Josef Cardinal Ratzinger]
FIRST STATIONJesus is condemned to death
From the Gospel according to Matthew 27:22-23,26
Pilate said to them, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?" All of them said, "Let him be crucified!" Then he asked, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!" So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.
MEDITATION
The Judge of the world, who will come again to judge us all, stands there, dishonored and defenseless before the earthly judge. Pilate is not utterly evil. He knows that the condemned man is innocent, and he looks for a way to free him. But his heart is divided. And in the end he lets his own position, his own self-interest, prevail over what is right. Nor are the men who are shouting and demanding the death of Jesus utterly evil. Many of them, on the day of Pentecost, will feel "cut to the heart" (Acts 2:37), when Peter will say to them: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God... you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law" (Acts 2:22ff.). But at that moment they are caught up in the crowd. They are shouting because everyone else is shouting, and they are shouting the same thing that everyone else is shouting. And in this way, justice is trampled underfoot by weakness, cowardice and fear of the diktat of the ruling mindset. The quiet voice of conscience is drowned out by the cries of the crowd. Evil draws its power from indecision and concern for what other people think.
PRAYER
Lord, you were condemned to death because fear of what other people may think suppressed the voice of conscience. So too, throughout history, the innocent have always been maltreated, condemned and killed. How many times have we ourselves preferred success to the truth, our reputation to justice? Strengthen the quiet voice of our conscience, your own voice, in our lives. Look at me as you looked at Peter after his denial. Let your gaze penetrate our hearts and indicate the direction our lives must take. On the day of Pentecost you stirred the hearts of those who, on Good Friday, clamored for your death, and you brought them to conversion. In this way you gave hope to all. Grant us, ever anew, the grace of conversion.
* * * * * * * * * *

SECOND STATIONJesus takes up his Cross
From the Gospel according to Matthew. 27:27-31
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor's headquarters, and they gathered the whole cohort around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" They spat on him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. After mocking him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.
MEDITATION
Jesus, condemned as an imposter king, is mocked, but this very mockery lays bare a painful truth. How often are the symbols of power, borne by the great ones of this world, an affront to truth, to justice and to the dignity of man! How many times are their pomps and their lofty words nothing but grandiose lies, a parody of their solemn obligation to serve the common good! It is because Jesus is mocked and wears the crown of suffering that he appears as the true King. His scepter is justice (cf. Ps 45:7). The price of justice in this world is suffering: Jesus, the true King, does not reign through violence, but through a love which suffers for us and with us. He takes up the Cross, our cross, the burden of being human, the burden of the world. And so he goes before us and points out to us the way which leads to true life.
PRAYER
Lord, you willingly subjected yourself to mockery and scorn. Help us not to ally ourselves with those who look down on the weak and suffering. Help us to acknowledge your face in the lowly and the outcast. May we never lose heart when faced with the contempt of this world, which ridicules our obedience to your will. You carried your own Cross and you ask us to follow you on this path (cf. Mt 10:38). Help us to take up the Cross, and not to shun it. May we never complain or become discouraged by life's trials. Help us to follow the path of love and, in submitting to its demands, to find true joy.
* * * * * * * * * * *
THIRD STATIONJesus falls for the first time
From the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 53:4-6
Surely he has born our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
MEDITATION
Man has fallen, and he continues to fall: often he becomes a caricature of himself, no longer the image of God, but a mockery of the Creator. Is not the man who, on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among robbers who stripped him and left him half-dead and bleeding beside the road, the image of humanity par excellence? Jesus' fall beneath the Cross is not just the fall of the man Jesus, exhausted from his scourging. There is a more profound meaning in this fall, as Paul tells us in the Letter to the Philippians: "though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men... He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a Cross" (Phil 2:6-8). In Jesus' fall beneath the weight of the Cross, the meaning of his whole life is seen: his voluntary abasement, which lifts us up from the depths of our pride. The nature of our pride is also revealed: it is that arrogance which makes us want to be liberated from God and left alone to ourselves, the arrogance which makes us think that we do not need his eternal love, but can be the masters of our own lives. In this rebellion against truth, in this attempt to be our own god, creator and judge, we fall headlong and plunge into self-destruction. The humility of Jesus is the surmounting of our pride; by his abasement he lifts us up. Let us allow him to lift us up. Let us strip away our sense of self-sufficiency, our false illusions of independence, and learn from him, the One who humbled himself, to discover our true greatness by bending low before God and before our downtrodden brothers and sisters.
PRAYER
Lord Jesus, the weight of the cross made you fall to the ground. The weight of our sin, the weight of our pride, brought you down. But your fall is not a tragedy, or mere human weakness. You came to us when, in our pride, we were laid low. The arrogance that makes us think that we ourselves can create human beings has turned man into a kind of merchandise, to be bought and sold, or stored to provide parts for experimentation. In doing this, we hope to conquer death by our own efforts, yet in reality we are profoundly debasing human dignity. Lord help us; we have fallen. Help us to abandon our destructive pride and, by learning from your humility, to rise again
* * * * * * * * * * *
FOURTH STATIONJesus meets his Mother
From the Gospel according to Luke. 2:34-35,51
Simon blessed them and said to Mary his mother: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed". And his mother kept all these things in her heart.
MEDITATION
On Jesus' Way of the Cross, we also find Mary, his Mother. During his public life she had to step aside, to make place for the birth of Jesus' new family, the family of his disciples. She also had to hear the words: "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?... Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is brother, and sister and mother" (Mt 12:48-50). Now we see her as the Mother of Jesus, not only physically, but also in her heart. Even before she conceived him bodily, through her obedience she conceived him in her heart. It was said to Mary: "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son. He will be great and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David" (Lk 1:31ff.). And she would hear from the mouth of the elderly Simeon: "A sword will pierce through your own soul" (Lk 2:35). She would then recall the words of the prophets, words like these: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was like a lamb that is led to slaughter" (Is 54:7). Now it all takes place. In her heart she had kept the words of the angel, spoken to her in the beginning: "Do not be afraid, Mary" (Lk 1:30). The disciples fled, yet she did not flee. She stayed there, with a Mother's courage, a Mother's fidelity, a Mother's goodness, and a faith which did not waver in the hour of darkness: "Blessed is she who believed" (Lk 1:45). "Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Lk 18:8). Yes, in this moment Jesus knows: he will find faith. In this hour, this is his great consolation.
PRAYER
Holy Mary, Mother of the Lord, you remained faithful when the disciples fled. Just as you believed the angels incredible message ­ that you would become the Mother of the Most High, so too you believed at the hour of his greatest abasement. In this way, at the hour of the Cross, at the hour of the world's darkest night, you became the Mother of all believers, the Mother of the Church. We beg you: teach us to believe, and grant that our faith may bear fruit in courageous service and be the sign of a love ever ready to share suffering and to offer assistance.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
FIFTH STATIONThe Cyrenian helps Jesus carry the Cross
From the Gospel according to Matthew. 27:32; 16:24
As they went out, they came upon a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; this man they compelled to carry his cross. Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

MEDITATION
Simon of Cyrene is on his way home, returning from work, when he comes upon the sad procession of those condemned ­ for him, perhaps, it was a common sight. The soldiers force this rugged man from the country to carry the Cross on his own shoulders. How annoying he must have thought it to be suddenly caught up in the fate of those condemned men! He does what he must do, but reluctantly. Significantly, the Evangelist Mark does not only name him, but also his children, who were evidently known as Christians and as members of that community (cf. Mk 15:21). From this chance encounter, faith was born. The Cyrenian, walking beside Jesus and sharing the burden of the Cross, came to see that it was a grace to be able to accompany him to his crucifixion and to help him. The mystery of Jesus, silent and suffering, touched his heart. Jesus, whose divine love alone can redeem all humanity, wants us to share his Cross so that we can complete what is still lacking in his suffering (cf. Col 1:24). Whenever we show kindness to the suffering, the persecuted and defenseless, and share in their sufferings, we help to carry that same Cross of Jesus. In this way we obtain salvation, and help contribute to the salvation of the world.
PRAYER
Lord, you opened the eyes and heart of Simon of Cyrene, and you gave him, by his share in your Cross, the grace of faith. Help us to aid our neighbors in need, even when this interferes with our own plans and desires. Help us to realize that it is a grace to be able to share the cross of others and, in this way, know that we are walking with you along the way. Help us to appreciate with joy that, when we share in your suffering and the sufferings of this world, we become servants of salvation and are able to help build up your Body, the Church.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SIXTH STATIONVeronica wipes the face of Jesus
From the Book of Psalms. 27:8-9
You have said, "Seek my face". My heart says to you, "Your face, Lord, do I seek". Hide not your face from me. Turn not your servant away in anger, you who have been my help. Cast me not off, forsake me not, O God of my salvation.
MEDITATION
"Your face, Lord, do I seek. Hide not your face from me" (Ps 27:8-9). Veronica ­ Bernice, in the Greek tradition ­ embodies the universal yearning of the devout men and women of the Old Testament, the yearning of all believers to see the face of God. On Jesus' Way of the Cross, though, she at first did nothing more than perform an act of womanly kindness: she held out a facecloth to Jesus. She did not let herself be deterred by the brutality of the soldiers or the fear which gripped the disciples. She is the image of that good woman, who, amid turmoil and dismay, shows the courage born of goodness and does not allow her heart to be bewildered. "Blessed are the pure in heart", the Lord had said in his Sermon on the Mount, "for they shall see God" (Mt 5:8). At first, Veronica saw only a buffeted and pain-filled face. Yet her act of love impressed the true image of Jesus on her heart: on his human face, bloodied and bruised, she saw the face of God and his goodness, which accompanies us even in our deepest sorrows. Only with the heart can we see Jesus. Only love purifies us and gives us the ability to see. Only love enables us to recognize the God who is love itself.
PRAYER
Lord, grant us restless hearts, hearts which seek your face. Keep us from the blindness of heart which sees only the surface of things. Give us the simplicity and purity which allow us to recognize your presence in the world. When we are not able to accomplish great things, grant us the courage which is born of humility and goodness. Impress your face on our hearts. May we encounter you along the way and show your image to the world.
* * * * * * * * * * *
SEVENTH STATIONJesus falls for the second time
From the Book of Lamentations. 3:1-2,9,16
I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of his wrath; he has driven and brought me into darkness without any light. He has blocked my way with hewn stones, he has made my paths crooked. He has made my teeth grind on gravel, and made me cower in ashes.
MEDITATION
The tradition that Jesus fell three times beneath the weight of the Cross evokes the fall of Adam ­ the state of fallen humanity ­ and the mystery of Jesus' own sharing in our fall. Throughout history the fall of man constantly takes on new forms. In his First Letter, Saint John speaks of a threefold fall: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life. He thus interprets the fall of man and humanity against the backdrop of the vices of his own time, with all its excesses and perversions. But we can also think, in more recent times, of how a Christianity which has grown weary of faith has abandoned the Lord: the great ideologies, and the banal existence of those who, no longer believing in anything, simply drift through life, have built a new and worse paganism, which in its attempt to do away with God once and for all, have ended up doing away with man. And so man lies fallen in the dust. The Lord bears this burden and falls, over and over again, in order to meet us. He gazes on us, he touches our hearts; he falls in order to raise us up.

PRAYER
Lord Jesus Christ, you have borne all our burdens and you continue to carry us. Our weight has made you fall. Lift us up, for by ourselves we cannot rise from the dust. Free us from the bonds of lust. In place of a heart of stone, give us a heart of flesh, a heart capable of seeing. Lay low the power of ideologies, so that all may see that they are a web of lies. Do not let the wall of materialism become insurmountable. Make us aware of your presence. Keep us sober and vigilant, capable of resisting the forces of evil. Help us to recognize the spiritual and material needs of others, and to give them the help they need. Lift us up, so that we may lift others up. Give us hope at every moment of darkness, so that we may bring your hope to the world.
* * * * * * * * * * *
EIGHTH STATIONJesus meets the women of Jerusalem who weep for him
From the Gospel according to Luke. 23:28-31
Jesus turning to them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us'; and to the hills, 'Cover us'. For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?"
MEDITATION
Hearing Jesus reproach the women of Jerusalem who follow him and weep for him ought to make us reflect. How should we understand his words? Are they not directed at a piety which is purely sentimental, one which fails to lead to conversion and living faith? It is no use to lament the sufferings of this world if our life goes on as usual. And so the Lord warns us of the danger in which we find ourselves. He shows us both the seriousness of sin and the seriousness of judgment. Can it be that, despite all our expressions of consternation in the face of evil and innocent suffering, we are all too prepared to trivialize the mystery of evil? Have we accepted only the gentleness and love of God and Jesus, and quietly set aside the word of judgment? "How can God be so concerned with our weaknesses?", we say. "We are only human!" Yet as we contemplate the sufferings of the Son, we see more clearly the seriousness of sin, and how it needs to be fully atoned if it is to be overcome. Before the image of the suffering Lord, evil can no longer be trivialized. To us too, he says: "Do not weep for me, weep for yourselves... if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?".
PRAYER
Lord, to the weeping women you spoke of repentance and the Day of Judgment, when all of us will stand before your face: before you, the Judge of the world. You call us to leave behind the trivialization of evil, which salves our consciences and allows us to carry on as before. You show us the seriousness of our responsibility, the danger of our being found guilty and without excuse on the Day of Judgment. Grant that we may not simply walk at your side, with nothing to offer other than compassionate words. Convert us and give us new life. Grant that in the end we will not be dry wood, but living branches in you, the true vine, bearing fruit for eternal life (cf. Jn 15:1-10).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NINTH STATIONJesus falls for the third time
From the Book of Lamentations. 3:27-32
It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. Let him sit alone in silence when he has laid it on him; let him put his mouth in the dust - there may yet be hope; let him give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults. For the Lord will not cast off for ever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion, according to the abundance of his steadfast love.
MEDITATION
What can the third fall of Jesus under the Cross say to us? We have considered the fall of man in general, and the falling of many Christians away from Christ and into a godless secularism. Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall! All this is present in his Passion. His betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his Body and Blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart. We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison ­ Lord, save us (cf. Mt 8: 25).
PRAYER
Lord, your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of your Church throw us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray you time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures. Have mercy on your Church; within her too, Adam continues to fall. When we fall, we drag you down to earth, and Satan laughs, for he hopes that you will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of your Church, you will remain prostrate and overpowered. But you will rise again. You stood up, you arose and you can also raise us up. Save and sanctify your Church. Save and sanctify us all.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
TENTH STATIONJesus is stripped of his garments
From the Gospel according to Matthew. 27:33-36
And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull), they offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; then they sat down and kept watch over him there.
MEDITATION
Jesus is stripped of his garments. Clothing gives a man his social position; it gives him his place in society, it makes him someone. His public stripping means that Jesus is no longer anything at all, he is simply an outcast, despised by all alike. The moment of the stripping reminds us of the expulsion from Paradise: God's splendor has fallen away from man, who now stands naked and exposed, unclad and ashamed. And so Jesus once more takes on the condition of fallen man. Stripped of his garments, he reminds us that we have all lost the "first garment" that is God's splendor. At the foot of the Cross, the soldiers draw lots to divide his paltry possessions, his clothes. The Evangelists describe the scene with words drawn from Psalm 22:19; by doing so they tell us the same thing that Jesus would tell his disciples on the road to Emmaus: that everything takes place "according to the Scriptures". Nothing is mere coincidence; everything that happens is contained in the Word of God and sustained by his divine plan. The Lord passes through all the stages and steps of man's fall from grace, yet each of these steps, for all its bitterness, becomes a step towards our redemption: this is how he carries home the lost sheep. Let us not forget that John says that lots were drawn for Jesus' tunic, "woven without seam from top to bottom" (Jn 19:23). We may consider this as a reference to the High Priest's robe, which was "woven from a single thread", without stitching (Fl. Josephus, a III, 161). For he, the Crucified One, is the true High Priest.
PRAYER
Lord Jesus, you were stripped of your garments, exposed to shame, cast out of society. You took upon yourself the shame of Adam, and you healed it. You also take upon yourself the sufferings and the needs of the poor, the outcasts of our world. And in this very way you fulfill the words of the prophets. This is how you bring meaning into apparent meaninglessness. This is how you make us realize that your Father holds you, us, and the whole world in his hands. Give us a profound respect for man at every stage of his existence, and in all the situations in which we encounter him. Clothe us in the light of your grace.
ELEVENTH STATIONJesus is nailed to the Cross
From the Gospel according to Matthew 27:37-42
And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews". Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right hand and one on the left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the Cross". So also the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the Cross and we will believe in him".
MEDITATION
Jesus is nailed to the Cross. The shroud of Turin gives us an idea of the unbelievable cruelty of this procedure. Jesus does not drink the numbing gall offered to him: he deliberately takes upon himself all the pain of the Crucifixion. His whole body is racked; the words of the Psalm have come to pass: "But I am a worm and no man, scorned by men, rejected by the people" (Ps 22:7). "As one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised... surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Is 53:3f.). Let us halt before this image of pain, before the suffering Son of God. Let us look upon him at times of presumptuousness and pleasure, in order to learn to respect limits and to see the superficiality of all merely material goods. Let us look upon him at times of trial and tribulation, and realize that it is then that we are closest to God. Let us try to see his face in the people we might look down upon. As we stand before the condemned Lord, who did not use his power to come down from the Cross, but endured its suffering to the end, another thought comes to mind. Ignatius of Antioch, a prisoner in chains for his faith in the Lord, praised the Christians of Smyrna for their invincible faith: he says that they were, so to speak, nailed with flesh and blood to the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:1). Let us nail ourselves to him, resisting the temptation to stand apart, or to join others in mocking him.
PRAYER
Lord Jesus Christ, you let yourself be nailed to the Cross, accepting the terrible cruelty of this suffering, the destruction of your body and your dignity. You allowed yourself to be nailed fast; you did not try to escape or to lessen your suffering. May we never flee from what we are called to do. Help us to remain faithful to you. Help us to unmask the false freedom which would distance us from you. Help us to accept your "binding" freedom, and, "bound" fast to you, to discover true freedom.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

TWELFTH STATIONJesus dies on the Cross
From the Gospel according to John 19:19-20
Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the Cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews". Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.
From the Gospel according to Matthew 27:45-50,54
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" That is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling Elijah". And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him". And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit". When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"
MEDITATION
In Greek and Latin, the two international languages of the time, and in Hebrew, the language of the Chosen People, a sign stood above the Cross of Jesus, indicating who he was: the King of the Jews, the promised Son of David. Pilate, the unjust judge, became a prophet despite himself. The kingship of Jesus was proclaimed before all the world. Jesus himself had not accepted the title "Messiah", because it would have suggested a mistaken, human idea of power and deliverance. Yet now the title can remain publicly displayed above the Crucified Christ. He is indeed the king of the world. Now he is truly "lifted up". In sinking to the depths he rose to the heights. Now he has radically fulfilled the commandment of love, he has completed the offering of himself, and in this way he is now the revelation of the true God, the God who is love. Now we know who God is. Now we know what true kingship is. Jesus prays Psalm 22, which begins with the words: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Ps 22:2). He takes to himself the whole suffering people of Israel, all of suffering humanity, the drama of God's darkness, and he makes God present in the very place where he seems definitively vanquished and absent. The Cross of Jesus is a cosmic event. The world is darkened, when the Son of God is given up to death. The earth trembles. And on the Cross, the Church of the Gentiles is born. The Roman centurion understands this, and acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God. From the Cross he triumphs ­ ever anew.
PRAYER
Lord Jesus Christ, at the hour of your death the sun was darkened. Ever anew you are being nailed to the Cross. At this present hour of history we are living in God's darkness. Through your great sufferings and the wickedness of men, the face of God, your face, seems obscured, unrecognizable. And yet, on the Cross, you have revealed yourself. Precisely by being the one who suffers and loves, you are exalted. From the Cross on high you have triumphed. Help us to recognize your face at this hour of darkness and tribulation. Help us to believe in you and to follow you in our hour of darkness and need. Show yourself once more to the world at this hour. Reveal to us your salvation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
THIRTEENTH STATIONJesus is taken down from the Cross and given to his Mother
From the Gospel according to Matthew 27:54-55
When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!" There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
MEDITATION
Jesus is dead. From his heart, pierced by the lance of the Roman soldier, flow blood and water: a mysterious image of the stream of the sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, by which the Church is constantly reborn from the opened heart of the Lord. Jesus' legs are not broken, like those of the two men crucified with him. He is thus revealed as the true Paschal lamb, not one of whose bones must be broken (cf. Es 12:46). And now, at the end of his sufferings, it is clear that, for all the dismay which filled men's hearts, for all the power of hatred and cowardice, he was never alone. There are faithful ones who remain with him. Under the Cross stand Mary, his Mother, the sister of his Mother, Mary, Mary Magdalen and the disciple whom he loved. A wealthy man, Joseph of Arimathea, appears on the scene: a rich man is able to pass through the eye of a needle, for God has given him the grace. He buries Jesus in his own empty tomb, in a garden. At Jesus' burial, the cemetery becomes a garden, the garden from which Adam was cast out when he abandoned the fullness of life, his Creator. The garden tomb symbolizes that the dominion of death is about to end. A member of the Sanhedrin also comes along, Nicodemus, to whom Jesus had proclaimed the mystery of rebirth by water and the Spirit. Even in the Sanhedrin, which decreed his death, there is a believer, someone who knows and recognizes Jesus after his death. In this hour of immense grief, of darkness and despair, the light of hope is mysteriously present. The hidden God continues to be the God of life, ever near. Even in the night of death, the Lord continues to be our Lord and Savior. The Church of Jesus Christ, his new family, begins to take shape.
PRAYER
Lord, you descended into the darkness of death. But your body is placed in good hands and wrapped in a white shroud (Mt 27:59). Faith has not completely died; the sun has not completely set. How often does it appear that you are asleep? How easy it is for us to step back and say to ourselves: "God is dead". In the hour of darkness, help us to know that you are still there. Do not abandon us when we are tempted to lose heart. Help us not to leave you alone. Give us the fidelity to withstand moments of confusion and a love ready to embrace you in your utter helplessness, like your Mother, who once more holds you to her breast. Help us, the poor and rich, simple and learned, to look beyond all our fears and prejudices, and to offer you our abilities, our hearts and our time, and thus to prepare a garden for the Resurrection.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FOURTEENTH STATIONJesus is laid in the tomb
From the Gospel according to Matthew 27:59-61
Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulcher.
MEDITATION
Jesus, disgraced and mistreated, is honorably buried in a new tomb. Nicodemus brings a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight, which gives off a precious scent. In the Son's self-offering, as at his anointing in Bethany, we see an "excess" which evokes God's generous and superabundant love. God offers himself unstintingly. If God's measure is superabundance, then we for our part should consider nothing too much for God. This is the teaching of Jesus himself, in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:20). But we should also remember the words of Saint Paul, who says that God "through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ everywhere. We are the aroma of Christ" (2 Cor 2:14ff.). Amid the decay of ideologies, our faith needs once more to be the fragrance which returns us to the path of life. At the very moment of his burial, Jesus' words are fulfilled: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (Jn 12:24). Jesus is the grain of wheat which dies. From that lifeless grain of wheat comes forth the great multiplication of bread which will endure until the end of the world. Jesus is the bread of life which can satisfy superabundantly the hunger of all humanity and provide its deepest nourishment. Through his Cross and Resurrection, the eternal Word of God became flesh and bread for us. The mystery of the Eucharist already shines forth in the burial of Jesus.
PRAYER
Lord Jesus Christ, in your burial you have taken on the death of the grain of wheat. You have become the lifeless grain of wheat which produces abundant fruit for every age and for all eternity. From the tomb shines forth in every generation the promise of the grain of wheat which gives rise to the true manna, the Bread of Life, in which you offer us your very self. The eternal Word, through his Incarnation and death, has become a Word which is close to us: you put yourself into our hands and into our hearts, so that your word can grow within us and bear fruit. Through the death of the grain of wheat you give us yourself, so that we too can dare to lose our life in order to find it, so that we too can trust the promise of the grain of wheat. Help us grow in love and veneration for your Eucharistic mystery ­ to make you, the Bread of heaven, the source of our life. Help us to become your "fragrance", and to make known in this world the mysterious traces of your life. Like the grain of wheat which rises from the earth, putting forth its stalk and then its ear, you could not remain enclosed in the tomb: the tomb is empty because he ­ the Father ­ "did not abandon you to the nether world, nor let your flesh see corruption" (Acts 2:31; Ps 16:10 LXX). No, you did not see corruption. You have risen, and have made a place for our transfigured flesh in the very heart of God. Help us to rejoice in this hope and bring it joyfully to the world. Help us to become witnesses of your resurrection.

[1] J. Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today,” Lecture delivered on 27 January 1988 at Saint Peter’s Church in New York, New York.
[2] J. Ratzinger, “On the Way to Jesus Christ,” Ignatius (2005) 7-8.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Marvin R. O’Connell, “Critics on Trial,” CUA Press (1994) 290-291.
[5] Ibid
[6] J. Ratzinger, “Introduction to Christianity” Ignatius (1990) 151-153.
[7] Ibid

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Benedict XVI's Goal: Convincing About the Two Human Levels of Experience: Faith (Relation) and Reason (Analysis) [Secundum: Dave Barry]


What Women Don't Understand About Guys



Contrary to what many women believe, it's easy to develop a long-term, intimate and mutually fulfilling relationship with a guy. Of course, this guy has to be a Labrador Retriever. With human guys, it's extremely difficult. This is because guys don't really grasp what women mean by the term relationship.
Let's say a guy named Roger asks a woman named Elaine out to a movie. She accepts; they have a pretty good time. A few nights later, he asks her out to dinner, and again they enjoy themselves. They continue to see each other regularly, and soon neither is seeing anybody else.
Then one evening, when they're driving home, a thought occurs to Elaine. She says: "Do you realize that we've been seeing each other for exactly six months?"
Silence fills the car. To Elaine, it seems like a very loud silence. She thinks to herself, "Geez, I wonder if it bothers him that I said that. Maybe he feels confined by our relationship. Maybe he thinks that I'm trying to push him into some kind of obligation."
And Roger is thinking: "Gosh. Six Months."
And Elaine is thinking: "But hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of relationship either. Are we heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a lifetime together? Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I really know this person?"
And Roger is thinking: "So that means it was... let's see... February when we started going out, which was right after I had the car at the dealer's, which means... lemme check the odometer... Whoa! I am way overdue for an oil change here."
And Elaine is thinking: "He's upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe I'm reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our relationship—more intimacy, more commitment. Maybe he senses my reservations. Yes, that's it. He's afraid of being rejected."
And Roger is thinking: "I'm going to have them look at the transmission again. I don't care what those morons say—it's still not shifting right. And they better not try to blame it on the cold weather this time. It's 87 degrees out, and this thing is shifting like a garbage truck, and I paid those incompetent, thieving cretins six hundred dollars!"
And Elaine is thinking: "He's angry, and I don't blame him. I'd be angry too. I feel so guilty, putting him through this, but I can't help the way I feel. I'm just not sure."
And Roger is thinking: "They'll probably say it's only a 90-day warranty. That's what they're gonna say. "
And Elaine is thinking: "Maybe I'm too idealistic, waiting for a knight to come riding up on his white horse, when I'm sitting next to a perfectly good person who's in pain because of my self-centered, schoolgirl fantasy."
And Roger is thinking: "Warranty? I'll give them a warranty!"
"Roger," Elaine says aloud.
"What?" says Roger.
"I'm such a fool," Elaine says, sobbing. "I mean, I know there's no knight and there's no horse."
"There's no horse?" says Roger.
"You think I'm a fool, don't you?" says Elaine.
"No!" Roger says, glad to know the correct answer.
"It's just that... I need some time," Elaine says.
There is a 15-second pause while Roger tries to come up with a safe response. "Yes," he finally says.
Elaine, deeply moved, touches his hand. "Oh, Roger, do you really feel that way?"
"What way?" says Roger.
"That way about time," Elaine says.
"Oh," says Roger, "Yes."
Elaine gazes deeply into his eyes, causing him to become very nervous about what she might say next, especially if it involves a horse. At last, she says, "Thank You, Roger."
"Thank you," he responds.
Then he takes her home, and she lies on her bed, a conflicted soul weeping until dawn, whereas when Roger gets back to his place, he opens a bag of chips, turns on the TV and immediately becomes deeply involved in a rerun of a tennis match between two Czech players he never heard of. A tiny voice in his mind tells him that something major was going on back there in the car, but he figures it's better not to think about it.
The next day, Elaine will call her closest friend, and they will talk for six straight hours. In painstaking detail, they will analyze everything she said and everything he said. They will continue to discuss this subject for weeks, never reaching any definite conclusions but never getting bored with it either.
Meanwhile, Roger, playing racquetball one day with a friend of his and Elaine's will pause just before serving and ask, "Norm, did Elaine ever own a horse?"
We're not talking about different wavelengths here. We're talking about completely different planets in completely different solar systems. Elaine cannot communicate meaningfully with Roger because the sum total of his thinking about relationships is Huh?
He has a guy brain, basically an analytical problem-solving organ. It's not comfortable with nebulous concepts such as love, need and trust. If the guy brain has to form an opinion about another person, it prefers to base it on facts, such as his or her earned-run average.
Women have trouble accepting this. They are convinced that guys must spend a certain amount of time thinking about the relationship. How could a guy see another human being day after day, night after night, and not be thinking about the relationship? This is what women figure.
They are wrong. A guy in a relationship is like an ant standing on top of a truck tire. The ant is aware that something large is there, but he cannot even dimly comprehend what it is. And if the truck starts moving and the tire starts to roll, the ant will sense that something important is happening, but right up until he rolls to the bottom and is squashed, the only thought in his tiny brain will be Huh?
Thus the No. 1 tip for women to remember is never assume the guy understands that you and he have a relationship. You have to plant the idea in his brain by constantly making subtle references to it, such as:
"Roger, would you mind passing me the sugar, inasmuch as we have a relationship?"
"Wake up, Roger! There's a prowler in the den and we have a relationship! You and I do, I mean."
"Good news, Roger! The doctor says we're going to have our fourth child—another indication that we have a relationship!"
"Roger, inasmuch as this plane is crashing and we have only a minute to live, I want you to know that we've had a wonderful 53 years of marriage together, which clearly constitutes a relationship."

Never let up, women. Pound away relentlessly at this concept, and eventually it will start to penetrate the guy's brain. Someday he might even start thinking about it on his own. He'll be talking with some other guys about women, and out of the blue, he'll say, "Elaine and I, we have, ummm... We have, ahhh... We have this thing."
And he will sincerely mean it.

Everything is Permitted; Nothing is Forgiven

I was just musing about the Spitzer scandal. The media universally displays and, therefore (because of its extremely delicate and volatile nature) entices promiscuous sex. Contraception is the given and presumed life style. Abstinence, chastity and the alternative meaning of truly “responsible sex” (NFP) is odd and now countercultural.

However, any dereliction in this direction is unforgiven. How odd! It makes me think of Satan present at my particular judgment at death. He will accuse me of my certainly committed sins and faults which he has aided and abetted. I think of the self-righteous and dark humor to which we subject the ex-governor.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Email Exchange On "Knowing Christ" (for Karol Wojtyla)

For anyone interested in the interpretation of the mind of John Paul II, and Cardinal Ratzinger, I offer the following email exchange:

Party A: “Pardon me if I steer things back toward Wojtyla, which is what I know best. Your point recalls for me Wojtyla's first dissertation, on John of the Cross, in which through the gift of faith a likeness or species is given to the mind. But I think the gift of self is not reducible to faith, for Wojtyla. Rather, the gift of self is an act of love. Simply put, Wojtyla's gift of self consists in aligning one's will with that of the beloved (again, this is simply John of the Cross with some philosophical development). It is to love the end of the other as one's own end. In theology, wouldn't one have to distinguish between faith that saves and faith that does not, in terms of a gift of self? Even the devils tremble and believe. Wouldn't you say, then, that the act of self-gift is a response not to faith, but to Love (known and recognized through assent to the gift of faith)? In the end, there will be no faith, but there will still be self-gift. Just to play devil's advocate, if we remember that our reason is fallen, then faith is a gift that not only lifts us above our nature, but also perfects our nature. Even some of the truths revealed by Christ are truths that reason could, in theory, have accessed -- after a long time, with admixture of error, and only by a few. In faith, these natural truths are able, in theory, to be grasped at once, with certainty, and by all who assent to the faith. In that sense, how could one hold anything other than that faith helps reason to be more fully itself? What is actually new here? A few more questions, just out of curiosity: When you speak of sensible perception and concepts, are you distinguishing in any way between external and internal senses? Or simply excluding sense-knowledge as such? Also, reason is crafted for being . . . as true, not for being as such. We can speak of being as such, but we only know it as true, just as we love it as good. Or are you saying that reason illuminated by faith moves beyond the transcendental properties to a direct and in some ways immediate contemplation of being itself? I.e., that the intellect with faith is capable of knowing being as such under its own light, and not under the light of truth? And where do you distinguish between created and Uncreated grace in this picture? Faith is not, in and of itself, necessarily sanctifying. A soul in mortal sin may also maintain the gift of faith. Such a soul is not engaged in self-gift. If such a soul is in contact with reality without mediation of sensible perception and concepts, what does it receive? Is it a species impressa? Expressa? (This takes us back into the territory of John of the Cross). And is this reality that is the object of faith only God himself, or does one receive as well a renewed knowledge of all created being(s)? (And if the latter, does one then fall into immanentism?) In your own estimation, are you basically assuming a Thomistic vision of faith, and/or attempting to move beyond it to speak of faith-as-experience? I think I have an idea of where you are going on each of these points; I would just be interested in seeing how you would answer them. If you have time. I apologize if my questions display a lack of understanding of your position.


* * * * * * * * * *


My response: [I don't do justice to all the dimension of the question. However, I wanted to strike hard at the overall point of Wojtyla's thesis on faith in St. John of the Cross, namely, that it is not a facultative knowledge by formation of "species" (likenesses or "signs" that are called commonly called "concepts") but "Knowledge" as "Consciousness." This distinction between consciousness and concept is huge in the understanding of Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is, instead of "species" or concepts, the very "I" of the believer as self-gift is the likeness, and therefore "identity" of knower and known].

"I think we are still two distinct sides of the river (and I may be on the wrong side). However: 1) I understand the gift of self to be the meaning of love, i.e. "I - gift." I don't understand the meaning of love in Wojtyla or Ratzinger to be the operation of a faculty that is an accident of substance (as essential or necessary as that accident may be denominated). Case in point is Wojtyla's thesis on St. John of the Cross. The burden of the thesis is to show that there is no proportionate means (cf. p. 238) between the divine essence and the human creature. Hence, there is no concept or intentional species (242) providing a "likeness." Without "likeness," there is no knowledge since knowledge means "being-one-with-another." Intellegere" = ab intus legere: to read another from within oneself.

Faith is not "intentional" knowing. By faith, the intellect "attains to the 'substance as understood'" and therefore "knows" the Person of the Word as "I Am:" "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt. 16, 16). But this "knowledge" is the experience of the self as gift responding to the Self-Gift that is Christ revealing Himself. This experience of self (I can only experience myself as "I") is then "transferred" to the Person of Christ. For "transference" see Wojtyla's "Participation or Alienation?" where he remarks: "For I have no other access to another human being as an I except through my own I" (Person and Community 204). This is also pure Ratzinger in "Behold the Pierced One" Thesis 3, 25-27, which he calls "theological epistemology."

Therefore, the "substance" is attained but not by species. "Psychologically the intellect lacks that 'substance as understood.' It does not have a clear apprehension of the divine essence, and hence it lacks an intentional species of the divine. Psychologically speaking, therefore, faith is not knowledge, nor science, nor understanding - all of which signify for St. John of the Cross the full possession of an intentional species - but it is the assent of the intellect to revealed truths. Psychologically, this is most certain" (247).

Then, the main point: "Love causes likeness. This means that the virtue of charity has an essential likeness to divinity not only in the ontological order, but it can produce and increase the likeness in the psychological order as well, causing a likeness between the lover and the beloved. And since the supernatural union is a union of likeness, tending even to the participated transformation of the lover into the Beloved, it is evident that the virtue that effects this transformation is the virtue of charity. Its primary operation is centered in the will, in which charity is rooted, but it likewise extends it influence to the other faculties, on which it impresses the psychological likeness of the Beloved" (249).

The point is that the "I" itself of the believer is the proportionate means of likeness with the divinity. I have found that Wojtyla uses the phrase "gift of self" for the first time on p. 96 of "Love and Responsibility." The isolation of the "I" as being and the experience thereof was the onus of "The Acting Person" coming in the late 60's. His doctrinal resume reads: "The possible intellect enjoys fruition in the loving 'touch' of the divine substance, and now the intellect has truly attained to the 'substance as understood' - the substance, because of the purity of the intellect, and understood, not through any intentional species of the divine, but through the redundance of love - understood through love. This is the height of the mystical experience possible in this life under the conditions of the obscurity of faith. This is also the high point of the union of the intellect with God, not only in the metaphysical sense, but in the psychological sense as well" 260.

The love Wojtyla is talking about is totally beyond the will as a faculty. He shows this in "The Personal Structure of Self-Determination" (Person and Community 190): "When I say that he will is the power of self-determination, I do not have in mind the will all alone, in some sort of methodical isolation intended to disclose the will's own dynamism. Rather, I necessarily have in mind here the whole person. Self-determination takes place through acts of will, through this central power of the human soul. And yet self-determination is not identical with th3ese acts in any of their forms, since it is a property of the person as such.... This property is realized through the will, which is an accident. Self-determination - or, in other words, freedom - is not limited to the accidental dimension, but belongs to the substantial dimension of to the person: it is the person's freedom, and not just the will's freedom... (190).

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Magisterium and "A Theology of the Body" (TOB)

Some have raised doubts concerning the magisterial authority of “A Theology of the Body” (TOB). It was proposed that only infallible statements of the Pope must be held as valid and binding on conscience as Catholic Faith. All other pontifical statements must be evaluated for their rational cogency and accepted or rejected on the logical merits of argument. Since the TOB was not declared infallible as ex cathedra, it may be considered a “reading” of his private theological work which was completed before his ascending to the papacy.

Charles Curran
has written that TOB belongs to “a particular genre of teaching – the speeches given at the weekly audiences…. As such, talks to general audiences have little or no authoritative character. They are often just greetings to the various people in attendance and exhortations… These talks… have little or no importance from the point of view of authoritative teaching.”[1]



Revelation Is a Person



The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation states unambiguously that the Person of Jesus Christ is the full and complete revelation of God the Father. It proclaims: “After God had spoken many times and in various vays through the prophets, ‘in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son’ (Heb. 1, 1-2). For he sent his Son, the eternal Word who enlightens all men, to dwell among men and to tell them about the inner life of God… As a result, he himself – to see whom is to see the Father (cf. Jn. 14, 9) – completed and perfected Revelation and confirmed it with divine guarantees. He did this by the total fact of his presence and self-manifestation.”



Faith: Not Reducible to Dogmatic Propositions:
Not Even Infallible Ones



The immediate goal is to affirm that the faith is not reducible to propositional knowing, but is before all else a gift of the entire self to the revealing Christ such that its natural denouement is martyrdom. Vatican II's Dei Verbum says: “‘The obedience of faith’ (Rom. 16, 26; cf. Rom. 1, 5; 2 Cor. 10, 5-6) must be given to God as he reveals himself. By faith man freely commits his entire self to God, [my underline] making ‘the full submission of his intellect and will to God who reveals,’ and willingly assenting to the Revelation given by him.”[2] Concerning the totality of self-gift to death, “Veritatis Splendor” says: “Through the moral life, faith becomes ‘confession,’ not only before God but also before men: it becomes witness. ‘You are the light of the world,’ said Jesus; ‘a city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven’ (Mt. 5, 14-16). These works are above all those of charity (cf. Mt. 25, 31-46) and of authentic freedom which is manifested and lived in the gift of self, even to the total gift of self, like that of Jesus, who on the Cross ‘loved the Church and gave himself up for her’ (Eph. 5, 25).”[3]



Two Complementary Experiences of Faith




Joseph Ratzinger recalls the discrepancy he discovered in preparing his thesis in the 1950s concerning faith today, and faith in the 13th century. He relates: “I stumbled upon the unexpected fact that in that period it had not occurred to anyone to characterize the Bible as ‘revelation.’ Nor was the term ‘source’ applied to it. This is not to say that he Bible was held in less esteem then than it is today. Quite the contrary: the respect for it was much more unconditional, and it was clear that theology, by right, can and should be nothing other than the interpretation of Scripture. But their concept of the harmony between what is written and what is lived out was different from contemporary notions. Therefore the term ‘revelation’ was applied only, on the one hand, to that ineffable act which can never be adequately expressed in human words, in which God makes himself known to his creature, and, on the other hand, to act of reception in which this gracious condescension [Zuwendung] of God dawns [consciousness] upon man and becomes revelation. Everything that can be grasped in words, and thus Scripture, too, is then testimony to that revelation but is not revelation itself.”[4]

Ratzinger then explains that Scripture became disengaged from the personal experience of God as “act” in the “event” of Jesus Christ (which is its real “source”) and morphed into becoming a historically probable text to be examined by the methodology of empirical science. In this way, Scripture became merely a historical “source” to find out about the supernatural instead being the “precipitate (or product) of a much greater, perpetually inexhaustible process of revelation.”[5] He then goes on to insist that Scripture – or any words or propositions for that matter - is not in itself revelation (even when the tag of infallibility is attached to them).

So also the texts of the Magisterium that are ordinary and not extraordinary as qualified by the note of infallibility, as in the case of TOB. The texts of the TOB and the theological anthropology found therein are anchored in the faith-consciousness of the Church that depends on the two fundamental foci of the Trinity and Christology (to be presented below). To trivialize them as John Paul II’s private lucubrations that stand on their own rational merits after presenting them for five yours as ordinary magisterium with the characteristics calling for the adherence of mind and will, is not understand the meaning of revelation, faith, Church and Magisterium.



Revelation and Faith Work on Two Levels: Sense and Self



The experience through the senses gives “conceptual” and propositional knowledge. If those concepts or propositions were Magisterial, one would have to know if they were pronounced de fide, de fide definite, sententia communis, etc.[6] The experience of the self as gift gives another kind of knowing that is “consciousness.” Benedict XVI makes this distinction readily available by basing it on the Gospel narrative of the vocation of the apostle Nathaniel.

Case in Point: Benedict’s Wednesday audience September 6, 2006 deals with the vocation of the apostle Nathanael (Bartholomew). We are told that Nathanael heard about Jesus from the apostle Philip as originating in Nazareth. Nathanael, in his sensible and historical perception of the Nazareth of Israel, cannot believe that the Messias could come from that particular place. He is then told: “Come and see.” That is, come and experience for yourself. Work on a different level of experience, and you will come to a different kind of knowledge. This is Benedict’s teaching:
“Philip told this Nathanael that he had found "him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (Jn 1: 45). As we know, Nathanael's retort was rather strongly prejudiced: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (Jn 1: 46). In its own way, this form of protestation is important for us. Indeed, it makes us see that according to Judaic expectations the Messiah could not come from such an obscure village as, precisely, Nazareth (see also Jn 7: 42).
“But at the same time Nathanael's protest highlights God's freedom, which baffles our expectations by causing him to be found in the very place where we least expect him [the ordinary commonplace: the secular]. Moreover, we actually know that Jesus was not exclusively "from Nazareth" but was born in Bethlehem (cf. Mt 2: 1; Lk 2: 4) and came ultimately from Heaven, from the Father who is in Heaven.
“Nathanael's reaction suggests another thought to us: in our relationship with Jesus we must not be satisfied with words alone. In his answer, Philip offers Nathanael a meaningful invitation: "Come and see!" (Jn 1: 46). Our knowledge of Jesus needs above all a first-hand experience: someone else's testimony is of course important, for normally the whole of our Christian life begins with the proclamation handed down to us by one or more witnesses.
“However, we ourselves must then be personally involved in a close and deep relationship with Jesus; in a similar way, when the Samaritans had heard the testimony of their fellow citizen whom Jesus had met at Jacob's well, they wanted to talk to him directly, and after this conversation they told the woman: "It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world" (Jn 4: 42).
“Returning to the scene of Nathanael's vocation, the Evangelist tells us that when Jesus sees Nathanael approaching, he exclaims: "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!" (Jn 1: 47). This is praise reminiscent of the text of a Psalm: "Blessed is the man... in whose spirit there is no deceit" (32[31]: 2), but provokes the curiosity of Nathanael who answers in amazement: "How do you know me?" (Jn 1: 48).
Jesus' reply cannot immediately be understood. He says: "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you" (Jn 1: 48). We do not know what had happened under this fig tree. It is obvious that it had to do with a decisive moment in Nathanael's life.
“His heart is moved by Jesus' words, he feels understood and he understands:
"This man knows everything about me, he knows and is familiar with the road of life; I can truly trust this man". And so he answers with a clear and beautiful confession of faith: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (Jn 1: 49). In this confession is conveyed a first important step in the journey of attachment to Jesus.
“Nathanael's words shed light on a twofold, complementary aspect of Jesus' identity: he is recognized both in his special relationship with God the Father, of whom he is the Only-begotten Son, and in his relationship with the People of Israel, of whom he is the declared King, precisely the description of the awaited Messiah. We must never lose sight of either of these two elements because if we only proclaim Jesus' heavenly dimension, we risk making him an ethereal and evanescent being; and if, on the contrary, we recognize only his concrete place in history, we end by neglecting the divine dimension that properly qualifies him.”
Note that for the complete grasp of Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus the Christ, there must be two levels of experience that issue into two hierarchical ways of knowing: the one is sensible empirical by hearing and sight that issues on the level of concept and proposition; the other is the experience of actually “going to see and hear for oneself” which is already an act of self-transcendence toward the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. Here one experiences both self and Christ in a dialogic encounter, from which issues the “That’s it. That is what my nature points to and seeks:” "This man knows everything about me, he knows and is familiar with the road of life; I can truly trust this man"…. "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (Jn 1: 49).

Knowledge and Consciousness

Christopher West offers helpful image to distinguish between "knowledge" and "consciousness." If it is raining outside, metaphysical knowledge would accept this as a given - as an objective reality outside oneself and not determined by oneself. But if it is raining, our experience can and should confirm this. Not only could we look outside and see it, but we could step outside and feel it. Applying the image, if the Church's doctrine on faith and morals is true, our experience can and should confirm this. John Paul's goal is to get us to step into the rain, to experience it, get soaked, and to spend our lives joyfully playin g in the rain like a child. Taking this image a step further, we can recognize the need of childlikeness if we are to experience the objective truth as a liberating good ('unless you turn and become like children' - Mt 18, 3). Some might have a (metaphysical) knowledge of the rain, but be at odds with it internally. If such a person fails to become like a child, he will either live in a state of continual resentment toward the rain, or he will deny its existence and create his own illusory world 'unhindered' by 'undersirous' weather. But herein lies the devil's perennal deception - reality (God) is not a hindrance, it is not undesireous. Submission to reality (God) is ultimate freedom and the fulfillment of every desire. But only a "child" can see this. Only children like to play in thie rain." (Theology of the Body Explained" Pauline Books and Media [2003] 44.)


The Anthropology of Christian Faith




Perhaps the best way to begin to understand this is to consider the metaphysical architecture of the human person as image of God. A congenial approach to that is John Henry Newman’s after-dinner toast that he proposed - first to conscience, and then only afterwards to the Pope. Newman remarked: “Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into afterdinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing), I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please, -still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”[7]

Ratzinger comments: “conscience signifies the perceptible and demanding presence of the voice of truth in the subject himself.”[8] And the reason why the subject has a voice of truth in himself is the presence in him of an “ontological tendency” to act some ways, and not in others. He says: “Referring everything back to its simple core, Augustine adds: `We could never judge that one thing is better than another, if a basic understanding of the good had not already been instilled in us.’

“That means that the first so-called ontological level of the phenomenon conscience consists in the fact that something like an original memory of the good and true (both are identical) has been implanted in us, that there is an inner ontological tendency within man, who is created in the likeness of God, toward the divine. From its origin, man’s being resonates with some things and clashes with others. This anamnesis [non-amnesia, non-forgetting = remembering] of the origin, which results from the godlike constitution of our being is not a conceptually articulated knowing, a store of retrievable contents. It is so to speak an inner sense, a capacity to recall, so that the one whom it addresses, if he is not turned in on himself, hears its echo from within. He sees: That’s it! That is what my nature points to and seeks.”[9]

This is an exciting understanding of anthropology because it explains why revelation is not an imposition on freedom of conscience. Since my whole being is yearning for the explanation of who I am, a question that nothing in the world of sensible experience is able to answer, the revelation of Jesus Christ as the absolute, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, is given to me not an external imposition but as the answer to my deepest longing.

Hence, we first toast the yearning that makes the function of the pope meaningful. Without the question, there is not answer: “We can now appreciate Newman’s toast first to conscience and then to the pope. The pope cannot impose commandments on faithful Catholics because he wants to or finds it expedient… The anamnesis instilled in our being needs, one might say, assistance from without so that it can become aware of itself. But this ‘from without’ is not something set in opposition to anamnesis but ordered to it. It has maieutic function, imposes nothing foreign, but brings to fruition what is proper to anamnesis, namely, its interior openness to the truth.”[10] He concludes the point: “The pope does not impose from without. Rather he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it. For this reason the toast to conscience indeed must precede the toast to the Pope because without conscience there would not be a papacy. All power that the papacy has is power of conscience.”[11]




The Authority of Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium




1) Authority: Jesus Christ is the source of authority in the Church since He is its author as Head, and the Church His engendered Body. That authority has been passed on sacramentally in Orders. This is not clericalism since the Church of Peter is at the service of the Church of Mary which has a “functional” priority to it, and this because without Mary, there is no Christ, no Church, and therefore, no Peter. Hence, Christ stands ‘before’ the Church and ‘nourishes and cherishes her’ (Eph. 5, 29), giving his life for her. The priest [and fortiori, the pope] is called to be the living image of Jesus Christ, the spouse of the Church.”[12]

Vatican II’s “Lumen Gentium” says: “Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20, 21[13]). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of te apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God.”[14]

Teaching Authority of the Pope as “Ordinary” Magisterium: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.”[15]

Note that TOB extends over a period of 5 years (Sept 5, 1979 – Nov 28, 1984). Waldstein highlights that “the Pope speaks (1) as pastor of the universal Chruch, (2) in a form of teaching central to his office of bishop, and (3) on a topic central to the faith.”[16] He continues, “All the signs that surround the Wednesday catecheses and that express John Paul II’s intention make it quite clear that John Paul II intended the Wednesday catecheses to be precisely this: catecheses, not the recitation of private theological works…. The first publication of the text was its delivery by the Bishop of Rome as a cycle of catecheses. The original or authentic text of TOB is the Italian text as delivered by Pope John Paul II and published in the official Insegnamenti series.”[17]




Authority and Infallibility




Someone has suggested that “he [the Pope] is not infallible unless he says he is, and secondly that we need to take his teachings according to the level of authority he gives them. As a rough rule of thumb, I would say the universal catechism is of very high authority as the current teaching of the Chruch, the encyclicals and similar official teaching statements are pretty high, and the Wednesday audiences are much less.”

I) This person equates authority with infallibility. As we saw above, the Pope exercises teaching authority above and beyond “infallibility.” Authority is objective binding power based on ontological generation, in this case, Christ and the Church. The hierarchy (Pope and bishops as successors of the apostles) receive and exercise the authority of Christ as communicated through the sacrament of Orders (the laying on of hands). Infallibility is subjective epistemological certitude. The Pope is authoritative insofar as he acts in persona Christi Capitis (in the person of Christ as Head of the Church), i.e. in all that he does and says concerning faith and morals. This is called “ordinary magisterium” and is proposed in Lumen Gentium #25 in the following way: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of t he documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.”

Anyone even casually informed concerning the TOB would have to judge that it falls directly under the rubric of Ordinary Magisterium. To those who pertinaciously insist that the prerogative of infallibility must be attached to a teaching in order to be held, I submit the following remarks of Ratzinger who sees as problematic the statement only “those declarations of the Magisterium issued under the prerogative of infallibility” are acceptable as belonging “to the Church as Christ’s gift.” “Whereas, he goes on, “in all other judgments, the decision would depend on the weight of argument. Initially, this sounds very illuminating, but on close examination it proves to be quite problematical, since it means for all intents and purposes that doctrinal decisions can exist – if at all – solely in situations where the Church may lay claim to infallibility; outside of this sphere, only argument would hold weight. The result is that there could be no certainty shared by the whole community of the Church [underline mine]. It seems to me that we have before us a typically Western restriction and legalistic reduction of the notion of faith [underline mine] which radicalizes certain one-sided developments which begin to make their appearance around the High Middle Ages. A parallel may render the issue clearer:




Parallel between Reducing Authoritative Teaching to the Infallible and Minimalism in Sacramental Validity




“From about the thirteenth century on, interest in the conditions necessary for validity begins to push every other consideration to the margin of sacramental theology. Increasingly, everything ceases to matter except the alternative between valid and invalid. Those elements which do not affect validity appear to be ultimately trivial and interchangeable. Thus, in the case of the Eucharist, for example, this is expressed in an every-stronger fixation on the words of consecration; that which is actually constitutive for validity becomes more and more strictly limited. Meanwhile, the eye for the living structure of the Church’s liturgy is progressively lost. Everything other than the words of consecration appears to be mere ceremony, which happens to have evolved into its present form but in principle might just as easily have been omitted. The characteristic nature of liturgy and the irreplaceable liturgical sense cease to be regarded as important,. Falling as they do outside the narrow limits of a legally defined minimalism…. A good part of the liturgical crisis of the Reformation was due to these constrictive tendencies, which are also the key to understanding the liturgical crisis of the present. If today the entire liturgy has become the playground of private ‘creativity,’ which can romp at will just as long as the words of consecration are kept in place, at work is the same reduction of vision whose origin lies in an erroneous development typical of the West but quite unthinkable in the Eastern Church.

“Let us return from this example to the question before us. As a strictly circumscribed juridical category, infallibility first developed with such rigorous clarity in the Middle Ages, as was demonstrated in the controversy with Küng. We must not conclude, however, that previously everything had been left to argument, that is, to scholarly dispute. No one believed it necessary to reduce the living organism of the doctrine of the faith to the skeleton of infallibility but, on the contrary, saw the essential precisely in the vital figure delineated by the rule of faith and the Creed. Both in doctrine and in liturgy, what really matters is lost when one feels obliged to distill a juristical minimum, beyond which everything is left subject to arbitrariness. Here too we would do well to learn to look once more beyond the fence of Western thinking and to make the attempt to understand anew the original vision which has remained largely intact in the East. Certainly, the knowledge that, under special conditions, the gift of making an infallible pronouncement has been conferred upon the Church cannot and ought not to be withdrawn. This, however, is meaningful only so long as such an act of fixing a limit, an act whose necessity is determined by particular circumstances, is embedded in a vital structure of common certainty in faith. More important than the concept of infallibility is therefore that of auctoritas, which, nevertheless, has well-nigh disappeared from our thought. Yet in reality it can never be wholly absent, because it represents a basic presupposition of community life. What would be the result if from now on the state were to enact as a universally binding norm only what can be considered the infallibly correct solution of a given problem? What would happen if the same procedure were mandatory in the economy, in the school or in the family? The crisis of our social organism may be traced, among other causes, to such tendencies and to the misconstrual of democracy as a constant questioning of everything by everyone. States can continue to exist and to be governed only because laws are still regarded as binding (even though subject to revision) when they are issued by the legitimate authority. This comparison limps, of course, because the common teaching of the Church regards other matters than the state’s legislation. Yet it is able to show that auctoritas cannot be reduced to infallibility. For a community which is based essentially upon common conviction, auctoritas is indispensable where its principal tenets are concerned, and precisely an auctoritas whose word can mature and become purer through living development….

Conclusion… binding authority cannot be the prerogative of infallibility alone. It lies in the living, total form of the faith, which as such must always be capable of new expression lest it disappear in the whirl of changing hypotheses.”[18]




Levels of Acceptance: Hierarchy of Truths vs. Theological Notes




Having confused authority and infallibility, the person demanding infallibility as prerogative of acceptance as faith then proceeds to sort out what teachings he will accept or not accept depending on the degree of “authority” (read infallibility). A reading from the philosophy of the street has been expressed thus: “As a rough rule of thumb, I would say the universal catechism is of very high authority as the current teaching of the Church, encyclicals and similar official teaching statements are pretty high, and the Wednesday audiences are much less.” So much for TOB as Wednesday audiences.

By way of example, I include a sampling from Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” TAN (1974):



“The Theological Grades of Certainty


1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."

2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.


With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.”[19]


The large distinction that is being made here is between the authority of the revealing Christ by the Magisterium, and the infallible, non-fallible certitude of the semantic propositions of faith. Since not all teachings of the Magisterium have the note of infallibility attached, the question arises: What are we to accept?




The Pre-History of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Vis a vis “Theological Notes” or “Degrees of Certainty:




Cardinal Christoph Schönborn O.P.: Editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


“When in 1989 the ‘revised draft’ of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was submitted for consultation to the whole Catholic Episcopate, one of the main criticisms expressed by a whole group of North American theologians was that this project did not respect the principle of the hierarchy of truths.[20] … Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Commission, summarized its reply: “the catechism’s very outline was an expression of the hierarchy of truths: the four pillars of catechesis already articulate it in a systematic way, because what matters regarding the hierarchy of truths is the organic unity of the exposition and not, as some critics appear to think, the various degrees of certainty. It is indeed necessary to distinguish clearly between the hierarchy of truths and the degrees of certainty. The catechism must certainly avoid giving the impression that all the statements it contains have the same degree of certainty. It would be neither practical nor desirable constantly to indicate these degrees (de fide, de fide definita, sententia communis, etc.). Rather, the doctrine’s degree of certainty should be evident from the context from the way it is stated, from the doctrinal authority of the statement.
“More important for catechesis is the principle of the organic unity of the exposition.”
[21]

What is this “organic unity?” Schönborn indicates that there are two centers to this ellipse which is the Catechism. The one is the Trinity. The other is Christology. They are both relational as personalist. He says: “If the divine economy is a sort of leitmotif running through the new catechism, this economy itself gravitates around a center, i.e., the mystery of the Trinity. He quotes CCC #234: “The mystery of the Blessed Trinity is the central mystery of faith and Christian life. It is the mystery of God in himself. Thus it is the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that illumines them. It is the most basic and essential teaching of the ‘hierarchy of truths’ of the faith.”

With regard to the Christological center, he says: “With the Trinitarian mystery there is a second basis to which the other truths of faith must refer in their hierarchy: the mystery of Christ. It can be said that this catechism is profoundly Trinitarian, and it can equally and just as truly be said that it is Christocentric.”
[22]

Schönborn goes on to connect this second focus of the ellipse of the Catechism, Christology, to anthropology as in Gaudium et Spes #22. The Catechism does it in #520, but especially in #521. He quotes John Paul II: “Everything that Christ experienced, we must be able to experience in us. By his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each person” (Gaudium et spes. No. 22, 2). ‘What he lived in his flesh for us and as our model, he communicated to us as members of his body.’”

It is here that TOB fits as essentially connected with the other authoritative (and incidentally, infallible) teachings of the Church. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider a particular case that was surprising to the traditionally formed Catholic readership.


Case in Point:

Image of God: Rational Substance or Relational Person



John Paul II, in the November 14, 1979 Wednesday Address, makes the bold affirmation that “Man becomes the image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion. Right ‘from the beginning,’ he is not only an image in which the solitude of a person who rules the world is reflected, but also, and essentially an image of an inscrutable divine communion of persons.”

What is initially shocking about such an affirmation is the traditionally received teaching on the image of God in Catholic theology as an individual endowed with reason and free will, and hence the ability to subdue material creation. In the received philosophic-theological tradition derived from Hellenism (Aristotle) and Boethius, man was taken to be, in Aristotelian and Boethian terms, an “individual substance of a rational nature.” And it was as such that man was considered to be in the image and after the likeness of God.

English theologian Fergus Kerr O.P. found himself astonished that the “neo-Aristotelian philosophy of the rational animal (if that was what was on offer in the seminary textbooks)… should simply be set aside silently, in favour of this innovatory doctrine of sexual difference as the human creature’s way of imaging God.”[23]

Truth to tell, John Paul II was not building the image of God on the difference of sexuality, but on constitutive relationality which is the metaphysical grounding of sexual differentiation and complementarity. John Paul II’s offering of the image of God as relational, spousal (even in celibacy) and between man and woman, sexual union, is built on the Trinitarian communio.

Kerr went to the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church and did not find explicit references to sexual union as act of imaging God. He relates: “Nowhere in the Catechism… is there anything to suggest that the ‘image of God’ theology in terms of sexual difference even exists, let alone that it is the common teaching of the Catholic Church."

“Something has happened since 1992. The teaching of Pope John Paul II in the Wednesday Catecheses was evidently not ripe for inclusion in the Catechism. In the Congregation document of 2004, however, this entirely new doctrine [sic] has become the only one. Amazingly, with that characteristic Roman Catholic talent for creative amnesia, the imago Dei theology that has held sway for 2,000 years is never even mentioned!” The document to which Kerr refers, “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God” (written and approved over the signature of Cardinal Ratzinger) says the following: “When a man and a woman unite their bodies and spirits in an attitude of total openness and self-giving, they form a new image of God. Their union as one flesh does not correspond simply to a biological necessity, but to the intention of the Creator in leading them to share the happiness of being made in his image.”



A New Perception of the Sacraments


So much is TOB part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church that a new perception of the sacramental system ("realism") is re-invigorated (originating in St. Paul and developed by Augustine [Colman O'Neill "Sacramental Realism" Scepter 1998]) whereby sexual union in matrimony is the primordial sacrament of creation in Christ whereby the supernatural mystery of Trinitarian self-gift that is the divine Persons, now becomes immanent in human flesh, the self-gift of the human body as person.


The Imaging of God as Relation is Embedded in the Hierarchy of Truths Concerning Trinity and Christology




I. Trinity: The Theology of the Body is the anthropology of the Trinitarian relationality of Persons and the Incarnation of the Logos. It is all of a piece in that the trinity of persons is one God because each of the persons is a distinct dynamic as gift. The Father is the act of engendering the Son. Hence, there can be no Father without Son, and no Son without Father. For, if the Father did not engender the Son, He would not be Father. And since the Spirit is the Love that is self-gift of both the Father and the Son, there can be no Father and Son without the Spirit, nor Spirit without the Father and Son.

II. Christology: Incarnation: The Second Person assumes the concrete human nature of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. Both divine and human natures are of the divine Person and therefore are not in parallel, but “compenetrating” personally. The agent of knowing and willing is/are not the natures but the one Person. Hence, the willing by the Person of Jesus Christ with his human will is maximally autonomous and free, and yet is one (personally) with his divine Will. His humanity is pure relation as total self-gift to the Father.

Hence, the humanity of Christ is perfect image of his divinity. In his humanity, He is perfect image of the divinity. He is at once Self, and image of Self in that He has two complete and perfect natures that are dynamized by one and the same Person. The obedience of his human will is free and autonomous with the freedom of radical self-gift to the Father. This is the prototype of human freedom, i.e. Christ’s obedience to death on the Cross.[24] Therefore, the perfect imaging of God takes place in the humanity of Christ (Col. 1, 15: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.”).

III. TOB: Man becomes the image of God in act when as male and female each makes that Christological gift of self.


Conclusion: The authority of TOB derives from already being part of the hierarchy of truths that are accepted in the experience and consciousness of the Person of Jesus Christ. That is to say, John Paul’s account of imaging God takes into account that God has been revealed as a communion of Persons (“We:” “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”[25]), and that man, created in God’s image, actualizes this imaging as a communion of persons. Making a comparison with the authoritative weight of statements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we can make the same point as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn (above p. 11) that “it would be neither practical nor desirable constantly indicate these degrees (de fide, de fide definita, sententia communis, etc.). Rather, the doctrine’s degree of certainty should be evident from the context, from the way it is stated, from the doctrinal authority of the statement.”

Hence, John Paul II says: “If, vice versa, we want to retrieve also from the account of the Yahwist text the concept of ‘image of God,’ we can deduce that man became the image of God not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion of persons, which man and woman form from the very beginning. The function of the image is that oaf mirroring the one who is the model, of reproducing its own prototype. Man becomes an image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion. He is, in fact, ‘from the beginning’ not only an image in which the solitude of one Person, who rules the world, mirrors itself, but also and essentially the image of an inscrutable divine communion of Persons.

“In this way, the second account could also prepare for understanding the Trinitarian concept of the ‘image of God,’ even if ‘image’ appears only in the first account. This is obviously not without significance for the theology of the body, but constitutes perhaps the deepest theological aspect of everything one can say about man. In the mystery of creation – on the basis of the original and constitutive ‘solitude’ of his being – man has been endowed with a deep unity between what is, humanly and through the body, male in him and what is, equally humanly and through the body, female in him. On all this, right from the beginning, the blessing of fruitfulness descended, linked with human procreation (cf. Gen. 1, 28).

Personally, I was not able to understand what was going on with the mind of John Paul II, nor less TOB, until I suddenly understood that “being” was not to be restricted to the abstract category of substance (to-be-in-self), but rather, as in the divine Persons – and also created persons - “to be” = “to be in relation.” I saw this for the first time in a 1989 reading of Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity” concerning the meaning of person in the Trinity. This is the epistemological paradigm shift that must be experienced and recognized to enter into depths of Vatican II and the subsequent Magisteria of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.



[1] Charles Curran, “The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II,” Georgetown University Press (2004) 4-5.
[2] Vatican II, “Dei Verbum” #5.
[3] John Paul II, “Veritatis Splendor” #89.
[4] J. Ratzinger, “Handing on the Faith, and the Sources of the Faith,” Handing on the Faith in an Age of Disbelief Ignatius (2006)29.
[5] Ibid. 30.

[6]

[7] Letter to Norfolk, in Works of Cardinal Newman: Difficulties of Anglicans II (Westminster Maryland: Christian Classics (1969) 261.
[8] J. Ratzinger, “Conscience and Truth,” Proceedings of The Tenth Bishops’ Workshop, Dallas Texas, (1991) 15.
[9] Ibid 20.
[10] Ibid 21.
[11] Ibid
[12] John Paul II, “Pastores Dabo Vobis,” #22.
[13] “As the Father has sent me, I also send you.”
[14] Vatican II, Lumen Gentium #19.
[15] Ibid #25.
[16] John Paul II, “Man and Woman He Created Them,” Pauline Books and Media (2006) 16.
[17] Ibid
[18] J. Ratzinger, “The Ecclesia Vocation of the Theologian,” The Nature and Mission of Theology, Ignatius (1995) 112-113,
[19] Ludwig Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” TAN: “§ 8.
[20] Thomas Rease, S.J.: “In order to answer these and other questions, I recruited 15 scholars in Scripture, catechetics, and systematic, moral, and sacramental theology. Each studied the catechism and wrote papers analyzing it from the perspective of their particular specialties. The first drafts of their papers were discussed at the end of January in a symposium sponsored by the Woodstock Theological Center, a theological research center at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. Some of these papers will appear in America and Commonweal, and revised versions of all the papers will be published in a collection later this year by Harper and Row….Third, the catechism makes no attempt to distinguish what is essential from what is less important in its teaching. Everything, from angels to the Trinity, is presented without any consideration of what theologians refer to as the hierarchy of truths. No distinction is made between infallible teaching and theological opinions. Ignoring these distinctions confuses the faithful when something they thought was essential is later placed in doubt or changed;” The Universal Catechism Reaction: Reflections and Responses, ed. Thomas J. Rease, S.J., San Francisco 1990.
[21] Cristoph Schönborn, “The Divine Economy Interwoven Through New Catechetical Work,” Reflections on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #3 in Osservatore Romano [prior to 1993].
[22] Ibid
[23] Fergus Kerr, “Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians,” Blackwell Publishing (2007) 195.
[24] Veritatis Splendor #85: “The Crucified Christ reveals the authentic meaning of freedom: he lives it fully in the total gift of himself and calls his disciples to share in his freedom.”
[25] Gen. 1, 26.