Proposal: The Value of Opus Dei for An Anglican Ordinariate Within the Catholic Church

Although England can boast of a millenary tradition of natural law and jurisprudential respect for the human person (Magna Charta), the country has witnessed a lessening in the consciousness of said natural law since the break from the papacy. The Church in England became the Church of England. The Catholic Church in England ceased to be the Church Universal. As a consequence of the break from Rome, the church of England became reduced to the cultural phenomenon of a churched elite. It ceased to be the organic culture of a living faith. This is so because a living faith involves becoming Christ to the extent that one can say with Peter: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16, 16). This cannot take place without the Sacrifice of the Mass, the fullness of the Word and the complement of the sacraments, especially Penance.

The personalism of salvation is a key concept in the mind of Benedict XVI. He is at pains to explain that the entrance into the one Church of Jesus Christ via the sacrament of Baptism is not merely the acquisition and rearrangement of a few ideas. It is “a death event.” Using St. Paul as his example, then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “Paul says, ‘I live, no longer I, but Christ lives within me’ (Gal. 2, 20)…. “Then in a single sentence, as clear as a lightning bolt, the inner event that took place during all of this, … the ground of it all, is made clear. This inner event is at once personal and objective. It is the most personal of experiences and at the same time indicates what the objective essence of Christianity is for each on of us… Conversion according to Paul is something much more radical than a mere revision of a few opinions or attitudes. It is a death event. In other words it is the replacement of the subject – of the ‘I.’ The ‘I’ ceases to be independent and to be a subject existing in itself. It is torn from itself and inserted into a new subject. The ‘I’ does not perish, but must let itself diminish completely, in effect, in order to be received within a larger ‘I’ and, together with that larger ‘I,’ to be conceived anew.”[1]

This is an astounding announcement. As St. Josemaria Escriva heard that grounding locution for the founding of Opus Dei on August 7, 1931: “I say that … you are to raise me up in all human activities,… that all over the world there be Christians with a personal and most free dedication, that they be other Christs.”[2] The reality of it involves a radical identity with the Person of Christ, and the Person of Christ as the identity of the Church. In the same public lecture, Ratzinger quoted Paul again: “Just as the body and the various members interact, the same is true of Christ” (1 Cor. 12, 12). He explains: “(Paul) uses the common comparison of the body and its members, which was used in ancient social philosophy. In the transfer of this metaphor to the Church, however, there is a surprising change which is often overlooked. To miss this change inevitably leads to an incorrect grasp of Paul’s entire understanding of the Church. He does not hesitate to use comparisons with the sociology prevalent at the time, but he does so in a way which shows that his conception of the Church is entirely different from his view of society. In fact Paul does not say: ‘Just as in an organism there are many members interacting with one another, the same thing holds true for the Chruch.’” Rather, what he does say, as indicated above, “Just as the body and the various members interact, the same is true of Christ.”

Consider, now, that if there is a split from the Church of Christ, there is an absence of the Person of Christ. Consider also that Vatican II has taught that the Church of Christ “subsists” uniquely in the Catholic Church. Hence, if the Anglican Church is apart from the Catholic Church, and if the Church of Jesus Christ “subsists” only in the Catholic Church, then this radical identity with the Person of Christ cannot take place in the Anglican Church as Anglican and hence cannot be the locus of salvation as Church. It will have “elements of salvation,”[3] as Lumen Gentium mentions, but it will not have the saving subsistence [4]of Christ Himself and for that reason will deviate in critical areas. Critical areas, of course, are the effect on civil society as well as fidelity to Christian Tradition.

With regard to civil society, if a faith does not become culture in that society it is not a living faith. All of this adds up to an op-ed in the New York Times October 25 that observed, “Britain has gone through a truly prodigious change in the last 30 years. It has moved from being a largely white culture with Christianity as its background religion to be a completely secular, multicultural society…. A genial secularized liberalism is the new norm. It might be difficult to define it, but you feel when its codes are infringed, as with the controversies over ‘faith schools’ that teach creationism, or with the misgivings felt by many secular politicians about such issues as the wearing of the burqa.”[5] The article goes on to suggest that “Maybe it’s just as British to wear a black bag over your head as to wear one of the bizarre outfits you still see in the enclosure at Royal Ascot.”

That said, it goes on to say that “In such a climate, the Church of England had no chance at all of surviving. It was bound to go, and it was just waiting, historically, for some catalyst to bring it to an end. That catalyst has been provided by the somewhat unlikely controversy over female bishops,” or as he suggested earlier: “female bishops, gay bishops, gay female bishops – take your pick.”

Vatican Note on Establishing Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans

Published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 20, 2009

“With the preparation of an Apostolic Constitution, the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion.

“In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy.

“The forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a world-wide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application. It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Constitution therefore stipulates that the Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop. The seminarians in the Ordinariate are to be prepared alongside other Catholic seminarians, though the Ordinariate may establish a house of formation to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony. In this way, the Apostolic Constitution seeks to balance on the one hand the concern to preserve the worthy Anglican liturgical and spiritual patrimony and, on the other hand, the concern that these groups and their clergy will be integrated into the Catholic Church.

“Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which has prepared this provision, said: "We have been trying to meet the requests for full communion that have come to us from Anglicans in different parts of the world in recent years in a uniform and equitable way. With this proposal the Church wants to respond to the legitimate aspirations of these Anglican groups for full and visible unity with the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter"…

“According to Levada: "It is the hope of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, that the Anglican clergy and faithful who desire union with the Catholic Church will find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Anglican traditions precious to them and consistent with the Catholic faith. Insofar as these traditions express in a distinctive way the faith that is held in common, they are a gift to be shared in the wider Church. The unity of the Church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows. Moreover, the many diverse traditions present in the Catholic Church today are all rooted in the principle articulated by St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians: ‘There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (4:5). Our communion is therefore strengthened by such legitimate diversity, and so we are happy that these men and women bring with them their particular contributions to our common life of faith."

Let it be noted that according to Canon 368 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 “particular Churches, in which and from which, the one and only catholic Church exists, are principally dioceses.” However, there are two notable exceptions: personal prelatures and military Ordinariates, which, although having their differences, have an equivalency that would be favorable to exploring how Opus Dei as the first Prelature established after the Council could assimilate Anglicans to full communion in the Catholic Church.

A Proposal

Could it be that Opus Dei as the first instance of a Personal Prelature in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 may have an impact on the dynamic of the Personal Ordinariate for the Anglican Church? My interest stems from the fact that Opus Dei instantiates the ascetical goal of living out the “aboriginal relationship” between clergy and laity that obtained in the Church from the beginning with the first Christians. This notion, which is the heart of the “re-evangelization,” permeated the Second Vatican Council under the rubric of The People of God that, in turn, was further refined as Communio in the extraordinary Synod of 1985. Pedro Rodriguez formulated said it in the following way: "Opus Dei as a social reality in the Church is organic and undivided. Its lay faithful (men and women) and the priests who act as its clergy complement each other in exemplary adherence to the basic aboriginal relationship obtaining in the Church between christifideles - called to live out the requirements and implications of their baptism - and sacred ministers, who bring in, besides, the 'ministerial' consequences of the sacrament of Order... So, what we find in Opus Dei, different yet complementing one another, are two ecclesial forms of participating in Christ's priesthood. We find both the 'substantial' priority of Opus Dei's lay faithful, at whose service is the priestly ministry, and the 'functional' priority of the sacred ministry, in whose head the prelate) resides the sacra potestas that governs the prelature."[6]

The fact is that Opus Dei anticipated and catalyzed Vatican II particularly in chapter IV of Lumen Gentium and "The Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity." Since the Church has been de-clericalizing itself by going “back” to its pristine experience of radical equality of laity and ministerial priests in the baptismal vocation to be “other Christs” immersed in the environment of the secular world, and since Opus Dei is the in situ catalyst of that radical equality, it would seem reasonable and important that the Anglicans returning to the Church entered in the spirit that permeates the Personal Prelature of Opus Dei as a kindred structure of the Ordinariate.

* * * * * * * * *

Prelatures

Historically, the Decree on the Life and Ministry of Priests of the Second Vatican Council (December 7, 1965), considering the various pastoral needs of a fast evolving world, suggested that for “special pastoral projects for the benefit of different social groups in any region or among any race in any part of the world…there can … be set up…personal prelatures.”[7] This was followed by a “Motu Proprio” of Paul VI for the implementation of the “prelacies.” In a footnote to the Code of Canon Law of 1983, Book II, Title IV On Personal Prelatures,” it read: “Personal prelatures are jurisdictional entities established by the Holy See within the hierarchical pastoral activity of the Church as an instrument for the performance of particular pastoral or missionary endeavours. They are under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Bishops. A personal prelature must consist of a prelate who is the proper Ordinary, and of secular clerics who are trained and incardinated in the prelature. Laypeople who are incorporated to or form part of a personal prelature cooperate organically in its activities and in achieving its ends, by means of contracts or agreements in which mutual rights and obligations are determined according to the statues of the prelature.”

Expatiating on the above, it read: “In order to accomplish special pastoral or missionary tasks for various regions or social groups requiring special assistance, prelatures may usefully be established by the Apostolic See. These would consist of the secular clergy specially trained and under the rule of a prelate of their own and governed by statues of their own.” The prelate would be empowered to establish a seminary for laity in preparation for priesthood “incardinating such students under the title of service to the prelature and to promote them to Orders.” The document goes on to say that “There is no reason why laymen, whether celibate or married, should not dedicate their professional service, through contracts with the prelature, to its works and enterprises.”

Opus Dei as “Aboriginal Relation” of Ecclesial Communio

The social arrangement of the relation of lay faithful and ministerial priests in Opus Dei could serve as model for Anglican faithful and re-ordained ministerial priests. Opus Dei, in the words of Escriva, is “a little bit of the Church.” Not being a particular Church because it is personal and not territorial and its members belong to it and to the diocese in which they reside, nevertheless Opus Dei is analogical to the particular Church because it shares a common “theological substance.” Rodriguez writes: “We can say that the ground for the analogy between Opus Dei and the particular Church is the common ‘theological substance’ of ecclesial bodies structurally organized according to the basic ‘common priesthood/ministerial priesthood’ relationship – the fact that both have the substantial elements of the internal dimension of the Church’s structure.”

Let’s examine that. Rodriguez goes on: “Opus Dei’s social arrangement as a ‘Christian community’ stems from what we have called the ‘internal dimension of the Church’s structure.’ That is, it is born of mutual relations of christifideles and ‘sacred minister,’ or if you prefer, it derives from the two forms of participating in Christ’s priesthood. That is also why Opus Dei as a social reality in the Church is organic and undivided. Its lay faithful (men and women) and the priests who act as its clergy complement each other in exemplary adherence to the basic aboriginal relationship obtaining in the Church between christifideles – called to live out the requirements and implications of their baptism – and sacred ministers, who bring in, besides, the ‘ministerial’ consequences of the sacrament of Order…. ‘The ministerial priesthood of the clergy and the common priesthood of the lay people are so intimately linked that both, in unity of vocation and government, require and complement each other (ad invicem) in striving for the end proper to the prelature.” [8]

Opus Dei lives out in living reality the communio personarum of lay faithful and ministerial priests, each exercising his irreducible identity as Bridegroom (minister priest) and Bride (layfaithful) resulting from the respective sacraments of Baptism and Order [both conferring the ontological reality of “character” on the respective persons], and each being so much in service to the other that they form the “Unum” that is “Ipse Christus” of the “Whole Christ” that we saw above.[9] And so radical and important is this “aboriginal relationship” that obtained among the first Christians that yielded the living eschatological “already” of Jesus Christ in the world, that it would be a deviation from the reality of the Church not to present it to the Anglicans. In fact, precisely so that this radical equality and functional diversity of lay faithful and ministerial priest spread throughout the Church, Opus Dei is not a particular Church but a personal (non-territorial) institution of the universal Church, and whose mission is to disseminate this aboriginal “spirit” of the universal call to holiness to the whole Church, and in our case here, to the Anglican Church.

The Prelate

The figure of the Prelate is also key here since it is the love of Father that engenders the identity in both layman and ministerial priest and empowers both to make the gift of self that is the dynamic of the communio. Rodriguez goes on to make this critical point that is so necessary in the understanding of the episcopal office: “We ought to say that in Opus Dei’s institutional life and in its members’ relations with their prelate, what is decisive is neither his ‘jurisdiction’ nor their obedience. Rather, what truly defines Opus Dei’s prelate is his ‘fatherhood,’ his role as pastor who is a father to all the prelature’s faithful. That is why in Opus Dei he is usually called ‘Father.’ The prelate’s role in the life of Opus Dei deeply configures the prelature. Therefore it is important to consider it when determining the ecclesial profile of the social arrangement lived therein.”[10]

Without the experience of the Person of Christ, it is impossible to have an authentic experience of personhood in that Jesus Christ as God-man is the prototype of man imaging God. If the meaning of the human person is Christ, then we are no longer talking about “natural law” but about the law of the person which is quite different. “Natural law” would be a dynamic of acts tending toward ends which we know by observation. The “law of the person” would be a dynamic taken from the revelation of Jesus Christ and would take the formulation of Gaudium et spes #24 of finding self by gift of self. It would be a complex anthropology grounded on the ontological architecture of the one Person, two natures in Christ. The dynamic would involve the “I” of the Logos subduing His human will and making the gift of Himself as man to the Father for us. In a word, He is Priest of His own existence, mediating between Himself and the Father. That said, it would logical, then, that the decay of the Anglican Church as Christian by severance from the vine would promote a culture that would be incoherent with the humanness of Christian personhood.

It is important that we recall that there is no salvation outside the Person of Jesus Christ Who is the God-man, and that He founded a Church that is His very Self. When He calls out – “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?”(Acts 9, 4), it is evident that those whom Saul is persecuting – the Church – is Christ Himself. To make this point, the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium #8 reads that “This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.” It goes on to say that “Nevertheless many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.”

Vatican II’s use of “subsist” means here that there is only one Church that is the unique Subject that is Christ (the Catholic Church), although there are “elements” of salvation outside that visible Church. Cardinal Ratzinger clarified the issue in the following way: “It becomes necessary to investigate the word subsistit somewhat more carefully. This expression, the Council differs from the formula of Pius XII, who said in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi: ‘The Catholic Church ‘is’ (est) the one mystical body of Christ.’ The difference between subsistit and est conceals within itself the whole ecumenical problem. The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as later developed in Scholastic philosophy. The Greek word hypostasis that has a central role in Christology to describe the union of the divine and the human nature in the Person of Christ comes from that vision. Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of subject who has an autonomous existence. Here it is a question precisely of this. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in this world can be found in the Catholic Church. This can take place only once, and the idea that the subsistit could be multiplied fails to grasp precisely the notion that is being intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wished to explain the unicity of the Catholic Church and the fact of her inability to be multiplied: the Church exists as a subject in historical reality.”[11]

Having lost access to the full experience of Christ in the Catholic Church, England as a Subject has lost the full experience of the truth of the human person and hence the consciousness of its Christian identity as a Subject. With this loss, England lost the coherence of the Church and the human foundation of its secular society.

It has lost the autonomy of a secular – not secularized (because this would involve the atheism of being radically alone and self sufficient) – culture in which all religious traditions could flourish. To wit: Christian anthropology involves the priestly dynamic of Jesus Christ whereby He masters Himself and makes the gift of Self. This is the profound meaning of the human freedom won for us by Christ crucified.[12] It is precisely because of this self mastery of a single subject (and therefore true autonomy) that Christianity provides the ground of the institutional separation of church and state, and hence the legitimization of religious pluralism. The point rests on the epistemological distinction between subject and object whereby there is one subject that is holy and many objects that promote sanctification. There is only one saving Church of Jesus of Christ, but there are many diverse elements of salvation (e.g. Scripture and Sacraments) outside that Church that derive from her. Hence there is a legitimate plurality of religions in accordance with a true freedom of consciences while there is only one true Church. That plurality must be respected because it responds to the respect for the religious freedom of the person to master self with regard to the things of God. The topic is the burden of the document “Dignitatis Humanae” which is so central to the mainspring of the Council: the meaning of person as self-determining freedom. In a word, there is no true freedom in separation from the living experience of Christ, and that can only take place in the Church of Jesus Christ that “subsists” in the Catholic Church.

That lacking in England, and being held together by the flimsy externalism of a doctrinally and sacramentally detached Anglican “Church,” it is no wonder that “Britain has gone through a truly prodigious change in the last 30 years. It has moved form being a largely white culture with Christianity as its background religion to being a completely secular, multicultural society.”[13] Although Wilson fears “the complete secularization of Britain, and an acceptance of its new multicultural identity” (with an exodus of perhaps 1,000 Anglican priests, 10-15 Anglican bishops and plausibly large congregations) that will destroy its identity, nevertheless, the breath of life may well be pumped into a slumping culture with the uptake of a renewed experience of Christ within the One Universal Church of Christ.

[1] J. Ratzinger, “The Spiritual Basis and Ecclesial Identity of Theology,” The Nature and Mission of Theology Ignatius (1995) 50-51. I am taking the text from a public lecture at “St. Michael’s Papers I – The Church as an Essential Dimension of Theology, University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, 13 April 1986, pp. 3-4.

[2] “‘At the moment of elevating the Sacred Host, without losing proper recollection, without being distracted… there came to my mind, with extraordinary force and clarity, the phrase of Scripture ‘et si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad me ipsum’… Reflecting years later on this experience, Escriva said that he understood our Lord to be saying those words to him ‘not in the sense in which the Scripture says them. I say it to you in the sense that you are to raise me up in all human activities in the sense that all over the world there be Christians with a personal and most free dedication, that they be other Christs;” J. Coverdale, Uncommon Faith, Scepter (2002) 90.

[3] Lumen Gentium #8: “Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its [Catholic] visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.”

[4] The word “subsistence” is used in contradistinction to “is” to indicate that the Church is talking about two distinct realities: subject and object. Christ (Subject) “subsists” in the Catholic Church while “elements of sanctification” (object) are to be found outside the confines of the Catholic Church.

[5] A.N. Wilson, “Rock of Ages. Cleft by the Pope,” New York Times op-ed WK 9, October 25, 2009.

[6] Pedro Rodriguez, "The Place of Opus Dei in the Church" in Opus Dei in the Church Scepter (1993) 38.

[7] Vatican II, “Presbyterorum Ordinis” #10.

[8] Ibid 38

[9] So powerful is the exercise and grasp of this spousal relation between laity and ministerial priest yielding the “Ipse Christus” of the Church, that John Paul II used the von Balthasar image of the Church of Mary (laity) holding precedence over the Church of Peter (hierarchical cleric) whereby one cannot effectively exist without the other. Cf. ftn. 55 of John Paul II’s “Dignity and Vocation of Women.”

[10] P. Rodriguez, op. cit. 56.

[11] J. Ratzinger, “Ecclesiology of the Constitution on the Church, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium,” June 28, 1992, published in English edition of L’Osservatore Romano 19 September 2001, page 5.

[12] See John Paul II’s remark: “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;” Veritatis Splendor “85.

[13] A.N. Wilson, “Rock of Ages, Cleft by the Pope,” NYT, op-ed, October 25, 2009 WK 9.

Christopher West: Authentic Sexual Freedom

The Theology of the Body Debate: The Pivotal Question

October 24th, 2009 by Christopher West

When the public conversation about my work unfolded following my appearance on Nightline last May, I did not think it was wise for me to respond until I had submitted the matter to my local bishops. Now that Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop Kevin Rhoades have issued a statement, it seems appropriate for me to offer some reflections as well.

First, I want to thank the many men and women — former students, married couples, catechists, theologians, seminarians, priests, deacons, religious, and bishops — who contacted me to offer their encouragement during this time. Your prayers and support were a tremendous gift to me. I would also like to thank those scholars and teachers of the faith who wrote in support of me, especially Janet Smith, Michael Waldstein, Michael Healy, Father Thomas Loya, Matthew Pinto, and, of course, Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Rhoades. Your willingness to speak out on my behalf remains a profound consolation.

Second, I want to thank those of you who offered thoughtful critiques of my work and helpful suggestions on how to improve it. I have taken them to heart. Indeed, I have always weighed my critics’ observations carefully and prayerfully. They have helped me refine my approach a great deal over the years and I remain very grateful for that.

That said, much of the criticism that appeared after the Nightline interview significantly misrepresented what I teach. Rumors were repeated so often that subsequent commentators simply treated dubious accusations as fact. Although I do not intend to respond point by point to the various criticisms, it seems I would be remiss as a teacher of the Theology of the Body (TOB) not to reflect briefly on what seems to be the pivotal point of the conversation. It is “pivotal” in the sense that people’s perspective on this point pivots them in very different directions when evaluating my work. This point is also critical in as much as it leads us to what I, and many others, consider to be “the pearl” of John Paul II’s TOB.

I offer these reflections in a spirit of humility and love for all those involved, not in an effort to “defend” myself. I am well aware that those looking for flaws in me will always be able to find them. I, like every interpreter of the Pope’s thought, bring my own personal perspectives, gifts, and shortcomings to the table. That’s why I remind my readers and students often to “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess 5:21). The same applies to what follows.

Of Which Man Are We Speaking?

The pivotal question as I see it is this: What does the grace of redemption offer us in this life with regard to our disordered sexual tendencies? From there, the questions multiply: Is it possible to overcome the pull of lust within us? If not, what are we to do with our disordered desires? If so, to what degree can we be liberated from lust and how can we enter into this grace? Furthermore, what does it actually look like to live a life of ever deepening sexual redemption?

It is abundantly clear from both Catholic teaching and human experience that, so long as we are on earth, we will always have to battle with concupiscence – that disordering of our passions caused by original sin (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 405, 978, 1264, 1426). In some of my earliest lectures and tapes, I confess that I did not emphasize this important point clearly enough. The battle with concupiscence is fierce. Even the holiest saints can still recognize the pull of concupiscence within them. Yet, as John Paul II insisted, we “cannot stop at casting the ‘heart’ into a state of continual and irreversible suspicion due to the manifestations of the concupiscence of the flesh… Redemption is a truth, a reality, in the name of which man must feel himself called, and ‘called with effectiveness’” (TOB 46:4).

Many people seem to doubt this “effectiveness” and thus conclude that the freedom I hold out is beyond the realm of man’s possibilities. From one perspective, these critics are correct. “But what are the ‘concrete possibilities of man’?” John Paul II asks. “And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ?” (Veritatis Splendor 103). For those dominated by lust, what I hold out is impossible. But those who enter the “effectiveness” of redemption discover “another vision of man’s possibilities” (TOB 46:6).

The Cry of the New Evangelization

I humbly invite all those who question what I teach about liberation from concupiscence to take a closer look at the teaching of John Paul II on the matter (see especially TOB 43:6, 45:3, 46:4, 46:6, 47:5, 48:1, 48:4, 49:4, 49:6, 58:7, 86:6-7, 101:3-5, 107:1-3, 128:3, 129:5). It is a point of utmost importance. Indeed, in a very real way, debates about what we are capable of in the battle with concupiscence take us to the crux of the Gospel itself. “This is what is at stake,” John Paul II maintained, “the reality of Christ’s redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence” (Veritatis Splendor 103).

Oh, what a powerful proclamation! If we listen carefully to it, it seems we can almost sense John Paul II’s participation in the potency with which Christ proclaimed the words of the prophet Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, … to comfort all who mourn, … to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of despair” (Isaiah 61: 1-3; see also Lk 4:18-19). John Paul II, it seems, was precisely the herald “anointed by the Lord” to bring the good news of liberation to our sexually enslaved world. Let all who are thirsty come – come and drink the water of life (see Rev 22:17).

What is the alternative to an effective sexual redemption? If man remains bound by his lusts, is he even capable of loving with a pure heart? Marriage, in this view, comes to be seen and lived as a “legitimate outlet” for indulging our disordered desires and the celibate life comes to be seen and lived as a life of hopeless repression. And we end up “holding the form of religion” while “denying the power of it” (2 Tim 3:5). “Ne evacuetur Crux!” — John Paul II exclaims, “Do not empty the Cross of its power!” (see 1 Cor 1:17). “This,” he said, “is the cry of the new evangelization.” For “if the cross of Christ is emptied of its power, man no longer has roots, he no longer has prospects: he is destroyed” (Orientale Lumen 3).

Mature Purity

The teaching of John Paul II is clear: liberation from concupiscence — or, more precisely, from the domination of concupiscence (John Paul II used both expressions) — is not only a possibility, it is a necessity if we are to live our lives “in the truth” and experience the divine plan for human love (see TOB 43:6, 47:5). Indeed, Christian sexual ethos “is always linked . . . with the liberation of the heart from concupiscence” (TOB 43:6). And this liberation is just as essential for consecrated celibates and single people as it is for married couples (see TOB 77:4).

It is precisely this liberation that allows us to discover what John Paul II called “mature purity.” In mature purity “man enjoys the fruits of victory over concupiscence” (TOB 58:7). This victory is gradual and certainly remains fragile here on earth, but it is nonetheless real. For those graced with its fruits, a whole new world opens up — another way of seeing, thinking, living, talking, loving, praying. But to those who cannot imagine freedom from concupiscence, such a way of seeing, living, talking, loving, and praying not only seems unusual – but improper, imprudent, dangerous, or even perverse.

Why, we should ask ourselves, does such a cloud of negativity and suspicion seem to hover over the realm of sexuality? The distortions of sin are, of course, very real. But through the grace of redemption, can our sexuality not become in our practical, lived experience the realm of the sacramental and the holy? Can it not become the realm of a truly sacred conversation? “To the pure all things are pure,” St. Paul said (Titus 1:15). But to those bound by lust, even the pure seems impure. Oh, how tragic when we label as ugly that which is beautiful!

Some people say the redemption of the body is something reserved only for the resurrection at the end of time. While it is certainly true that the fullness of our redemption awaits us only in the final resurrection, John Paul II insists that the “‘redemption of the body’ …expresses itself not only in the resurrection as victory over death. It is present also in the words of Christ addressed to ‘historical’ man … [when] Christ invites us to overcome concupiscence, even in the exclusively inner movements of the human heart” (TOB 86:6).

And here we enter the tension of what theologians call the “already - but not yet” of redemption. The not yet aspect means we must be cognizant of the many distortions of our fallen nature and the ease with which we can be lured into temptations. The already aspect means there is also a power at work within us which is able to do “far more than we ever think or imagine,” as St. Paul said (see Eph 3:20). Both truths must be held together.

When it comes to questions of sexuality, it seems that many teachers and spiritual advisors focus almost exclusively on the not yet. We can hear so much about the “dangers” of sexuality that we conclude there is no escape from the ever present risk of sin. John Paul II is very critical of this kind of “determinism in the sexual sphere,” as he called it in a pre-papal essay. Such determinism tends “to limit the possibility of virtue and magnify the ‘necessity of sin’ in this sphere.” John Paul II’s approach, however, entails “the opposite tendency,” as he himself wrote. It upholds “the possibility of virtue, based on self-control and sublimation [which means to raise up, make sublime]” (“The Problem of Catholic Sexual Ethics,” Person and Community, p. 286).

The Journey of the Interior Life

Virtue, however, in the full Christian sense of the term, is only possible as we journey through the “purgative” way of the interior life and into what the mystical tradition calls the “illuminative” and “unitive” ways. It is here, in these further stages of the journey, that we discover “mature purity.” In the purgative stage, purity basically means “avoiding the occasion of sin” by “gaining custody of the eyes.” This is a very important step on the journey. But it is an essentially “negative” step, John Paul II says, in as much as it involves learning how to say no to lustful passions and learning how to abstain from unchastity. John Paul II, in keeping with the authentic tradition of the Church, teaches that there is much more to the virtue of purity than this.

In the language of St. Thomas Aquinas, a person who can successfully restrain himself from sin is “continent” but not yet virtuous. Continence falls short of virtue since virtue presupposes a right desire, and this is lacking in the continent person (see Summa, Prima Secundae, q. 58, a. 3, ad 2). As the Catechism observes, “The perfection of the moral good consists in man’s being moved to the good not only by his will but also by his ‘heart’” and even “by his sensitive appetite” (CCC 1770, 1775). Human virtues do not suppress or tyrannize our passions. They “order our passions… They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life” (CCC 1804).

“The task of purity,” as John Paul II observed, “is not only (and not so much) abstaining from ‘unchastity’ and from … ‘lustful passions’.” In the illuminative and unitive stages of the journey, we discover “another function of the virtue of purity… another dimension — one could say — that is more positive than negative” (TOB 54:3). In this “positive” dimension, we come to experience “a singular ability to perceive, love, and realize those meanings of the ‘language of the body’ that remain completely unknown to concupiscence itself” (TOB 128:3). We “come to an ever greater awareness of the gratuitous beauty of the human body, of masculinity and femininity” in such a way, John Paul II wrote, that other people “not only regain their true light… but, so to speak, they lead us to God himself” (Memory and Identity, p. 30).

This is “the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8:21) to which Christ invites us all. Admittedly, it is a very different vision than that with which many Catholics are familiar. Perhaps it’s simply that “unfamiliarity” that causes some to doubt its authenticity. For those who have been formed to think primarily in terms of the “dangers” of sexuality and the “constant risk of sin,” I invite you to meditate prayerfully on the following hope-filled words of John Paul II. Of course, they refer not only to the sexual sphere, but are certainly inclusive of that sphere, as he indicates.

With the passage of time, if we persevere in following Christ our Teacher, we feel less and less burdened by the struggle against sin, and we enjoy more and more the divine light which pervades all creation. This is most important, because it allows us to escape from a situation of constant inner exposure to the risk of sin – even though, on this earth, the risk always remains present to some degree – so as to move with ever greater freedom within the whole created world. This same freedom and simplicity characterizes our relations with other human beings, including those of the opposite sex… Christ, supreme Teacher of the spiritual life, together with all those who have been formed in his school, teaches that even in this life we can enter onto the path of union with God… [This union allows us to] find God in everything, we can commune with him in and through all things. Created things cease to be a danger for us as once they were, particularly while we were still at the purgative stage of our journey (Memory and Identity, pp. 29-30).

In Conclusion

One of the most common responses I receive when I present this beautifully challenging and hopeful vision of human life and sexuality is this: I’ve been a Catholic my whole life – why haven’t I ever heard this!? The truth of the matter is that it is rarely taught, a fact that only underscores the urgency of sharing this vision with the world. But we cannot give what we do not have. As Pope Paul VI said in his apostolic exhortation on evangelization, “The Church is an evangelizer, but she begins by being evangelized herself” (Evangelii Nuntiandi 15).

The fundamental message of the TOB is nothing new. In essence, it’s what the saints and mystics have been telling us for centuries about the “great mystery” of Christ’s infinite love for his Bride, the Church. Yet John Paul II has penetrated that same Mystery with new clarity, new insight, new depth — giving us a new language with which to reach the modern world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Still, relatively few in the Church know enough about John Paul II’s “new language” to employ it in their efforts to communicate the faith. It is my hope that the Nightline interview and the spirited debate it triggered will spur us all on as Catholics to study the TOB more intently, “receive” its contents more deeply, and share its liberating message more effectively.

I encourage those who find John Paul II’s text difficult to turn to those teachers and authors whose approach you find most helpful in making it accessible. There are so many fine books and resources now available on the TOB, all with valuable contributions to make. I certainly do not claim to be the definitive voice on the subject. Thank God that there are different people and organizations doing this important work! For the approach of others will reach people I never will, just as my approach will reach people theirs never will. What is important is that we make a concerted effort to reach people. The world is starved for the banquet presented in our late Pope’s teaching. Woe to us if we do not take it up, make it our own, and share it with the world.