to teach, to sanctify, to govern
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jan 27, 2004
Thanks to Amy Welborn for pointing us to a Commonweal profile of Cardinal George by Peter Feuerhard that is only mildly patronizing and that pays him some grudging compliments. The following paragraph caught my attention:
[note: I have capitalized the "c" in Church, wagering that the contrary usage in Feuerhard's piece reflects Commonweal's phobia rather than the Cardinal's]
George explained his vision of the church in a written response to my requests for an interview: "When some people disagree with the 'Church,' it is the Church which should change, not the individual," he wrote. "But the Church is given to change us, to be the place where Christ will change us. If this is lost, then the Church has no reason for being except as a place to celebrate significant moments with poetic texts and to gather people for social projects. ... One should never speak of the Church without speaking of Christ."
Cardinal George's statement that the Church is to be "the place where Christ will change us" is a striking, even penetrating, expression of the core doctrine of the Second Vatican Council. Were the year 1954 instead of 2004 his vision might provide a touchstone of orthodoxy, and I'm old-fashioned enough to find his words not only meaningful but inspiring.
But today, alas, any bright undergraduate can deconstruct the term "Christ" in the Cardinal's statement and re-assemble the bits of shrapnel into a figure unrecognizable to any traditional Christian. In another words, to tell us what the Church is you must tell us who Christ is; but to tell us who Christ is you first need a Church to point out the authentic candidate among the many spurious ones, and so the appeal is circular. Most theologians would cheerfully accept the sentiment that it is we who are to be changed by Christ -- arguing, without missing a beat, that Christ is pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-Pill, etc. If you counter that the Council of Chalcedon wouldn't have acknowledged this patently contrived fiction, they reply that "the 5th century Christ" perfectly reflected the worldview of the theologians of the time and was no less a fiction than the current model.
Does this disparage the value of the Cardinal's statement? Absolutely not. Sound episcopal teaching is urgently necessary. Yet it is no longer sufficient. We need "performative" instruction from our bishops; that means bishops must take action in the world in concrete ways that will teach us who does and does not belong to the Church. Archbishop Burke, for one, has made a beginning.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Jan. 30, 2004 2:20 PM ET USA
If I may crudely paraphrase Diogenes, may I suggest that what is being requested is: More "in yo' face" and less "in yo' ears" so that we can honor Christ with our actions rather than merely mouthing words.
Posted by: -
Jan. 28, 2004 12:38 AM ET USA
After being a member of a traditional chapel for 25 years in the Chicago archdiocese and being persona non grata by previous Cardinals all the way back to Crdl Cody thiis is the first Cardinal we've had that has embraced the latin mass. the Cardinal just last week turned over a Church that was headed for the wrecking ball to the society of Christ the King Soveriegn Priest. His support for the latin Mass and sacred music program at St. John Cantius has ben solid.Compared to others he is welcome.
Posted by: -
Jan. 27, 2004 5:17 PM ET USA
Happy Feast Day to jchrysostom! The trouble with modern Catholic clergy is that so many of them are modernists. According to St. Pius X's description of modernism in his encyclical "Pascendi" they (modernists) speak with orthodox words, but the words don't carry the orthodox meaning. This is why it is so difficult to know whether a modern bishop really has the Faith. They really do need to show it AND preach it. It would help if we could see them kneeling and praying more.
Posted by: -
Jan. 27, 2004 1:36 PM ET USA
I truly hope that one does not have to be old-fashioned in order to apprehend that Cdl George has eloquently and subtly expressed the clearest statement contra those who would chose what Cdl Dulles has so aptly called "false reform." He's got a tough diocese to preside over, but nevertheless manages to maintain a clear vision of the RC faith. Bravo!
Posted by: -
Jan. 27, 2004 9:02 AM ET USA
Yes, "teach us who does and who does not belong to the Church", you have the phrase that distills the problem. We are not dealing with a wishywashy issue. It is life itself. No more nuanced statements like those of the past. Speak clearly! "Persons who agree with abortion cannot be Catholic and have excommunicated themselves. They may not receive Communion. Persons who publicly express their conviction or act in favor of it are to be refused Communion. Public retraction is required."