The Cultural Primacy of Plausibility and Inculturation of Our Beliefs

by Archbishop Daniel M. Buechlein, O.S.B.

As The Catechism of the Catholic Church was being presented to the worldwide Church, Pope John Paul II (and his associates] noted that the new evangelization, the proclamation of the faith, requires attention to inculturation. Not only catechesis but to some degree all preaching and worship itself require inculturation. The archbishop's essay explores the question: What does that mean?)

This past summer, a friend gave me a copy of Amazing Grace, the recent work of Kathleen Norris, the poetic author of Dakota: A Spiritual Geography and The Cloister Walk. Norris is a Presbyterian who has developed a great love for Benedictine monastic spirituality, which I suspect is why my friend gave me her latest work. If you have read Kathleen Norris, you know that she is an excellent writer and an admirably spiritual poet.

On the jacket for Amazing Grace, the publisher explains that Norris had set aside her faith for some time. The publisher writes: "Still the strong pull of tradition, family history, and community compelled her to return week after week to Sunday morning services, and deepening ties to a nearby monastery awoke in her a desire to believe. In returning to the church, Norris' greatest struggle was with the language of the Christian religion. Words such as 'judgment,' 'prayer,' 'faith,' 'dogma,' 'salvation,' 'sinner,' and even 'Christian' formed what she called her 'scary vocabulary' — words that often intimidate people and distance them from their religious heritage. She found she had to wrestle with them, grapple with their meanings, and make them her own, before they could confer blessings and their grace."

The publisher goes on to note: "For those of us who have often found the language of religion alien and impenetrable, so codified that it has lost its meaning, Amazing Grace will help grasp the richness of an ancient tradition that is constantly evolving."

What Kathleen Norris professes to do in her latest work might be described as a process of inculturating the vocabulary of religion into more contemporary and less intimidating language. She is not only gifted in poetic artistry, she is also gifted with the art of clarity and simplicity of speech. Amazing Grace makes for fascinating and often inspiring reading. To a degree, the author is successful in simplifying complex religious ideas. But her effort is also theologically flawed and, for that reason, potentially misleading to the ordinary reader.

I suggest that the very purpose of Kathleen Norris' effort in Amazing Grace — namely, to tame intimidating language and to make religious vocabulary more acceptable — sets up one of the hazards faced by contemporary efforts to inculturate religious discourse. It is a hazard as we work to inculturate the teaching of the Catholic faith as well as the resources of catechesis, especially in the United States. I would add that the translation of liturgical texts labors under the same hazards these days. Norris' effort is important and in many respects quite successful, yet it is also illustrative of contemporary cultural challenges.

Two fundamental issues cause Kathleen Norris to consider certain religious vocabulary terms "scary." For her, "dogma" or "doctrine" taken as absolute truth causes polarization in a faith community and leads to self-righteous Judging of others. Better, she asserts, to allow people to believe what truth they can glean from their own experience in life and prayer than to impose unwanted doctrine. A second scary issue for Norris is the notion of decision-making authority in matters of faith, such as that of a Church hierarchy. As a recent, self-described TV "in-depth" analysis said of Pope John Paul II, hierarchical inflexibility on matters of Church doctrine is patently intimidating.

Norris would assert that democratic Congregationalism protects people of faith from being judged and skirts the issue of absolute truth, which is sometimes too awesome and mysterious. Her primary argument has to do with absolute truth and who decides it. (As an aside, I would observe that Norris' love for Benedictine monastic spirituality seems to somehow ignore much of what St. Benedict prescribes as the authority of the abbot.)

Lest I sound too critical of Kathleen Norris, a woman of faith and a fine, poetic author, I suggest that her effort at inculturation of religious language and belief is no less successful than other contemporary efforts to meet this challenge. A contemporary cultural phenomenon may well be a setup for flawed efforts in the inculturation of catechesis and the process of evangelization in general. Social analysts call our era "postmodernist," an era wherein the communication of rational argument takes second or third place to the two-dimensional telegenic personality who makes room for everyone. Sentiment is prior to reason. Sensitivity, or, to put it negatively, "do not offend," is the primary goal of postmodern public discourse lest anyone feel judged or excluded.

There is a timely illustration of this phenomenon, in the August/September issue of the journal First Things. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus cites Louis R. Tarsitano who writes (in Touchstone) that "our present era of postmodernism knows nothing about rational argument"; contests are determined by what Tarsitano calls "the plausible person." According to Tarsitano, "The plausible person is the analog of the two-dimensional image on a television screen, a moving picture of a role that stirs the emotions of the viewers. He is a spectacle and an entertainment: not a communicator of ideas, but sentiments."

As a striking illustration of his theory about the plausible person, the priority of sentimentality over rationality, Tarsitano compares last year's curious juxtaposition of the funerals of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa. He writes of how British Prime Minister Tony Blair "in a sea of plausible persons" read St. Paul's hymn to charity with style, and then downplayed its potentially offensive Christian presuppositions "by sentimentalizing to the pop eulogy of Elton John. He put St. Paul's words into their proper postmodern context, where one song is as good as another, as long as it makes the audience feel something good about itself."

Tarsitano goes on to say, "Diana's funeral was the model of postmodern events, as celebrities, the ultimate in plausible persons, mourned for one of their own. Sung during the procession, the words of the ancient Burial Office were reduced to part of the show. Then, speaking the words of the postmodern Alternative Service Book, the participating clergy demonstrated their bland, vaguely spiritual ability not to give offense, or to draw unseemly attention to such questions as the possible existence of an absolute truth in Jesus Christ.

"In contrast, the funeral of Mother Teresa the following week was anything but a postmodern 'concert with a corpse.' A simple chorus of novice nuns served as the choir, singing with a religious seriousness missing in the technically exquisite music that framed Elton John's performance at Diana's event. The bishops and priests who conducted the service made little effort to appear plausible or to reassure the postmoderns that they were only kidding about the Resurrection and the life in Christ."

Tarsitano says the funeral for Mother Teresa was the same as that of any deceased Catholic. Then he says, "While the cameras followed Diana's funeral in riveted silence, so as not to disrupt the music or speeches, during Mother Teresa's funeral, the networks repeatedly cut away, with apologies for the 'boring' canon of the Roman Mass. The speakers were often silenced, so that commentators could raise questions about the morality of the deceased's Christian opposition to abortion. The same commentators also attempted to rehabilitate Mother Teresa in postmodern terms, stressing her ability to work with people of other faiths as if this proved that she did not take her Christianity or Roman Catholicism too seriously. "The person they praised was not the intensely faithful woman whose body lay in the box before them, but a plausible person who thought that all religions were good and more or less equally true" (First Things, "The Public Square," August/September, 1998, pp. 86-87).

Somehow, while rather dramatically drawn in the comparison of two funerals of prominent women, Tarsitano's notion of the primacy of plausibility vis-a-vis absolute truth strikes a chord. Make no mistake, the motive of plausibility, the motive not to offend or exclude, is good and important in itself, but not at the expense of the fullness of truth. Authentic inculturation of truth cannot be achieved with plausibility as the presumed first principle. Let me repeat that: Authentic inculturation of truth cannot be achieved with plausibility as the presumed first principle.

Surely we agree that evangelizing catechesis or preaching and also worship and prayer should not succumb to the weight of plausibility over doctrine and theology in the practice and life of our Church. Yet, there is some evidence that the fullness of doctrine in the resources we use for catechesis and in preaching has suffered in recent times. I submit that the same happens in some of the resources made available for liturgical planning.

I can illustrate what happens when the primacy of plausibility is applied to published resources in catechesis, in the teaching of, and formation for, faith. I speak from my experience as chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee to Oversee the Use of The Catechism of the Catholic Church of our National Conference of Catholic Bishops. With the assistance of experts, the ad hoc committee of bishops reviews catechetical texts and series of texts to ensure that they are in accord with copyright prescriptions and are in conformity with the content of the Catechism.

At this point in time, we have completed the review of some 20 texts and series. Incidentally, from start to finish, approximately 400 hours are consumed in the process of reviewing a single catechetical series.

Recall that the original inspiration for The Catechism of the Catholic Church was the perceived need for a common language in service to the unity of our faith and, that, in the global context of cultural diversity and religious illiteracy. The publication of the Catechism has brought about a new moment in the Church, a moment in which our national conference of bishops has recognized an opportunity for a genuine renewal of our catechetical mission. It is the work of our committee to contribute to that renewal, and I speak in that spirit this morning.

The ad hoc committee's experience of working closely with the publishers on the improvement of catechetical texts has been very positive. While at first the publishers were apprehensive, they have generally found that the review process results in texts that are more complete and more reflective of the content of our Catholic faith as expressed in the Catechism. In fact, publishers express their gratitude to the committee for its assistance.

Let me describe, briefly, a pattern of doctrinal deficiencies that the committee I chair has found rather common among the catechetical series we have reviewed. I want to emphasize that these deficiencies have been found in those series that have been submitted to us and should not necessarily be generalized to all catechetical materials. While these series often treat certain doctrinal themes quite well, we have noted a relatively consistent trend of doctrinal incompleteness and imprecision. I am convinced the doctrinal incompleteness is due to the prevailing cultural principle of the primacy of plausibility.

1) Insufficient attention is paid to the Trinity and the trinitarian structure of Catholic beliefs and teachings.

Catechetical texts fail at times to present the Trinity as the central mystery of the Christian faith. The language used in referring to the persons of the Trinity contributes to a lack of clarity. This is most evident in the reluctance to use Father for the First Person of the Trinity, and, at times, to substitute Parent God for God the Father. Particularly, descriptions of the relationship between Jesus and the Father are often weak, or, indeed, lacking. There are times when the word God is placed in a sentence where one would expect to find Father or God the Father since the reference is precisely to the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. Plausibility causes some to allow gender sensitivity, certainly important, to obscure the central trinitarian doctrine of the Christian faith.

2) There is an obscured presentation of the centrality of Christ in salvation history and an insufficient emphasis on the divinity of Christ.

Texts fall short in presenting Jesus as the culmination of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of God's plan for our salvation. The indispensable place of the Incarnation in the plan of salvation is not always sufficiently presented. Jesus the Savior is often overshadowed by a more accessible Jesus the teacher, model, friend, and brother. It is not so much a matter of error as it is a matter of imbalance.

Some texts do not present the mystery of the Incarnation in its fullness. Often there appears to be an imbalance in the instruction on the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. At times, we detect a negative undertone in speaking of the divine nature of Christ, as if divinity is equated with being "distant and unreal," perhaps cold arid unfriendly. Apparently, plausibility, an effort not to intimidate, is a major motive here.

3) Another trend is an indistinct treatment of the ecclesial context of Catholic beliefs and magisterial teachings.

Catechetical materials do not always clearly present the Church as established by Christ to continue His Presence and His mission in the world. The teaching function of the Church and its apostolic nature, as well as the role of the hierarchy, the leadership of bishops and priests in teaching the word of God, are often undertreated. The mark of unity in the Church is at times eclipsed by an emphasis on the Church's catholicity and diversity. The plausible motive to present the Church uniquely as a warm and welcoming community eclipses the magisterial and missionary role.

4) There is an inadequate sense of a distinctively Christian anthropology.

By and large, catechetical texts do not seem to integrate the fundamental notions that human persons are religious by nature, that the desire for God is written in the human heart, and that the human person is inherently spiritual and is not reducible to the merely material. Neither are the texts generally clear that it is precisely in Christ that we have been created in the image and likeness of God. Nor do they emphasize that Christ has restored to us the divine image of God, an image disfigured by sin. Rather, too often, the impression is left that the human person is the first principle and final end of his existence. The plausible and important notion of self-esteem and self-fulfillment distorts the true and full nature of the human person.

5) There is a trend that gives insufficient emphasis to God's initiative in the world, with a corresponding overemphasis on human action.

Texts do not adequately emphasize that human action is intended to follow upon God's action and initiative in the world. When the methodological starting point is predominantly human experience, the catechetical texts leave the impression that our human initiative is the prerequisite for divine action. God's initiative at times appears subordinate to human experience and human action. A plausible age-appropriate or experiential methodology that slights the fullness of the truth of the faith is not good methodology.

6) Insufficient recognition is given of the transforming effects of grace.

The catechetical texts we have reviewed tend to present an inadequate understanding of grace. Rather often, it is described as God's love and not much more is said. Often, it is not clearly presented that the preparation of the human person for the reception of grace is itself a work of grace. It is not generally treated as God's initiative that introduces humanity into the intimacy of trinitarian life and makes us His adopted children and participants in His life. The texts are generally weak in treating the particular efficacy of the grace proper to the respective sacraments. Is the mystery of grace too intimidating or, perhaps, too self-effacing to be culturally plausible?

7) We have found a pattern of inadequate presentation of the sacraments.

Catechetical texts often do not treat the sacraments within the paschal mystery, that is, the sacraments are not explicitly presented as the means by which we share in the new life of Christ through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Sacraments are often presented as important human events in life of which God becomes a part, rather than as effective signs of divine life in which we humans participate. Consequently, this leads to a deficient understanding of the divine action and the graced transformation that is at the heart of each of the sacraments.

Particularly, the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders evidence deficiency because the texts usually do not present the absolute ecclesial centrality of the Eucharist and also the essential character and role of the ordained minister in the life of the ecclesial community.

The plausible concern about inclusivity and the emphasis on human experience are the core teaching, and a distortion of sacramental theology results.

8) We have seen a pattern of deficiency in the teaching about original sin and about sin in general.

In general, the texts we review do not clearly teach that original sin is the loss of original holiness and justice, transmitted by our first parents, and that it wounds the human nature of all people. Too often, the texts do not address how the doctrine of original sin informs other doctrines, for example, grace, Baptism, sin, and redemption. For some, hearing about sin is definitely not culturally plausible.

9) We have found a meager exposition of Christian moral life.

At times, overemphasis on personal identity and self-respect gives the impression that these are the primary sources of morality. Too often, the source of morality found in God's revealed law, as taught by the Church and grounded in natural law, is not adequately treated. Where texts could and should present the binding force of the Church's moral teaching in certain areas, often they do not. In addition, instruction on what is necessary for the formation of a correct conscience is either inadequately or mistakenly presented. The distaste for certain moral principles and injunctions in our culture is strong, hence a noticeable plausible silence.

10) Finally, we hove found an inadequate presentation of eschatology.

The eschatological aspect of Catholic doctrine is often sparse. The transcendent, transtemporal, and transhistorical nature of the Kingdom is not always present. The general judgment, the concept of Hell, and the eschatological dimensions of the beatitudes as well as the moral and sacramental orders are not always adequately taught. Contemporary society tends to consider such teachings as passe, and therefore not plausible.

In summary, let me underscore that in each of these areas of concern, the committee presents concrete suggestions to the publishers that have made and continue to make the texts more complete and more faithful to The Catechism of the Catholic Church. I want to emphasize that the publishers have been and are very cooperative in accepting the recommended or required changes and incorporating them into their texts. For this we are all grateful.

It is important to understand that, although there have been deficiencies in our catechetical resources, neither the intent nor the outcome are necessarily lacking in orthodoxy. Incomplete texts are not necessarily heretical, yet they are incomplete. The problem and the hazard, I assert, is plausibility, when situated as the first principle of inculturation. The deficient result is just that, a deficiency, a lack of precision and fullness concerning doctrinal truth in catechesis. Inculturation and the methodology of inculturation may not overlook the full truth of the Catholic doctrine in catechesis, in preaching, and in the texts of our worship and prayer. Many of our Christian ancestors gave their very lives for the fullness of truth.

Last June while making my quinquennial ad limina visit as archbishop of Indianapolis to the Holy Father and the Roman Curia, I, along with the other bishops, had the customary privilege of having lunch with Pope John Paul II. In the course of our rather informal and enjoyable conversation, one of the bishops asked the Holy Father which, of all the encyclical and apostolic letters he has written in his 20 years as Pope, he considers the most important. Without missing a beat, the Pope responded, "The first one."

On my return to Indianapolis, I reread that first encyclical titled Redemptor Hominis (The Redeemer of Man). In that first work written just months after his election as Pope, John Paul II set the agenda of his pontificate with an eye to the Great Jubilee, the new millennium. Not surprisingly, all of his subsequent writings have their roots in that first letter.

Because of my recent familiarity with our catechetical resources, I made an unexpected discovery as I reread his letter. In that first encyclical, the Pope pointedly addressed all of the areas of deficiency that our ad hoc committee has discovered in our review of catechetical materials. The centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity, the fundamental relationship of Father and Son, the absolute primacy of the divinity of Christ for our redemption, the full nature of the Church, the priority of God's initiative in the world, the doctrine of grace, the centrality of the Eucharist and the importance of Reconciliation and Holy Orders in the sacramental life of the Church, the doctrine of original sin, the essential role of the moral law, the importance of an authentic Christian anthropology, and the teaching of the coming of the Kingdom and the last things — they're all there, and they form a substantial part of the papal agenda for our times.

Pope John Paul does not speak of the "primacy of plausibility," but he addresses extensively the situation of teaching the truth in our postmodern culture. He wrote:

"In the light of the sacred teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the Church thus appears before us as tine social subject (of responsibility for divine truth. With deep emotion we hear Christ Himself saying: "The word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me' (John 14:24). In this affirmation by our Master do we not notice responsibility for the revealed truth, which is the 'property' of God Himself, since even He, 'the only Son,' who lives 'in the bosom of the Father' (John 1:18), when transmitting that truth as a prophet and teacher, feels the need to stress that He is acting in full fidelity to its divine source? The same fidelity must be a constitutive quality of the Church's faith, both when she is teaching it and when she is professing it. Faith as a specific supernatural virtue infused into the human spirit makes us sharers in knowledge of God as a response to His revealed Word. Therefore, it is required, when the Church professes and teaches the faith, that she should adhere strictly to divine truth, and should translate it into living attitudes of 'obedience in harmony with reason'. . . .

"Consequently, we have become sharers in this mission of the prophet Christ, and in virtue of that mission we together with Him are serving divine truth in the Church. Being responsible for that truth also means loving it and seeking the most exact understanding of it, in order to bring it closer to ourselves and others in all its saving power, its splendor/and its profundity joined with simplicity" (Redemptor Hominis, nn. 191, 192).

The Holy Father urges an inculturation of the exact divine truth. A final point may be helpful. What we teach and what and how we pray as Church are integrally related. Correct doctrine and consistent practice in worship as well as in the catechetical mission of the Church are important for the very existence of the Church. There is an old Latin saying, "Lex orandi, lex credendi" (the law of praying is the law of believing).

The saying makes the point that what we pray and do at worship affects what we believe. The reverse is also true: What we know in faith affects how we worship and pray. The relationship between doctrine and liturgical practice is important. Bad theology makes for bad liturgy and weakens faith. Therefore, the Church's prayer and its prescribed ritual are carefully formulated. The principle of lex orandi, lex credendi is one of the reasons so much attention is given to the translation and the interpretation of biblical texts and liturgical prayers these days.

Needless to say, I am pleading the case for the importance of doctrine and sound theology in the pastoral life of the Church. There is more to Church teaching than meets the eye. So often, personal decisions about our Catholic faith are made without reference to doctrinal theology. This is a challenge to authentic evangelization. It is especially important to distinguish theology and doctrine from sociology and political ideology, which often drive the primacy of plausibility. The truth of Church doctrine cannot depend on the primacy of plausibility no matter how socially or politically correct or incorrect they are purported to be. As Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I., asserts, doctrine is neither liberal nor conservative. Nor is it bound by the canons of plausibility. The doctrine of the Church is received through the ages, and its inerrancy is protected by the guidance of the Holy Spirit — as Christ promised it would be — before His Ascension into Heaven.

We who tend to be pragmatic are sometimes impatient with theory, in this instance, with theology. In a human organization that is divine in its founding and in its purpose, theology is essential. Sound theology that acknowledges the Deposit of our Faith must not be manipulated to suit the purposes of plausibility.

Our shared mission is to teach and to live the divine truth with the greatest fidelity and yet do so in such a way that speaks to the minds and hearts of the human family in our times. The primacy of plausibility must be overshadowed by our deep commitment to proclaim the fullness of the truth in season and out of season. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a gift that presents, reliably, the essence of our doctrine for our times. Sound catechetical methodology, authentic liturgical prayer, enthusiastic evangelization, and the generous ministry of charity are of a single pastoral fabric. The golden thread is divine truth.

(Reprinted with the permission of the Criterion Press, Inc.)

© The Wanderer, 201 Ohio Street, St. Paul, MN 55107, 612-224-5733.

This item 656 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org