The Church's center of gravity:
The substance of the faith, not structures
Translated from
March 8, 2013
Cardinal Walter Kasper finds himself taking part in a Conclave even after turning 80 a few days ago. Providence handed him this gift while in his retirement.
[By virtue of a rule promulgated by John Paul II that says cardinals who turn 80 during a sede vacante preceding a papal conclave can still take part in the Conclave.]
His long relationship with Joseph Ratzinger reflects a large part of the Church's recent history. Both were young and brilliant theologians who shared all the enthusiasm for the Second Vatican Council. Both saw the need to renew theology, by going back to the sources, on the one hand, and by dialog with modernity, on the other.
Their intellectual openness and the absence of formality between the two allowed them to agree and disagree without pretenses, even when both were already cardinals.
Kasper always placed the emphasis on structural and disciplinary issues. He was concerned principally with the relations between the Pope and bishops, advocating for 'less centralism and more collegiality', with the participation of laymen in Church structures, as well as progressive causes like allowing communion for remarried divorcees [whose first sacramental marriage had not been annulled].
These are not minor topics, and his colleague Ratzinger never declined to discuss them.
[In fact, their best-known confrontation was an open exchange of articles in which Kasper argued, basically, that the local Churches had precedence over the universal Church, whereas Ratzinger maintains it is the universal Church that validates the local Churches. I may not be summarizing the argument correctly - but I'll look back over that exchange, which is documented by Christopher Blosser in the Ratzinger Fan Club.]
One thing is sure: Ratzinger always placed the center of gravity of the Church, not in structures, but in the substance of the faith.
Whenever Kasper spoke of crisis, he underscored the need to 'modernize the machinery' of the Church, to make her norms more flexible. Whereas Ratzinger-Benedict XVI always insisted that the crisis was the fatigue and weakness that had overtaken the faith of many Christians.
Of course, the two positions are not incompatible, not even two the two men themselves, but each has held to the position - the musical key, as it were, when it was time to face the music.
When Joseph Ratzinger was elected in 2005 to the Chair of Peter, many doubted whether Kasper had any more future in the Roman Curia. For years, he had led the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity with a sensibility that was not always in accord with that of the new Pope. But Benedict XVI confirmed him in his position and kept him on for five years until Kasper retired, such was the Pope's greatness of mind and spirit.
Now Kasper is back in Rome and has reiterated his progressivist program in an interview with Paolo Rodari (now with La Repubblica): decentralization, extending collegiality to all the strata of the Church, a Copernican reform of the Curia
[of which he was part for more than 10 years!], and a reform of canon law which would unconditionally allow remarried Catholic divorcees to receive Communion.
[Why is the latter concern such an obsession with the progressive German clergy? It's analogous to the obsession of the Western secular world with bending over backwards for homosexuals. As if the 'special interest' of minority groups must trump the principles of the Church, in the case of divorcees, and of natural law, in the case of homosexuals... BTW, a Catholic blogsite, commenting on the Rodari interview, reminds us that Kasper started out being an assistant to Hans Kueng in Tuebingen, where Kasper obtained his doctorate in theology. But Wikipedia says he was also an assistant to the late Cardinal Scheffczyk, a conservative held in high esteem by Joseph Ratzinger. Now we know who influenced him more.]
I repeat - there are not trivial topics. But strangely, Kasper makes no mention at all of the 'fatigue of faith' in the Western world, the educational
[i.e.,catechetical] deficiencies of Christian communities, nor the challenges of communicating the faith in a world marked by nihilism.
Of course, the positions embodied by Kasper are completely legitimate and must represent one current of sensibility operating among the cardinals who will go into conclave: that of those who consider the Church's problems of structure and internal government as priorities, especially after Vatileaks and dysfunctions reported in the Curia.
[Even Restan strangely buys into this - although no one has reported any major problem or dysfunction in the organisms of the Curia other than the Secretariat of State and its dependency, IOR. One would have thought that newsmen covering the Vatican could have dedicated some effort during the sede vacante to present an objective review of the various curial offices. to expose any such major problems and dysfunction = other than the normal dose of office politics and petty intrigue found in any organization. The fact that no one has done so - nor has anyone during the year of Vatileaks - leads this particular observer, me, to think there is nothing they can point to. Otherwise, if they are not exposing anything now - when all 5000 newsmen covering the Conclave are itching for any actual news at all - one must conclude there is nothing to expose.
And yet, each and every report coming out of pre-Conclave Vatican makes a general reference to 'Curial chaos and dysfunction' as if this had been established at all. Censorious perceptions have taken the place of objective fact. What maddens me is why no one in the Curia takes the lead to speak out and challenge the media, "Show me what my office has done wrong, and let us examine if you have any grounds for saying so". Is it just simple cowardice, which is unworthy of cardinals [who swore to be ready to shed their blood if need be], or because each office has skeletons to hide? If the Curial heads do not voluntarily provide a report of their offices and their custodianship before the Conclave, then the next Pope should begin his dealings with the Curia by requiring them to make a public accounting of their stewardship. I wish Benedict XVI had done so before he left office.
And there are those who insist, 50 years after Vatican II, on the need to re-dimension the 'center' of the Church.
It was precisely in Germany, homeland to both Kasper and Ratzinger, that Benedict XVI said these words, which I think, illuminate this debate:
We see that in our affluent western world much is lacking. Many people lack experience of God’s goodness. They no longer find any point of contact with the mainstream churches and their traditional structures. But why is this? I think this is a question on which we must reflect very seriously... The Church in Germany is superbly organized. But behind the structures, is there also a corresponding spiritual strength, the strength of faith in the living God? We must honestly admit that we have more than enough by way of structure but not enough by way of Spirit. I would add: the real crisis facing the Church in the western world is a crisis of faith. If we do not find a way of genuinely renewing our faith, all structural reform will remain ineffective.
[How many times and in how many different ways Benedict XVI said this, but it is all apparently lost on those cardinals who continue to be obsessed with structural reform instead of the essentials of the faith. Almost as if they would make such reform a pretext for not confronting the real crisis of the faith in their own jurisdictions.]
One last reflection on the center of Catholicism in Rome. Benedict XVI has shown us a way of exercising the Petrine ministry in which the center does not eat up nor absorb the distinct elements of the ecclesial body.
With him, Rome has been the center of doctrinal substance and the persuasion of Christian witness, but never an invasive imperial center. In this too, Joseph Ratzinger's Pontificate will leave its mark.
Without such a center as we have seen with him, the collegiality advocated by the Council would mean little.
[What is there to be collegial about if the center does not hold, or if there is no there there?
It's a paradox of the post-modern age. The era of globalization and social networks have invested the Papacy with even greater weight and responsibility instead of diluting it. Should we not pay attention to the signs of the times?
It just occurred to me that the presence of 5,000 or so media representatives now in Rome for the Conclave is a remarkable fact in itself. There is no funeral of a great man and leader to cover this time, just the election of a new Pope. No such media convergence attends the election of a US President or any other secular leader for that matter - everyone can stay home conveniently and watch everything on TV or on Internet livestream.
How then are we to read this media interest unequalled by any other event? (I doubt if even Diana's wedding or funeral attracted this many accredited media representatives.) The secular world has always been quick to dismiss the Church as a thing of the past and to mock her mercilessly. But it takes her seriously enough to send 5,000 individuals to cover the Conclave!?!?!
They may not realize it but it's an indirect tribute to an institution that has outlived all other human institutions, despite the human fallibility (and I use the term deliberately) of her Popes, the men who have represented the face of the Church to the world.
The Popes have included saints and scoundrels and all types in between, but as someone pointed out, not even the most criminal of them ever betrayed the deposit of faith handed down from Christ to the apostles and to the Church. That is the certainty we hold to as Catholics.
But it is one the secular world will never understand, as its most strident voices continue trying to force their favorite liberal causes on the Church with ferocious partisan advocacy and all the tools at their disposal, as if they thought the Church would change her teachings to suit current opinion and to accommodate the advocates thereof.
Obviously, John Paul II's all-conquering charisma failed to win them over - it simply deflected their ire to Joseph Ratzinger, his defender of the faith. As Pope, already demonized by them in the preceding two decades, not even Benedict XVI's limpid reasoning and solid apologetics could make a dent in the secular imperviousness to the actual reality of the Church - not what they think it to be, in the idiotic blissfulness of their deliberate ignorance.
So we must all put up with the continuing babble of idiocy and ignorance, lies and distortions, and even outright hostility in how the media reports the Church to the world - which includes us! Starting with the babble of Babel from the 5,000 media reps now in Rome. It is not going to change soon.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/03/2013 01:15]