Getting down to it: Two kinds of blogs

I have read up to and through the last chapter of Kasper’s The Gospel of the Family, where he famously proposed that divorced and remarried Catholics be admitted to communion.  Up to this last chapter, what I have found is that Kasper doesn’t fit the wide-eyed liberal monster image that seems to emerge from various news stories I have read about him.  He’s well grounded and, in the best sense, unoriginal when it comes to marriage.  In the last chapter, of course, there will be a lot to talk about it.

But before I get down to it, I want to say a word about how I blog.  There are two kinds of blogs on Catholic thought.  One kind is represented by Edward Feser’s brilliant blog, which presents carefully thought-out and polished pieces that are more or less short journal articles.  The other kind is what you find here:  I blog to share my thought process with people who enjoy being involved in the process.

Back in 2011, I wrote a blog for one year titled “A Year With Ratzinger“.  I read everything I could get my hands on by Ratzinger and put my impressions and thoughts up on the blog; friends left comments, and we had a conversation.  Later, I learned that a philosophy professor from Texas devoted an entire lecture at an important conference to refuting one of my Ratzinger blog posts.  I only know because an acquaintance happened to be in attendance.

The professor was probably right in his critique.  After all, I just tossed up a few thoughts to start a conversation; I didn’t research and work them through carefully.  But (a) it would have been nice if he would have left a comment on the blog sometime before he critiqued me publically, and (b) he was treating my blog as though it were Edward Feser’s.

Over the next few posts, I’m going to wade into a controversial matter and “think out loud” on this blog.  You are not getting my final, nuanced position right away; you are joining me as I get to know the issues.  Please take it in that spirit, and if you think I’ve gone off the reservation then for land’s sake leave a comment before you give a public lecture about it.

Share Button

Not all can receive it: Kasper mystery solved

In my last post, I noted that Kasper departs from the usual Catholic interpretation of Matthew 19:11 in taking Jesus’ words as referring to marriage, as though Jesus were saying that the truth about marriage is something that not all can “receive” but only those to whom it is given.  And I complained that Kasper didn’t even signal his departure.

In context, of course, Kasper says nothing bad.  He takes it in a great direction.  I only noticed it because I’ve heard where this document is leading, namely to a recommendation of relaxing discipline regarding divorce and remarriage.

But today, I figured out both why Kasper took that verse that way and why he felt no need to signal that he was doing something unusual:  he’s following the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1615.  The Catechism not only cites the same verse the same way, but develops its meaning exactly as Kasper does:

This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy – heavier than the Law of Moses. (Mark 8:34 / Matt 11:29-30) By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. (Matt 19:11) This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

So I would say:  no cause for concern here.  Kasper isn’t trying to set up something with a sneaky interpretive maneuver.

Share Button

Not all can receive it: Kasper on marriage, continued

[This is the third in a series on Cardinal Walter Kasper’s The Gospel of the Family.  The other posts are:  1. A First Look at Cardinal Kasper; 2. The Ten Signposts.]

Chapter 3 of Kasper’s The Gospel of the Family brings his running biblical commentary into the New Testament. One thing is clear by this point: Cardinal Walter Kasper is no amateur at this. The man is deep into the Church’s theology of marriage.

Good news for Kasper fans: Cardinal Kasper knows what he is doing!

Potential bad news for Kasper fans:  Cardinal Kasper knows what he is doing!

Here in chapter 3, I finally came across something that just leaves me troubled. Kasper brings up that “A fundamental statement by Jesus concerning marriage and family is found in his famous words about divorce (Matt 19:3-9).” He goes on to describe the conversation in which Jesus says that divorce and remarriage is adultery and the disciples respond, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” Kasper comments:

Jesus indirectly confirms that, viewed from a human perspective, this is an excessive demand. It must be “given” to human beings; it is a gift of grace.

Kasper doesn’t give a citation for this, but Matthew 19:11 (continuing the conversation Kasper has been tracking) is the only place in Scripture where Jesus makes such a statement: “But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” That’s the only verse Kasper can have in mind.

Here’s the strange thing. The patristic tradition agrees with the best modern commentary on Matthew in taking Matthew 19:11 as shifting the topic to celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, reading as leading smoothly into 19:12, “or there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” Kasper is aware of verse 12 and what it means, because he cites it later in the same chapter as referring to a grace given to a minority of Christians of living in celibacy for Christ.

Other people read verse 11 this way. Kasper can certainly side with the minority and take verse 11 as speaking of marriage, but one would think that he would signal somehow that his reading breaks with the usual Catholic interpretation, especially since his reading could suggest that perpetual marital fidelity is a grace given only to a few.

That is not the direction Kasper takes it in this chapter. He simply concludes that marital fidelity should be understood as rendered possible by the grace of the gospel, which softens the hardened heart (Matthew 19:8) that leads to divorce. His reflection on the demands of marriage is actually quite beautiful.

But I’ll be interested to see where this goes.

Share Button

The Ten Signposts

I have read chapters one and two of The Gospel of the Family carefully, and I’m afraid I have little to report: it’s pretty much just boring old Catholic doctrine. Nothing scandalous or juicy.

But I do think I’m seeing what Kasper meant when he said in the preface that “Our topic is not ‘The Church’s Teaching concerning the family.” Chapters one and two take the form of a commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis, and while he footnotes magisterial documents liberally, he does not actually talk about magisterial documents. The Church’s teaching is certainly in the mix, but he’s using it to comment on Scripture.

The one odd moment was in chapter 2, where he writes about the Ten Commandments. After explaining how they express the natural law found in every culture, he says:

They are signposts on the path to a happy fulfilled life. One cannot impose them on anyone, but can offer them to everyone, with good reasons, as a path to happiness.

Surely he knows that one can impose “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not kill” on the general populace, right? Kasper is rumored to be liberal, but I have a hard time thinking he really means to negate the foundations of law and order. So for the moment I’m taking this one as a slip of the pen or tongue or laptop or whatever he used to craft this document.

Share Button

A first look at Cardinal Kasper

 

Spring has arrived in Wyoming.  Birds chirp and gather nesting materials, grass pokes green shoots up through the snow (!), and WCC juniors ask teachers to direct their theses.  This past week I agreed to guide a project that attempts to connect liturgy and family, with a possible look at the debate over Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to communion.

Despite all the hullaballoo over last year’s Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, I have never actually read the text of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal.  In fact, I’ve never read anything at all by Kasper.  To get myself into the thesis project, I thought I would read Kasper’s Gospel of the Family and blog about it.  After all, directing a thesis on faith last year led to my most popular blog series ever.

So far I have only read the introduction.  It does not scream “Heresy!” or “Dissent!”  Kasper chooses not to lead in with a hot-button topic like gay marriage or heterosexual divorce because he wants to start with the gospel itself.  That said, he does say clearly that we are in a crisis because, although marriage is a sacrament of faith, most Christian married couples today–despite their religious affiliation–do not believe the gospel and have in fact concluded that the Church’s teaching on marriage is out of touch and irrelevant.  Kasper observes:

The current situation of the church is not unique.  Even the church of the first centuries was confronted with concepts and models of marriage and family that were different from that which Jesus preached, which was quite new, both for Jews as well as for the Greeks and Romans.  Therefore, our position cannot be that of a liberal accommodation to the status quo, but rather a radical position that goes back to the roots (radices), that is, a position that goes back to the gospel and that looks forward from that perspective.

So far, so good, right?  He doesn’t sound like he is leading up to a proposal for capitulating to the culture.

One little puzzle hides in a footnote.  Noting that “out topic is not ‘The Church’s Teaching concerning the Family,'” he nonetheless adds a footnote in which he lists “the most important documents” regarding that teaching:

  1. Council of Trent: DH 1797-1816
  2. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes 47-52
  3. Apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio
  4. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1601-66
  5. Apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis 27-29
  6. Encyclical Lumen Fidei 52f.

It’s a puzzling list, probably representing not careful work but whatever came to Kasper’s mind as he quickly threw this address together.  There is no sign that he is suppressing texts unfavorable to himself–Sacramentum Caritatis 29 alone would dispel that idea.  But he doesn’t mention some obvious, big-time magisterial texts like Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubii (heavily footnoted by Gaudium et Spes) while he includes the brief and relatively uninteresting passage from Lumen Fidei, probably because it was recent and therefore fresh in Kasper’s memory.

To be honest, I don’t know why this footnote even exists.  It attempts to offer guidance into the key documents of magisterial teaching on marriage, but it is attached to a sentence that says magisterial teaching on marriage is not the topic up for discussion.  Again, this is probably not a carefully thought-out effort but hasty writing ahead of a deadline.

Share Button

3 Ways the Laity Offer the Mass

According to Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei, the sacrifice of the Mass is offered by the fact that the priest makes the body and blood of Jesus to be present on the altar (see paragraph 92). Despite everything we can say about a “priesthood of all the faithful,” only an ordained priest can turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. But Pius XII is equally insistent that all of us in the pews really do offer the sacrifice of the Mass. How does that work? Continue reading “3 Ways the Laity Offer the Mass”

Share Button

The Breath of Adam

[This is the second in a series of posts about the Holy Spirit. To see the first post, click here.]

My last post on the Holy Spirit had to do with how God brings things into some share in his word. Once God has already brought things to a share in his wisdom through the Spirit, we find that texts about the Holy Spirit fall under a second heading. Genesis 2 portrays God giving life to the first man by breathing into him a breath of life, suggesting that the life of the man is a share in God’s own breath. The word for “breath” there is not the same word in Hebrew as the word for “spirit” in Gen 1:2, but one could surmise a connection. Psalm 104 is more explicit: the psalmist says about created, living things, “When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground.” (Psalm 104:29-30) Here the word for breath is ruah both times, and the connection is clear: God sends forth his breath and renews the breath of life in animals and men.

When God creates us to begin with, we have no say in the matter: God brings us into being on the pattern of his Wisdom through his Spirit without any prior contribution on our part. But once we exist as a share in the life of the Son, we also have a share in the life of the Spirit. As God has a “breath” within him, so creatures have a “breath” or impulse within them through which they move and act. And so we find a second set of “Spirit texts” in which creatures are said to have something in them that resembles procession of the Holy Spirit.

Paul speaks of something like this in his first letter to the Corinthians, asking, “For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” (1Cor 2:11) Paul takes for granted a parallel between “God’s Spirit” and “the spirit of the man which is in him”. While the Spirit’s impulse brings a man into existence on the pattern of son, even on the natural level, on that same natural level a man has in him an impulse and a life that is like the Holy Spirit. In a parallel way, while reception of the grace of the Holy Spirit conforms one to the Incarnate Word, so the indwelling of the Spirit causes one to live and act as he did (see for example Roman 8, especially verses 9 through 11).

Despite the scarcity and vagueness of texts about the Holy Spirit, the conclusions I have drawn in this post and the previous one seem clear from Scripture: when we look at how God creates the world, we see him driving things toward the pattern of his Son as though by a might wind; when we look at creatures already living in the world, we see that their own interior impulse toward their fulfilment—and ultimately, toward the glory of God—is a likeness of the Holy Spirit.

Next time, I’ll take a look at what all this means about God’s own interior life, that is, the Trinity.

Share Button

The Breath of the Word

[The is the second in a series of posts about the Holy Spirit.  To see the second post, click here.]

For the Scripture project, I will eventually have to write about the Holy Spirit: Scripture = in-spired = in-spirited = from-the-Holy-Spirit. So I have to, but I’ll admit that it’s an intimidating assignment.

Compared to the Holy Spirit, revelation concerning the Son of God is pretty clear. “Son” is a word we use all the time, and its everyday use clearly illuminates its meaning in theology. The Son became a man like us, walking around and talking in plain language just so we would know him. The New Testament features lengthy and carefully written passages directly about the mystery of the Incarnation, such as the prologue to the Gospel of John or the hymn in Philippians 2. In the end, the procession of the Son is a mystery, for sure, but as mysteries go it is nicely laid out.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is mysterious from beginning to end. Even the word “spirit” is less than clear: what are we supposed to make of the “breath of God”? Everybody knows that a son is a person; what do we say about a hypostatic wind? What’s more, the biblical witness concerning the Spirit is scattered over innumerable books of the Old and New Testament, with no one passage simply opening the mystery in an overt way. One is left to gather the pieces together as best as one can.

All that said, I hope to offer an approach that seems to me both faithful to the biblical witness and complementary to the interpretations offered by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The result will inevitably be a little less than satisfying, because the basis for any interpretation of the Holy Spirit is so vague and scattered to begin with, but there is no way around making the attempt.

My idea starts with the notion that the Son is the wisdom of God, the Father’s interior Word, the pattern to which God looks in creating the world. That much is clear from Scripture. From there, I think we can gather up what Scripture says about the Spirit under two headings, the first of which I’ll present in this post. Continue reading “The Breath of the Word”

Share Button

The House Plant: A Philosophical Story

Some years ago, when I taught a course on the first books of Aristotle’s Physics, I needed a way of to make the idea of nature acting for an end clear to my students.  Some of Aristotle’s hypothetical examples were striking, and in a little work on the principles of nature Thomas Aquinas offered a couple of brilliant comparisons.  Pulling ideas from both sources, I wrote a story for my students and we discussed it together in class.  Although I never taught the course again, the story has been used at Wyoming Catholic College ever since.

Last night I edited the story somewhat in light of my recent adventures in fiction writing.  I am pleased to share with you “The House Plant”.  Continue reading “The House Plant: A Philosophical Story”

Share Button

Some thoughts on goodness

One thing I hope to do for myself in my Scripture project is to take various principles that have been at play in my mind for many years and put them in order. Which ones are more fundamental? Which ones are in fact governed by others? What relationships emerge?

A strong contender for “central principle” is the notion of a “common good.” By a common good, I mean a good that can be shared among many persons without in any way being diminished or divided. Let me unpack that idea a bit.

A cookie is not a common good; it is a private good. My cookie can only be shared by breaking it into parts so that I get less cookie at the end of the deal. And when you look more closely, it turns out cookie isn’t really sharable: the part you get is a part I can’t have, and the part Choco_chip_cookieI keep is a part you will never eat. What I really do when I break my cookie up is I create a bunch of smaller things, and then I keep one of them and I give others away. So I can give cookie away, but I can’t share it.

Friendship is a common good. Not only can I share my friendship with a friend, I can’t actually have friendship without sharing it. My portion of it is not diminished when another’s is increased; instead, my portion is actually increased by sharing it more. Of course, the kind of friendship we usually have in mind when we use the word is not a perfectly common good: a person can have only a few very close friends, and even though it is perfectly shared between them there is a limit to how many people can share in it.

But this is to be expected. Goods come in different kinds, and they fall on a spectrum from purely private to most common and everywhere in between. Any time we find a common good, we’ll find that even though it is common it has its limits. It will be more or less sharable, and more or less diminished when it is shared. The common good of the United States of America, for example, even though it is a great good and much more “sharable without diminution” than my personal friendships, can only extend to its people; the good folks in Argentina are excluded.

The reason is simply that goods fall on a range from less good to most good and everywhere in between. A good that is better is, so to speak, more powerfully burningsungood. As a hotter fire not only heats a person up more but also heats up more people, so a better good is not only better for a person but is a good for more people: it is more common. So more common goods are better goods, and the better a good is the more common it will be.

The only absolutely common good is the good that is goodness itself: God. Every creature in the entire universe has God as its good; in fact, every conceivable creature in every conceivable universe would have God as its good, because his goodness is never used up, so to speak, by what he has created. God is not only the good of every person, but he is more intimately the good of each person than that person’s best friends. God can be not only the friend but even the lover of every person in creation, and it never dilutes,  the way human friendship dilutes when spread too far.

But revelation tells us there is even more. Even though reason rightly tells us that there is only one God, one being that is the source of every being and one good that is the good of every good, still revelation tells us that three persons are this one being. The word “share” explodes at this point, because the three persons are each identical with the divine being rather than sharing in it, but something happens that is more “sharing” than sharing itself. Rather than three friends who each have a share in the group’s friendship, and rather than three citizens who each have a share in the country’s peace, there are three persons who are each identical with the divine goodness without being identical to each other.

Fallen creatures that we are, this is the opposite of what we expected. We listened to the voice of the serpent, who whispered to us that God clings jealously to his divinity, that he wants no one but himself to be like God. But when the second person of the Trinity at last came to respond to the serpent, he did not think equality with God something to be grasped at, to be clutched like a merely private good: rather, he emptied himself, and took the form of a servant. The Incarnation of the Word revealed the Word’s eternal way of being, as the unimaginably best and therefore inconceivably communicable good.

Our reason cannot grasp it, and our sinful inclinations run counter to it, but the revelation of the Trinity tells us clearly: Goodness is even better than we thought.

Share Button