mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon) (12/04/89)
As I continue to read Cardinal Ratzinger's _Principles of Catholic Theology_, I find him leading gently into his subject by extended discussion of baptism (and I will consider this shortly) and then going on to a Vatican II statement "The Church is, in Christ, a sacrament, as it were, a sign and instrument of the most intimate union with God as well as of the unity of all mankind." (from _Lumen gentium_) He gives an exposition of what was troublesome to the council in this statement as well as its background in 20th century theology and earlier thought back to Trent. And in conclusion of that section of his work, he says some things that I wholeheartedly agree with: "1. The designation of the Church as a sacrament is opposed to an individualistic understanding of the sacraments as a means of grace; it teaches us to understand the sacraments as the fulfillment of the life of the Church; in doing so, it enriches the teaching about grace: grace is always the beginning of union. As a liturgical event, a sacrament is always the work of a community... "2. The designation of the Church as a sacrament thus deepens and clarifies the concept of the Church and offers a response to contemp- orary man's search for the unity of mankind: the Church is not merely an external society of believers; by her nature, she is a liturgical community; she is most truly the Church when she celebrates the Eucharist and makes present the redemptive love of Jesus Christ, which, as love, frees men from their loneliness and leads them to one another by leading them to God. "3. The positive element common to both of these statements is to be found in the concept of _unio_ and _unitas_: union with God is the content of grace, but such a union has as its consequence the unity of men with one another." I felt this deserved full quotation, because I have never before seen so clear a statement of my own understanding of the church, and its relation to God and to humanity. Similarly, Ratzinger's treatment of baptism has some very insightful and worthy remarks. His comments are generally in the context of an adult baptism and conversion/catechumenate (though he gives attention in one section to the matter of infant baptism). He particularly, and fruitfully, dwells on baptism being *in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit* -- pointing to our absorption into the Name of God as a thread of meaning in Jesus' controversy with the Sadducees about resurrection, where God's Name is what makes Him the God of the living Abraham and Isaac and Jacob: "God has linked himself to a man in such a way that, by referring to this man, it is possible to say of God ... who he is. He names himself by reference to men: men have become, as it were, his own name. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are thus, one might say, attributes of God. And Jesus bases his argument on this perception. These men make God nameable; they belong to the concept of God; they are his name. But God is the living God -- if anyone is associated with God in such a way that he is, as it were, God's identification before the world, then such a one must himself belong to God..." This meditation on our being drawn into the name of God at our baptism struck me as very compelling. Except that Ratzinger USES it to drag in a social agenda that does not seem to me to have any place in this context. He purports to "explain" his meaning by saying: "It is ... analogous to the act of marriage, which establishes between two individuals a communion of name that is, in turn, an expression of the fact that, from now on, they form a new unity [so far so good!] by virtue of which they abandon their former mode of existence [?] and are no longer to be met separately but always together [?] ... "The situation of the newly baptized is, in this respect, analogous to that of a woman in a patriarchal society ... In adopting her husband's name, the wife at the same time surrenders her own name. She leaves behind what is hers and belongs henceforth no longer to herself... The Yes of love for another involves a far-reaching renunciation of self." The last sentiment would be unobjectionable (or much *less* objectionable) if it were not so absolutely one-sided. The mention of "patriarchal society" before the ellipsis is a sort of disclaimer, but the post-ellipsis quotation (which is actually two pages later) seems to have allowed the patriarchal bias to become utterly unqualified. I don't think I'm unfair to Ratzinger to splice his text this way; he really does *not* seem to notice that he has discarded symmetry and suggested that the woman "belongs" to the man, rather than that *each* renounces an isolate self in favor of union. And yet this is relevant to his main theological point -- in becoming known by God's name in baptism, we offer ourselves in the line of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob to be, in all humility, "God's identification before the world." If we have renounced ourselves in a "yes" of love for God, he has -- in the most terrible of miracles -- renounced himself in love of us, to be known through us to all the world. Ratzinger's theology is profound; his imagery is a sexist nightmare that may lead him to create an equally patriarchal asymmetry of the baptized people of God as "belonging" to the Church, the Body of Christ -- identified with the Catholic hierarchy, of course. This political image is an interruption in the discussion of baptism, but it comes explicitly to the fore in Ratzinger's further treatment of the Vatican II proclamation of the Church as sacrament. "How is it [the quotation above, especially point 3] relevant to man's actual lack of unity? ... the new generation after the Council trans- formed de Lubac's theology ... into a political theology that sought to put Christianity to practical use as a catalyst for achieving political unity... Toward the end of the sixties, this logic seemed to have become irrefutable. Since then, its effects have led many to question it... And we come here upon something unexpected: rightly understood, the path that leads men within and the path that draws them together are not in conflict; on the contrary, they need and support one another. "Man seeks to go beyond the boundaries of love of fellowman and to make his life truly a promise by identifying himself with the power of history itself: the liberation movements of today have no lesser goal. But can man identify himself with this power that we need not hesitate to call God? No. That is why even the best of these move- ments are but well-meaning attempts that succeed only in miring man more deeply in his tragic situation. Man cannot identify himself with God, but God has identified himself with man -- that is the content of the communion that is offered to us in the Eucharist... The Church is the celebration of the Eucharist; the Eucharist is the Church." That is, the Vatican II statement leads quite easily to liberation theology, as well as American and European "democratization" of the Church. I accede to his caution about the concordance of the path within and that of unity, and the warning not to arrogate to ourselves the judgment of history. But Ratzinger has fulfilled the "promise" of his patriarchal image of baptism -- we have given ourselves to God as the woman to her husband and no longer have anything to say in the matter. The Church, says Cardinal Ratzinger, is the Mass and nothing else, and *that* communion has no implications for any other kind. Period. However, I follow Ratzinger's theological argument to the conclusion that God has -- wondrously -- decided to be present on earth among us and in us, and to be known through us. This is matter for fear and trembling (as well as love and trust) and we most certainly must not arrogantly think that we *are* God -- we need to pray (as in the Episcopal compline service) "Lord, you are in the midst of us, and we are called by your Name: Do not forsake us, O Lord our God." -- Jeremiah 14:9 But Ratzinger seems to think that our baptism effaces us, instead of being our true birth in the Spirit. We are to be "good spouses" to Christ, and keep silent and stay in the kitchen (oops, church). According to the Cardinal, *all* human effort towards liberation is wrong, even when done in fear and love of God. We must just patiently suffer while our worldly lords beat us and exploit us. That is what God wants as human _communio_. Harumph! Now, it is true that the most extreme forms of almost *any* Christian statement tend towards heresy, and Ratzinger is certainly entitled to call into question any simplistic, extreme claim that _communio_ implies Communism. But his reaction amounts to a pietistic rejection of *any* force to the Vatican II pronouncement: he reduces a profound recognition of the interpenetration of the Church and our life in human communities to a school-marmish call for us to be good little Catholics and all go to Mass together. His reaction is not merely a caution that extremes put a human agenda before God's will, he rejects *every* social implication of the statement. And he doesn't even give reasons for this: he simply maligns his opponents. Vatican II tells us that _communio_ is more than munching on hosts on a Sunday morning, that it has implications for our communal life in the world. And Cardinal Ratzinger comes along to try to pack the genie back into the eucharistic vessels. So once again I turn from this text with some ambivalence. There is much here that I commend, and recommend for any Christian to think about. But I keep finding items that suggest to me an agenda that derives not from his (admirable and provocative) theology but from his politics. And on this, I'm inclined to give *my* version of the slogan someone else quoted in a follow up to my previous article -- a neoconservative is a liberal who has mugged the poor or powerless and is now casting around for a defense. -- Michael L. Siemon Hell is a different pain, for there is despair. ...!cucard!dasys1!mls But of all pains that lead to salvation, this is the most pain: to see thy beloved suffer. -- Julian of Norwich