[soc.religion.christian] Dialogue with Rome, II -- Sacraments

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