Culture Wars in Perspective.

As part of another article, John Allen provides a long quote from the February 21st "encyclical" of Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople. In the Patriarchal document there is a positive, but careful, view of the modern world. He speaks often about the need for Orthodoxy to encounter the "modern world" and dialogue with other religious communities and other forces existing at this time in the world.

In a sense, Bartholomew's view and words are similar to those of Pope John XXIII who wanted to open the windows of the Church to dialogue with the modern world for the benefit of the Church and the world. Although aware of the defects and, yes, evil in contemporary culture, the Holy Father looked upon culture, at the very least, as a "glass half-full." The Holy Father then called the Vatican II Council which, by-and-large, succeeded.

The election of Pope John Paul II signaled a change in papal views of the Church and the World and their interrelationship. Under John Paul II, modern culture was seen more negatively. He viewed modern culture as primarily antagonistic to the Church. The Holy Father, in fact, called modern culture a "culture of death." He did not apply that phrase only to abortion, but to all of culture, so to speak, seeing modern culture as a "glass half-empty." What began with John Paul, is being implemented by Pope Benedict. This can be seen in the current emphasis on "the reform of the reform" in Liturgy, the reassertion of papal authority/control, and the almost extreme emphasis on "Secularism" and need to "re-Christianize" Europe.

Another view of modernization and modernity.

Some time ago a sociologist, Peter Berger and his colleagues wrote,  Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness (1974). Some points they made, I believe, are relevant to the apparent impasse we face today:

1. Technological change and concomitant economic development are the primary (though not sole) engines that account for changes in other aspects of society. For example, it was the development of the factory system that brought about the existence and spread of modern cities and the modern nuclear family (While we focus on our values, technology creates the parameters which constrain and limit our choice of values).
2. The secondary "carriers" of modernization and modern consciousness are the mass media and modern mass education (Not the family and the church)
3. In modern societies there is no longer an over-arching "meaning system" (E.g. Religion) that acts as a "glue" to hold society together.  (Religion loses it's "sacred" character).
4. The fundamental institutions of society (E.g. Economy, Politics, Religion, and Family) become separate and compete with each other; they create their own institutional "meaning systems and each competes for our loyalty."  We begin to wear "different hats;" We love our neighbor on Sunday. On Monday we follow the "dog eat dog" norms of business. At home we struggle to develop and maintain our "own" private family meaning systems.
5. Increasingly, individuals are free to create private meaning systems in the spaces, or interstices, not dominated by one or another institution. This, becomes what we call the private sphere.
6. All of these sociocultural changes create and foster "modern consciousness," an approach to understanding and acting in the world that sees reality as composed of inter-changeable parts among other things drawn from the economic system and human relationships based on the impersonal pigeon holes of political bureaucracy.

Modernization is an ambiguous process.

Modernization is a blessing because it has given humans greater freedom from the "vagaries" of nature. It has also give us "freedom" in the sense of greater options.

Modernization has been a curse because it has led to high levels of alienation ( a feeling of powerlessness and feeling separated from others and from the social fabric) and anomie (a sense of "normlessnes,"  loss of meaning, and aloneness, confusion and impermanence.

Most people have become disenchanted with modernity, if not with all of modernization. Creating the "private sphere" to deal with the ambiguities of the modern situation has not worked.

Berger, et. al. suggest that there have been three responses to this disenchantment:

1. To work ever harder and harder to increase modernization and modernity, carrying it to its logical conclusion (the conservative approach).
2. To actually accept that modernization and modernity are here to stay and to selectively accept, reject or modify those aspects of them that will prove most helpful to ensure continued existence of human social and cultural life with a greater development of peace, justice and community. (The moderate and liberal approach).
3. To retreat from modernity as much as possible through new nationalisms, cult-like movements and communities, or, at the extreme, to sabotage and destroy existing social arrangements and material resources (The retreatist, nativest, approach).

Many observers and commentators  claim that we already exist in a "Post-Industrial," or "Post-Modern" world and society. I disagree. Certainly the creation of the computer, many new digital devices, sophisticated software and rapid and instantaneous communication, and the rapid transfer of goods and services across the globe are inevitably pushing us further and further in the direction of a post industrial / modern society, sometimes called the "Digital Society." But we are not there yet; we are still in the process of transitioning. We must continue to construct the Post-Modern society and culture, especially in a humane form. Personally, I hope that whatever form of society that we construct will be in harmony with Christian principles.

The culture wars that we constantly hear about in the Catholic community are a prime example of the transitional state of the world and the Church. How things will settle down if they ever do, is still open. So many of the currently discussed "conflicts" in the Church are symptoms of a much deeper divide among Catholics based on fundamentally different views of the world, society and the Church. Notice how many of these issues are cast into "us verses them" terms. Or "either-or" rather than "both-and" terms. All of the differences arise from the transition period within which we live. If we place what is happening in the Church within the context of the larger world, it should highlight the importance of the process and whether the "battles" can be resolved through common dialogue or if this is a zero-sum game.

So do you think modern culture is a glass half-full or a glass half-empty?

Do you think we are already in a post-modern society or still in transition?

If these ideas resonate with you, what's next?

Sex Abuse and both/and ?

Can there be a middle ground in the ever widening sex-abuse scandal engulfing the Catholic Church? John Allen of the NCR asked this question yesterday and provided his judgment on that issue

I consider myself a Vatican II Progressive Catholic, but deeply impressed into my being is an appreciation of and commitment to the "both/and" characteristic (sacramentalism, analogical imagination) of Catholicism. I understand, but appreciate less, the "either/or" view of life. The world always appears in terms of gray, thus the both/and view is essential. However, we are sometimes (often?) called upon the make specific and clear choices.

The sex-abuse scandal is a complex situation and the issue of Benedict's action makes it more so. Those who have read my previous posts should know that I believe:

•  That the primary response of individuals and "the Church" must be compassion and assistance to the victims of abuse.
• That prevention of further abuse must occur even if that calls for dramatic or major changes in Church administration, internal procedures, and practices (E.g. optional celibacy, Married priests secrecy,).
• That abusers should also be treated with compassion, but should always be prosecuted to the full extent of Civil and Canon law. The goal must be the protection of the community (society) and not revenge. 
• That we must stop talking about "mistakes." Call things what they are: "illness" or "moral" evil as the case may be. In both civil life and the Church no one ever seem to do anything "wrong" these days. Everyone seems to only "make mistakes." Abusers my be ill; they make bad or sinful decisions. An adult doesn't just mistakenly abuse a child or anyone subject to his influence, authority or power.
• What has been said of abusers applies even more so to priests, bishops, and a system that neglects, covers up or "makes mistakes" about sex abuse. I have experienced the culture in which deviant behaviors (E.g. alcoholism, sexual behaviors)  were interpreted only as moral/spiritual problems. That is the culture that many Church leaders grew up in. However that day must pass.

I long for and struggle to discover the kind of both/and view and decisions that will move us forward. I must admit it's a difficult. Any of, you, my readers, have any insights or suggestions? Send a comment!!!

When it comes to the current crisis, especially regarding the Holy Father, John Allen asks whether there is a middle ground.  Based on his extensive knowledge and experience, he makes two points.

The two cases from Pope Benedict's past that have recently come to light, one in Munich and one from his years at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, raise important questions, and the pope needs to answer them in order to move ahead. (Emphasis added)

 We live in a new age, a time that requires, demands, transparency. Look at our political life. Think of Richard Nixon and Watergate, Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair, the whole debate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or recent accusations of "back room politics" and health care reform. People can no longer, and will never, accept "cover-ups, appeals to secrecy, etc.

People want, increasingly demand, the "truth" and admission of wrong doing from their leaders. Whether or not Benedict has told the "truth" or allowed or participated "cover ups," it will eventually become necessary to provide a credible explanation and, if necessary admission of wrong doing by commission or omission.

Allen's second point is that:

Those questions, however, have to be seen in the context of his overall record on the crisis, and particularly since 2001, when John Paul II put then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in charge of reviewing the case files, there's a lot to be said for that record.

I believe any objective observer will agree that some positive change has occurred since 2001. The question is whether there has been enough "positive changes" and if they are the correct changes in the right places.
If you have an opinion leave a comment.

Sadly, Allen reports that response his article(s) has been divided between the two extremes: those who claim that he's part of the extreme Left and doing a "hatchet job" on the Church. At the opposite extreme, commentors  say things like, "Don't you ever get tired of being an apologist for the Vatican?"

John  ends by asking, about very controversial issues, "Is there room for a middle ground?"

My answer right now is "I don't know, but I hope so."

What about you, my readers? Do you have an opinion?

Reactions to Benedict's Letter to the Irish People

Before all else, people owe it to themselves to read the Pope's full letter.

There was never a question but that the Holy Father:'s  the letter would please some and anger others. In his letter:

• He shows his personal sorrow over the sex abuse charges.
• He speaks directly to those abused with words of comfort.
• He chastises the abusers and the bishops of Ireland.
• He asks for forgiveness for the abuse in the name of the Church.
• He says that he is currently setting up a "Visitation" (investigation) of the dioceses and Catholic institutions in Ireland.
• He directs the clergy and bishops to cooperate with civil authorities in bringing abusers to justice.
• He directs that "spiritual practices" be carried out in penance and petition for healing; he specifically mentions Eucharistic Adoration in every diocese, a mission for all the clergy, and year long petition and penance by all the Irish people.

No one who is fair-minded can deny that this is a positive step in the right direction. John Allen gives a number of instances in which, for a number of years, as Cardinal Ratzinger and as pope, Benedict has taken other positive steps to stop child sex abuse.

Today however, many remain critical of the pope and his letter to the Irish. The most salient criticisms seem to be the following:

• He placed all the real "blame" on the accused priests and local bishops alone.
• He did not discuss, what many believe is the crux of the problem: the systemic nature of Clerical power and actions or inaction of the higher clergy in hiding or covering up abuse.
• He did not address the increasing international sex abuse scandal, currently being investigated in Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Italy and Brazil.
• He, himself, didn't announce specific Vatican actions and programs for a "zero tolerance" policy similar to the program approved for the U.S.
• He didn't accept personal responsibility for the system nor say anything about his own role in these cases while he was archbishop of Munich.

Most of the dailies (Washington Post, New York Times, National Post) reported on the letter with a mixture of fact and subtle interpretation none of which was particularly positive. That may be  because of the outrage over such hideous crimes. The "comments" by readers of the various articles were all disappointed or angry that the pope did not take a stronger stand. The comments made in  the three British dailies (The Guardian, The Times, and the Daily Telegraph) I follow expressed extreme anger over the sex abuse and how the Church has handled it. These comments were often vicious attacks on the Catholic Church itself.

Personally, I agree that the Church must discover and implement a process that is much more transparent and honest; a process that places the victims of abuse and the People of God above the "protection" of the institutional church's current manner of dealing with new issues.

Yes the abusing priests committed unspeakable crimes. Yes, the bishops made terrible "mistakes" as the Holy Father said in his letter. These men must accept the responsibility for what happened. On the other hand, the Vatican has fostered or allowed practices of secrecy, even directing all involved: Bishops, clergy, abusers, and very often the victims themselves to remain silent under the pain of sin or excommunication. Why?

The easy answer is "pure power" and maintenance of the the status quo. There is some truth to that argument. However there are other elements to consider. Most of the Cardinals and senior bishops come from a time and a culture in which alcoholism and sexual deviance were understood only as moral problems. In that culture it was sufficient to confess, do penance and renew one's prayer life. Such moral deviance was the province of the Church to cure or punish. It was never understood as something that related to secular authorties.

This view easily led to the idea of "protecting the Church" from "scandal." Although not right, it is understandable as part of the early defenses of the Church after the Reformation. The exercise of near absolute power by the hierarchy became "standard operating procedure."

But as 20th century theologians, liturgists and Scripture scholars began to understand and appreciate the situation of a Medieval Church facing the modern world, they suggested ways to speak to this new world. Pope John the XXIII was inspired to call Vatican II with its many changes. However, many old inadequate procedures continued. For some reason fundamental changes never came about.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the sex abuse scandals are forcing the Church to reassess its internal and external processes and methods of operation. The Church hierarchy are called to enact more transparent and collegial ways to lead the People of God; more compassionate ways that include justice tempered by mercy.