WaPo | As a Protestant, I have no particular insight into the internal
theological debates of Catholicism. But the participants seem to inhabit
different universes. One side (understandably) wants to shore up the
certainties of an institution under siege. Francis begins from a
different point: a pastoral passion to meet people where they are — to
recognize some good, even in their brokenness, and to call them to
something better. That something better is not membership in a stable
institution, or even the comforts of ethical religion; it is a
relationship with Jesus, from which all else follows.
Instead of
being a participant in a cultural battle, Francis says, “I see the
church as a field hospital after battle.” First you sew up the suffering
(which, incidentally, includes all of us). “Then we can talk about
everything else. Heal the wounds.” The temptation, in his view, is to
turn faith into ideology. “The faith passes,” he recently said, “through a distiller and becomes ideology.
And ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not
Jesus; in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are
rigid, always. . . . The knowledge of Jesus is transformed
into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close
the door with many requirements.”
The message seems simple. It
actually highlights a complexity at the heart of Christianity: Its
founder coupled a call for ethical heroism (don’t even lust in your
heart) with a disdain for institutional religion and self-righteous
clericalism. And this has been disorienting to institutionalists from
the start.
Francis has devoted serious attention to reforming
the institutional expression — particularly the finances — of the
Catholic Church. But he has chosen to emphasize the most subversive and
challenging aspects of Christian faith. He really does view rigidity,
clericalism and hypocrisy as just as (or more) damaging as sexual
matters. Liberals want to incorporate this into their agenda. But the
pope has his own, quite different agenda — which has nothing to do with
our forgettable ideological debates. It is always revolutionary, and
confusing to the faithful, when a religious leader believes that the
Sabbath (including all the rules and institutions of religion) was made
for man, and not the other way around.
0 comments:
Post a Comment