flying.farther

Prof. Roger Haight has written an article for America Magazine. Haight is also on the America podcast in a great little interview extending his article. You can find it here or here. He addresses and clarifies a great deal, ranging from theologian to theologian (Rahner, Metz, Schilleebeckx, Lubac, Sobrino, Johnson, Copeland, etc.), but also touches on the context leading up to Vatican II, church action, theology and science, academia, and the current lay trend to do theology that points to a change in the Catholic church (as opposed to the norm now of clerical theologians). While none of it is largely surprising to those of us who have taken classes from him, I know for many others on the internet, this would be fascinating, so give it a listen.

Halden has been on an ecumenical kick lately, engaging Catholics, wondering what it means to still be Protestant, and other equally irrelevant subjects. Heres my go at it: I think I’ve identified the problem in a classic sketch by Monty Python. (I do feel some what obliged to mention that this is Monty Python which means that it may be a bit much for some people, but hopefully not. I for one will giggle myself to sleep.)

Oh and seriously, congratulations on the kid, Michael of catholicanarchy.

From the BBC:

Catholic nuns and monks decline

Women form the majority of the “members of the consecrated life”
The Vatican has reported a further dramatic fall in the number of Roman Catholic monks and nuns worldwide.

Newly published statistics showed that the number of men and women belonging to religious orders fell by 10% to just under a million between 2005 and 2006.

With some orders falling - not failing, but their numbers are falling - and the increase of laity running the churches, mostly women at around 70-something percent (mostly locally of course), I am curious as to where the Catholic church will end up in the next twenty years. I know a few professors for who whom this trend gives them hope, for they say that eventually the base of the church will force needed changes in the hierarchy.

I have to admit that I was unsure about their hope, but if there is a serious decline in the orders, I suppose for me it is easier to see why there would be the hope. Catholicism isn’t dying, it’ll just eventually have to change to let women and married people in on a more serious level, instead of demanding celibacy of its clergy or excluding women. I think I could live with that.

Still, for other reasons, I do worry about the falling of numbers for the orders. Traditionally the orders functioned as a reforming arm of the church. It was in the orders (or at least the first few generations of the order, until the order itself needed reform) that imaginative space was made for both reforming the church and engaging culture. I know orders won’t simply disappear, but I do worry about losing the sizable presence of those seeking reform. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

I debated putting this post up, but decided against it. Then saw halden’s question on Christology and debated again because these seems to address some questions put forth, but again decided against it. Then Halden does this and now I figure, what the hell. So here is my thousand word summary of Father Roger Haight’s Christology (using his three books on the subject: Dynamics of Theology, Jesus Symbol of God, and The Future of Christology).

By the way, you will probably pick this up as you read, but I’ll just make it clear - his Christology is conversant with pluralism. However, Haight defines pluralism as something similar to unicity, that is, unity and diversity, not simply loads of diversity and relativism. The man is sharp and nuanced, so don’t short shrift his argument on simple things you encounter in my summary. Haight’s Christological work is nearly 1,500 pages of intense, coherent thought. However, after reading it all, I do think that he lives or dies by symbol and I’m not sure he has done enough language work on symbol to back up this hermeneutical device. But enough of that, heres the summary:

The Symbolic Nature of Communicating between the Finite by the Infinite
A symbol is “through which something other than itself is made present”; through which all experiences with God and talking about God is mediated (Dynamics 130). A symbol can be one of two things, concrete (material) or conscious (within the intellectual realm of speech and psyche), but is always dialectical. A symbol is always located within this world of time and space; all symbols are finite (Dynamics 133). However, the finite symbol attempts to convey to a human’s imagination the transcendent God. As the symbol points to God, it envisions the transcendent, and while the symbol is a flawed envisioning, it is an envisioning nonetheless.

Within symbol lays the ultimate source for envisioning the transcendent, one’s own imagination. Symbols spark the human conscious as it opens the mind and pushes the vision of relating to God beyond the now and into an open future. Through this imagination the symbol becomes the point at which the transcendent touches the particular as the symbol become the focal point for the human. The symbol undergoes a transformation in the eyes of the beholder as it opens the particular, human mind to the mystery of the transcendent God and pulls the human into the mystagogical. God becomes both immanent and transcendent in our experience.

Symbol to Salvation: Hermeneutically Forming a Christology from Below
“To understand anything is to interpret it…to be human is to interpret” and it is from this anthropology that interpretation can begin mediating the Christian symbol of God, Jesus of Nazareth (Symbol 41). To understand the symbol and its conditioned past, a method of critical correlation is necessary to compare and contrast past and present contexts so as to understand where the context ends and the symbol begins (Symbol 45). It is after the nature of the symbol is identified, only then can the symbol be brought to our own space and time with a specific relevance and intelligibility to the current audience (Symbol 46).

However, critical correlation or historical understanding cannot be done without imagination. Imagination is necessary whether one talks of ontology or anthropology and the relationships between subjects. Simply put, in order for a human to reach back through time, they cannot re-experience and nor can they actually meet the transcendent from a position of finitude, rather, imagination is mandatory in our particular for we construct (Symbol 39). The imagination of a Christology from below is not superficial or incomplete at conceiving the duality of Jesus, but has the ability to be mature and encompassing of all parts in Christology (Future 28).

Christian Salvations and the Jesus Therein
Salvation specifics, as in what humans are saved from, have never truly been agreed upon (Symbol 335); however, one statement that can be said is that salvation is liberative. Salvation saves humanity from evil and meets human needs with the mediated God through Jesus and God’s kingdom (Symbol 365-382). Salvation is pervasive; a salvation of the individual person extends into the social, as a social salvation affects the individual (Symbol 356). Salvation also has a progressive character, moving eschatologically as it is informed by creation and the history of salvation, reaching and moving human freedom into an expanding horizon of greater liberation (Symbol 392).

Salvation is the point at which humanity meets with the divine for it is salvation that lifts us beyond our unfulfilled humanity and captivity (Symbol 455). And, in the Christian context, Jesus is the Christian mediation of the transcendent God: “insofar as Jesus Christ is the central medium for Christianity’s conception of ultimate reality, it is impossible by definition for Christ to be less than normative for a Christian appropriation of ultimate reality” (Symbol 407). This Christological focus has two dimensions: the objective, “the work of Jesus Christ,” and subjective, “the appropriation of this salvific effect by human beings” (Symbol 336). Historically Jesus preached and lived the Kingdom of God, extending the divine to his immediate context; however, as contexts change, both in space and time, the liberative, salvific Kingdom of God must be translated from the dynamic symbol of God (Symbol 337). It is within the context of the need for salvation that Jesus of Nazareth mediates the liberative, transcendent God.

The Dialectical Nature of Jesus as Symbol
Jesus Symbol of God recognizes that it was not Jesus alone who was the symbol, but rather, Jesus was empowered. Quite simply stated: “Empowerment presumes the indwelling of god as Spirit to the human person” (Symbol 455). As a deduction from Jesus’ empowerment, no matter which Christology one chooses, a Logos or Spirit, Jesus was indwelt by “nothing less than God” (Symbol 451). This is also how Jesus saved, by being the mediating revelation of God in act and being. To speak about divinity of Jesus Christ is to also speak of his humanity. It is quite simply a dialectical relationship of divine and human in one and any explanation of divinity will also be an explanation of humanity (Symbol 462).

A Pluralistic Christology and Christology with Pluralism
According to Haight, an orthodox Christology must be: intelligible, faithful to tradition and empowers the Christian life (Future 159-160, Symbol 428-429). It must be all three of these characteristics, a careful combination of the three criteria in balance (Future 163). However, these three criteria are not necessarily in competition with each other and more importantly do none of the criteria – the dialectic between Nicaea and Chalcedon, intelligibility, faithfulness and empowerment – actually work in competition to one another. There is no seemingly guiding principle that states one Christology must be chosen, and likewise none of the criteria assumes one Christology, instead the criteria function as boundaries in which to explore Christology. Also, this Christology is not necessarily in competition with other religious truths about the transcendent God that are similarly mediated by symbol. Instead, a pluralistic Christology identifies both the unity in religious truth and the necessary diversity through which the truth is mediated.

Here’s Conan O’Brian’s take on the Pope’s recent announcement about Papal authority, protestant “churches” (or ecclesiastical communities I should say… but really, what is the difference?), etc. Rather funny me thinks:

Now, I personally was rather frustrated with the declaration/announcement itself, because as it seems to me (although I am not an authority on Roman Catholicism, far from it), and from discussions I’ve had with Catholics, that this is not so much a particularly faithful interpretation of Vatican II, but rather an attempt to roll back advances made in Vatican II (without really admitting to it).

Maybe I am talking with the minority of Roman Catholics, or perhaps even better understood, conceivably there are two streams in Catholicism right now, each with its own official documents and declarations - each with its easily quotable statements and official justifications.

I actually want to get somewhere in this post, instead of creating a place for lots of angry yelling. So what do we really make of all this? Is this really subverting Vatican II, the best interpretation, or should we just get used to the tension between the two sides since they’re equally viable? Although, if you you’ve got a better question about all this, and hopefully an answer (but not necessarily required), I’d love to hear it.

So a few days back I made the decision to switch my summer reading from Current (New) Progressive Roman Catholic theologies to Roger Haight’s Christology. I still have the packet from Prof. Haight’s class on the Catholic theologies which I still plan on reading through sometime in the future. If you’re curious as to who made the list, he includes the following in the readings: Amaladoss, Aquino, Copeland, Ellacuría, Espín, Goizueta, Gutiérrez, Haight, Johnson, Lonergan, Metz, Nyamiti, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Schüssler Fiorenza, Sobrino and Tracy.

However, despite such an interesting reading list, I decided to go with Haight’s Christology (you can see the one of the fruits of the class here). I didn’t want to regret not taking a guided reading from the author on his own material, particularly when AAR itself has held sessions titled “Haight’s Thought.” So now the blog will get a dose of some hard core spirit Christology that the Vatican (read here: Ratzinger) really doesn’t like (but is still faithful to Vatican II, or so Haight claims).

In other news, I finished Volf’s The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World and I’ll write about it later.