"When one believes, you should want to know more about what and why."

This post sponsored by a fortuitous collision of stories. The three stories/articles are:

• "Six Surprising Things About Benedict XVI, 'The Puzzling Pope'", by David Gibson for Beliefnet
• "Talking to Kids About God", by Kathleen Deveny for Newsweek (ht: John Mallon)
• "A ‘model theologian’ prepares to step aside", by Gary Stern on Blogging Religiously

The topic of the Pope's puzzling persona has been out and about for a while now, and Gibson, who has written a book about Benedict XVI, takes it up again as he seeks to introduce Beliefnet readers to the paradoxical Pontiff:

There are many paradoxes about Benedict XVI, but this may be the biggest: For a generation, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was one of the most prominent and controversial men in Roman Catholicism. And now he is the Supreme Pontiff, arguably the most visible and influential religious leader in the world. Yet on the eve of his first visit to the United States as pope, American Catholics—and everyone else—know little about him. In fact, Andrew Greeley’s review of my biography of Benedict, in Commonweal magazine, was titled, "The Puzzling Pope."

Am I the only one who finds it a bit strange that some people think Benedict XVI is "puzzling," "paradoxical," "enigmatic," "mysterious," and "a Catholic mystery wrapped in a theological enigma and covered with secret papal sauce" (okay, I made that last one up), while, I think it is safe to say, many people think they know an actor because they watch his television show, or a musician because they listen to her music? I put it that way because it seems to me that there are several, intersecting reasons the Pope is seen as "puzzling" or "mysterious" to many Americans (not a few of them Catholic), including the fact that our culture is celebrity saturated, intellectually slothful, and sound bite driven (soundbitten!).

Let's put it bluntly: for large swaths of the population, if you aren't an actor, musician, athlete, entertainer, or celebrity, you really aren't that important or memorable. Don't mention books or even articles—if it isn't in a thirty to sixty second sound bite set to hip-hop and featuring 3.2 frames per second, don't bother. Please package it with clear, simple labels and add an extra shot of artificial flavoring and a bit of sex. Oh, and make it sensational, preferably with some sort of confrontational or scandalous element, the better to keep us awake and paying attention.

I know it may sound arrogant and condescending, but the reality is this: we aren't, in far too many ways, a serious people. We are an entertained, coddled, and unserious people.

Now, I can appreciate that Joe American, especially is he isn't Catholic, might not set a high priority on becoming familiar with the entire body of work penned by Joseph Ratzinger. And there is certainly an important place for helpful introductions and popular works addressing the Pope's life, thought, and so forth. But how shall we make sense of well-educated, lifelong Catholics who not only know next to nothing about Catholicism, but are largely clueless about why or how they might rectify this significant deficiency? Which brings me to the second piece, a column in Newsweek written by a Catholic about her admitted failure to understand her faith:

  Why does the subject of religion make me so uncomfortable? OK, so I'm divorced (twice!) and I haven't always been, um, a paragon of virtue. Still, I consider myself a practicing Roman Catholic. I take my kid to church most Sundays. (In the winter, at least.) I grew up as a Catholic and I find comfort in the familiar rituals of the mass. I am glad my daughter is getting some religious training.

But when confronted by my daughter's questions—Does God have arms? Do you really have to drink blood?—I'm completely lost. What was I doing during all those years of weekly CCD classes? I learned that Jesus loves me and I listened to a lot of bad guitar-playing at mass when I was growing up in the 1960s. But I didn't memorize the Baltimore Catechism and I couldn't name the seven deadly sins if my life depended on it. I could come up with only eight of the Ten Commandments!

It's not just about the gaps in my education. As a "cafeteria Catholic," I don't accept all the tenets of my religion. I am never going to teach my daughter that evolution is a fraud, and someday I will encourage her to think critically, not doctrinally, about issues like artificial birth control, stem-cell research and abortion.

I doubt many of us are surprised that Deveny received rotten catechesis; I've heard similar stories from many Catholics who came to age in the 1960s and 1970s. What is far more disconcerting is that after admitting she doesn't know much about Catholicism, she blithely condemns the Church for supposedly teaching that "evolution is a fraud"—something the Church has not said. And she then dismisses (using a riff on the old "I'm not dogmatic" line) the Church's teachings about artificial birth control, stem-cell research and abortion, even though it's a fair guess she has not even a basic understanding of why the Church teaches what it does about those issues.

Sure, Deveny had lousy CCD classes, but the greater problem is that as an adult Catholic she has apparently never bothered to learn anything about the Church except what she has absorbed through media sound bites. As an older Catholic friend once told me, "We thought that once we were confirmed, we magically knew everything we ever needed to know about being Catholic." Of course, as he also noted, not only was that woefully incorrect, we can never know enough about being Catholic, because we can never fully plumb the depths of Jesus Christ and His Church—but we sure as shootin' should be trying to do so, by the grace of God.

Amy Welborn, in a post yesterday, pointed out that there is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy at work with media stories about how Benedict XVI is "puzzling" or "mysterious":

I maintain that when we’re moving in the arena of “People got JPII but don’t get B16,” we’re essentially talking about superficial media-driven impressions, not truly “getting” the person.

2) The decision to structure reporting around “B16 is a mystery” isn’t reporting anything that’s really demonstrably news, both for the reasons in #1 as well as the arbitrariness of it.

The facts are that when it comes to evidence - book sales (in the US and worldwide)  website hits, internet discussions - it seems as if there are lots of people interested in Benedict who are not scratching their heads at his purported impenetrability, but rather intrigued by and nourished by what he’s saying.

An amorphous mass that you can pin a label on that says “Thinks B16 is a mystery” is much less an object for real reporting than a more specific group you can actually (sort of) count and trace behavior of and talk to.

It's an excellent point that highlights how the information age can be either a curse or a blessing, depending on how we freely, knowingly choose to navigate it. If a person really wants to learn, to know, to understand, they will figure out how to find the right information, even if there are missteps along the way. Or we can decide to be spoon fed and passively soak in a barrage of images and noise that suck away our spiritual hunger and intellectual curiosity.

Finally, a quote from Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., who will be retiring this year (at the age of 90) from teaching at Fordham University. It comes via Gary Stern's blog:

[Dulles] has said that it is the theologian’s job to “show why the church is teaching what she is.”

I’ve had the opportunity to interview Dulles twice. He was gracious, humble and chose his words carefully. I don’t think he’s too smitten with the secular media.

I asked him in 2001, weeks before he was made a cardinal, why theology should matter to Catholics in the pews. He answered:

"When one believes, you should want to know more about what and why. What are the implications of belief? If you understand marriage as a sacrament, for instance, like the marriage between Christ and the church, you may have a better marriage than those who do not. Theology has real relevance."

Over the course of the next few weeks, there will be a flood of stories about Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the U.S. Some will be helpful, informative, and worth reading. Some will be shallow and misleading, treating the Pope as a sort of strange celebrity whose specific role in entertaining the masses is not really clear. In the end, the best way to understand who the Pope is and what he all about is to read his writings. Read some excerpts from his writings. Read good articles about him. And, of course, listen to and read what he actually says while he is in this country. No, he isn't a movie star, a rock musician (he is a classically trained pianist, however), or an athlete. But he is one of the greatest theologians of our time. Oh, and the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Saint Peter. That is reason enough to take him seriously.

Comments

[Dave Deavel]

The "mysterious" Pope Benedict is actually a much clearer writer than JP II was. My suspicion is that the "mysterious" business is a way of taking the spotlight off how clear he is.

The Deveeny piece, as well as my interactions with many Catholics in their 20's to 50's actually makes me glad I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church. I received a much better Catholic catechesis as a Protestant than I likely would have as a Catholic.

[Augustine]

Anything beyond the pop-cultural frequency is a mystery to the brave new world! Neil Postman wasn't far wrong in calling television its soma.

"O brave new world, that hath such people in it!"*

"O age, thou art shamed."**

"O shame, where is thy blush?"***

-Shakespeare, The Tempest*, Julius Caesar**, Hamlet***

[Mark Brumley]

Cardinal Dulles's comment about theology is priceless. It brings to mind Sheed's response to the criticism that he as a street corner teacher sometimes received. The little old man, so the critic charged, praying his rosary everyday is much holier than you, Mr. Sheed, with all of your learning. Sheed acknowledged the point, of course, but went on to point out that it is a false judgment to suppose that the light that comes with theology must be opposed to holiness. Surely, noted Sheed, it would be a strange God who could be loved better by being known less. Love, he observed, helps light, but light helps love, too. The more we know of God the more reasons we have for loving him. And love of God is the essence of holiness. Theology, by helping us understand what we believe and why, can be a means to greater holiness.

[Augustine]

Sheed's book Theology and Sanity is wonderful.

Lily S.: Welcome!

[Subvet]

I'm pretty much in the same boat as Deveny (including two divorces, both of which are now recognized as annullments by the Church). I left the Church at the age of 15, finally coming back at 49 and not really being able to live as a Catholic should. Part of the problem is a superficial knowledge of the Church.

Having said that, where would someone like myself go for better understanding? I've a copy of the Catechism and am slowly working through it, I've also read some of Arbp Fulton Sheen's writings, "Jesus of Nazareth" by the Pope, and one or two other books that don't come easily to mind.

I'd appreciate any constructive comments that might be directed towards this. Thanks.

[Mark Brumley]

Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft is highly recommended.

[Carl Olson]

Subvet: In addition to Catholic Christianity, which is a very helpful commentary on the Catechism, I'd recommend these other Ignatius Press books:

• Fundamentals of the Faith by Peter Kreeft
• The Belief of Catholics, by Ronald Knox
• On Being Catholic, by Thomas Howard
• God and the World, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, interviewed by Peter Seewald
• The Catholic Church: The First 2000 Years, by Martha Rasmussen

[Robert Miller]

The Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI truly is a mystery if we consider what, until a few years ago, was a kind of unspoken expectation among both "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics (not to mention their non-Catholic semblables). That expectation was that, notwithstanding JP2's doctrinal utterances and his unreserved support of an active Ratzinger Holy Office, there was no "putting the genie back in the bottle" after Vatican II. The Church, in this widespread misapprehension, had agreed at the Council to engage the secularist agenda and, in doing so, had committed herself (whether or not she sometimes might have qualms about it) to the "law of progress". In this view, Ratzinger and his work represent a huge "Qualm" (and, I repeat, this evaluation is as common among "liberal" Catholics as it is among "conservative" Catholics).For certain "extreme conservative" (or "traditionalist") Catholics, as I have noted elsewhere on this blog, this "Qualm" is almost galling, because Ratzinger, as a Council peritus, is thought to have brushed aside the caution of the Holy Office and the "conservative" Council Fathers.
Although "conservative" Catholics read JP2 (more than they seem to be reading B16), they largely miss the central teaching of both Popes, because both teach pre-eminently through symbolic word and action.
When, to choose an action that is particularly apropos of the subject of this thread, JP2 beatified J23 and P9 at the same time, both "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics seemed to think he was engaged in an arcane "balancing act". For that purpose, if it had been his purpose, JP2 might better have chosen P12 as J23's companion on the way to the glory of the altars. Instead, he chose P9, who definitively rejected the proposition that the Church can be made subject to the "law of progress".
For JP2 as for B16, P9's Vatican I and J23's Vatican II constitute an extended meditation on the Church in a world that rejects Christ's "easy yoke" and "light burden" in favor of an iron "law of progress." The fruit of this meditation is, for JP2 and B16, a profound new awareness among Catholics of the Pauline mystery that the Church is the Body of Christ.
Here, then, is the mystery of B16. The Church is radically free of any conceivable human scheme of progress. He frees the Extraordinary Form of the Mass -- not to appease "traditionalists", but to celebrate the freedom of the Communion of Saints from any iron law. Inevitably, he brings to the US a sign of contradiction that will be foolishness to "liberals" and scandal to "conservatives".
If we recall his reflections on the origins of the teaching of Vatican II (in his Memoires,in Daughter Zion and in Mary:the Church at the Source), Ratzinger believes that there were four threads in the post-Vatican I, post-Modernist meditation on the Church. These he broadly identifies as liturgical, scriptural, ecumenical and Marian. The spirit of Vatican II, introduced by P12's seminal encyclical, Mystici Corporis, weaves these four into a meditation on the mystery of the Body of Christ. Thus, most notably, Mary is declared Mother of the Church -- Mother of the Body of Christ. She is Mother of the very Substance of the liturgy, the new Eve, Mother of the New Adam.
Yes, B16 brings mystery to these shores. If I had to guess (hope), I believe he will find a "Regensburg moment" in which he will put into sharp relief the contrast between the freedom of the sons of God and the freedoms of the sons of the American republic. I suspect he will go home to Rome with many expectations of "apology" trailing him, but these expectations will be disappointed. Just as, after Regensburg, there was no putting the genie back in the bottle, so too, after B16's visit to the US, there will be no putting the genie -- or, more precisely, the Holy Spirit -- "back in the bottle".

[Subvet]

Mark Brumley & Carl Olson, thanks for the suggested reading.