Carl's Cuts for August 27, 2013 | Catholic World Report blog
• Having recently published Dale Ahlquist's review of Fr. Robert Wild's book, The Tumbler of God: Chesterton as Mystic (Angelico Press, 2013), I was reading a bit about Servant of God, Catherine de Hueck Doherty (1886-1995), as Fr. Wild is the postulator for her cause. I confess that I knew very little about her life and work until then. Here is a good example of her writing:
One of the things I noticed going on today is a constant discussion of the fact that the Church is too structured, too this, too that, and that we have to start a movement of liberation from the structures. I prayed about this and it came to me that the simplest answer to ‘structure’ is holiness. People are over-structured when they are not holy. Holiness is total security, because holiness is total surrender. Holiness is a total commitment for others. Now when you have that kind of attitude, there is no problem of structure.
Can you imagine St. Francis worrying about structures? If they came his way, he accepted them. If they did not come his way, he couldn’t care less about them. They didn’t bother him very much. What he cared about was our love for God and man.
If we want to unstructure a structure that is no good, the simplest way is to become holy. Those wonderful people called saints unstructured things by their holiness.
Read more on the www.catherinedoherty.org site, including a recent essay by Fr. Wild titled, “Catherine: Creator of Catholic Culture”.
• Joseph Bottum recently wrote a piece for Commonweal (paid for by a grant from the Henry Luce Foundation) outlining “A Catholic's Case for Same-Sex Marriage”. Actually, “outlining” is not the right word, as the 9,000-word-long essay is more like a sprawling, unedited ramble delivered by one's quirky Uncle So-and-So, who possesses a plentitude of ideas but doesn't seem quite sure of his argument or stance—yet is going to keep at it as long as need be. Here is just one quote, from the opening of the essay:
We are now at the point where, I believe, American Catholics should accept state recognition of same-sex marriage simply because they are Americans.
For that matter, plenty of practical concerns suggest that the bishops should cease to fight the passage of such laws. Campaigns against same-sex marriage are hurting the church, offering the opportunity to make Catholicism a byword for repression in a generation that, even among young Catholics, just doesn’t think that same-sex activity is worth fighting about. There’s a reasonable case to be made that the struggle against abortion is slowly winning, but the fight against public acceptance of same-sex behavior has been utterly lost.
Of course, if Bottum had written a piece titled, “A Catholic's Case for Abortion”, in 1975 or so, it would likely say, “We are now at the point where, I believe, American Catholics should accept state recognition of abortion simply because they are Americans.” And so forth. Frankly, I'm quite grateful that becoming Catholic has freed me to see the many errors of doing this or that just because that is what Americans believe and do. In addition, being Catholic has taught me that some fights aren't won in this lifetime; in fact, the fight against sin—whatever it might be—will continue until the eschaton. Bottum, it seems, is suggesting a path shaped by prudential judgment, but capitulation to falsehood and immorality is never prudent, and I don't see how his approach can be described as anything other than capitulation. There have already been many responses. Two that might be of interest are; first, the one given by Mattias A. Caro on the Ethika Politika site, which is more positive than my own general assessment, and, secondly, this one from the keyboard of Robert Royal, on The Catholic Thing site, which I think hits the most important nails squarely on the heads.
• Bottum talks a great deal about “enchantment”, stating, for example, “The goal of the church today must primarily be the re-enchantment of reality.” It's an intriguing assertion, and I certainly don't dismiss it out of hand. But it involves an entire discussion of what said “enchantment” really is. I think it must begin with the very first things, specifically the nature of God, of creation, and of the creature called man.
Earlier this month, I taught a 15-hour course in ecclesiology in the lay ministry program of the Archdiocese of Portland. I think some of the students were surprised that I didn't talk about hierarchy, laity, and the external structures of the Church until Day 4—not because those aren't important subjects (they certainly are), but because I'm convinced that ecclesiology must begin with the questions, “Who is God? Why did he create? What is man?” Ecclesiology, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church certainly expresses, is based on a solid theo-logy and a sound anthropology:
Continue reading on the CWR blog.
Comments