Kakistocrat

Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory (1940) is set in a southern state of Mexico, where an anti-clerical purge has the last priest on the run. He is heading towards the northern border, across which his Bishop has already journeyed, as have those priests who have escaped with their lives. However, this last priest is in many ways morally inferior to the general literary depiction of priests during the first half of the 20th century, and the Vatican noticed.

The book was denounced and the Vatican initiated a censorial investigation. Peter Godman, granted access to the investigation archives (not normally available for consultation by outside scholars) informs us of the concerns raised by the two censors.

The first censor viewed the book as "sad," because instead of God’s power and glory being on display, as the title of the novel suggests, all that is evident is despair. Godman summarizes his views:

‘Immoral’ or married priests; the ambiguity with which the central figure refers to God and the doctrines of the faith; the conviction of the virtue attributed to Protestants and atheists— all this made it impossible for Greene’s first reader in the Holy Office to see why the book was regarded as excellent literature.

The book should have never been written, according to censor, but since it had, Greene should be admonished by his Bishop and ‘"exhorted to write other books in a different tone, attempting to correct the defects of this one."

The second censor agreed with the first and thought that Greene should be told that "literature of this kind does harm to the cause of true religion [and that] in the future he should behave more cautiously when he writes…"

At this time, the high ranking Cardinal Giovanni Batista Montini inserted himself into the debate. Cardinal Montini (who would later become Pope Paul VI) wrote to Cardinal Pizzardo who was the head of the Holy Office (and in charge of all censorial investigations). Montini writes:

I see that it is judged a sad book. I have no objection to make to the just observations in the [censure of] this work. But it seems to me that, in such a judgment, there is lacking a sense of the work’s substantial merits. They lie, fundamentally, in its high quality of vindication, by revealing the heroic fidelity to his own ministry within the innermost soul of a priest who is in many respects reprehensible; and the reader is led to esteem the priesthood even if it is exercised by abject representatives…

Cardinal Montini suggested that a Monsignor De Luca be consulted for a third opinion before any action was taken. De Luca’s response was rather unambiguous. Greene did Rome credit, he stated, and that he was a sucsessor to Chesterton and Belloc (both English Catholic authors), and that in a country dominated by Protestantism, Greene strived to influence superior intelligences towards favouring Catholicism.

To condemn or even to deplore them (here De Luca refers to Waugh as well) would  be looked at askance in England, and would deal a grievous blow to our prestige: it would demonstrate not only that we are behind the times but also that our judgment is lightweight…

In the case of Mr. Greene, his harsh and acerbic art touches the hearts of the least receptive people and reminds them, however gloomy they be, of the awe-inspiring presence of God and the poisonous bite of sin. He addresses those who are most distant and hostile—those whom we will never reach…

Msgr. De Luca’s advice was never taken, and Greene was reprimanded by his local Bishop and told to take on a more constructive tone in his Books with regard to the Catholic faith.

Greene took it relatively well. He sent off a letter to Cardinal Pizzardo, slyly apologizing for not writing back sooner, saying he couldn’t because he was in the Far East doing his utmost to chronicle the "difficulties faced by the heroic Catholics of Indochina [who are] confronted by the Communist menace." He states that the aim of his book had been to contrast "the power of the sacraments and the indestuctibility of the Church on the one hand with, on the ohter, the merely temporal power of an essentially Communist state." On the advice of his friend Archbishop David Matthew, Greene also wrote to Cardinal Montini making him aware of the situation, seemingly unaware that Montini had intervened the year previous.

While Greene had interesting relationships with each of the Pope’s from Pius XII to John Paul II (John Paul II being the only one he extremely disliked), Greene felt closest to Paul VI.

In a 1965 letter to his daughter Lucy (who actually has a ranch somewhere here in Alberta…), Greene excitedly describes a recent audience with the Pope.

At the beginning of the week I went up to Rome because the Pope had sent me a message saying that he would like to see me.

The Pope talked to me for twenty minutes about why he liked my novels! He had read The Power & the Glory, The Heart of the Matter, Brighton Rock,& Stamboul Train. He gave me a rosary and a nice little case for Vivien…

In ways of Escape, Greene provides a few more details from this meeting:

When I met Pope Paul VI, he mentioned that he had read the book [The Power and the Glory]. I told him that it had been condemned by the Holy Office.

‘Who condemned it?’  [Paul VI inquires]

‘Cardinal Pissardo.’

He [Paul VI] repeated the name with a wry smile and added, ‘Mr Greene, some parts of your books are certain to offend some Catholics, but you should pay no attention to that.

Years later, when aspects of the Church really did come under Greene’s fire, he could still look back without bitterness to this whole Holy Office censorial investigation ordeal.

I wonder whether any of the totalitarian states, whether of the right or the left, with which the Church of Rome is so often compared, would have treated me as gently when I refused to revise the book on the casuistical ground that the copyright was in the hands of my publishers. There was no public condemnation and the whole affair was allowed to drop into the peaceful oblivion which the Church wisely reserves for unimportant issues…

K.

I have been rereading Father Joseph Girzone’s My Struggle With Faith, which was wrongly savaged in the April edition of the Catholic Insight.

At one point Girzone mentions that once he became aware of the Church Fathers, they became an important part of his life. Yet he claims that what he read from and about them was rewarding, but that it was also disturbing. The reason:

Bishops back then were real leaders, unafraid of controversy and highly intelligent defenders of the faith passed on to them from the apostles. They were men of passionate faith, willing to sacrifice themselves totally, even to death, if need be, to defend their faith. As I was learning more and more about Church life today, I did not see very many bishops of that caliber. I saw them more as pious men who were rewarded for their faithful service—company men, as they would be called in industry. It was difficult to respect them; they seemed to be more concerned about their political future than about the priests or people under their care.

It was rare to here a spiritually inspiring sermon or one of a theological nature, discussing dangerous moral or unchristian ideas circulating among the Christian community. Bishops might mention them superficially if there was a current public issue, but they did not provide people with solid or rational theological arguments explaining what should be a thinking Christian’s understanding of such issues. I will never forget the night after a particular bishop was made archbishop; the man was being interviewed on television and was asked about his attitude to abortion. His answer was ‘I am naturally against abortion because it is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.’ I cringed. What a sad reason for a religious leader to be for or against any issue…He could have at least said, ‘I am opposed to abortion because it is the destruction of a human life.’ That would have revealed a much stronger person who did his own thinking and could make a strong statement on a moral issue.

At the same time as the interview with the archbishop, there was an interview with the leading proponent of abortion in England. When asked if he believed the baby growing in its mother’s womb was a human being, he answered without hesitation, ‘You cannot deny that it is a human life; I admit that it is human. But….’ and the discussion continued from there. At least he did not just say, ‘I am in favor of abortion, because all my friends are in favor of abortion.’

Joseph Girzone, My Struggle With Faith (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2006), 105-107.

If people are concerned today about the state of the Church, they need not look to an increasingly empowered laity, nor is blame to be extended to politicians who scandalize their Church by particular positions they take. Rather, such concerned people should look no further than the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles. I suspect most concerned Catholics (and the irony here is that editorial board of the Catholic Insight are concerned Catholics as well) would agree with Girzone, that the caliber of Bishops is less than ideal. An exception is Archbishop Roussin of Vancouver, and his active opposition that was instrumental to Telus Mobility backpedalling in their plan to begin offering pornography sales through cell phones. Equally inspiring was his acknowledgment that he suffered from clinical depression. That showed courageous leadership as often the act of reigning over others is seen in terms of power, rather than as a humble call to serve others. Bishop Henry of Calgary is another, and can certainly not be accused of, to borrow a phrase from Girzone, being afraid of controversy. But these are exceptions to the sad general rule. We shouldn’t have to praise a Bishop for doing what he is supposed to do. Those who are mediocre should be the exception but right now they don’t seem to be. I am sure concerned Catholics in the archdiocese of Winnipeg cannot help but feel a little cynical about Archbishop Weisgerber’s reasons for refusing to allow James Loney to speak about peace at a recent Social Justice Conference. Could such concerned Catholics believe, for example, that the Archbishop’s actions were not related to the fact that he was at that moment in the process of being named the head of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops?

K.

Priest and Bishop, Bartolome de las Casas (1454-1566) would note that nine years after the Spanish arrival in Central/South America 90% of the Native and African populations being used for work there had perished. While some points of similarity exist between the arrival of the Europeans in Central/South America, with their arrival in North America, it is the general attitude of the French Jesuits who came to Canada that allows for a Catholic today to be far less embarrassed, than if there was only the history of European activity in Central/South America to remember.

While there are similarities in how each described the appearance of the Native, Jesuits of North America did not make the mistake of Pedro Van de Caminha (1500), who, though kinder than many around him, viewed the Central/South American naitve as innocent, and as children of a pre-fallen Adam and Eve. Jesuit Paul Le Jeune (1591-1664) and his fellow Jesuits approach the North American Native far more realistically. Certain tribes are even described as ‘barbarous’ and before we are thrown off by that language we need realize that the litmus test for ‘barbarism’ depends on the amount of blood spilt in war. Compared to his colleagues who approached the Native in the Central/South American region, Le Jeune rightly abandons the ‘Noble Savage’ concept, although he does ask his audience (who are unfamiliar with the North American Native) to treat his subject with grace for ‘before the faith was received in Germany, Spain or England, those nations were not more civilized [and] mind is not lacking among the Savages of Canada, but education and instruction.”

While cautious that his hearers not adopt a judgmental tone towards the Natives, and while very clearly admiring the fitness of the Native people, Le Jeune also has high regard for their manners. In fact he juxtaposes his sometimes frustrated and grumbling Jesuit brothers with how respectful the Natives are:

A Sagamore [who] dining in our room one day, wished to say something; and, not finding an opportunity, because they were all talking at the same time, at last prayed the company to give him a little time to talk his turn, and all alone, as he did.

Le Jeune is also impressed by the Native ability to learn. Describing an occasion in which he was teaching a Native child as well as a “little Negro or Moor,” he claims that so rewarding was this experience that were he granted the finest audiences in France in exchange for these two pupils, he would not hesitate to keep the students.

While Le Jeune’s overall attitude is respectful, he does remain a product of his French culture, and though his desire to help the North American Native is obvious (both in his life and writings) a Euro-centric attitude is not completely absent, though when it does emerge the causes for it (in my opinion) are rather mild. The “common flies, gnats, fireflies, mosquitoes” are quite disagreeable while “the mosquitoes, they are disagreeable beyond description. Some people are compelled to go to bed after coming from the woods, they are so badly stung.” Le Jeune considers what he would do to alleviate the problem, and while not finding fault with the Natives in their failure to do so, there is a hint of ‘why don’t they do what I’d do.” Mild, as I said.

A similar attitude emerges when describing how the Native men and women clothe themselves. He believes that the Native custom of wearing furs when it is cold was “learned in imitation of the Europeans.” Now I am sure a careful study could uncover ways in which the European activity in Canada benefitted the Natives, but that furs may be worn for warmth, I don’t think can be seen as a European innovation.

While the writings of the early Jesuits (there are 73 volumes) are of anthropological importance, such information was used by the Relations earliest audiences (Jesuit Superiors) to assist in the future state of missionary activity in North America. Le Jeune consistently uses forms of the phrase ‘we shall hope for a great harvest from this country,’ to show what his primary goal is. Several hundred years later there was an attempt by some to attempt to overthrow the Native tribal religions by intermarrying Christians and Natives, but the early Jesuits had little interest in intermarriage, though they do theorize that if they can get the roving Natives to settle into one place, they could have schools opened for them and teach them how to farm, and that through gaining their admiration, the Natives would embrace their faith. When Le Jeune encounters a Native ‘sorcerer,’ the ‘sorcerer,’ after hearing such plans, states that “to employ so many men to aid us, without taking anything away from us; if though shouldst do that, thou woudst secure the greater part of the Savages, and they would believe all thy words.” Le Jeune interprets the opposition of the ‘Sorcerer’ (whose words he has paraphrased) as a sign that the harvest is near.

I conclude with apologies. This is a slightly longer than usual post for an already rather long-winded blogger, but I think the issue is important enough. Too often, contemporary accounts paint broadly and interpret Christian activity in the ‘new world’ negatively. Put quite bluntly, the Jesuits of North America did not have to address the atrocities that de las Casas had to, simply because, as seen through the earliest writings of the North American Jesuits, the Native people were treated with love and respect. Father Paul Le Jeune records what he honestly believes to be the inferiorities of the Natives, but such criticisms for him center largely on the fact that the Natives aren’t dealing with mosquitoes in a way that eradicates them. His Euro-centrism is a tamed one, and is largely overshadowed by his honest desire to record what he believes to be strengths and weaknesses so as to assist future missionaries.

K.

These are just some reflections on Grace. It struck me as difficult to relay in words, but as the last post’s lengthy comments described how we can respond to that Grace, here’s an attempt at Grace itself:

Theology takes the action of Adam, who Genesis presents as both the origin of humankind and of human sinfulness, and seems to blame us also. To Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) if we are led to see “Original Sin” as such, then we have been misled by imprecise terminology. "Nothing," Ratzinger claims "seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one of us by name."

To make sense of ‘original sin’ Ratzinger suggests that a renewed understanding of the human person is necessary, especially in light of Western culture’s obsession with individuality.

In In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Creation and the Fall (English translation, 1990), Ratzinger suggests that it is imperative that humans not close in on themselves, and that they not live only for themselves. Ratzinger writes that "we receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without—from others who are not ourselves…" and that to "to be truly a human being means to be related in love," to those around us.

Just as the sin of autonomy led to the Fall of the first couple, the same sin damages or destroys relationality presently, and this cannot but affect us. This sin chooses power over love, and rejects the dynamics of a relationship (for in wanting human autonomy, we desire that which does not belong to us, that which is beyond us, and in our relationships this heightened sense of self has the potential to damage those around us who are satisfied with themselves as created beings in equal relationships with other created beings). Sin is never restricted to the individual, because every mistaken action affects at least some of those whom we surround ourselves with. Sin is to Ratzinger "an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it."

So much so that, with Adam and Eve in mind, "when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage." There is no avoiding the "damaged world" that all who are born enter into. Relationality has been hurt, and each person from the very start is damaged, not because of their own actions but because the relationships that they are engaged with are damaged, and over time this damage pursues each one of us and we capitulate to it. We err. It seems all very natural.

In seeking out autonomy, in choosing power over love, we all have cut ourselves off from not simply those around us, but also the one who created us to function relationally in love, and salvation comes "only when he [God] from whom we have cut ourselves off takes initiative with us and stretches out his hand to us. Only being loved is being saved, and only God’s love can purify damaged human love and radically reestablish the network of relationships that have suffered from alienation."

Ratzinger reflects on how Jesus is God’s initiation, his stretching out to us, his demonstration of purifying love. Jesus takes Adam’s route, but in reverse. Jesus is one who really is like God, in a way that Adam wasn’t. Adam merely wanted to be. This likeness to God, comes in the fact that Jesus is Son, and the relationship between he and God is wholly relational. Jesus does not maintain autonomy, but rather he becomes dependant on God. He does not choose Power, as Adam sought, but love. Humanity begins anew in Jesus. The Cross, according to the Pope, becomes the true tree of life, a symbol of redeeming love. The earth is once more set right.

K.

By the way, Avril Lavigne turned 23 today, and if I can connect her birthday to this post, to pray for her husband’s death does show a less than desired form of relationality, but to quote the last sentence of paragraph 5, “it all seems very natural.”

Declaring him to be in possession of "heroic virtues," the Vatican’s Congregation of the Causes of Saints, has moved Pope Pius XII one step closer to official sainthood. As Pope from 1939 to 1958, Pius’s legacy hinges on the question of his perceived silence during the Holocaust.

While plenty has been written both in support and condemnation of Pope Pius XII, only last year were the Vatican archives from his era made fully accessible. Because the question of his silence has still not been adequately addressed, until it has been, and particularly until the Jewish people have been themselves convinced of his "heroic virtues" (perhaps by Yad Vashem’s formal identification of him as a righteous gentle), only then should the case for his sainthood proceed.

While saint-making is an internal Church matter, the potential sainthood of Pius XII, precisely because of his perceived silence during the Holocaust, has consequences beyond the Church, and in light of the relative good relations with the Jewish people that have lasted now some forty years, I do not think it would be wise, or consistent with Christian charity, to recognize the still-present wounds within the Jewish community and proceed by continuing Pius XII’ canonization.

What do you think?

(This is less of a discussion regarding Pius actions during the Holocaust, then it is a discussion of the wisdom of canonizing him while the verdict is still out on his perceived silence).

K.

There are five main areas of interest that have captivated the minds of those desiring change in the Church. Here is a brief overview of what these general categories (as identified by John Allen) may encompass, and as the categorization comes from a Western perspective, understand that not all issues addressed may reflect the universal reality of the Church.

1. Collegiality in the Church

Collegiality refers to the relationship between the Pope, the Roman Curia (the bureaucracy inside the Vatican), and the world’s bishops. Collegiality debates center around the criticism that both the Pope and the Roman Curia enjoy more power today than they ever did in Church history. A desire to shift some of that power back to local bishops is supported by the early Christian notion that though Peter was "the first among equals," he was still among equals. The Pope today, though seen by Catholics as Peter’s successor, is not seen as being among equals with his fellow Bishops. Believing this to be a mistake, some individuals recognize that though more power on the Bishops would not transform the Church into a democracy, it would democratize decision-making to a degree, and certainly may prevent past misdeeds from reoccurring.

2. Ecumenism and Inter-Religious Dialogue

People who disagree with each other often still have to live side-by-side. Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Dialogue center around how best the Church should interact with other Christian churches as well as the non-Christian religions of the world. Church relations with Islam are specifically important as Islam is growing in many areas traditionally Catholic. Relations with the Jewish people always appear fragile, especially in light of the potential canonization of Pope Pius XII.  Relations with other Christians and the Eastern religions are also hotly debated subjects, and there are those desiring to see changes in certain approaches taken.

3. Globalization, Poverty and Justice

No one was a more vigorous champion for human rights than Pope John Paul II, who defended the right to freedom of religion, thought and speech, and emphased these freedoms in the very places where they were being suppressed at a governmental level.

‘Culture of Life’ issues also figure prominently in this category. Issues such as abortion, poverty, war, capital punishment, euthanasia are all issues that the Church will have to continually address.

4. Bioethics, Sexuality and the Family

Some of the issues encompassed under this heading have a history too them, and have been debated for some time, though not to the satisfaction of everyone. Issues would include the use of artificial birth control methods (which the Church forbids), or what to do with those Catholics who have divorced and remarried civilly, despite the Church disapproval, and whether the sacrament of Communion should be administered to them. Some tensions are more recent like technological advancements such as cloning or artificial reproduction, or the recognition of marriages between homosexual couples. Continuing debate around the nature of in-vitro fertilization or what moral response should be given to those to discard surplus embryos or desire to use them for research that could potentially contribute to the betterment of others, will continue to generate interest as the Church currently opposes much that has been endorsed by Western nations.

5. Women and the Laity

Given priest shortages in certain regions, and that this trend has not completely reversed itself, debate that centers around how to extend the Church’s ministerial corps will not be silenced. Two solutions have been suggested by not just a few. Because the Church is seen as restricting a large number of potential priests, by restricting married men admittance, some have suggested that the Church revert its policy back to that which existed in the ancient days when priests were allowed to marry. Others, even more controversially, have suggested that the Church extend the priesthood to women, and allow for their ordination.

Beyond the clergy, in may parts of the world the laity essentially run churches, by organizing the liturgy as well as delivering a variety of services, that while not actually Masses, still do fall under the branch of ministry. This reality bothers others who feel that this has brought about a great deal of confusion with regards to the identity of the priesthood.

As we move closer to Vatican III, what would you like to see reaffirmed, clarified or changed?

Pope Benedict XVI turns 80 today.

In April of 2005, the Globe and Mail introduced to its readers, the new Pope, Benedict the Strict, characterizing him as an uncompromising doctrinal hardliner. Two years later, besides his notorious love of cats (which will be masterfully re-documented in coming weeks) it is his emerging status as Italy’s newest fashion celebrity that has dominated the press since.

When Cardinal Ratzinger emerged as the succsessor to John Paul II, and (as is the custom) appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, he was wearing his newly given Papal cassock, but none of the three ready ones had fitted him correctly. Thus, making his first appearance to some 350, 000 people congregating in the Square below, Benedict XVI’s cassock hovered slightly above his ankles. Since then, Anniballe Gammarelli (whose firm has been making papal cassocks since 1792) has been locked in a struggle with not only Raniero Mancinelli (the owner of a small shop of more loose fitting cassocks, which has been in operation for approximately 20 years), but also Alessandro Cattaneo, a tailor whom the Pope benefited from as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Despite these controversial Cassock Wars, it is a pair of stylish red loafers recently donned by this emerging 80 year old fashion icon, which have allowed him to leap past a number of luminaries on current ’Most Fashionable Celebrity’ lists. Recently christened ‘Prada Pope’ by sloppy CNN journalism, a senior Vatican official notes that the bright red loafers, given noteworthy attention by most major newspapers, were not made by Prada, but rather the Pope’s personal cobbler.

Concerning his newfound popularity in the world of fashion, one Vatican official notes that the Pope is "aware of the buzz but mostly he laughs about it because it is so absurd. What does he really have to choose? He doesn’t wear a tie or a coat. The glasses he wears are the same that he wore as a Cardinal, as is the pen he writes with."

While mostly true (Vatican officials, usually priests, do not lie as a rule) much that we have seen on Ratzinger the Pope, we did not see on Ratzinger the Cardinal. So while his glasses might be the same ones he wore as a Cardinal, last June as he was traveling through the streets of Rome to meet Italian President Carlo Ciampi he was pictured wearing an oversized pair of designer Sergenti sunglasses, and those we did not see on Ratzinger the Cardinal.

Despite this "the loudest shrieks of glee" came five days before last Christmas. For his weekly general audience, the Pope entered St. Peter’s Square wearing a red velvet cap, which to CNN’s untrained eye, combined with the fact that it was so close to Christmas, was quickly dubbed ‘the Santa hat.’ The ‘Santa Hat’ (actually a camauro for both of you still reading) dates back to the eleventh century, and it has not been seen since 1963 on John XXIII, who so loved it that his body wears it in death. While the ‘Santa Hat’ placed smiles on even the most hardened of cynics, the papal court was unimpressed. ‘You don’t hide your best asset!’ one Vatican insider fumed, referring to the Pope’s stock of white hair, hair that has earned him the kindly moniker His Fluffiness.

Marjorie Weeke, formerly of the Vatican Social Communication office, dismisses any notion of vanity in the Pope’s habits by citing his humble manner of living, and attributing his choice of a variety of capes and haps (which are part of a very ancient Papal closet) to nothing more than a desire for warmth. This would explain a number of quilted jackets and sweaters that the Pope has allowed himself to be seen in, and considering his age, as well as the fact that he must have more pressing concerns than that of his physical appearance, Weeke’s argument comes across quite strongly. So while the Devil may wear Prada, rest assured that the Pope does not!

K.

"John said to him, ‘Master, we say a man who is not one of us casting out devils in your name; and because he was not one of us we tried to stop him.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘You must not stop him: No one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us (Mark:9:38-40).’ "

Though this man is not part of the recognizable band of disciples, he is also not working for the enemy of God and he is certainly not against Jesus. Being hardly neutral, he cannot be spoken of as one of those who are lukewarm, as one who is unable to distinguish or choose between God and his enemy. Though he he may have the same goals as them, he is not one of the disciples, and is not a part of the recognizable Church that is in its fetal stages. But he is for Christ. He works for him, though he does not take part in the activity of this ‘Church,’ and while he has nothing against Christ, he likely does have something against Christ’s apostles and this is why he won’t join them.

John wonders what is to be done about him and Jesus’ answer comes like cold water on John’s red-hot zeal: "Do not forbid him!" SO John is to stop the very thing that he thought he was doing for Christ. He is not to be bigoted and fanatical and arrogant. He is not to make out that good is bad, and forbid it and try to prevent it, merely because it is being done outside the band of disciples.

Doesn’t John realize that he is being a Pharisee? That he is making himself out to be better than that other man? Whereas he has no reason at all to imagine himself as anything on account of being chosen by Christ; whereas he and all the other disciples are poor, sinful human being; whereas he and the other disciples are possibly the very reason why the stranger doesn’t want at any price to join the band of disciples: they, with their arrogance and their false sense of mission and their fanatical zeal. So the stranger says to himself: "No I shouldn’t feel at home in a group like that, I can’t join with them. I’ll work for Christ, but not with the disciples. I’ll work for Christ outside the group of disciples."

Jesus says ‘You must not stop him.’ He does not criticize, condemn or attack the man but rather acknowledges the good that is being done, and calls for it not to be obstructed. Jesus does not suggest that John separate himself from his brother disciples and go on his own way too, but he still recognizes that good is being done outside the community he has constructed. He says, ’Anyone who is not against us is for us,’ and in saying this he extends the boundaries of his own community so as to include this independent stranger. It is a hidden and mysterious relationship, but it is still a relationship. It may not be ideal, but it still exists in this less than ideal world. Even though the disciples, in their false zeal and narrowness, won’t see it, even though the stranger himself in his obstinacy won’t realize it, it’s still true: he already belongs to the community of disciples, he is already (though it does not show externally) a member, he already belongs to the Lord’s Church, is already within the Lord’s grace.

The Catholic Church sees in itself the most ancient Christian community, possessing a special, official apostolic succession. Protestants are unable to join in agreement and cannot acknowledge these claimed features as true to the Catholic Church. But Protestants are not on the side of evil because of this. They are not against Jesus and they are not neutral. They are not those spoken of as lukewarm, unable to distinguish and choose between God and his enemy. In a collective sense, they are the lone man of today.

There seems little point today in employing the attitude of John and demonstrating a mixture of conceit, arrogance, lovelessness, and pride. Good can be accomplished even outside the chosen vessel of God’s grace. And if grace is not flowing from that vessel, it is perfectly understandable why some may look elsewhere today, as the man independently working for Jesus did.

What is meant by "outside the Church there is no salvation?" Not some hard, pharisaical truth, but a truth that is deeply merciful, reaching out to all men of good will.

K.

(Though reflecting my own thoughts, the italicized material is not my own but rather is the work of Hans Kung as found in That the World May Believe [New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1963]. Though having gained a reputation for his dissent, this book was given the Imprimatur, which is granted to a document by the Church, and is meant to inform readers that the content contained within is not contrary to the Roman Catholic faith or its morals. The Imprimatur is not given lightly, and occurs only after a thorough review process).