Some of you in yesterday’s blog alluded to Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger’s prediction of a smaller but purer Church.
Indeed, in the early days of his Pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI was quoted to say that he envisioned the immediate future of the Church to be a smaller but more pure Church. In the video below he reiterates something very similar:
In my view, a Church which seeks above all to be attractive, is already on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for herself, she does not work to increase her numbers and power. She works for Another. She serves not herself, not to become strong. She serves to make the announcement of Jesus Christ more accessible….. (On the Papal Plane headed to the U.K.).
I was talking with a friend recently who is troubled by such notions and stated that many declining Protestant denominations have said something similar. He further said that their experience is that denominations that claim the mantle of being “smaller but purer,” end up being just smaller.
Of course I would counter that many of the approaches that have shrunk the main-line Protestant denominations were far from pure. In fact many of the older Protestant denominations abandoned biblical principles and forged a strange alliance with the “new morality” of an increasingly corrupt world. Evangelical Protestantism has risen in defiance of that trend. But I digress.
I will admit that the Pope’s remarks may cause us to wonder, and some even to worry. I want to defend the Pope’s remarks but perhaps we can begin by articulating some concerns that such remarks might cause:
- As a Church with a mandate to evangelize the whole world, it seems natural that we would want to talk about growing as a general norm.
- If we are shrinking in parts of the world it may be that we are being purer in a world gone mad. But it may also be due to the fact that we are arcane in how we communicate. Perhaps we have not adapted to the newer forms of media. Perhaps we have not considered articulating our views in the vocabulary of the average modern person. Perhaps we are simply ineffective communicators. Perhaps, due to scandal etc., we no longer seem credible to the world. Our doctrine must be pure but our delivery of the message may need legitimate adjustments. Simply pointing to the likelihood that we are going to be smaller and accepting this may not help us to look at and change what ought to be changed.
- Accepting “small” as a norm does not encourage an urgency to evangelize.
So there are some concerns that weigh against the Pope’s remarks and vision of a smaller and more pure Church.
But we also ought to examine the value of such a vision. Here are some:
- Popularity too often comes in this world at the cost of compromise. Jesus said, Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers treated the false prophets in just this way (Lk 6:26). Hence our first concern should not be numbers, but fidelity to the whole counsel of Christ.
- The Lord promised us the world’s hatred (Jn 15:19) and this does not suggest that our numbers would routinely include vast majorities. That is , if we are proclaiming the unabridged, unvarnished truth announced by Jesus Christ and, thus, experiencing the hatred he promised.
- Jesus indicated that while many are called, few are chosen (Matt 22:14). Hence we should evangelize all, but accept that many, perhaps even most, will reject the invitation to the Kingdom of God or be found unworthy of it.
- The Gospel is to be preached in season and out of season. This more than suggests there would be fallow periods in the expected harvest and that numbers are not the main priority, faithfulness is.
- Jesus did not seem to trust larger crowds and would often thin the ranks with a “hard saying” when he noticed gathering crowds. More on this concept here: Thinning the Ranks
- Other denominations that have tried to accommodate to modern demands by abandoning gospel purity have been the most devastated in terms of dropping numbers.
- Hence the denomination that seeks to be big by being less insistent on purity ends up being neither big nor pure. In other words it ends up being nothing.
- Thus, it is purity that matters most and the numbers must be left to God.
In the end the “smaller but more pure” vision is a “dangerous doctrine” for it can lead to a kind of quietism. Only if we humbly leave the question of numbers to God, and continue to evangelize in the most effective and persistent manner we know, can we maintain the proper balance. Jesus said Go (unto all the nations) and so we go. He did not say count all your converts or boast of your numbers. He did not say be popular, or the most numerous. He did say be faithful and teach all he had commanded us.
I am interested in your thoughts on the “dangerous doctrine” of the smaller and more pure Church. Perhaps it is well to conclude with the words of St. Paul who counsels Timothy and all of us:
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry (2 Tim 3:2-5)
The Church will be smaller and purer because cultural Catholicism is dying all across the world. Fewer people are going to Church simply because they were, for example, born Irish or born Mexican. This means a lot fewer people will be at Mass on Sundays but a much greater percentage of those that are there will actually believe in the Church’s teachings. We are right back to where we started in the early years of the Church in that respect.
Let’s say the Church includes just twelve Apostles.
Now realize that Judas was one of them.
Size doesn’t matter, what matter is Love, because God is Infinite Love.
Actually, at the cross, there were only three in the Church — The Blessed Mother, John the Beloved Disciple, and Mary Magdalene. (Father Barron pointed this out in the “Catholicism” companion book)
Yes, the Church got very small for a minute. I’d add a couple more folks there, Mary Clopas and the “other” Mary. Also, they got two converts that day! The “good” thief, and the Centurion!
If I recall correctly wasn’t everyone else either hiding, indulging in mockery and insults or casting lots for garments?
Yeah it was sort of an self serving time.
Of course we can’t forget St. Simon the Cyrenian who helped Jesus carry His Cross to Calvary and St. Veronica who wiped Jesus’ face.
Blessed John Paul 11 talked of Christian unity often and St. Paul talks of “Unity in the Body of Christ”.
Although Jesus did tell His disciples to go and preach the good news to the whole world, He also said, “But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8)
I think it’s interesting that the Gospel dares to write in Matthew 28: “The eleven disciples went ot Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.”
In the Gospels, Jesus never worried about how his ‘topic of the day’ was going over amongst the people. He did not apologize for defining God. He didn’t run after the ‘many’ who walked away from Jesus after defining what ‘eating my flesh’ and ‘drinking my blood’ meant in regards to eternal life. He didn’t run after Judas either..or the ‘rich young man’ who was unable to give up ‘much.’
Eventually being the “most attractive” philosophy out there is rather empty. In Lebanon, the Holy Father spoke about the dangers of ‘parallel worlds’ that seem to be ‘just like Christianity’, but actually mock it and draw people away from sacrificially following Christ.
God knows how hard it is to believe in Him. Thankfully, He has not left us as sheep without a shepherd.
It does surprise me how defining “Catholic” is becoming so fiercely individualistic — so tied into our individuality and our own personal interpretation of the Church. Quite dangerous.
In one of his recent books pope Benedikt wrote that. ‘many belong but few believe. ‘. I rather think that the church needs to be purified from this situation and indeed this is happening,all we need do is cast our eyes around us to see the gradual encroachment of our freedoms as a religious entity diminishing.In the long run how many people will be able to cope with this and it’s inherent costs? That’s a question wee must all ask ourselves
I think the “smaller but purer” argument comes about because we are sick and tired of the hypocrisy that takes place in the Church. People who claim to be Catholic, and maybe even go to Mass, but openly reject some of her key teachings. These people are engaging in hypocrisy. To be true to themselves they have two options: 1. Be humble and accept the Church teaching and do their best to understand it, or 2. Leave the Church for some other denomination that professes beliefs in line with their own. While I am always reluctant to recommend someone leave the Church, I also am concerned for their personal integrity, and pray that God will lead them back to the Church in His own way whether are ready.
We tend to forget that 3,000 were added on the day of Pentecost by a handful of apostles and disciples. While there may be a place for “consultants”, the Holy Spirit does far better. Consultants might fill the pews with the damned and the collection plates, but not hearts. That church was not any larger though gave the illusion of being so, but the same number of real believers were there.
The church needed to first be purer, getting over letting go of the lukewarm and social “Catholics” who didn’t and don’t believe (actual rejection, maybe through invincible ignorance). I’m unsure of (orthodox) RCIA in all the details, but someone who comes in today isn’t likely to be doing so if they don’t believe.
Perhaps we need a RC-re-initiation-A program.
On evangelization, you can’t give what you don’t have, but apologetics is a specialty. We are all called to sainthood and Mother Theresa was in herself an irrefutable argument, not unlike St Francis of Assisi didn’t so much pray but was a prayer, preaching always, but only occasionally with words..
I was particularly struck yesterday by a comment from Bender. If nothing else had been said I think this comment would have said it all:
“The point is — if all that people ever hear, from the progressive side or from the traditional side, is how awful and lousy this aspect of the Church is or that aspect of it is, then we are essentially locking the front door and pushing people out the back door. And then we wonder where everyone is.”
If smaller and purer means more simple and spiritual I find the idea comforting not troubling. I think one of the greatest problems for our Church and Evangelization, as Bender pointed out yesterday, is the amplification of the left/right criticism of our Church and each other. If this is what is meant by smaller and purer, I’m all for it:
“The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard-going for the Church. … It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will will have to be shed. One may predict that all of this will take time. …. But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church….” (Faith and the Future by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)
I intentionally accept the arduous trial of sifting and change, of being smaller and purer in order that our Church can more effectively fulfill it’s mission to Evangelize.
While some highly enthusiastic among us wear the ‘smaller yet purer’ concept as a badge of honour, I doubt Jesus celebrates this reality. Unless one believes the Holy Spirit has abandoned His Church, we have to believe everything is unfolding as it should. We also need to keep perspective and remember we don’t know everything. We don’t know why fewer people attend Mass and hardly anyone goes to Confession anymore. Is it safe to assume many souls are being lost for eternity? Probably. The Second Coming could be today or in another thousand years. Although the Church was bigger prior to Vatican II perhaps it was filled with the lukewarm just going through the motions. Just as a fire devastates yet purifies a forest, so too could be our state in Church history today – new growth emerging from soldering remains. Our job is just as Msgr Pope advises: to remain vigilant , work on our own salvation, and hopefully help others along the way.
I hope and pray that the Church will be larger and purer. I know that the Church still preaches the Truth, just as She has always done, but because of the cacophony of voices out there many people are ignorant or confused about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I just read about a survey of Catholic women who attend Mass, some sporadically, some regularly, but are ignorant of the teaching about birth control. Large numbers of Catholics appear to support “gay” marriage. I could go on, but we all know the statistics. Of course we are all responsible for evangelization, at least in passing on the Faith within our immediate circles, but I am sure I am not alone in having been contradicted by other Catholics and sometimes even priests. We must all pray and sacrifice for the intention that the Church will preach the Truth loudly and clearly and that huge numbers will believe and be saved. It is heartbreaking to see the people we love abandon their Catholic Faith.
“The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate”
The problem is that once the political genie has been let out of the bottle, you can’t put him back in.
For example, that abortion is always and everywhere evil isn’t at heart a political view. It isn’t even at heart a Church teaching view. It is a divine command–”Thou shalt not kill”. Yet, all people ever see is political motivation.
A question that has been rambling around in my mind – right now I am the Chair person of our Parish Council (2 cnd year of trying to take a cluster of five distinct parishes to a single parish). Our pastor has asked us to find ways to re-engage those who have left the parish since it moved from its cluster form. He asked me the other night at Council meeting to lead the ‘charge” as he put it. My question is not about the teaching of the church, nor compromise or rejection – it is about the message. What sources are there for me to access and then share on how to present Catholic Teaching in a modern, not-philisophic manner? I think that many time the medium of the message hides the message.
My friends, this is a d***ed dangerous philosophy. Literally.
I would be one of those shocked and alarmed by the spin placed on Pope Benedict’s words. The strong-worded but lazy approach of a smaller church is inherently contrary to the Gospel message. I stand in utter amazement that believers would find the situation of pagan Rome, with sweeping cruelties and capital punishments of Christians to be an easier milieu for widespread conversion than, say, the modern US.
A meaniemouth atheist in an internet combox or a community affairs board is somehow more daunting than having parts of one’s body sliced off or burned? Don’t be absurd.Most sensible people would take crystal-gazers over lions any day.
In my recollection there was only once in history when there was a mass falling away of believers across christendom. Would Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and their followers want to repeat the 7th/8th century losses to Islam? Think about that one.
Purity is a grace given by God. It is not a pelagian effect that any group of believers can ensure by weeding out the goats or the chaff. Unless those activists on the Catholic Right are intent on leaping past the left or right seats and usurping the Son’s place as the Judge. Smaller church advocates have a h*** of a lot of cheek. Literally.
Today’s believers have been given the grace–the Grace–to operate with today’s challenges. Ideologues may not like it, but you are commanded by the Lord to evanglize people with whom you disagree. First, by your life’s example. And second, with whatever gifts the Lord has given you–teaching, companionship, mentoring, etc.–and I’m sure such a gift does not include discerning who’s pure and worthy and who is not. If you think that yoga practitioners, homosexuals, Democrats, or President Obama are too tough, you always have the option of moving to, say, Tunisia and trying your luck there.
But you know what? Even if you’re not up to the challenge, I would never say you don’t belong in the Church. I might not like the heretical taint of smaller/purer, but I’m obliged to call you on it. And accept that you still attend Mass, receive the sacraments, and are brother and sister believers. And hope and pray that after I’ve done my best persuading you off this God-forsaken tack, I will trust that God will continue to call you to be a better Christian and Catholic than you were when you espoused smaller/purer.
Todd, you seem to be making erroneous assumptions (at least, with the generalizations of the assumptions).
The first assumption comes from your quote “The strong-worded but lazy approach of a smaller church”. If the S-P (Smaller-Purer) idea is being used by some as an excuse not to evangelize, then I would agree they are taking a lazy way out. But this is not the case for those who look at it as a prediction they think is coming true, not by choice but by fact. I believe the S-P is happening, though I try to fight it by teaching RCIA, Theology on Tap, Religious Ed, and getting into discussions on Facebook and blogs.
The second assumption is from your quote “I stand in utter amazement that believers would find the situation of pagan Rome… to be an easier milieu for widespread conversion than, say, the modern US.” I think you perhaps underestimate the challenges in the world today. Yes, Christians died in pagan Rome for being Christian, but the blood of those martyrs were the seed of the Church. We are not yet imprisoned or killed for being Catholic, so the current persecution, while real, does not have the same voice as those of the martyrs. Also, the past did not have communications and recourse to misleading “information” that we do today. I have had those that seemed like they were coming around come back to me with an article, blog, etc that seems to refute what I had said, even if it does. So for every one minute item they bring me, I have to spend an hour refuting, and these misleading “facts” keep piling on doubts of those who may have more easily been convinced in pagan Rome. Finally, the residents of pagan Rome at least had a sense of the supernatural, even if it was misguided. We are dealing with those today who do not have the sense because they have hardened their intellects and hearts to it. The challenges today may be less extreme in actually giving up your life, but they are not negligible.
Lastly, you seem to assume you know what God knows, that the idea of S-P has a “heretical taint” and is “God-forsaken”, though it has nothing to do with doctrine. In the sense that I and like-minded friends refer to it, it is simply something that is or is not happening. So I am obliged to call you on your prideful attitude, to challenge you to rethink your opinions on those who espouse the S-P idea, and I will trust that God will continue to call you to be a better Christian and Catholic than you were when you ridiculed the idea of S-P. And FYI, even if you are not up to the challenge, I would never say you don’t belong in the Church.
p.s. The last two sentences were written to show how condescending you came across. I hope and pray (and try) to help make it so that we will have a larger-purer Church, but understand and agree with those who say, as just a statement of fact, that we are going to a S-P Church.
Hi Dennis, thanks for engaging.
1. I don’t think there’s any way human acitivty can ensure purer. Smaller, yes. Purer? No. Purity is a function of God’s grace, not our own actions or knowledge. Thinking that by our actions we can achieve salvation–this is pelagianism. The S-P meme runs dangerously close to it. I think we do better to steer clear of it.
2. I think that the perceived betrayal of those close to us weighs heavily. Catholics treat schismatics somewhat worse than separated Christians. My sense is that many Catholics simply dislike dealing with people who have been reared in a Christian milieu, but have left an active faith. And yet, many of us criticize the same things: hypocrisy, bishops who hide sex predators, and the like.
3. I think I speak strongly and I sometimes criticize those who consider themselves orthodox. But it’s curious that criticism coming from a lay person is deemed prideful, but coming from a priest, not so much. I’m still gong to ridicule the idea of S-P. I think it’s unbecoming of a Christian, especially in an era where we need an evangelical mindset more than ever.
What pooped to mind was the Gospel writing about when Christ taught that we must eat his flesh and consume his blood to be saved and the general response was thatthis was too hard and many fell away. The Apostle responded to Christ that we have no where else to go that you have the words of eternal life. (please excuse the overly simple paraphrase) The most important part is the purer. If it doesn’t mean anything different than jst be nice to everyone, then there is no value in following a religion. The Truth is what matters and if this is not taught then we might as well turn this into a social club. That does not mean beating people with a Truth but teaching and living a Truth. If we worry about it being smaller we will forget the purer piece. I also read into the Holy Fathers comments that the smaller was temporary. That we would get smaller but the purity and the Truth would lead to a new growth.
Morning to all.
The next generation will be the ‘purer’ church They bring less baggage into the mix and are simply more open to the word of God and the teaching of the church. The ‘baby boomers’ with their ethos of tearing down any and all tradition are now withering on the vine. There is a new generation who are desiring a real relationship with Jesus and it is those to who we must reach and evangelize.
I truly believe we are now undergoing purging. Yes there are dissenting Catholics. But God in his mercy, is replacing them with good and caliber men and women from other denominations. They are now journeying home. This also includes Reverts. If God wants small numbers of Catholics but making sure that those His Children will truly worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, so be it! God’s ways are not our ways.
I liked the “smaller but purer” quote when I first heard it. My take on it was that it was directed at the dissidents. Basically, you are free to believe whatever you want. There are a number of other faith communitieis that may more accurately express your beliefs, or barring that, you can start your own. The problem is that so many of the people were meeting in church basements as prayer groups or writing books as dissident religious and claiming to be Catholic while confusing many in the pews. The “smaller but purer” idea was to help these people out the door. Not saying that the Church quit trying to evangelize to them or bring them back to the true faith, but simply declare the obvious that numbers aren’t everything if they don’t hold the same beliefs.
And who are the “dissidents”? Bishop Robert Finn because he was convicted of a misdemeanor in covering up a sex crime? Cardinal Law for shielding predators, returning them to parish ministry, then skipping the country to reside at Santa Maria Maggiore?
There are a lot of Catholics patting themselves on the back for being so-called “orthodox,” and yet all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Better for all to be in the flock, so that there’s hope for some. And as for so-called confusion in the pews, conservative Catholics have the internet, don’t they?
Dissidents are those who disagree with Church teaching and promote their mis-formed views to others as the Catholic faith. Bishop Robert Finn may have done something wrong, but he did not do this.
“Orthodoxy” is not synonymous with “sinless”, so please do not try to equate them, because we orthodox Catholics do not. Also, why is it better to allow the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” into the flock? They are hurting the sheep, not helping them. Being rightfully deprived of the sacraments can be a greater force for change in someone than simply allowing them to continue misleading others and letting them eat and drink condemnation on themselves.
“So-called confusion?” What is so-called about Catholics in the pews not knowing the Church’s teaching about contraception or not accepting that Jesus is present in the Eucharist? Fortunately, you are correct that conservative Catholics have the internet, and this has helped many, despite the heterodox Catholics we allow in the pews distorting Truth.
Suppose 10,000 Kansas City Catholics leave the Church because of Bishop Finn’s crime? There is already statistical evidence that Mass attendance in the Boston archdiocese is off considerably since 2002 and hasn’t recovered. Isn’t that scandal? Haven’t those Catholics confused the sins of their leaders with their own encounter of Christ in the sacraments of the Church? This isn’t to say they’ve made the wrong decision by letting themselves be chased out of the Church. But I could just as easily suggest that some bishops are “wolves.”
My premise is that Catholics know Church teaching on contraception, but many find it unconvincing. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist? I’d say there’s a high percentage of Catholics who accept that. Perhaps higher than, say, in 1950.
Mass attendance and resort to sacraments generally was in collapse in Boston well before the scandals appeared in the Globe in 2002. The scandals, damning as they were, seem to have been an excuse for many already tepid in the faith to claim an excuse. That’s not to minimize what was done by Cardinal Law and his predecessors and their chancery officials, or that Boston Catholics were rightly scandalized by what happened. It’s just acknowledgment of a larger, sadder reality.
I think many, even most, Catholics know that the Church condemns contraception, Todd. I’m far less convinced that they know *why.* I can count on one hand with fingers left over the number of homilies I have heard in regular diocesan parishes that have even mentioned the subject over the last few decades. RCIA programs and pre-Cana prep programs (by which point it is too late anyway, I think, if the couple has not already been formed properly) usually will mention it, but often perfunctorily.
Boston is at the bottom of the heap among Eastern dioceses, and few to none were hit as strongly in scandal. As for Kansas City, I do know from friends in my former diocese that people are embittered. Many of them think Bishop Finn has left the Church by his illegal and sinful behavior. I’m disinclined to defend him or dispute those who think the institutional Church has left them. I for one have no plans to go anywhere. Bad news, perhaps, for bishops and conservatives annoyed by me. But I know where to find the sacraments and the presence of Christ, and I encourage all believers, especially liberals, to stick it out.
I think conservatives, on their own, have very few answers to give, and don’t seem particularly excited about the new evangelization. Reaching out to the “tepid” will be part of their mission from the pope and bishops next month. Easier than a Muslim terrorist, I would say. A lot easier.
On shrinking, growing, and smaller but purer —
As I noted last night, there is a temptation to look at things and panic at all the empty seats and the thought of “we could do so much more if more people contributed more money and time,” etc. It is a temptation we should overcome and realize that we don’t have to do everything all by ourselves, we can let God do some of the work too. That doesn’t mean our kicking back and not doing anything, making God do ALL the work, as all too often we might do, but it does mean, with respect to evangelization, re-evangelization, catechesis, etc., doing what Augustine suggested with respect to our own lives and grace — do what you can, as much as you can, and then ask God for help (grace) to do the rest.
But aside from that, I suggest that it is also a matter of perspective. Without being overly optimistic with wishful thinking, we need to look at things with a broader and more precise view in how we “count the numbers.” We might have more than we realize.
It is not a matter of the Church being composed of only those faithful sitting in the pews, with “the world” out there being filled fully with pagans and idol worshipers and nonbelievers and anti-believers. Rather, the outside world is, if not believing Christian, then it is a society that is Christianized — both areas that seem to be post-Christian, where the Faith seems to have lost ground to secularism (such as Europe and the United States), and those areas which never had many professing Christians. In both of these areas, even if they no longer profess Christ, still they are imbuded with Christian ideals, Christian ethics, a Christian worldview. Here in the United States, even many of the atheists are Christianized in that their values are implicitly Christian.
The fundamental ideas of good and evil, right and wrong, helping the sick and oppressed, a desire for social unity, the inherent dignity of the human person, peaceful harmony amongst people. One of those ideas is the idea of forgiveness and mercy, even in war, such that, instead of entire populations being wiped out in genocidal retaliation in war, humanity has survived. Without getting into the debate of the morality of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we might even suggest that without Christian morality, the world would have erupted into planet-killing nuclear war long ago. All of these are Christian ideals, they are not universal ideals. Indeed, we need only go to some areas of the world to see where these concepts have been rejected.
So, the numbers are not necessarily as bleak as it might seem. There may not be as many Mass-attending and parish-active Catholics (and that is a valid concern), but there are many out there in the world who nevertheless have the embers of Catholicism still glowing within them, and there are many others who are, although non-Catholic or non-Christian, yet Christianized with Christian ideals and ethics, a Christianity without Christ I suppose, and these even include not a few agnostics and atheists.
The question is — How to reach them? How to bring them the rest of the way? How to appeal to them in words they will listen to and can understand? What is the right hook to use to catch them and reel them in? How to act in ways they find to be admirable and worthy of emulating?
“Be prepared in season and out of season.” OK, if direct evangelization is not in season, if people will not listen or are unable to understand even if they do hear, then perhaps we need to resort to “pre-evangelization” during the off-season time. If they will immediately reject and run-away at the mention of the words “God” or “Jesus” or “heaven” or “hell” or “sin,” perhaps we need to speak to them in their own language, that language of the residual Catholicism/Christianity of those who have become secularized, and the language of those Christianized ideals and ethics of right and wrong, helping one another, etc. We need to make use of these pre-existing elements and use them as a way to get in the door, rather than have the door slammed in our face. We need to be surreptitious, we need to go around their pre-built defenses against us and our message if we are to succeed. Speak of Jesus without words, and in the words we do use, let them come to know Him without using that particular word “Jesus” just yet. We need to prepare the soil by:
(1) Encouraging them in the search for truth, encourage them merely to seek truth (the mention of “Jesus” can wait for a bit here, after all, God Himself waited thousands of years to prepare people to receive Him), which is what St. Augustine went through. During that search, his mother Monica had asked a priest to speak to him and set him straight, but the priest refused to do so. At that point, Augustine was not ready and to speak to him then might have only pushed him further away. Instead, difficult as it was for Monica (and Augustine), he had to struggle a little bit more before he would be ready, before the iron was hot enough for striking.
(2) Encouraging them in love, explain and help them to understand what authentic true love is (where the longing for the other is directed toward, not selfish gratification, but toward a gift of self, again, without scaring them off with the mention of “Jesus” or “the Church”), rather than the counterfeit that so many know today, and how the real thing brings so much more joy than the transitory superficial counterfeit that leaves so many broken people behind.
(3) In love and truth, disabusing people of the many falsehoods and mischaracterizations of so many things. Protect and defend the truth as pertains to the inherent dignity of the human person, of the living humanity of the entity in the womb, respecting the inherent dignity of woman in her fertility as being the true pro-woman stance, rather than the true anti-woman stance which seeks to suppress and destroy that which is unique to woman.
(4) Be a light of Christ by allowing Him to shine through you in your actions, exposing people to Him even if you have not yet said His name. This was often the approach of Mother Teresa.
It is this kind of pre-evangelization of appealing to those pre-existing Christianized elements of right and wrong, justice, help for the downtrodden, etc., that might be necessary — both for those who have never believed and those who stopped believing (or stopped practicing) in favor of secular, worldly things — before we can succeed in the new evangelization. Again, God in Salvation History and Jesus during His ministry did exactly that, often drawing people in by revealing God without directly mentioning Him, and onlyh later being more direct. We must get people to drop their defenses, to open up their ears and open up their hearts (“Ephphatha“) before we can proclaim to them the Good News of Jesus Christ, and that what is even more hopeful and joyous and life-affirming than mere believing in those philisophical and ethical ideals is to fully embrace He who is Love and Truth in relationship with Him.
And, as part of this, it is essential to clear out the rocks and weeds in preparation of the soil, we need to correct the many misunderstandings and misconceptions about the Church and the Faith, that we are anti-woman, anti-gay, a bunch of child molesters, full of greed for money and power, that our history is nothing but gleefully torturing heretics and suppressing science by locking up Galileo, etc. I am convinced that many of the stumbling blocks, if not THE NUMBER ONE stumbling block to people embracing the Catholic Church and Faith is this false understanding that they have. As Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen famously said, “Not 100 in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.”
Part of clearing away the rocks and weeds of misconception is to remember that we are in the business of joy, and not complaining and moaning about how bad this is or that is. We proclaim GOOD NEWS, GLAD TIDINGS, REJOICE. We must go about our service in a positive manner, not a negative one.
All too often were a drifted-away Catholic or a fallen-away Catholic, or a non-Catholic to see and read what Catholics themselves say about the Church, about how this is bad, that is bad, they would run away and never look back. And rightly so. Why would anyone want to revert or convert after reading such stuff?
If all that people ever hear, from the progressive side or from the traditional side, is how awful and lousy this aspect of the Church is or that aspect of it is — or we present Church teachings unenthusiastically or with a wink-and-a-nod that signals that we disagree with them — then we are essentially locking the front door and pushing people out the back door. And then we wonder where everyone is.
Now, none of this calling people back home with the Lord, or inviting them to meet Him in the first place, will be easy. It will be hard and arduous work. It is work that will take the rest of our lives. Finding the right hook and the right time to go fishing is a task that will require a more dynamic approach than we might have engaged in before. And because we are all different, it is not a one-size-fits-all program that will work, but a case-by-case, one-on-one approach. We must be like Paul discovered that he needed to be — “become all things to all” (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Perhaps beginning with ourselves, renewing and re-evangelizing ourselves. But it is not the work of drudgery, even if at times frustrating, but is the work of joy and hope.
And if we do it the right way, if we begin the work with prayer, with asking God to help us and accompany us along the journey, it will be even more joyful and not a bit fruitful. Because, as we should tell people after preparing them, after getting them to drop their defenses, that truth and love which they seek and desire and need are not merely nice ideas, Love and Truth are a reality, Love and Truth are a Living Being, such that we do not simply have to agree with or believe in them, we can allow ourselves to become one with Love, one with Truth, and thereby realize the fullness of our potential and attain that happy life, that life of beatitude which all people seek.
(cross-posted at Cinema Catechism)
“It is not a matter of the Church being composed of only those faithful sitting in the pews, with “the world” out there being filled fully with pagans and idol worshipers and nonbelievers and anti-believers. Rather, the outside world is, if not believing Christian, then it is a society that is Christianized — both areas that seem to be post-Christian, where the Faith seems to have lost ground to secularism (such as Europe and the United States), and those areas which never had many professing Christians. In both of these areas, even if they no longer profess Christ, still they are imbuded with Christian ideals, Christian ethics, a Christian worldview. Here in the United States, even many of the atheists are Christianized in that their values are implicitly Christian.”
Yes. Last night, I was talking to an RCIA student who had just been introduced to the works of Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day (and was being inspired by them) and a cradle Catholic. The CC said, “Isn’t the Catholic Worker kind of on the way out — not much interest to anyone anymore?” And we discussed the ‘problem’ of Christian success — that it has been so well mimicked by government and secular organizations — that they are in the background now. Maurin and Day were moved by Christ to do what they did. The sacrificial life is unheard of in the U.S. — and across Europe, too, as you pointed out, Bender.
it has been so well mimicked by government and secular organizations
It is true that the Church has in many areas been pushed out of the way by others, with government especially usurping the role of the Church to provide charity to those in need, but without the charity (love). Even those most hostile to the Faith and the Church have used the good of the Faith against us, co-opting the teachings of the Church for their own ends, for example, utilizing the good that is the free choice of the will, but twisting it so as to justify the killing of innocent human life in the womb.
Much of our struggle, our counter-offensive in this war, will be to correct those errors which are the result of those who mimic the tactics of the Father of Lies, our struggle will be to regain and purify and reconsecrate those words and concepts and truths, like free will, conscience, love, marriage, social justice, and so on, to show people that there is a better way, a truer way, that, for example, the “choice” to kill is a false choice, that women (even those who have been brutally victimized by rape) deserve better than to be told that the answer to their problem is to become perpetrators of violence and death themselves.
That better answer is to minister to and appeal to those inner truths, that inner desire for love and what is good and right, that part of each one of us that is longing for some much needed good news and authentic hope, and which can best be fulfilled by The Good News.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL READ THIS LONG POST. VERY IMPORTANT. PLEASE READ THIS POST! IT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD! IT IS COMPLETELY ACCURATE AND LOVINGLY WRITTEN PLEASE READ IT NOW!!!
Clericalism and modernism are far bigger issues still with us than any faint hint of quietism in Pope Benedict XVI words that concerns your friend, monsignor. Let’s focus on the roots of our problems rather than what may be leaves and branches.
Isn’t Pope Benedict a cleric?
Aren’t you a cleric as well? And your point is replying as such was?
Perhaps I missed the point of your article.
Pope Benedict XVI makes an offhand remark on a plane that is recorded and reported to the public. Some (your friend) construe that remark as possibly heretical thinking (possibly quietism).
I understand what quietism is. I also understand what clericalism and modernism as heresies are, monsignor.
MY point (i.e. in my posted reply) was that your friend’s concerns (as I understood the point of and your reason for writing this article) are far less important in my view than clericalism and modernism as heresies active and dangerous to all of us.
Clericalism is not a condemned heresy of the Church, Patrick. Modernism, however, certainly is.
Clericalism is certainly a corruption, often a costly one, but one without a distinct doctrinal content.
I think that you have to put the Pope’s comments in context. He was maybe referring to what was happening rather than laying down a vision as to how things ought to be. He was maybe saying that in some parts of the world there is a decline in the number of people who are baptised, attend Mass, get married in the Catholic Church, etc. So that’s where the ‘smaller’ comes in. He’s not saying the Church ought to be smaller; he was simply noting that it was getting smaller. At the same time he was maybe observing that some of the loss was the result of people leaving who only had a very slight allegiance to the Church or were in opposition to some Church teachings. So, although the numbers of people attending Mass, etc is going down the people who still go to Mass have a greater allegiance to the Church and are less likely to be in opposition to Church teaching. I don’t know if that’s what the Pope was saying but it’s maybe possible.
As to the comment on the plane to the UK the Pope was simply pointing out that the Church should not aim at increasing numbers by any means. He wasn’t saying that the Church should not aim to increase the number of people following Christ.
Msgr. Pope:
Doesn’t your question of purity demand an explanation of what is myth?
What are the myths of our time?
Certainly, if the laity be purified must not the clergy confront their own inner myths?
Can one evangelize without being a “mythbuster”?
You are speaking riddles. Please clarify.
I do not intend to speak in riddles, or be arcane as you put it in your blog. Rather, I refer to your citation of 2 Tim 3:2-5, that refers to the myth of an age. It is a question that I ask, because it is a point that you raised and did not develop. Doesn’t 2 Tim suggest that possession of the myth keeps us from purity. If the Church is impure, or cannot effectively “work for Another” then the myth must make it so. The myth is within us and cannot be excised by mere media. The new media is powerless against the myth. The myth is in the soul, and it binds us in spiritual chains and blinds us from the truth. We compromise with the myth. The myth is in the clergy first and foremost, and by extension in the laity. But what is the myth or our age? What is the myth in the clergy that prevents them from working for Another? Doesn’t the Pope suggest that a facet of the myth is the desire to “be attractive,” to be acceptable? But to whom do we wish to be attractive and accepted that keeps us in chains? How does the myth play out today in the world, the flesh, and the devil?
We first have to recover the Catholic faith.
http://netmarkexpress.info/church/sermonsandaudiofiles/?sermon_id=477
This is a rather silly comment, after so much very serious talk… But did anyone notice the Cardinal standing behind the Pope? He makes me smile! He looks so jubilant to be a part of the Church. Praise Jesus! A joy-filled Christian!
Cardinal Bertone often has a big smile on his face. He seems to be a happy man despite all the pressures and burdens that come with being the Cardinal Secretary of State.
I agree with Father Z. who says that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian unity.
A Pentecostal client told me this: at the beginning of her spiritual journey she thought God was telling her to go to the Catholic Church near where she lived.She attended Mass for sometime but the message was always give money to the poor (which she agreed was a good thing) and never about personal closeness to God or the reality of the devil. I asked a few more questions and realized she had attended Mass and listened to the sermons but learnt nothing about the Catholic faith in them and the Mass did not move her spiritually. What is wrong with this picture?
“the message was always give money to the poor (which she agreed was a good thing) and never about personal closeness to God or the reality of the devil.”
This reminds me of one of the major criticisms of the Church in the Middle Ages, namely, that some priests did little more in their sermons than ask parishoners to buy indulgences. There was a nice rhyme on this subject: “As soon as coin in coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs!”
Obviously, priests need to do more than ask for money. I, for one, think that priests ought to speak more about why particular Catholic doctrines and practices exist and why they’re important.
Perhaps the pope should choose twelve really loyal followers to travel around to the various nations laying down the details of what Catholics in the various dioceses are expected to do to carryout the mission of the Church. Then the cardinals and bishops ensure that all their parishes are on the same page as the pope and see what happens. it’s not like it hasn’t been done before.
I think people are reading way too much into the smaller-but-purer-Church meme (which, btw, he didn’t literally say). Like the Msgr. said, it’s a prediction, not a prescription. Namely, it is better that the Church shed privileged brick and mortar institutions and go to Heaven, rather than keep them, throw a pinch of incense to worldly powers and go to Hell.
As a reactionary, I always have to endure the accusation that I want to shove churchgoers out the door. This is patently false. What I pray for is that our shepherds will get over their confrontation-phobia and stop trying to obscure, soft-pedal, or even outright deny hard teachings. The Church is going to get smaller but purer in the sense that as more and more people declare they have no god but Caesar, then even the soft teachings will become hard to hear and accept and people fall away. The mission is the same–the world’s reaction to that mission is going from bad to worse and there is nothing we can do about it except remain faithful.
Actually, the quote is not from just the plane trip, but goes back even further than that. He made similar statements in 1969-1970:
“The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members.”
This was in Faith and the Future, which is a book from 1970 of his radio addresses.long before he became the Pope. Sadly, it looks like his predictions have come true so far!
I think the Pope was referring to a purer church. If the church has to get smaller to get purer the Pope is fine with that. Church leadership has been corrupted and need to be reformed, this is what I believe was the Pope’s message.